MERGED: Possible 17-Game Schedule (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

LINK

NFL Considers 17th Regular Season Game

By Mark Maske and Cindy Boren

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, April 27, 2007; Page E11

NFL officials are considering adding a 17th regular season game to accommodate the league's desire to play overseas games, Commissioner Roger Goodell said yesterday, although the idea is in the formative stages.

Goodell and other league officials had not even discussed the possibility with the leaders of the NFL Players Association as of yesterday. But if the NFL decides to increase the number of regular season games it will play in foreign countries beyond the one to two per year to which owners now are committed, it could decide to add a week to the regular season to devote to a slate of overseas games while subtracting a week from the preseason.

"One negative [to playing overseas games] is you're taking a game away from fans here," Goodell said before an annual meeting of sports editors at league headquarters in New York. "We've discussed whether to cut one preseason game and add a 17th week. It would create more inventory, and that has some appeal. We're chewing on that. The issue is: How do you create more inventory?"

NFL teams currently play 16 regular season games apiece over a 17-week regular season; each club is given a bye week during the season and plays four or five preseason games. Goodell also said that holding a Super Bowl in a city outside the United States is a long-range possibility. Citing the game's global appeal, he said it would be "reasonable to look at" that eventually.

There have been previous pushes to shorten the preseason and lengthen the regular season, aimed at increasing revenues and limiting the players' exposure to injuries during meaningless exhibition games. But many owners and league leaders have been wary of diluting the importance of each week during the regular season.

In this case, however, the league's desire to increase its popularity internationally could end up taking precedence. Former commissioner Paul Tagliabue made that a priority before leaving office last year, and Goodell has continued to emphasize it since being elected Tagliabue's successor by team owners. In October, the owners voted to play as many as two regular season games per year outside the U.S. over the next five seasons. One overseas game is scheduled for next season, with the New York Giants and Miami Dolphins playing in October in London.

The league played its first regular season game in a foreign country in 2005, when the Arizona Cardinals and San Francisco 49ers played in Mexico City.

On other issues, Goodell said that the league plans to require teams to have all players undergo annual neurological examinations. Many teams already do that, but Goodell said the league is taking steps to try to protect players from concussions. One measure he mentioned was educating players in the simple method of properly fastening chinstraps and he indicated he already has told coaches to be more careful in dealing with players who have suffered concussions.

"I've been very clear to coaches that at no time should competition issues take precedence over medical issues," Goodell said.

Goodell said the league is looking for ways to provide improved medical coverage to former players at a reasonable cost, and might create assisted-living facilities for needy former players.

"We're not trying to fix blame here," he said. "We're trying to fix the issue."

 

[TheFanatic]

This is ridiculous. If they want to do this they HAVE to get rid of at least one preseason game if not two....

 

[EBF]

How long until they're playing 82 games each season?

They're trying to squeeze every penny they can out of their players. At some point, it would seem like overkill.

 

[TheFanatic]

How long until they're playing 82 games each season? They're trying to squeeze every penny they can out of their players. At some point, it would seem like overkill.

Can't wait for the first NFL double header!?!?!

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

How long until they're playing 82 games each season? They're trying to squeeze every penny they can out of their players. At some point, it would seem like overkill.

Adding only game regular season game and you came to this conclusion?

 

[FunkyPlutos]

How long until they're playing 82 games each season?

They're trying to squeeze every penny they can out of their playersfans. At some point, it would seem like overkill.

fixed

 

[Despyzer]

I don't have a problem with it. It just means more football. I'd agree that preseason game or two should be dropped though.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Terrible idea.

 

[bigfishboy]

As if injuries don't play a big enough role in already.

 

[cstu]

This is ridiculous. If they want to do this they HAVE to get rid of at least one preseason game if not two....

Please do.

 

[Despyzer]

Right now every team plays...

(a). home and away in their division

(b). every team from another division in their conference

©. every team from another division out of their conference

(d). the two remaining teams in your conference that finished in the same place in their divisions

So where would that extra game come from in the schedule?

 

[Challenge Everything]

The system is ideal right now... why screw that up?

 

[3nOut]

The system is ideal right now... why screw that up?

Fantasy-wise, in my leguae, its not ideal. We have 3 divisions where we play each team twice, all others once, except for one team which we do not play. We do not like having week 16 as our SB. By adding one more week, we can play each team at least once. So FF-wise,

 

[Banger]

If they want to play overseas games do it in the preseason.

 

[fatness]

Great. More injuries.

 

[Challenge Everything]

The system is ideal right now... why screw that up?

Fantasy-wise, in my leguae, its not ideal. We have 3 divisions where we play each team twice, all others once, except for one team which we do not play. We do not like having week 16 as our SB. By adding one more week, we can play each team at least once. So FF-wise,

Change your system.

