Goodell eyes season of 17-18 games (1 Viewer)

[wildbill]

Goodell eyes season of 17-18 games

Associated Press

DANA POINT, Calif. -- More games that count, perhaps as early as August 2011? That's exactly what NFL commissioner Roger Goodell wants.

There are several hurdles before the league can expand its regular season from 16 to 17 or 18 games. Among them is reaching a new collective bargaining agreement with the players' union.

Still, the commissioner hopes to present a proposal to the owners in May after the matter was discussed at length this week at the owners meetings.

"It's possible that we could vote in May, but we want to have core discussions on this," Goodell said Wednesday. "Anytime you have change, there is some reluctance. But it's clear we don't need four preseason games anymore."

Goodell said the league has not seriously discussed the subject with its broadcast partners. He couldn't imagine them not being interested in more meaningful games.

"I think the quality of NFL programming, that every one of our network partners would say, if they have the chance to have more regular-season programming, they'd be interested in it," Goodell said. "A key point is the fans also recognize players they want to see are not in those preseason games; that's why they are not attractive. They want to see those players play."

As for those players and their union, Goodell recognizes an expanded schedule will be part of CBA negotiations. Owners opted out of the current deal last year, and it expires after the 2010 schedule, which would be an uncapped season.

I usually don't like to fix things that aren't broken, but it's hard to argue against more football.

 

[zed2283]

NFL football ain't been broken for a long time, however they like to fix it a lot.

 

[PatsWillWin]

This seems like a bad idea.

 

[FUBAR]

I'd like to see an 18 game schedule with 2 bye weeks for a 20 week season. Begin same time as now, end mid January? Playoffs and Super Bowl stretch almost to March Madness, April is baseball opening and the draft... this has potential.

 

[Godsbrother]

I agree that 4 preseason games (2 teams play 5 preseason games) is too much. Cutting out 1 preseason game makes sense -- cutting down to 2 might not give enough time to evaluate rookies.

As fasr as the regular season goes I think it is pretty good as it is but I suppose they're going to want to make for the lost revenue of a shorter preseason...

 

[gump]

This was driven by Goodell wanting to eventually have all 32 teams play 1 game per season outside the US.

I bet the rosters are enlarged soon also...to appease the union.

 

[GroveDiesel]

IMO, there is zero chance of this happening right now. The players would have to agree to it and that's not going to happen. Right now, the players don't get game checks for preseason games. They only get game checks for regular season games. If they convert two preseason games into regular season games, then that's two more games to spread their salaries over. Which means they'd be making less money per game. Meanwhile, the owners would certainly end up making more total money overall due to higher tv contracts, more concessions revenue, etc.

I guess the salary cap would also increase with that extra revenue, but I really can't see the players agreeing to this unless they end up getting paid more than the equivalent of two current game checks. The extra wear and tear on their bodies wouldn't be worth it for them unless they were receiving a lot more money.

I think the other thing that it would have an impact on would be fantasy football. You'd see a lot more guys getting injured IMO which would mean a lot more RBBC by teams. I think that performance would drop towards the end of the season as well. Guys' careers would most likely be shortened. And rookies certainly would hit that rookie wall a lot sooner. Can you imagine a rookie going from playing 12-13 games in college to 17 or 18 regular season games?

 

[roadkill1292]

It is indeed difficult to argue against having more football. But I'll give it a shot anyway.

More games means:

1. Greater frequency of injuries to key players

2. Diminished intensity on the field of play

3. More meaningless games as more teams are eliminated from playoff contention earlier

4. Disruption of the current balanced schedule

It's a grueling schedule now for the players. Adding two more games could result in a team having to play as many as 22 games if it makes a run to the Super Bowl. That's almost the equivalent of two full college seasons and will make it even more difficult to keep everybody healthy.

It's a boon for fantasy leagues, though.

 

[gump]

IMO, there is zero chance of this happening right now. The players would have to agree to it and that's not going to happen.

To expand on what I said above...I've heard from league people that this was coming and that the union would agree to it in exchange for expanded rosters. TIFWIW.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

This was driven by Goodell wanting to eventually have all 32 teams play 1 game per season outside the US.I bet the rosters are enlarged soon also...to appease the union.

If they went to 17, it would have to be something like this (which I hate, btw). Otherwise, teams won't have an equal number of home & enemy-territory games.

 

[FUBAR]

It is indeed difficult to argue against having more football. But I'll give it a shot anyway.More games means:1. Greater frequency of injuries to key players2. Diminished intensity on the field of play3. More meaningless games as more teams are eliminated from playoff contention earlier4. Disruption of the current balanced scheduleIt's a grueling schedule now for the players. Adding two more games could result in a team having to play as many as 22 games if it makes a run to the Super Bowl. That's almost the equivalent of two full college seasons and will make it even more difficult to keep everybody healthy.It's a boon for fantasy leagues, though.

1. Perhaps, but what happened the last time the NFL increased the # of games?2. I doubt this. Most players don't half ### it. 3. Earlier? no. With more games left, ok. More meaningful games too. 4. It would change the schedule, but if each team plays the team in its division 2x (6 games), they can play all of 3 other divisions (12 games). If they wanted to, they could make it so each division plays its mirror (AFC South plays NFC South) each year, along with one other in its conference and one in the other. Create more of a regional rivalry (like Atlanta playing Tennessee and Jacksonville each year) while rotating through every other team in 3 years. I'm confidant that the players would get their fair share of the increase and would probably get an additional 12.5% added to current contracts. Your point about a 22 game schedule is a strong one.

 

[FUBAR]

This was driven by Goodell wanting to eventually have all 32 teams play 1 game per season outside the US.I bet the rosters are enlarged soon also...to appease the union.

If they went to 17, it would have to be something like this (which I hate, btw). Otherwise, teams won't have an equal number of home & enemy-territory games.

I could be for this if instead of 16 international games it was 16 neutral site games. Cities like Las Vegas, LA, and Detroit could get a chance to see an NFL game.

 

[puckalicious]

IMO, there is zero chance of this happening right now. The players would have to agree to it and that's not going to happen. Right now, the players don't get game checks for preseason games. They only get game checks for regular season games. If they convert two preseason games into regular season games, then that's two more games to spread their salaries over. Which means they'd be making less money per game. Meanwhile, the owners would certainly end up making more total money overall due to higher tv contracts, more concessions revenue, etc. I guess the salary cap would also increase with that extra revenue, but I really can't see the players agreeing to this unless they end up getting paid more than the equivalent of two current game checks. The extra wear and tear on their bodies wouldn't be worth it for them unless they were receiving a lot more money.I think the other thing that it would have an impact on would be fantasy football. You'd see a lot more guys getting injured IMO which would mean a lot more RBBC by teams. I think that performance would drop towards the end of the season as well. Guys' careers would most likely be shortened. And rookies certainly would hit that rookie wall a lot sooner. Can you imagine a rookie going from playing 12-13 games in college to 17 or 18 regular season games?

When will the schedule expansion stop? Is the point to water everything down so that each game is meaningless like baseball/basketball/hockey? The NFL has a great thing going and changing things for the sake of change (or $$) will ruin the league. Classic case of how money is a cancer, the rich aren't happy just being rich, they need to be FILTHY rich to the point the whole thing comes crashing down. The league is at a great equilibrium right now with 16 games and 32 teams. Don't F it up by changing either one.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I could be for this if instead of 16 international games it was 16 neutral site games. Cities like Las Vegas, LA, and Detroit could get a chance to see an NFL game.

I like that idea, but I doubt Goodell would; doesn't help agenda of growing worldwide interest.

 

[GroveDiesel]

IMO, there is zero chance of this happening right now. The players would have to agree to it and that's not going to happen.

To expand on what I said above...I've heard from league people that this was coming and that the union would agree to it in exchange for expanded rosters. TIFWIW.

I'm not sure why the union would be in favor of expanded rosters. More players on the rosters means less money per player. So the guys currently playing and in the union would be making less money. I don't know why they would be in favor of that.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I'd like to see an 18 game schedule with 2 bye weeks for a 20 week season. Begin same time as now, end mid January? Playoffs and Super Bowl stretch almost to March Madness, April is baseball opening and the draft... this has potential.

The two bye week thing was horrible the first time they did it - hope they don't go down that path again.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I'd like to see an 18 game schedule with 2 bye weeks for a 20 week season. Begin same time as now, end mid January? Playoffs and Super Bowl stretch almost to March Madness, April is baseball opening and the draft... this has potential.

I agree COMPLETELY! February is a dead sports month, give us some juice there!

 

[gump]

IMO, there is zero chance of this happening right now. The players would have to agree to it and that's not going to happen.

To expand on what I said above...I've heard from league people that this was coming and that the union would agree to it in exchange for expanded rosters. TIFWIW.

I'm not sure why the union would be in favor of expanded rosters. More players on the rosters means less money per player. So the guys currently playing and in the union would be making less money. I don't know why they would be in favor of that.

I'm sure they assume the salary pool would be larger (easy if there is no cap), not just spread out across more players.

