Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 I've also read that the whole 18 game thing is just a point for the league to use to talks with the league. They will gladly give up the 18 game request in exchange for a reduction in revenue % to the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane nelson Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 How many team's are resting key starters this week? Imagine 2 more weeks of resting star players. Of course, they'd expand the roster to allow for more injuries, but then as was stated, you're just continuing to water down the play on the field. So, count me in the definite No category. The league needs to understand a basic fundamental of life... too much of a good thing is not always a good thing. The current season is plenty long enough. Now with Sunday night, Monday night, Thursday night, and occasional Saturday games; and it's hard to even see all the games any more. The Monday night game has lost a lot of it's luster in recent years. It's simply not the marque match up that it used to be. Why? Because its no longer the single prime time game of the week. In essence, it's become just another game. Adding 2 more regular season games will similarly lessen the importance of each of the weekly games. Kinda like baseball... lose a few game in May and who cares, it's a long season. Then there's the silly argument in Mark Guaghan's article this morning; that 18 games are needed because the league needs more money to pay the players, and no player wants a pay cut. But, what he's missing is that the players won't get a pay cut if the schedule stays as is; in fact, if we go to 18 games they'll all get nice raises. Most importantly, the owners can completely control how much the players make... if they'd all just agree not to pay every young rookie more and more money each year. But there will always be some guy willing to over pay, I guess. They're letting the players dictate their salaries and its gotten out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane nelson Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 What would rather have; an 18 game schedule with 2 pre season games or a 16 game schedule with 4 pre season games. As a season ticketholder I pay for two games to watch player that might play in Canada or the arena bowl one day. These are the two options Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Also coaches need those extra pre-season games to sort out practice squad and final roster additions and cuts. If you don't think so then why do coaches schedule more and more scrimmages each season? All in all rosters are so depleted by the end of the season adding 2 more game to the season is just going to further water down the talent pool to the point where playoff rosters are even less representative of how the teams started the season. Absolutely agree. I don't understand the backlash about the preseason. Is it just that people are impatient for the season to start? Two pre-season games is not enough to get guys in game shape, work out new schemes, sort out the 53 man roster, practice squad, etc. As for an 18 game season, what would we be looking forward to if there were two more games after this week? Two more weeks of the top teams beating up on scrubs? Continuing the thrilling NFC West race? Seeing if the Giants can completely play their way out of the playoffs? Two chances to see Brian Brohm? At some point, we've seen enough regular season football and want to move on to the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 What would rather have; an 18 game schedule with 2 pre season games or a 16 game schedule with 4 pre season games. As a season ticketholder I pay for two games to watch player that might play in Canada or the arena bowl one day. These are the two options Thank you. I asked earlier who on here that wants to stay with 16 games are actually season ticket holders. Of course, nobody is. If you who want it at 16-4, instead of 18-2, want to send the money for an extra game that I'll never go to every year, I'll give you my address. These players are in such great shape all year now that the preseason is not needed to be 4 games. And, I don't get this argument some of you are making that since there are meaningless non playoff implication games this week, that means that there will be two more weeks of them with an 18 game schedule. Maybe I'm not following the math, but doesn't that just push the meaningless games out, not make more of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Thank you. I asked earlier who on here that wants to stay with 16 games are actually season ticket holders. Of course, nobody is. Is there really that much difference between a pre-season game and a week 17 game between a team with a locked in playoff spot and a 4-11 team, both of who are likely to play 2d and 3d stringers for a large portion of the game? And now imagine it's a week 19 game with the same teams? Or worse, between a pair of 4-13 teams? It just seems to me the 'running for the bus' mentality will be twice as bad if they extend the season further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Is there really that much difference between a pre-season game and a week 17 game between a team with a locked in playoff spot and a 4-11 team, both of who are likely to play 2d and 3d stringers for a large portion of the game? And now imagine it's a week 19 game with the same teams? Or worse, between a pair of 4-13 teams? It just seems to me the 'running for the bus' mentality will be twice as bad if they extend the season further. I'm not following how all that isn't just being pushed back two games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 I think they should extend the season to 32 games. Basketball players play twice that and baseball players play 5 times that many. The more the better. And don't give me any of this crap about "half the roster will be on IR" or whine about "excessive wear on the players bodies". Sure those things are true, but these guys get paid millions of dollars, which negates any debilitating or crippling injuries they may face, so !