 

[Mooks77]

Don't they already have NFL Europe?

 

[BGP]

I wonder if EG72 still wants to mock my suggestion that the NFL is going to eliminate some preseason games in favor of more regular season games?

Oh wait here a link to that conversation.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...11817&st=50

Hopefully they make the last two preseason games regular-sesaon games soon. That's one of those things that seems a long time in coming but also feels inevitable. Everyone hates the length of the pre-season - they say that it used to make sense when players needed training camp to get in shape, but nowadays players are in shape all year long.

I suppose you could add a second bye when the schedule moves to 18 games, so you get a 20 game regular season and its just about a half-year long.

Have you ever had a good idea?

Plenty. I guess you think its a good idea for fans to pay full price for pre-season games. That's not gonna last. At some point they will eliminate two pre-season games or make the last two count. I'm kinda betting the latter. If you disagree, wonderful.

No, I think paying full price for preseason games (and the fact they force season ticket holders to buy these seats) is garbage. However, what you propose provides no additional revenue over the current system, pisses the players off, exposes players to a greater injury risk, unbalances the schedule they finally found a great formula for, and adds an unnecessary additional bye week, which already flopped with fans.What else you got, Wonderboy?

I think its a bad deal for the fans. Why should the fans pay full price to watch practice? At some point, this will change. It can happen a number of different ways. Someone will push the process forward. Maybe the media makes a stink, or a high-ranking suit has a change of heart. Or the players union pushes it. I think there's little chance the NFL will just give up that revenue - it will make the games count instead. All the other issues you raised are debatable. The players themselves don't like the length of pre-season as it is, how can you say it will piss the players off?

Taking away two pre-season games and replacing them with regular season games makes it even worse, because the starters have to play all of those additional two games. If you were pitching just removing two preseason games and not adding regular season games, I might be on board with that, but adding two regular season games and an additional bye week makes it WORSE than it is now, not better. That idea ranks up there with the "Jump To Conclusions" mat.

I guess I am a "wonderboy"...

 

[Despyzer]

Oh wait here a link to that conversation.

I hope you don't count dredging up old conversations as one of your "good ideas."

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Way to ruin the symmetry, NFL. Next thing you'll know, they'll go to 33 teams so that someone can have a bye in week 1 again.

 

[ImTheScientist]

The players get the #### beat out of them

 

[BGP]

Oh wait here a link to that conversation.

I hope you don't count dredging up old conversations as one of your "good ideas."

I think the exchange between me and EG72 is very relevant to this thread. Sorry if you don't like it. I could make 10 posts in this thread regurgitating my insight and views I offered 3 weeks ago, or just copy and paste that conversation. I thought this was cleaner.

 

[Gottabesweet]

How about NO overseas games?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

I guess I am a "wonderboy"...

Well.....you have been called much worse.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I wonder if EG72 still wants to mock my suggestion that the NFL is going to eliminate some preseason games in favor of more regular season games?

Oh wait here a link to that conversation.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...11817&st=50

Hopefully they make the last two preseason games regular-sesaon games soon. That's one of those things that seems a long time in coming but also feels inevitable. Everyone hates the length of the pre-season - they say that it used to make sense when players needed training camp to get in shape, but nowadays players are in shape all year long.

I suppose you could add a second bye when the schedule moves to 18 games, so you get a 20 game regular season and its just about a half-year long.

Have you ever had a good idea?

Plenty. I guess you think its a good idea for fans to pay full price for pre-season games. That's not gonna last. At some point they will eliminate two pre-season games or make the last two count. I'm kinda betting the latter. If you disagree, wonderful.

No, I think paying full price for preseason games (and the fact they force season ticket holders to buy these seats) is garbage. However, what you propose provides no additional revenue over the current system, pisses the players off, exposes players to a greater injury risk, unbalances the schedule they finally found a great formula for, and adds an unnecessary additional bye week, which already flopped with fans.What else you got, Wonderboy?

I think its a bad deal for the fans. Why should the fans pay full price to watch practice? At some point, this will change. It can happen a number of different ways. Someone will push the process forward. Maybe the media makes a stink, or a high-ranking suit has a change of heart. Or the players union pushes it. I think there's little chance the NFL will just give up that revenue - it will make the games count instead. All the other issues you raised are debatable. The players themselves don't like the length of pre-season as it is, how can you say it will piss the players off?

Taking away two pre-season games and replacing them with regular season games makes it even worse, because the starters have to play all of those additional two games. If you were pitching just removing two preseason games and not adding regular season games, I might be on board with that, but adding two regular season games and an additional bye week makes it WORSE than it is now, not better. That idea ranks up there with the "Jump To Conclusions" mat.

