Goodell looking at a 17 game schedule (1 Viewer)

[Bankerguy]

By Alex Marvez

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has an idea to combat the declining interest in the NFL preseason: a 17th regular season game.

Goodell broached the subject at the owners' meeting on Tuesday in Atlanta. The basic premise would be to eliminate one preseason game, bringing that number down to three, and add on one regular season game.

Since most starters and veterans play sparingly the first few preseason games, the move would likely not have an impact on a team's ability to prepare for the regular season. With the odd number of regular season games, the conferences would alternate between its teams hosting nine games in a season and its teams hosting eight games.

The move could also have the added benefit of increasing league revenues, which might make it easier for players and owners to come to terms on a new collective bargaining agreement. On Tuesday, the owners opted out of the current labor deal, which means that the CBA now runs through 2010, not 2012. If no new agreement is reached, the 2008 and 2009 seasons would be played under the current terms, the 2010 season would be an uncapped year, and there would be no agreement covering the 2011 season.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8...ding-17th-game

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I'd be surprised if the 17th game isnt at a neutral site.

 

[bcr8f]

Getting rid of bye weeks should be his top priority.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Getting rid of bye weeks should be his top priority.

why? they serve a good purpose

 

[Ministry of Pain]

There is plenty of interest in preseason...what there is not interest in is watching the starters go bye bye after the 1st drive in the 1st and last game, they might play 1 quarter to maybe a 2nd in the 2nd game, 3rd game they take the field for the 1st drive in the 2nd half...

Just shorten the preseason to 2 games, make the season 18 weeks, all season records will fall which will be exciting for the new generation of fans, and everyone is happy except us uptight misers who want to preserve the integrity of the game.

 

[skillz]

I'd be surprised if the 17th game isnt at a neutral site.

Schefter said yesterday on NFL Total Access that the extra games could be played on a neutral site in other countries to help further promote the game around the world.

 

[Bankerguy]

Getting rid of bye weeks should be his top priority.

It would be more about replacing one of the pre season games which makes sense.The problem I have is scheduling wise. Rotating years with 9 home games? Neutral sire game as mentioned already....How would it all work?

 

[kaso]

I'd be surprised if the 17th game isnt at a neutral site.

Schefter said yesterday on NFL Total Access that the extra games could be played on a neutral site in other countries to help further promote the game around the world.

16 neutral site games each year seems like a lot to me. How many different cities (which don't have a team currenlty) either be able to, or meet the requirements to, host an NFL matchup?

 

[EBF]

It's a slippery slope to keep extending the schedule. Pro football is a violent game and the season is already plenty rigorous at its current length. Adding additional names in the name of greed would be a very poor move IMO.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I'm seriously sick of the greed.

Enough is enough.

 

[gianmarco]

Getting rid of bye weeks should be his top priority.

why? they serve a good purpose

Because they can wreak havoc on fantasy football.......duh

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I'd be surprised if the 17th game isnt at a neutral site.

Schefter said yesterday on NFL Total Access that the extra games could be played on a neutral site in other countries to help further promote the game around the world.

16 neutral site games each year seems like a lot to me. How many different cities (which don't have a team currenlty) either be able to, or meet the requirements to, host an NFL matchup?

tons of cities that arent even that long of a flight from other US cities:TorontoVancouverMexico CityHonoluluMontrealPlus why not play in US cities as neutral sites- Like - Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Germany is going to get games soon and I think London will have one game a year.

 

[TheFanatic]

Getting rid of bye weeks should be his top priority.

Getting rid of the bye week would be foolish by the NFL. The bye week already extends the season a week thus an extra week of more revenue. I can see them going back to the two bye week system before they get rid of the bye week all together....

 

[ddogs24]

I'd be surprised if the 17th game isnt at a neutral site.

Schefter said yesterday on NFL Total Access that the extra games could be played on a neutral site in other countries to help further promote the game around the world.

16 neutral site games each year seems like a lot to me. How many different cities (which don't have a team currenlty) either be able to, or meet the requirements to, host an NFL matchup?

This may be a crazy idea, but they could play one game a week in Los Angeles. It's the biggest market without a team, you have a huge population, and many people are from other parts of the country so drawing a crowd for teams from across the country wouldn't be difficult. Obviously the travel for east coast teams would suck since its like another road game, but to the NFL and Players Assoc, they are gaining revenue, capitalizing on a monster vacant market, and putting butts in the seats.

 

[fatness]

Sure. Great idea. Let's injure more players There's an endless supply of them, they're expendable, and it won't affect the quality of play.