@#$ em. You don't like multiple concussions and torn cartilege? Tough ****. Take an Advil and a protein shake you !@#$in kitty. I like watching backups better anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 After reading Mark Gaughan's article, I'm even more convinced that everybody who wants to stick with a 16 game schedule is not a season ticket holder........I used to think there was a ton of sth on here, but I think that assessment was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Interesting - not much comment about what I see is the crucial point. With a 16 game season, you still have many teams alive for the playoffs going into the final two weeks. Expand the season to 18 games, and you have added two more weeks for the separation to occur. Statistically, you are more likely to have more berths locked up in the final weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 One of the biggest reasons I'd be for an 18-game regular season is eliminating one full-priced pre-season exhibition game - I also hated being forced to buy those as part of the season-ticket package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeSpeed Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I say we dump all the regular season games. We have the draft and FA and then we let the coaches and media decide who the best teams are. It works for college football. Then go right to the playoffs. No need getting our guys hurt every year for nothing. Sorry guys, baseball and basketball are the 2 dullest sports on the planet, and hockey is only interesting when the Sabers are on. So for my own personal gratification... More football - less exhibition games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 16 games is plenty. Play 18 games and injuries will be an even bigger factor for the playoffs. There are enough meaningless games played in the last weeks of the season. Last year Indy threw two games away. This year fans are paying full price to see the Jets and Bills play their back ups. There are other meaningless games this week as well. Don't change the playoff, don't add any byes. Enough already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreReed83 Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 The NFL is being hypocritical. They want to "protect" the players by reducing concussions and the level of injuries, by adding more games to one of the most physical sports in the world. Makes sense. Goodell is a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 One of the biggest reasons I'd be for an 18-game regular season is eliminating one full-priced pre-season exhibition game - I also hated being forced to buy those as part of the season-ticket package. Thank you - they are a ripoff! I never even use them - I give them away every year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I think the NFL needs to handle the season and playoffs the same way the College basketball should be handling the NCAA tournament: It's all fine the way it is, if it aint broke don't fix it. College football is broke as the game has turned away from its primary use being to provide an educational experience for students to being a massive money-making endeavor. Its particularly a racket in regard to the NFL where taxpayer dollars paid to promote football training mills like U. Nebraska and other state schools provide a massive subsidy to private businesses in the NFL by using taxpayer dollars to train their workers. Even worse, the taxpayer funded state institutions readily participate in private business endeavors like the Combine and the draft which by rule restrict the free market by the NFL and NFLPA not only force players to play for the one team that drafted them and not sell their resources to the highest bidder but also restrict adults older than 18 from even entering commerce until their age group would graduate at roughly 21. While this approach is not communism, it can be honestly described as socialism and is in no real way classic free market capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 As a fan that loves watching football i said yes...but as everyone said its bad for the players and for their sake it should stay at 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurmasThoman Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 i read an interesting article awhile back that i just spent a good half hour trying to find, with no luck. the basic premise of the article was that since realignment, the win percentage of the division winners has gone up by almost 2 full games. in essence, when there were 3 divisions in each conference, there were more divisional games, so teams beat up on each other more, effectively lowering their win total... division winners before realignment had an average of say, 10 wins a season. now, 12 is par for the course. the article postulated that 14-2 and 15-1 seasons were going to become more common and (this was written before new england had gone 16-0) we would probably see an undefeated team within the next 10 years. the underlying thought behind the article was basically that with the scheduling formula the way it is, there is really no challenge to the teams that win the division: they play essentially the same schedule as the bottom feeders in the division, with 2 fewer division games at that! now, what does this mean in the big picture (to me?) if goodell is smart, and makes the extra 2 games inter-conference, you might see more teams at the top of their divisions (new england) scheduled to play harder opponents for those 2 games, while teams like us get more cream puff games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I think an 18 game schedule is inevitable. While the owners are pushing it, I think it is the players themselves that will make it happen. The players want more money and the owners aren't going to give it to them without a greater revenue stream. When it gets down to it, the players will opt for more money. I think ultimately, it will hurt the game and the NFL popularity especially if they don't have a season to reach this end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts