Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
This is a common misconception. They aren't extending the season, they are trasforming two preseason games into reg. season games. We already have a 20 game format in place and that would stay the same. And the games at the end of the year won't be meaningless because they will be division games just like the schedule makers did for this past season.Godsbrother said:
Put on a wool hat wuss.Godsbrother said:
The last 2 weeks always have meaningless games, even divisional games. This season the Bills played the Pats in week 16 and the Jets in week 17. Both of those games were meaningless and if this goes down those games would be played in late January.
I've gone to every Steelers home game for the past 20+ years regardless of weather. Last week it was so cold I was forced to drink Labatts because the Guinness & Bass lines froze solid. It was the playoffs so I roughed it and drank Labatts but for a meaningless regular season I am not sure I would have made it.Im just telling you that if the NFL schedules regular season games in mid and late January they are going to be looking at a lot of empty seats.
The "dilute the talent pool" argument doesn't fly. The players we see on the field will be the same. The only way the product would be diluted is if new franchises were added.The expanded rosters will also dilute the talent pool.Have there been any studies at all as to the average length of careers?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?
No, it's not a misconception. Weak-hitting preseason games played by mostly scrubs and backups are replaced by regular season games played by starters -- hence more injuries and more bad regular season games. Saying preseason games are equivalent to regular season games is baloney.
Except they are extending the season...those last 2 preseason games will not be the first two games. They are not going to start the regular season early (at least not the last I had heard).When they used to start the season that early, their ratings were not as good, its part of why they moved it til after labor day.
aren't all the games the bills play meaningless?
More football is the upside. Another two weeks of watching the best sport in the world not to mention a few extra weeks of our favorite hobby as well (fantasy football).Skeletore Eh said:
The reason why the schedule will never be reduced to 12 games is because the owners won't want to give up the revenue of a 16 game schedule.
Interesting post. Voting with your dollars? I think most fans are opposed to an expanded season for other reasons, but an extended season is favoured by owners because it's going to increase their dollars. Networks will pay more for (18 regular + 2 pre )than (16 regular + 4 pre). It's a bigger audience = better product for advertisers = more revenue for networks = richer billionaire owners = fans getting screwed. Makes little difference to those of us overseas who can't even purchase a season pass for less than 10% of annual salary and pirate every game with glee, but to the lifeline for owners - US fans on cable networks - networks are going to increase their prices to recover their outlay and it will cost you more to get season pass.Right. None of y'all want this product but you would reluctantly shove it down your throats if it were forced upon us.That wasn't the question.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.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.
That isn't the point. We know the owners want as many games as they can squeeze out. What is idiotic is that it seems most fans think somehow the 16 game schedule is the the perfect median between revenue, injuries, and competitive balance. Why? There is no reason to think that. None.I am not for or against 18 games because I have no idea of the impact the extra 2 games will have. If we all are being honest, the players have already sold their body, their health for a ton of money. Going by the player argument, they would also be healthier if they reduced back to 14 games but they aren't asking for that because they will lose money. So this isn't just about the impact of 18 games. It is about getting paid more for the 18 games.Because just like the fans, the players have no idea if the 16 game schedule is just perfect. They are acting as if they collectively will fall off a cliff if 2 games are added. Many of the same players rejected the NFL's emphasis on dangerous hit penalties because it was softening the game. This is despite the fact that the #1 injury that will probably impact the future well-being of these players the most is concussions.cdwood said:
Actually what's idiotic is pretending anyone has said a 16-game schedule is perfect. "Better than" or "worse than" don't mean the same things as "perfect" or "worthless", except to people who need straw arguments to argue against.
And diluting my argument to one word is so much better.The idea is that somehow many of us are convinced that greater than 16 is a line we don't want to cross. Apparently there were more injuries this past year than any year before. How do we know that 16 games hasn't already crossed that line? What evidence do we have that 18 games crosses that line?