 

[The Kansas Comet]

I wonder how much of this is a bargaining chip for the upcoming labor negotiations. I can't see the Players Association accepting this unless they got a corresponding bump in pay, seeing as how they signed contracts for seasons that were 16 games long. I could see Upshaw and Co. saying that adding a 17th game would be akin to having them play an extra game for free.

 

[radballs]

I agree with MOP.

2 Preseason games

18 week regular season

Two bye weeks

Bring it the #### on.

Super Bowl on Valentine's Day.

 

[jbalicki10]

This is an unfair advantage for some teams. Some teams would have 8 home games and 9 away games etc... I guess it would have to be neutral site games.

 

[radballs]

I wonder how much of this is a bargaining chip for the upcoming labor negotiations. I can't see the Players Association accepting this unless they got a corresponding bump in pay, seeing as how they signed contracts for seasons that were 16 games long. I could see Upshaw and Co. saying that adding a 17th game would be akin to having them play an extra game for free.

How is that if they reduce one or more of the preseason games?

 

[-OZ-]

I'd be surprised if the 17th game isnt at a neutral site.

Schefter said yesterday on NFL Total Access that the extra games could be played on a neutral site in other countries to help further promote the game around the world.

16 neutral site games each year seems like a lot to me. How many different cities (which don't have a team currenlty) either be able to, or meet the requirements to, host an NFL matchup?

tons of cities that arent even that long of a flight from other US cities:TorontoVancouverMexico CityHonoluluMontrealPlus why not play in US cities as neutral sites- Like - Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Germany is going to get games soon and I think London will have one game a year.

Your 5LABaghdadTokyoBombaySão PauloShanghaiMoscowSeoulIstanbulJakartaBeijing

 

[-OZ-]

I wonder how much of this is a bargaining chip for the upcoming labor negotiations. I can't see the Players Association accepting this unless they got a corresponding bump in pay, seeing as how they signed contracts for seasons that were 16 games long. I could see Upshaw and Co. saying that adding a 17th game would be akin to having them play an extra game for free.

How is that if they reduce one or more of the preseason games?

Many players don't play much in the pre-season anyway, you can almost consider the pre-season games to be auditions for a job.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Sure. Great idea. Let's injure more players There's an endless supply of them, they're expendable, and it won't affect the quality of play.

Do you think the regular season should be cut back to 15 or 14 games? 12? 10?If not, then I'm curious how 16 turns out to be the exact optimal number.

 

[Phlash]

Getting rid of bye weeks should be his top priority.

Getting rid of the bye week would be foolish by the NFL. The bye week already extends the season a week thus an extra week of more revenue. I can see them going back to the two bye week system before they get rid of the bye week all together....

Two bye weeks would be great. Rest the players up a bit more, and give the viewers another week of football.

 

[Tau837]

I agree with MOP.2 Preseason games18 week regular seasonTwo bye weeksBring it the #### on.Super Bowl on Valentine's Day.

If they are going to go back to two bye weeks, making a 20 calendar week regular season, they should cluster them so each team has one in the window of weeks 6-10 and another in the window of weeks 11-15, and make sure a team has at least 4-5 weeks between its two byes. Or something like that.Also, an 18 week season opens the door to a balanced schedule for each conference. Each team could play its division oppoenents twice and every other team in its conference once. This would arguably make for a fairer competition for playoff spots, and it would guarantee that the Super Bowl matchup will not have been played during the season.

 

[Tau837]

Sure. Great idea. Let's injure more players There's an endless supply of them, they're expendable, and it won't affect the quality of play.

Do you think the regular season should be cut back to 15 or 14 games? 12? 10?If not, then I'm curious how 16 turns out to be the exact optimal number.

 

[-OZ-]

Getting rid of bye weeks should be his top priority.

Getting rid of the bye week would be foolish by the NFL. The bye week already extends the season a week thus an extra week of more revenue. I can see them going back to the two bye week system before they get rid of the bye week all together....

Two bye weeks would be great. Rest the players up a bit more, and give the viewers another week of football.

I'd be curious to see how much they'd make by going with an 18 week, 16 game schedule. Obviously the sold out stadiums wouldn't bring in more $, but ad revenue for televised games could be big.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

This is an unfair advantage for some teams. Some teams would have 8 home games and 9 away games etc... I guess it would have to be neutral site games.

it would be on conference rotation if they dont do neutral sites, so the whole AFC gets 9 home games a year, the NFC only gets 8. then rotate it for the next year

 

[bcr8f]

Getting rid of bye weeks should be his top priority.

why? they serve a good purpose

Which is mostly to extend the season and get more revenue.

 

[Yenrub]

How does this supposed change increase revenue?