 

[fatness]

More games means:1. Greater frequency of injuries to key players2. Diminished intensity on the field of play3. More meaningless games as more teams are eliminated from playoff contention earlier4. Disruption of the current balanced schedule

My thoughts exactly.

 

[belljr]

So do Championships stay in week 16 do you move it to the week prior to the final week....

 

[FreeBaGeL]

People keep talking about things like more injuries, shorter careers, less intensity of play, etc but college football has actually added games recently and we haven't really seen any of this.

In the 90's (and later for some conferences) we saw the addition of conference championships, and just recently the regular season was expanded to 12 games from 11. That's two extra games for teams that win their conference, and of course teams that go to bowl games play an extra game. In 1989 Florida played 11 games, last year they played 14.

Also, playoff teams are already playing extra games and we're not really seeing any of these issues that people have been bringing up. Pittsburgh and Arizona played more games than everyone else last year but didn't have any extra injury issues or lack of intensity. Heck, Arizona played 4 more games than half the league and didn't run into any of that stuff.

 

[zed2283]

IMO, there is zero chance of this happening right now. The players would have to agree to it and that's not going to happen. Right now, the players don't get game checks for preseason games. They only get game checks for regular season games. If they convert two preseason games into regular season games, then that's two more games to spread their salaries over. Which means they'd be making less money per game. Meanwhile, the owners would certainly end up making more total money overall due to higher tv contracts, more concessions revenue, etc. I guess the salary cap would also increase with that extra revenue, but I really can't see the players agreeing to this unless they end up getting paid more than the equivalent of two current game checks. The extra wear and tear on their bodies wouldn't be worth it for them unless they were receiving a lot more money.I think the other thing that it would have an impact on would be fantasy football. You'd see a lot more guys getting injured IMO which would mean a lot more RBBC by teams. I think that performance would drop towards the end of the season as well. Guys' careers would most likely be shortened. And rookies certainly would hit that rookie wall a lot sooner. Can you imagine a rookie going from playing 12-13 games in college to 17 or 18 regular season games?

When will the schedule expansion stop? Is the point to water everything down so that each game is meaningless like baseball/basketball/hockey? The NFL has a great thing going and changing things for the sake of change (or $$) will ruin the league. Classic case of how money is a cancer, the rich aren't happy just being rich, they need to be FILTHY rich to the point the whole thing comes crashing down. The league is at a great equilibrium right now with 16 games and 32 teams. Don't F it up by changing either one.

 

[T Bell]

NFL football ain't been broken for a long time, however they like to fix it a lot.

It's already physically demanding enough as it is. It's stupid to me to be trying to squeeze more dollars out of the already wildly profitable league by expanding the season. As the old saying goes, "pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered." I think they're going to start encountering teams suffering season changing injuries more and more if they keep doing this.

 

[GroveDiesel]

People keep talking about things like more injuries, shorter careers, less intensity of play, etc but college football has actually added games recently and we haven't really seen any of this.In the 90's (and later for some conferences) we saw the addition of conference championships, and just recently the regular season was expanded to 12 games from 11. That's two extra games for teams that win their conference, and of course teams that go to bowl games play an extra game. In 1989 Florida played 11 games, last year they played 14.Also, playoff teams are already playing extra games and we're not really seeing any of these issues that people have been bringing up. Pittsburgh and Arizona played more games than everyone else last year but didn't have any extra injury issues or lack of intensity. Heck, Arizona played 4 more games than half the league and didn't run into any of that stuff.

It would be interesting to see a comparision of games lost due to injury pre 16 game seasons and post 16 game seasons. Chase?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Would people be in favor of reducing the games to 14?

 

[puckalicious]

People keep talking about things like more injuries, shorter careers, less intensity of play, etc but college football has actually added games recently and we haven't really seen any of this.In the 90's (and later for some conferences) we saw the addition of conference championships, and just recently the regular season was expanded to 12 games from 11. That's two extra games for teams that win their conference, and of course teams that go to bowl games play an extra game. In 1989 Florida played 11 games, last year they played 14.Also, playoff teams are already playing extra games and we're not really seeing any of these issues that people have been bringing up. Pittsburgh and Arizona played more games than everyone else last year but didn't have any extra injury issues or lack of intensity. Heck, Arizona played 4 more games than half the league and didn't run into any of that stuff.

I think the issue is more about trends, not individual games or seasons. It is obvious that more exposure (games) will at some point lead to more injury. There likely is some form of exponential relationship between games and injury assuming the same intensity exists for every game. I think as the season length increases the amount of intensity per game will drop and possible normalize out any effect on injury.I would hope that the NFL would seriously study the possibility of increasing injury. The NFLPA at least would have a reason to.

 

[T Bell]

Would people be in favor of reducing the games to 14?

