Do You Want an 18 Game Season? (1 Viewer)

[Orange Crush]

One of the issues being negotiated in collective bargaining talks between the owners and players is the possibility of switching from 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games to 2 preseason games and 18 regular season games.

This would increase the value of future television contracts, allowing the league, and the players, to make more money. This would have no disparate economic impact on the fans as they already pay full price for that lost preseason game which will be converted into a home game in the regular season.

There are some scheduling concerns as the NFL enjoys starting the regular season the weekend after Labor Day so as to not have lower tv ratings on a day in which most people are away from home. So if they expanded the season while keeping their current start date, preseason would start two weeks later and the playoffs would be pushed back two weeks further, with the Super Bowl taking place in late February.

The biggest concern for the players is the detrimental impact it will have on their health. They currently do not play the entirety of preseason games and don't play with the same intensity there either (if they are an established starter -- if they're trying to make the opening day roster that's a different story). So changing those games over to "real" games will increase the likelihood of injury and long-term health concerns.

Both players and owners have made claims about what the fans are in favor of in this issue. I'd like to see what FBGs think on the matter. What say you?

 

[Godsbrother]

This would have no disparate economic impact on the fans as they already pay full price for that lost preseason game which will be converted into a home game in the regular season.

This sounds good but when you extend the season from 17 weeks to 20 weeks you are going to have a lot of people sitting in sub-freezing stadiums watching games that are meaningless. I would rather go to the stadium to watch a preseason game in August than I would watch a meaningless regular season game in late January.The NFL schedule is about as close to perfect as you are going to get. Just leave things the way they are.

 

[omahabrad]

The more games in a season means the more chances their are meaningless games at the end of the season. Teams will just lock up playoff spots earlier.

 

[cr8f]

No I want a 42 week season.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Do I want more football? Yes please.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Are you in favor of the NFL schedule expanding to 18 regular season games?

Yes [ 7 ] ** [25.93%]

No [ 20 ] ** [74.07%]



I call b.s. Most of you voting 'no' will buy tickets and watch the games on tv.

 

[sho nuff]

Sure, I will watch.

But I don't want more games.

From the standpoint of my own cheering for my team...its more time to increase an injury risk.

As a fan of a team with a lot of younger guys, you are decreasing their careers. Most don't play that much preseason...I don't want to expose Rodgers or if we ever get a good RB, to more carries to wear them down quicker.

 

[whitem0nkey]

so the superbowl would be 3 weeks later, 2 weeks for the 2 additional games and 1 week for an extra bye week.

 

[Jason Wood]

As a fan? Of course I do. Watching football is such an awesome experience that I would love to have more. And this argument that there will be more meaningless games? I don't buy that because the 18-game schedule, as I understand it, would come via replacing two of the four preseason games with regular season games. As a season ticket holder, the four preseason games are the DEFINITION of meaningless football, yet I have to pay for those tickets regardless of whether the team itself takes the games seriously.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Sure, I will watch.But I don't want more games.From the standpoint of my own cheering for my team...its more time to increase an injury risk.As a fan of a team with a lot of younger guys, you are decreasing their careers. Most don't play that much preseason...I don't want to expose Rodgers or if we ever get a good RB, to more carries to wear them down quicker.

Most guys only play a few years. They'll be making more money each year. So really you're helping their future retirement by extending the season.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Do I want one??? Im really indifferent about it, but I certainly would take one.

This is bargaining chip, nothing more nothing less IMO

 

[belljr]

As a fan? Of course I do. Watching football is such an awesome experience that I would love to have more. And this argument that there will be more meaningless games? I don't buy that because the 18-game schedule, as I understand it, would come via replacing two of the four preseason games with regular season games. As a season ticket holder, the four preseason games are the DEFINITION of meaningless football, yet I have to pay for those tickets regardless of whether the team itself takes the games seriously.

What if they were half price or optional

 

[Slapdash]

Are you in favor of the NFL schedule expanding to 18 regular season games?

Yes [ 7 ] ** [25.93%]

No [ 20 ] ** [74.07%]



I call b.s. Most of you voting 'no' will buy tickets and watch the games on tv.

That wasn't the question.

 

[Slapdash]

This would have no disparate economic impact on the fans as they already pay full price for that lost preseason game which will be converted into a home game in the regular season.

This sounds good but when you extend the season from 17 weeks to 20 weeks you are going to have a lot of people sitting in sub-freezing stadiums watching games that are meaningless. I would rather go to the stadium to watch a preseason game in August than I would watch a meaningless regular season game in late January.The NFL schedule is about as close to perfect as you are going to get. Just leave things the way they are.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Are you in favor of the NFL schedule expanding to 18 regular season games?

