PDA

View Full Version : 18-game season


ricardisimo
08-25-2010, 04:19 PM
How can Goodell and co. claim on the one hand that they are taking head injuries seriously, and on the other hand push for - nay, insist upon - the extra two games per year? It's like the auto industry claiming they care about safety and economy just before they unleash the Hummers. What a bunch of lying hypocrites.
:noidea:

lionslicer
08-25-2010, 05:32 PM
They want more money... the NFL season in general has been viewed as too short and doesn't give enough teams a chance for playoffs... Goodell is a business man, and the NFL is his business, he wants to please the customers (the fans), the employees (coaches and players) and the board of directors (team owners) so he doesn't get fired. And to do this is a tough thing because the cumstomers, employees and owners all want something different, but when 2 want something similar, he'll pounce on it. With this situation the owners and the fans want longer seasons.

ricardisimo
08-25-2010, 06:12 PM
Well, I don't. I like the 16-game format. I think it's fine just the way it is. If he really wants to give the fans more football, he can get rid of sudden-death overtime.

TheWarDen86
08-25-2010, 06:20 PM
I think expecting a coaching staff to make a decision on some 20+ players in two pre-season games is ridiculous. Not to mention the increased risk of injury.

Goodell is the devil.

ricardisimo
08-25-2010, 07:10 PM
There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. Among other things, it forces the union into the position of asking for a massive pay increase, rather than simply holding the line on the current CBA's pay structure, which is what most people expected. "You want us to play 12.5% more games... you're going to pay us 12.5% more right off the bat."

If I were an owner, I'd fire Goodell for that right off the bat. What the hell is he thinking? And like I said, he clearly couldn't give a shit about player safety and brain trauma if this is his priority.

MasterOfPuppets
08-25-2010, 08:28 PM
Four other concerns with an 18-game schedule:

1. More labor trouble. It's bad timing to bring up another topic with which players might not agree. The owners and NFL Players Association remain far apart on a new collective bargaining agreement, leaving a work stoppage looming next spring. As for 2012, playing two more games regular-season games would raise more issues with players' salaries.

"If it's cut-and-dried and there are two more regular season games and they figure out the compensation, that's one thing," Hutchinson said. "But somehow I don't think that's going to be the case."

2. More players to pay. Stemming from an increased health risk and paying players more, this is a potential salary-cap problem for owners.

"When you've got more chances for guys to get hurt, you've got to have a bigger roster," said Mike Ditka, a Hall of Fame tight end and former coach of the Chicago Bears and New Orleans Saints.

3. More meaningless games. Last season, the Indianapolis Colts, San Diego Chargers and Saints all won their divisions by at least four games. A top team such as Indianapolis could rest players for an entire month or a bad team could be just playing out a long string in a lost season.

"Then you're looking back at the same issue you had in the preseason," said former Steelers coach Bill Cowher, now a CBS analyst.


4. More isn't necessarily better. The NFL has moved along just fine with a 16-game schedule for 32 years, and now with 32 teams the schedule has a nice even balance. Even though games are played in only six months, free agency, the draft, spring practices, minicamps and training camp already make it a virtual year-round sport. "The talent" is what makes the sport great, and putting it more at risk isn't worth it.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=tsn-166346

MasterOfPuppets
08-25-2010, 08:32 PM
i wouldn't mind seeing 1 regular season game added and minus 1 preseason. that way you either have a winning season or not.

lionslicer
08-25-2010, 09:15 PM
I think expecting a coaching staff to make a decision on some 20+ players in two pre-season games is ridiculous. Not to mention the increased risk of injury.

Goodell is the devil.

From what I heard they either might make players report to training camp a lot earlier or still have 4 preseason games, just start the preseason at the end of July. There is also a chance of increased roster size. There's no cap at the moment, so teams should be allowed a couple more players on the rosters if they want. 53 to possibly 60 man rosters. These are just rumors though and the NFL wont have an official meeting on this until next offseason. Goodell is not allowed to make the decision himself, he needs to have the votes of the owners and whoever else.

Also if a team does not move to LA, they will try to force an expansion team in the NFL, possible 33 or 34 team league, that would require atleast 17 games. NFL might not accept that, but its been almost 10 years since the texans came into the league, and expansion teams come into the league on an average of every 5-6 years, we are due.

SteelersinCA
08-26-2010, 12:06 AM
i wouldn't mind seeing 1 regular season game added and minus 1 preseason. that way you either have a winning season or not.

This would be good.

Fate
08-26-2010, 02:36 AM
How about records? The records in the 32 year 16 game stretch would be useless. They'd all be broken within 5-10 years.

ricardisimo
08-26-2010, 02:42 AM
4. More isn't necessarily better. The NFL has moved along just fine with a 16-game schedule for 32 years, and now with 32 teams the schedule has a nice even balance. Even though games are played in only six months, free agency, the draft, spring practices, minicamps and training camp already make it a virtual year-round sport. "The talent" is what makes the sport great, and putting it more at risk isn't worth it.
I agree with this. Baseball has lots of games and it's going in the tank. And really, does anyone even pay attention until the last month? Same with basketball. The owners are definitely going to increase their costs dramatically, and probably just dilute interest.

This is further proof that MBAs are taking over sports, thinking in terms of fiscal quarters, rather than the good of the game over the long haul. And, yeah, for the first couple of quarters revenues will be up because you have more games and you're still charging the old rates for tickets and commercial time. But once you dilute interest, the rates will plummet and you have long-term losses on your hands, with built-in expenses (higher salaries and larger rosters) you cannot dump. Then they're screwed.

Of course, then the government can bail them out just like the banks and Detroit. Mark my words.

steve314
08-30-2010, 04:58 AM
i wouldn't mind seeing 1 regular season game added and minus 1 preseason. that way you either have a winning season or not.

I imagine teams would have 9 home games one year and 8 home games the next, but some teams would whine during the year they only had 8.

ricardisimo
08-30-2010, 06:35 PM
I imagine teams would have 9 home games one year and 8 home games the next, but some teams would whine during the year they only had 8.

Everyone will play 8 home, 8 away, and one in the Rose Bowl... that way LA gets the NFL without having to pony up for a team and a stadium. Everybody happy, everybody win.

steelerohio
09-02-2010, 07:08 AM
As a fan who loves football, I am not for extendng the number of games to 18. But money talks sadly...