I hear that NFL teams don’t reduce the prices on preseason tickets or parking, I think all the preseason games are already on TV.

Where is the increased revenue coming from?

edited for typos

 

[-OZ-]

How does this supposed change increase revenue?I hear that NFL teams don’t reduce the prices on preseason tickets or parking, I think all the preseason games are already on TV. Where is the increased revenue coming from?

Regular season games average 4,000 more in attendance than the pre-season.There has to be a good difference in viewership as well.

 

[fatness]

Do you think the regular season should be cut back to 15 or 14 games? 12? 10?If not, then I'm curious how 16 turns out to be the exact optimal number.

The injuries already substantially affect the quality of play. More games = more injuries = lower overall quality of play. No overthinking is needed. If you're interested in numbers, I'd be interested in seeing the % of starters who missed games due to injury in 14-game seasons vs. 16 game seasons. And of course you'd have to factor in the fact that players are getting bigger, stronger, and faster.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Do you think the regular season should be cut back to 15 or 14 games? 12? 10?If not, then I'm curious how 16 turns out to be the exact optimal number.

The injuries already substantially affect the quality of play. More games = more injuries = lower overall quality of play. No overthinking is needed.

I'm not thinking at all. I'm asking a question. A 2-game schedule would be bad. A 45-game schedule would be bad. Somewhere in between is an optimal point. What is it? [unfortunately, I don't have sufficient games started data back to the 14-game schedule era. Wish I did.]

 

[ATC1]

I'd be surprised if the 17th game isnt at a neutral site.

Schefter said yesterday on NFL Total Access that the extra games could be played on a neutral site in other countries to help further promote the game around the world.

16 neutral site games each year seems like a lot to me. How many different cities (which don't have a team currenlty) either be able to, or meet the requirements to, host an NFL matchup?

This may be a crazy idea, but they could play one game a week in Los Angeles. It's the biggest market without a team, you have a huge population, and many people are from other parts of the country so drawing a crowd for teams from across the country wouldn't be difficult. Obviously the travel for east coast teams would suck since its like another road game, but to the NFL and Players Assoc, they are gaining revenue, capitalizing on a monster vacant market, and putting butts in the seats.

For global marketing profits. NBA and MLB get players from other countries which is a huge market boost from another part of the world from one player. I was expecting this since NFL Europa was shut down.I wonder if the NFL will have the same teams travel to the same location every year so fans can cheer for a certain team, or will they switch it up to have the sales revenue increase every year with merchandise by bringing new teams in every year.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I'd be surprised if the 17th game isnt at a neutral site.

Schefter said yesterday on NFL Total Access that the extra games could be played on a neutral site in other countries to help further promote the game around the world.

16 neutral site games each year seems like a lot to me. How many different cities (which don't have a team currenlty) either be able to, or meet the requirements to, host an NFL matchup?

tons of cities that arent even that long of a flight from other US cities:TorontoVancouverMexico CityHonoluluMontrealPlus why not play in US cities as neutral sites- Like - Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Germany is going to get games soon and I think London will have one game a year.

I remember the NHL adding two neutral-site games to everyone's schedule for a few years in the early 90's. It was a short-lived disaster. Having a once-a-year novelty game like the London game or the Outdoor Classic in hockey is OK. Having every team do it every year all over the place is overkill and will grow old quickly.

 

[TheFanatic]

I agree with MOP.

2 Preseason games

18 week regular season

Two bye weeks

Bring it the #### on.

Super Bowl on Valentine's Day.

If they are going to go back to two bye weeks, making a 20 calendar week regular season, they should cluster them so each team has one in the window of weeks 6-10 and another in the window of weeks 11-15, and make sure a team has at least 4-5 weeks between its two byes. Or something like that.

Also, an 18 week season opens the door to a balanced schedule for each conference. Each team could play its division oppoenents twice and every other team in its conference once. This would arguably make for a fairer competition for playoff spots, and it would guarantee that the Super Bowl matchup will not have been played during the season.

I'm not so sure I like the idea of the NFC not playing the AFC except in the SB.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Getting rid of bye weeks should be his top priority.

Getting rid of the bye week would be foolish by the NFL. The bye week already extends the season a week thus an extra week of more revenue. I can see them going back to the two bye week system before they get rid of the bye week all together....

Two bye weeks would be great. Rest the players up a bit more, and give the viewers another week of football.

I'd be curious to see how much they'd make by going with an 18 week, 16 game schedule. Obviously the sold out stadiums wouldn't bring in more $, but ad revenue for televised games could be big.