Yes [ 7 ] ** [25.93%]

No [ 20 ] ** [74.07%]



I call b.s. Most of you voting 'no' will buy tickets and watch the games on tv.

That wasn't the question.

Right. None of y'all want this product but you would reluctantly shove it down your throats if it were forced upon us. If there wasn't some $$ to be made the owners wouldn't push for it. And there wouldn't be $$ if we didn't want it. You can tell yourself whatever you want but the bottom line is you're voting with your dollars.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

This would have no disparate economic impact on the fans as they already pay full price for that lost preseason game which will be converted into a home game in the regular season.

This sounds good but when you extend the season from 17 weeks to 20 weeks you are going to have a lot of people sitting in sub-freezing stadiums watching games that are meaningless. I would rather go to the stadium to watch a preseason game in August than I would watch a meaningless regular season game in late January.The NFL schedule is about as close to perfect as you are going to get. Just leave things the way they are.

They're removing two preseason games. So the season is starting two weeks earlier...and they're adding three weeks. We're talking a one week delay.

 

[omahabrad]

As a fan? Of course I do. Watching football is such an awesome experience that I would love to have more. And this argument that there will be more meaningless games? I don't buy that because the 18-game schedule, as I understand it, would come via replacing two of the four preseason games with regular season games. As a season ticket holder, the four preseason games are the DEFINITION of meaningless football, yet I have to pay for those tickets regardless of whether the team itself takes the games seriously.

That's one way to think about it.I refering to games that actually had an impact on playoff seedings/spots. I think week 17 had one game with any meaning to it (Sea. vs. St. L)

 

[Captain Hook]

1) Who cares what we want? This is business and the NFL will get it done

2) It is NOT more games - it will still be 20 games, just that two will be more meaningful than they were in the past

 

[Clarence the barber]

Putting the Super Bowl just before Presidents Day solves the sick calls on Monday after Super Bowl. George Washington would want it that way.

 

[Slapdash]

Are you in favor of the NFL schedule expanding to 18 regular season games?

Yes [ 7 ] ** [25.93%]

No [ 20 ] ** [74.07%]



I call b.s. Most of you voting 'no' will buy tickets and watch the games on tv.

That wasn't the question.

Right. None of y'all want this product but you would reluctantly shove it down your throats if it were forced upon us. If there wasn't some $$ to be made the owners wouldn't push for it. And there wouldn't be $$ if we didn't want it. You can tell yourself whatever you want but the bottom line is you're voting with your dollars.

What are you trying to argue here? The question is whether or not you favor the expansion, not whether or not you would still watch it if expanded. There is nothing inconsistent with favoring the 16 week schedule but still watching an 18 week schedule, yet you keep implying that there is.

 

[heidbrink]

Putting the Super Bowl just before Presidents Day solves the sick calls on Monday after Super Bowl. George Washington would want it that way.

This is a good point. George absolutely would! I think we all agree here that the monday after SB should be a national holiday and this schedule solves us having to get an act of Congress to make it so. As for the op: heck yes, I'd like to see more football. The preseason is pretty much worthless besides just knocking the rust off and evaluating the new guys. 2 games is enough do do that.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Absolutely not. It will shorten careers and subsequently water down the talent.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

As a fan? Of course I do. Watching football is such an awesome experience that I would love to have more. And this argument that there will be more meaningless games? I don't buy that because the 18-game schedule, as I understand it, would come via replacing two of the four preseason games with regular season games. As a season ticket holder, the four preseason games are the DEFINITION of meaningless football, yet I have to pay for those tickets regardless of whether the team itself takes the games seriously.

I kind of like watching the preseason games on television as its a good way to gauge young players. What I don't like is having to pay full price for those tickets as part of my season ticket package. That's where Goodell's argument rings hollow. He says fans don't want preseason games, no they don't like being forced to pay for them.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This would have no disparate economic impact on the fans as they already pay full price for that lost preseason game which will be converted into a home game in the regular season.

This sounds good but when you extend the season from 17 weeks to 20 weeks you are going to have a lot of people sitting in sub-freezing stadiums watching games that are meaningless. I would rather go to the stadium to watch a preseason game in August than I would watch a meaningless regular season game in late January.The NFL schedule is about as close to perfect as you are going to get. Just leave things the way they are.

They're removing two preseason games. So the season is starting two weeks earlier...and they're adding three weeks. We're talking a one week delay.

No, the season will not be starting early as the NFL does not want the television ratings to be watered down because people are not home in August to watch football all day. The season will still start the week after labor day, hence the season will be extended three weeks.

