This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
So am I. Two preseason games is more than enough for me. Next Thursday I am stuck going to the 4th preseason game where starters will only play a quarter. I'll probably leave sometime in the 3rd quarter.
Your 16 team option is either incorrect or worded poorly. For a 16 team league, a 15 game schedule means playing every other team once.If each team played every other team in its 8 team conference 2 times and every team in the other conference once, that would be 22 games. If each team played every other team in its 4 team division 2 times and every team outside the division once, that would be 18 games.
Not necessarily. By increasing the season by two games, you're moving closer and closer to a marathon season where teams are going to pace themselves. Teams that have the division in hand early, will rest their starters. Now they sometimes rest them the last game or two of the season. What happens when the Colts for example are 12-1? They will start resting guys much earlier. There goes your quality football.Another thing to consider about your quality football argument is when they increase the roster size, they aren't adding studs, they're adding guys who wouldn't have otherwise been on a NFL roster. These aren't quality players leading to quality football. These are bums.Just Win Baby said:IMO there is a Chicken Little element to the bolded. This is not a realistic scenario IMO and thus not worthy of being cited in your argument.I'm a fan, and I like the move. I regularly watch regular and postseason games but I rarely watch preseason games. This will provide more quality football I will actually watch.
I have a bit of apprehension about injuries, but as has been mentioned, injuries already occur in preseason games. What do starters typically play in preseason, maybe 5-6 quarters or so? 1 quarter in the first game, 2 quarters in the second game, 2-3 quarters in the third game, and none in the last game? Or close to that, anyway. This would probably mean they'd play 4 quarters or so in 2 preseason games. Plus two more regular season games. So we're talking about roughly 6 more quarters of play. I don't expect to see a significant increase in games missed due to injury due to this.
This makes no sense. Yes, it's possible there could be a few more games at the end of the season where players are rested... but there are no preseason games that are quality football... so we are exchanging 32 preseason games that aren't quality football for 32 regular season games, of which a few could be of lesser quality due to more injuries and/or resting players before the playoffs. There is no possible way that is not an increase in quality football.Not necessarily. By increasing the season by two games, you're moving closer and closer to a marathon season where teams are going to pace themselves. Teams that have the division in hand early, will rest their starters. Now they sometimes rest them the last game or two of the season. What happens when the Colts for example are 12-1? They will start resting guys much earlier. There goes your quality football.Another thing to consider about your quality football argument is when they increase the roster size, they aren't adding studs, they're adding guys who wouldn't have otherwise been on a NFL roster. These aren't quality players leading to quality football. These are bums.Just Win Baby said:IMO there is a Chicken Little element to the bolded. This is not a realistic scenario IMO and thus not worthy of being cited in your argument.I'm a fan, and I like the move. I regularly watch regular and postseason games but I rarely watch preseason games. This will provide more quality football I will actually watch.
I have a bit of apprehension about injuries, but as has been mentioned, injuries already occur in preseason games. What do starters typically play in preseason, maybe 5-6 quarters or so? 1 quarter in the first game, 2 quarters in the second game, 2-3 quarters in the third game, and none in the last game? Or close to that, anyway. This would probably mean they'd play 4 quarters or so in 2 preseason games. Plus two more regular season games. So we're talking about roughly 6 more quarters of play. I don't expect to see a significant increase in games missed due to injury due to this.
I like the phrase, not the originator of the phrase. (Assuming Al Davis originated the phrase.)
It's important to remember that that money isn't "free". The money paid would be taken out of future TV payments, making it, in effect, a loan to keep the franchises floating until football resumes. The owners would still lose a ton of money if football is halted, just not all at once like the players.Superdbs said:
This is something to think about:If the owners want two more regular season games ... perhaps training camp should be shortened by two weeks. Maybe OTAs & minicamps can be scaled back, too. That way, the owners can trade one injury risk (two extra regular-season games) for another (time spent in OTAs, minicamps, and August two-a-days).
Not necessarily. By increasing the season by two games, you're moving closer and closer to a marathon season where teams are going to pace themselves. Teams that have the division in hand early, will rest their starters. Now they sometimes rest them the last game or two of the season. What happens when the Colts for example are 12-1? They will start resting guys much earlier. There goes your quality football.Another thing to consider about your quality football argument is when they increase the roster size, they aren't adding studs, they're adding guys who wouldn't have otherwise been on a NFL roster. These aren't quality players leading to quality football. These are bums.IMO there is a Chicken Little element to the bolded. This is not a realistic scenario IMO and thus not worthy of being cited in your argument.I'm a fan, and I like the move. I regularly watch regular and postseason games but I rarely watch preseason games. This will provide more quality football I will actually watch.
I have a bit of apprehension about injuries, but as has been mentioned, injuries already occur in preseason games. What do starters typically play in preseason, maybe 5-6 quarters or so? 1 quarter in the first game, 2 quarters in the second game, 2-3 quarters in the third game, and none in the last game? Or close to that, anyway. This would probably mean they'd play 4 quarters or so in 2 preseason games. Plus two more regular season games. So we're talking about roughly 6 more quarters of play. I don't expect to see a significant increase in games missed due to injury due to this.
Why your name is "Just Win Baby: but you're a Charger fan?
I really didn't like the end of last year and an 18-game schedule would make this much worse.
completely agree. Also want to throw in the fact that "many" fans don't understand that the preseason is to help organizations evaluate the lesser known players to round out an NFL team. Those 4 games are to get an idea of who to keep and who doesnt cut it.