I guess I am a "wonderboy"...

First of all, Nostradamus, I never said it would never happen, I simply said it was a terrible idea. If you look towards the top of this thread, you'll see that I reiterated that. I'm not naive enough to believe that every corporate entity in this world, sports-related or otherwise, isn't going to do whatever it can to exhume every drop of revenue from its consumer base that it possibly can. If adding a 17th overseas game will make them more money, they'll do it. It still doesn't make it a good idea. They added a second bye week a few years back under the guise of giving the players extra rest (when actually it was so they could negotiate an 18-week TV contract with the networks instead of 17) and it lasted all of one season. It was an awful idea, and so is this.Just because they may do it doesn't mean it's smart or good. I wouldn't break my arm patting myself on the back until I saw that a) they actually do it and get players' union approval to do so and b) that it works well for the fans.

If they do this, and it's a huge flop like the extra bye week, let's see if you have the sack to bump this thread again and admit that the idea sucked. Somehow I'm sure you won't. But if it happens that way, don't worry. I won't forget. Refer to my sig for evidence.

 

[bshipper]

This is interesting that the NFL is looking to force each team to travel outside of the US to play a regular season game. I do like that it takes one of the preseason games and turns it into a real game.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-1...p&type=lgns

 

[culdeus]

Yeah, the "pre-season tax" on season ticket holders was getting out of control. As long as they shorten the pre-season I'm all for it. Means a cheaper overall cost to go to a real game. I usually eat, wipe my ###, or donate preseason games.

 

[BigRed]

Stupid on a variety of levels. But of course it's all about the almighty dollar, so it's just a quesiton of time. Why stop there? Let's go 18, 20, wtf why not 30 games. And eliminate all pre-season; coaches don't need actual playing time to evaluate players.



I know most will find this nuts but I liked it when the reg season was actually over before Christmas. Radical and incomprehensible as this probably sounds to many, more isn't necessarily better.

 

[reg]

I'll probably be an outcast in this discussion, but I don't want to see more games. The schedule is fine the way it is, keep adding games and people will become bored with it or ignore it in the beginning until the games 'matter'.

 

[Emeril]

I agree. This idea stinks. They finally have the schedule balanced, now they want to imbalance it, and for what? Additional revenue. The NFL is swimming in dough - they shouldn't need to do this. Adding to the season is only going to serve to increase not only fatigue, but injuries. They can shorten the preseason, but leave the regular season as is. 16 games is perfect.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Didn't see a thread on this, so....

NFL.com

NFL looking at expanding to 17 games

NFL.com wire reports

NEW YORK (May 10, 2007) -- Americans always seem to want more pro football. Yet it's the folks abroad who might be getting an extra taste of the NFL in the future.Although talks are extremely preliminary, the NFL is investigating adding a 17th regular-season game and playing it outside the United States. The extra game would take the place of one in the preseason, allowing every team to play once abroad without sacrificing a home match.

This year, the Dolphins gave up a home date in Miami to play the New York Giants at Wembley Stadium in London. Two years ago, the Arizona Cardinals played a home game in Mexico City against the San Francisco 49ers.

"It is preliminary, but we certainly are putting resources into pulling that together," said Mark Waller, NFL senior vice president, international. "For now, we have the one game per season or two per season outside of the U.S. But we know it can be tough on home fans since we're taking a game away.

"So we have asked how do we create more inventory without taking games away from fans? That idea came up in internal conversations and we now have an international committee of owners and we talked it through with them, and they asked us to do some groundwork."

While the 17th game won't get off the ground next season, for sure, it could become a staple of the NFL's schedule by 2009 or 2010. But it would present some significant logistical and scheduling challenges.

For one, if there is another week to the regular season, does that mean openers played on Labor Day weekend, something the NFL has avoided in recent years? Or does it mean pushing the Super Bowl back a week to the second Sunday in February? Or leaving the title game where it is and eliminating the week off between conference championships and the Super Bowl?

"I don't see a huge downside to a week later. The strength of the idea warrants bringing it up for discussion," Waller said.

And what about during a Winter Olympics year such as 2010?

"It might be an issue for the Olympics," he adds with a laugh.

Where would the "foreign games" be played? And how would they be divided?

Waller notes that there won't be 16 different venues for the 17th games. More likely would be a "mini-season ticket" of perhaps four games in one city or country.

"It is very early, but our thought is what we could end up with is every week there would be one international game," he said. "We won't have all of them on the same week. And what you would do is look at taking, for instance, four games to London. Play a game in Wembley each month, having eight different teams coming through. A game in September, one in October, one in November and one in December.

"It's a great opportunity from a fan perspective, because they get half of what a fan in the United States gets, four games to eight."