The NFL did this for one year in 1992 or 1993 - two bye weeks for each team. Nobody liked it because it interrupted the momentum of the season and the routine of the players too much. They switched back to one bye week the very next season.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I wonder how much of this is a bargaining chip for the upcoming labor negotiations. I can't see the Players Association accepting this unless they got a corresponding bump in pay, seeing as how they signed contracts for seasons that were 16 games long. I could see Upshaw and Co. saying that adding a 17th game would be akin to having them play an extra game for free.

How is that if they reduce one or more of the preseason games?

Many players don't play much in the pre-season anyway, you can almost consider the pre-season games to be auditions for a job.

I thought I heard a response from Upshaw to this on ESPN this morning. I was pretty sure he said the union would never agree to it. Don't recall the reasons, and I could have misheard. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[massraider]

I agree with MOP.2 Preseason games18 week regular seasonTwo bye weeksBring it the #### on.Super Bowl on Valentine's Day.

If they are going to go back to two bye weeks, making a 20 calendar week regular season, they should cluster them so each team has one in the window of weeks 6-10 and another in the window of weeks 11-15, and make sure a team has at least 4-5 weeks between its two byes. Or something like that.Also, an 18 week season opens the door to a balanced schedule for each conference. Each team could play its division oppoenents twice and every other team in its conference once. This would arguably make for a fairer competition for playoff spots, and it would guarantee that the Super Bowl matchup will not have been played during the season.

I am fine with all the ideas mentioned by MOP, but man, no interconference? I'd hate that.Also, this extra week world tour of foreign cities, I would hate that.Unless it was week 1, I could see some serious problems, like the Raiders coming back from Madrid, to travel to Denver the next week.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I wonder how much of this is a bargaining chip for the upcoming labor negotiations. I can't see the Players Association accepting this unless they got a corresponding bump in pay, seeing as how they signed contracts for seasons that were 16 games long. I could see Upshaw and Co. saying that adding a 17th game would be akin to having them play an extra game for free.

How is that if they reduce one or more of the preseason games?

Many players don't play much in the pre-season anyway, you can almost consider the pre-season games to be auditions for a job.

I thought I heard a response from Upshaw to this on ESPN this morning. I was pretty sure he said the union would never agree to it. Don't recall the reasons, and I could have misheard. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Clayton has an article that goes over this in regards to working out a new CBA. Upshaw may not have taken a hard stance against it yet, but he's apparently made it known that the union won't accept it if the extra game doesn't include more money for the players.

 

[TheFanatic]

I agree with MOP.2 Preseason games18 week regular seasonTwo bye weeksBring it the #### on.Super Bowl on Valentine's Day.

If they are going to go back to two bye weeks, making a 20 calendar week regular season, they should cluster them so each team has one in the window of weeks 6-10 and another in the window of weeks 11-15, and make sure a team has at least 4-5 weeks between its two byes. Or something like that.Also, an 18 week season opens the door to a balanced schedule for each conference. Each team could play its division oppoenents twice and every other team in its conference once. This would arguably make for a fairer competition for playoff spots, and it would guarantee that the Super Bowl matchup will not have been played during the season.

I am fine with all the ideas mentioned by MOP, but man, no interconference? I'd hate that.Also, this extra week world tour of foreign cities, I would hate that.Unless it was week 1, I could see some serious problems, like the Raiders coming back from Madrid, to travel to Denver the next week.

Schedule all the neutral site games for the week before the two teams have bye weeks. Fly to Beijing, play a game, fly home, recover for a week, practice for a week, play the following week...

 

[JKL]

Do you think the regular season should be cut back to 15 or 14 games? 12? 10?If not, then I'm curious how 16 turns out to be the exact optimal number.

The injuries already substantially affect the quality of play. More games = more injuries = lower overall quality of play. No overthinking is needed.

I'm not thinking at all. I'm asking a question. A 2-game schedule would be bad. A 45-game schedule would be bad. Somewhere in between is an optimal point. What is it? [unfortunately, I don't have sufficient games started data back to the 14-game schedule era. Wish I did.]

For running backs, injury rates are actually at their highest early in the season, when players are working back into game shape after an offseason. The question I would have is whether a shortened pre-season would further affect this. Of course, so many of the star players rarely play in the preseason, so it may have no effect. I actually found that backs that play in the playoffs (and thus play more than 16 games) have no greater risk of injury early the next year than other backs, with two exceptions--those who played in the playoffs after having just missed games with injury at the end of the same regular season (thus, they might have been rushing back to play in the playoffs), and those with extremely high workloads at seasons end who also went deep in the playoffs.It is true that every game presents a new risk of injury. The risk is actually pretty small, from a percentage standpoint, of serious injury, though, so I think the benefit/downside are debateable.I'm sure there were those that thought the 14-game schedule was optimal back in 1977.