 

[Jericho34]

1) Who cares what we want? This is business and the NFL will get it done2) It is NOT more games - it will still be 20 games, just that two will be more meaningful than they were in the past

It's more games from the perspective of the impact on players. In pre-season games, players are constantly rotated in and out, since the purpose of these games is to evaluate as many players as possible. Starters often play only a series or two. In a regular season game, they play the entire game. The union should counter with a demand that the schedule be reduced to fourteen games again.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

No, the season will not be starting early as the NFL does not want the television ratings to be watered down because people are not home in August to watch football all day. The season will still start he week after laboring day, hence the season will be extended three weeks.

Hmm, thanks for that. That does suck.

Absolutely not. It will shorten careers and subsequently water down the talent.

Do you have anything to back this up? I doubt careers will be radically altered by playing an extra two games. Sure, they now have a chance to get hurt...but unless you're in favor of reverting back to a 12 game season I think this is a silly argument. Playing an extra two games if they stay healthy will have zero impact on their long term career longevity.

 

[Jason Wood]

Absolutely not. It will shorten careers and subsequently water down the talent.

Expanded schedules will also bring with it expanded rosters, practice squads and likely changes to the PUP/IR rules. I don't see any empirical evidence to suggest it'll lead to shortened careers. Did the transition from 14 games to 16 shorten careers? Do players who make multiple playoff runs have a tendency for shortened careers?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Absolutely not. It will shorten careers and subsequently water down the talent.

Expanded schedules will also bring with it expanded rosters, practice squads and likely changes to the PUP/IR rules. I don't see any empirical evidence to suggest it'll lead to shortened careers. Did the transition from 14 games to 16 shorten careers? Do players who make multiple playoff runs have a tendency for shortened careers?

The expanded rosters will also dilute the talent pool.Have there been any studies at all as to the average length of careers?

 

[MikeApf]

There's many reasons why I like watching football so much better than basketball. One of those reasons is that with fewer games, each one takes on so much more importance. Sure 18 is not 84, but the general idea is the same...it slowly will start to devalue the importance of each individual game...

 

[Jericho34]

Absolutely not. It will shorten careers and subsequently water down the talent.

Expanded schedules will also bring with it expanded rosters, practice squads and likely changes to the PUP/IR rules. I don't see any empirical evidence to suggest it'll lead to shortened careers. Did the transition from 14 games to 16 shorten careers? Do players who make multiple playoff runs have a tendency for shortened careers?

It's hard to prove empirically. But given the players' unwillingness to sit when injured, it's hard to imagine that the toll taken on starters by an extended season won't be higher. If they were willing to sit when they had an injury that would best be rested, it would be different. But they won't.

 

[renesauz]

I think the impact of the extra bye is not given enough credit. I think with the extra rest week, the # of games missed will not signifcantly change in any way.

As a fan, I love the idea!

 

[Shutout]

The more games in a season means the more chances their are meaningless games at the end of the season. Teams will just lock up playoff spots earlier.

I don't think we can say that categorically. You could propose the opposite; that games might mean more because teams will warm up and make a push/cool off and get caught (maybe due to injuries or their opponent getting key players back from injuries). Lots of "what ifs" there and its likely a wash in reality but I don''t think we can claim one side without considering the other. I mean, could we make an argument that, had the season gone longer, that the Cowboys might have come around, given enough games...or that the Jags may have passed the Colts? Who knows.I love football and will watch it all if its there but I don't want it (I have changed my mind since I first heard about it). I think whether teams would be MORE or LESS important is debatable. I dont think one trend will stick out all the time, for reasons mentioned above.

But I do think its likely that more injuries would change things, perhaps on a long term scale (teams' draftig changes as they go through players quicker, players maybe don't hold up as long). It could weaken the overall quality of the product. What if we go this route and it becomes evident in 10 years that teams never can keep their o-line, d-line, and running game intact for a full season and we see teams that play very differently, as a norm, every year at different times of the season? It would be like a league-wide case of like when your favortie team gets decimated by injuries and finish the season as a shell of itself and what it looked like it could be in October.

I don't think we will see double bye weeks. They did it once and it was brutal on ratings. Fans didn't like it. Networks didn't either.

Someone made a point about how longer schedules don't necessarily mean injuries (cited how some players play a couple of extra games every year). that's an interesting point because for players on teams like the Steelers, pats, colts, and a few others, those guys have been playing extra games for years. Maybe there is something there.

For FF, double byes would suck the biggest suck that ever sucked a suck. And I suppose if injuries do become big things, every team in the world needs to roster every RB with a pulse. Could shake things up for us too.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I think a lot of these complaints probably came up when they went from 14 games to 16 games. And the NFL seems to have held up just fine with the previous 2 game increase.

 

[Rovers]

Players if the can still play, are already all sorts of banged up and injured by the time the most important part of the season starts, the playoffs. Why water it down? Fans are still hungry for football after it's all over. Every other sport has seasons that are too long. MLB in freakin November? It's a joke.