Aside from England, other prime areas to get games would be Germany, which has a half-dozen quality stadiums thanks to last year's World Cup; Mexico; and Canada. Waller doubts Asia or Australia would be targeted because of the travel concerns, but he doesn't dismiss anything. Or anywhere.

"It is a complex idea and it will take a lot of work on a number of sides," Waller said. "The beauty of it is it's competitively fair."

 

[Norseman]

Would the players union go for this? They would want to be paid for more games, wouldn't they?

 

[Righetti]

less preseason more regular season

 

[reg]

merge them? http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=317617

 

[Righetti]

merge them? http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=317617

The AFL and the NFL? or the

 

[GroveDiesel]

This is a stupid idea. The NFL wants to expand their market to be more international and it's just stupid. Way too much hardship on the players for way too little return. NFL games in other countries will be treated just like major international soccer teams coming to the US for exhibitions. Great attendance and decent local interest but no real expansion of the fan base.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Football is about as perfect as a sport can be.. it makes the most money.. Y #### with it..

Plus, whats the benefit to the owners of playing one extra away over-seas game.

If new commish is gettin out of hand.

 

[zed2283]

This is a stupid idea. The NFL wants to expand their market to be more international and it's just stupid. Way too much hardship on the players for way too little return. NFL games in other countries will be treated just like major international soccer teams coming to the US for exhibitions. Great attendance and decent local interest but no real expansion of the fan base.

I agree. I'm pretty sick of the NFL trying to expand it's empire in every conceivable way. It's all about money and all it does is take away from the game. The NFL is out of control.No expansion of the schedule.No expansion franchises.No expansion of playoff teams.Who's with me??

 

[3nOut]

Would the players union go for this? They would want to be paid for more games, wouldn't they?

That may be exactly why they'd go for it. They can demand more money becasue they're playing more games when in fact they are not since they will only be replacing one of their pre-season games. Same amount of games to play except that one more counts now.I don't mind the extra game, it only means more football. Noone like those pre-season games anyway. What I don't understand is that the league will have to find 16 venues worldwide each year to play their games.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Let's see the Bengals would probably do well playing in India.

The Lions are a natural for say, Kenya.

The Cardinals could play in Vatican City.

This has potential

-QG

 

[3nOut]

Let's see the Bengals would probably do well playing in India.The Lions are a natural for say, Kenya.The Cardinals could play in Vatican City.This has potential -QG

Sure, the Cardinals should play the Saints too. The Vikings in Scandinavia, and I'm sure the Raiders would go over well in Nagasaki. Lets not even get into the Redskins and Browns.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Of course the Bears would have to be playing in Moscow.

-QG

 

[houston]

Right now every team plays...(a). home and away in their division(b). every team from another division in their conference©. every team from another division out of their conference(d). the two remaining teams in your conference that finished in the same place in their divisionsSo where would that extra game come from in the schedule?

This is what I want to know. The schedule/division setup as it is currently works very well. Not sure what happens when you have to add 1 extra game to each team. Would it be another play the team who finished in the same spot of the standings, but in the other conference.

 

[thayman]

Right now every team plays...(a). home and away in their division(b). every team from another division in their conference©. every team from another division out of their conference(d). the two remaining teams in your conference that finished in the same place in their divisionsSo where would that extra game come from in the schedule?

This is what I want to know. The schedule/division setup as it is currently works very well. Not sure what happens when you have to add 1 extra game to each team. Would it be another play the team who finished in the same spot of the standings, but in the other conference.

Off the top of my head I would say play another division, each team playing the one that finished in the same place.

 

[stevegamer]

Easy solution on a trial basis would be to move 1 pre-season game overseas.

Local fans have 1 less pre-season game to buy - so they are happy IF owners don't increase each other game.

Expands market somewhat.

Local NFLE players are more likely to be on rosters during pre-season, so you could actually see some of them in action against normal players.

 

[mike11162]

Would they automatically drop a preseason game, move the schedule ahead or back an extra week (17 games in 18 weeks), or would they just eliminate the bye weeks (so 17 games in 17 weeks each team)?

 

[massraider]

This is a money grab, pure and simple by the league. I cannot blame any businessmen for looking to make more money, but I think expanding globally is a big task.

If they were to attempt it, I'd obviously like to see one less preseason game, and would prefer all teams out of the country at the same time, let them do it all one week, and give everyone the same level playing field.

 

[Slingblade]

Goodell is a grade-A idiot.

 

[radballs]

Think of it from the perspective of an owner of your team. If you can get 6% more revenue without much in terms of additional costs, why not do it? And as a fan, why would you not want the season to be longer? I'd love it personally.

 

[radballs]

Goodell is a grade-A idiot.

Why?