 

[brock]

no interconference = lame

world tour = lame

most players want the preseason cut to 2 games but those players aren't worried about making the team. coaches will struggle even more with cuts if they only get 2 quarters worth of tape to watch their borderline cut players with.

 

[brock]

if europeans want to watch nfl games so bad then we should set up an nfl league in europe. we can call it nfl europe! euopeans won't even know they have a team but they'll have uniforms and everything! it's will be brilliant!

 

[JKL]

I agree with MOP.2 Preseason games18 week regular seasonTwo bye weeksBring it the #### on.Super Bowl on Valentine's Day.

If they are going to go back to two bye weeks, making a 20 calendar week regular season, they should cluster them so each team has one in the window of weeks 6-10 and another in the window of weeks 11-15, and make sure a team has at least 4-5 weeks between its two byes. Or something like that.Also, an 18 week season opens the door to a balanced schedule for each conference. Each team could play its division oppoenents twice and every other team in its conference once. This would arguably make for a fairer competition for playoff spots, and it would guarantee that the Super Bowl matchup will not have been played during the season.

Here is my proposal:--Make it an 18-game schedule, replacing two preseason games, and doing away with the charade that is currently the first and last preseason games.--However, allow teams to carry 65 man rosters until regular season week 3, so that they can still evaluate players in practice, and allow a larger active game roster for these weeks as well.--Use the current schedule format for the first 16 games.--The final two weeks are flex conference games. For example, in 2007, the AFC North and East played, and AFC West and South played. There are very few cross over games between the two groups. The final two games will be flex based on schedule. Using 2007, the AFC North/East teams would host an AFC West/South team in game 17, to be determined based on record. It would reverse in game 18, with the AFC West/South teams hosting the AFC East/North. Thus, teams would know when they were hosting games, to sell tickets to season ticket holders, the opponent would just be TBA. Under this scenario, Cleveland and Tennessee would have probably matched up at the end of the season to decide a playoff spot head to head. If the top two seeds have clinched their spot, then they can both tank against each other and play backups--at least there not affecting two games. If they are battling head to head, then they might just have a showdown to earn homefield for the playoffs that are getting ready to start. --I would also consider expanding rosters at season's end again, but not playoff-eligible rosters. This way, teams that are out of it could evaluate more players in these two extra games.

 

[fatness]

A 2-game schedule would be bad. A 45-game schedule would be bad. Somewhere in between is an optimal point. What is it?

16 games. I understand your question, and it would apply more to creating a league schedule from scratch: what's the optimal number of games to play? I'm looking at it another way. We currently have a 16-game season. Are games, especially later-season games, affected by injuries to an extent that diminishes the quality of play? I think they are. I've got no stats, that's a judgment on my part. There are season-ending injuries which put a backup in for the rest of the season; while that's enjoyable to see the backups who really shine, most of them do not and play drops off at their position. The more backups in the game, the more the level of play drops. Along with season-ending injuries are accumulating injuries that players play through with diminished performance. O-linemen who can't extend their arms, D-linemen who can't get a good leg push any more, etc. Add those to the backups playing for injured starters and if affects play even more. I just don't want to see that getting worse.

 

[FF_Guru]

I'm seriously sick of the greed. Enough is enough.

With all being true, do you really blame them? If your running a business and people are knocking at your door wanting more of your product are you going to say nope...I sold my limit for the year already. Wait until next year?

 

[FUBAR]

world tour = lame

Why?American Football = Democracy. Everyone should enjoy the sweet nectar.

 

[Bri]

What fan wouldn't want to see more games?

What would concern me is the lesser known talents not getting much chance to make an impression to make a team in just 3 weeks. Colston, Housh etc types might be brushed aside to get the starters X amount of reps before the games count.

 

[Gatorman]

17 game season works for me, even if all of them are neutral site (like there really is such a thing).

Figure some in Europe, some in asia, and some in South America and Canada. You can round it out with games in the US (also some with regional bias' like Miami vs. Jax in Orlando or something).

 

[FUBAR]

17 game season works for me, even if all of them are neutral site (like there really is such a thing).

Figure some in Europe, some in asia, and some in South America and Canada. You can round it out with games in the US (also some with regional bias' like Miami vs. Jax in Orlando or something).

This has merit.Browns / Bengals in Columbus

KC / St. Louis in Columbia, MO

Philly / Pittsburgh in... somewhere in PA

It won't work perfectly for all (look no further than the supposed baseball rivalries - something like Detroit and Arizona?) but for many teams, this would be great.