No, but I'd be in favor of reducing the preseason games to 3 or even 2, (including the HoF game, for whichever teams are playing that game).

 

[FUBAR]

IMO, there is zero chance of this happening right now. The players would have to agree to it and that's not going to happen. Right now, the players don't get game checks for preseason games. They only get game checks for regular season games. If they convert two preseason games into regular season games, then that's two more games to spread their salaries over. Which means they'd be making less money per game. Meanwhile, the owners would certainly end up making more total money overall due to higher tv contracts, more concessions revenue, etc.

I guess the salary cap would also increase with that extra revenue, but I really can't see the players agreeing to this unless they end up getting paid more than the equivalent of two current game checks. The extra wear and tear on their bodies wouldn't be worth it for them unless they were receiving a lot more money.

I think the other thing that it would have an impact on would be fantasy football. You'd see a lot more guys getting injured IMO which would mean a lot more RBBC by teams. I think that performance would drop towards the end of the season as well. Guys' careers would most likely be shortened. And rookies certainly would hit that rookie wall a lot sooner. Can you imagine a rookie going from playing 12-13 games in college to 17 or 18 regular season games?

When will the schedule expansion stop? Is the point to water everything down so that each game is meaningless like baseball/basketball/hockey? The NFL has a great thing going and changing things for the sake of change (or $$) will ruin the league. Classic case of how money is a cancer, the rich aren't happy just being rich, they need to be FILTHY rich to the point the whole thing comes crashing down.

The league is at a great equilibrium right now with 16 games and 32 teams. Don't F it up by changing either one.

I realize it looks pretty because it's a nice ratio, but how does it actually make it a great equilibrium when a team plays 6 games in it's division, 2 other divisions and half of another? Playing 3 whole other divisions makes it cleaner, they play half the league.

 

[Ramblin' Irish]

This was driven by Goodell wanting to eventually have all 32 teams play 1 game per season outside the US.I bet the rosters are enlarged soon also...to appease the union.

If they went to 17, it would have to be something like this (which I hate, btw). Otherwise, teams won't have an equal number of home & enemy-territory games.

One thought I had would be if the extra game was played on a neutral site in the US in a city that doesn't have an NFL team. The NFL could finally have football return to LA by having a weekly game (without the risk of failure by having no one show up) . Additionally, it could be very big in areas such as Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, and even throw the folks in the Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Dakota areas a bone. Just my

 

[T Bell]

This was driven by Goodell wanting to eventually have all 32 teams play 1 game per season outside the US.I bet the rosters are enlarged soon also...to appease the union.

If they went to 17, it would have to be something like this (which I hate, btw). Otherwise, teams won't have an equal number of home & enemy-territory games.

One thought I had would be if the extra game was played on a neutral site in the US in a city that doesn't have an NFL team. The NFL could finally have football return to LA by having a weekly game (without the risk of failure by having no one show up) . Additionally, it could be very big in areas such as Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, and even throw the folks in the Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Dakota areas a bone. Just my

Sure. It's a pretty easy commute from Boise to Bismark.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Goodell eyes season of 17-18 games

Associated Press

DANA POINT, Calif. -- More games that count, perhaps as early as August 2011? That's exactly what NFL commissioner Roger Goodell wants.

There are several hurdles before the league can expand its regular season from 16 to 17 or 18 games. Among them is reaching a new collective bargaining agreement with the players' union.

Still, the commissioner hopes to present a proposal to the owners in May after the matter was discussed at length this week at the owners meetings.

"It's possible that we could vote in May, but we want to have core discussions on this," Goodell said Wednesday. "Anytime you have change, there is some reluctance. But it's clear we don't need four preseason games anymore."

Goodell said the league has not seriously discussed the subject with its broadcast partners. He couldn't imagine them not being interested in more meaningful games.

"I think the quality of NFL programming, that every one of our network partners would say, if they have the chance to have more regular-season programming, they'd be interested in it," Goodell said. "A key point is the fans also recognize players they want to see are not in those preseason games; that's why they are not attractive. They want to see those players play."

As for those players and their union, Goodell recognizes an expanded schedule will be part of CBA negotiations. Owners opted out of the current deal last year, and it expires after the 2010 schedule, which would be an uncapped season.

I usually don't like to fix things that aren't broken, but it's hard to argue against more football.

Good, more football. I think they should play 32 games, at least the value of the NFL ticket would be better

 

[Mr. Black]

What kind of football fan complains about more football??

 

[Maik Jeaunz]

I like this because it could potentially move the Super Bowl to the Sunday before Presidents' Day, which would in essence make the day after the Super Bowl a national holiday!!!