Wow, I hope logical thinking is not an important part of your daily duties. I am having a hard time seeing all these "NFL" plants, since it seems to me that 70%+ of the responders (especially in the media) are anti-18 games. It is amazing how the vast majority of respondents back in August were pro 18 games. Using the anti 18 game arguments to their "logical" conclusions, we really only should have about a 10 game season. After all every extra game played increase the chance of injuries but 10 games would probably give each team enough games for the best teams to finish near the top and in the playoffs. The next "logical" step needs to be a reduction in playoff games, again remember every extra game is inherently going to increase the injury risk to the players, to two rounds and the playoffs or possibly even just a Conference Championship game and then the Super Bowl.All that seems to be put out is the one side of the "injury" argument, but if that is the basis for not making a change then we need to seriously look at reducing games for the "player's health". Oh wait a second, the players are not for that because .... they would get paid less. The reality of this issue is it is all $$ driven - the fact that the owners want the players to take a pay cut and play more is the real issue. The "injury" defense is just what the union put out there for the masses to consume without really thinking out that this argument begs the question about why reducing games is not being discussed. Again it all comes down to the Bennies.
I agree, you are probably not an NFL plant - too much of a clown for that to work. Won't bite on the "logical thinking duties" bait. You seem to be getting my logic just fine, as demonstrated by your ability to extend it futher in your own argument. So, next time, find a more accurate insult.On to your points of unconstructive criticism. Yes, the extension of my logic would lead you to reduce the number of games. So allow me to stipulate that at a certain threshold the benefits from a less diluted product that fewer games bring are offset by other costs, tangible or not, and missed revenue. Feeling better? I suggest that this threshold number is 16, but it could be something else. Thus, feel free to throw me a good argument why 18 (or 20? 22?) is closer to that threshold. Also, feel free to respond why you think your 18 games preference does not lead to a dilluted product.As for the injuries part, we are clearly not talking about the same thing. You keep referring to the dollars: who gets paid how much, per game, etc, etc. As a fan, I don't care about that. As a fan, as I told ya, I don't see players as interchangable. With 18 games, I expect to see more studs rested more often and I prefer watching AP instead of Toby. Maybe you don't, that's fine. I am just telling you why increased roster sizes is not a good solution for me.
The return of a double-bye week system might actually help improve the league's product late in the season and on into the playoffs. Teams will learn to manage practice reps and etc. in a way which preserves their stars' performance for the playoff push. I see NO compelling arguments against an 18-game regular season, assuming that preseason workouts and games are curtailed and rosters are expanded such that the net effect on the players is mitigated.