Greed before integrity is the only thing that can ruin the NFL, and that just might happen.

 

[fatness]

Against an 18-game season. More injuries will reduce the quality of play even more at the end of seasons. Third string players playing only because they're the last man standing aren't my idea of NFL football. If I want to see more of that I can watch Bumfights.

 

[lynx4ben]

I'm not as high on an 18 game season as I am of getting rid of the preseason. BORING!!

 

[Godsbrother]

I think a lot of these complaints probably came up when they went from 14 games to 16 games. And the NFL seems to have held up just fine with the previous 2 game increase.

Back then they had 5 to 6 preseason games which was way too many. Personally I think the sweet spot for preseason games would be 3 and leave the regular season at 16 so we're not playing regular season games in late January.Then again if they do move to a 20 week schedule I would think that is a big advantage for cold weather teams.

 

[Toomuchnv]

I think the vote just shows that a majority of people are against change....good or bad. Noone really knows the career impact on an 18 game season vs.16.

There are also some good that can come with an 18 game season....for instance every divisional team will get to play that exact same out of division opponents. 6 divisional games and 12 non division games(3 other divisions).

 

[trader jake]

If you want 18 games because more football is all that you care about, I'm cool with that reasoning.

However, arguments against an increased likelihood of meaningless games and the odds increasing player injuries ring extremely hollow. Math says there will be more meaningless games and physics says there will be more injuries.

Baseball and basketball certainly have too many games. I don't want football to follow those poor examples. Quality > Quantity please.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I think they shouldn't play any games. Instead they should create a mathematical formula to determine the probability of each team winning and just play everything out on the computers. That way nobody gets hurt.

 

[indyram96]

personally i'd love 18 games just give the players better insurance after their playing careers are over

Putting the Super Bowl just before Presidents Day solves the sick calls on Monday after Super Bowl. George Washington would want it that way.

the only people i know that get presidents day off are federal employees and bankersi've gotta work

 

[indyram96]

I think they shouldn't play any games. Instead they should create a mathematical formula to determine the probability of each team winning and just play everything out on the computers. That way nobody gets hurt.

or put dresses on and play 2 hand touch

 

[David Yudkin]

I just want a season. :fingerscrossed:

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

This would have no disparate economic impact on the fans as they already pay full price for that lost preseason game which will be converted into a home game in the regular season.

This sounds good but when you extend the season from 17 weeks to 20 weeks you are going to have a lot of people sitting in sub-freezing stadiums watching games that are meaningless. I would rather go to the stadium to watch a preseason game in August than I would watch a meaningless regular season game in late January.The NFL schedule is about as close to perfect as you are going to get. Just leave things the way they are.

I think they should leave things the way they are too but I'd never EVER want to attend a preseason game over a regular season game no matter what the circumstance. You mention meaningless, that's the definition of what preseason games are.

 

[krsone21]

I just want a season. :fingerscrossed:

This

 

[indyram96]

I just want a season. :fingerscrossed:

This

and i want it to start on time

 

[Keith R]

Sure, I will watch.But I don't want more games.From the standpoint of my own cheering for my team...its more time to increase an injury risk.As a fan of a team with a lot of younger guys, you are decreasing their careers. Most don't play that much preseason...I don't want to expose Rodgers or if we ever get a good RB, to more carries to wear them down quicker.

Agree 100%. I prefer to watch NFL games guilt-free (or guilt-reduced); I don't like that me watching them play could lead to long-term damage to their bodies and/or their minds. The risks are there now to be sure but will certainly increase with an 18 game season. And you cannot reasonably correlate the two as both being 20-game seasons. When was the last time starters played an exhibition game from start to finish? I would guess no player plays more than 60 minutes of the 240 minutes of a four-game preseason. But if they increase the number, I will watch.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

I think they shouldn't play any games. Instead they should create a mathematical formula to determine the probability of each team winning and just play everything out on the computers. That way nobody gets hurt.

:franchisemode:

 

[Riffraff]

Not a fan of the 20 week/18 game schedule.

Not looking forward to 3 more weeks of getting up early on a Sunday morning for last minute FF news. I like my sleep and it can be a grind at times.

Including pre-season and play-offs, the NFL football season is half a year (~26 weeks), too long IMO for such a violent sport.

1,000 yard seasons only need to average 56 yards a game. Stat records are going to fall even easier.

 

[boubucarow]

Like has been mentioned, why is 16 games the best?

In all honesty, this is a very violent game that greatly diminishes the health of its participants. The fact that we have such a sport already is placing a price on that health. How can any of us guess at when enough is enough? If 18 games would be too much for the players health, why are we assuming that 16 isn't too much?

So, would any of you complain if they drop the schedule to 12 games to decrease the health problems? Would the players accept that and accept getting paid less?