John Clayton: 18-game season off the table.

[Plankton]

I see people throwing out ridiculous hypotheticals about what "could" happen in an 18 game season, when the same ridiculous hypotheticals already could theoretically happen - but chances are we'll never see them in our lifetimes.

If a team loses all 6 divisional games but somehow manages to have the best record in the division, then they won that division fair and square so I don't even see what the problem is. And if a team, like the Raiders, wins all 6 division games but stinks it up against everyone else, they don't deserve to win the division.

Not sure what is ridiculous about the situation I raised. My point is divisional play should have greater emphasis, and it will have less with an expanded season in the same divisional setup.

If you think that teams should win a division based more on their play outside the division, then we're not going to agree on this issue.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Then why go to 18 if not for your own personal reason? Other than you like watching the games how does 18 improve the game? It doesn't.

Yes, I enjoy watching games. Would you prefer going back to 12 games? I'm sure the same argument occurred in 1978. Which side of the fence were you on then?

As for how does 18 games improve the game? It doesn't, each game is played one by one. No amount of games improves a single game.

 

[jimmy40]

I'm not saying we should have fewer game only that 16 is more than enough. It seems your own selfish views is for your own personal entertainment and other than that I give me a reason why they should go to 18? You like watching the game and that is a good enough reason? Please

I admit that my selfish personal entertainment goals makes me want an 18 game schedule. Why shouldn't that be a good enough reason?

 

[YosemiteSam]

In reality if your team is winning you are ready for the playoffs by week 14. If your team is out of it, you are ready for it to be over by week 14.

18 would be just silly IMO, no use whatsoever!

16 is silly too when the season used to be 12 games. ...right?

 

[jimmy40]

Yes, I enjoy watching games. Would you prefer going back to 12 games? I'm sure the same argument occurred in 1978. Which side of the fence were you on then?

As for how does 18 games improve the game? It doesn't, each game is played one by one. No amount of games improves a single game.

All the same arguments were made against going to 16 games they just weren't made on internet forums. I think the NFL survived.

 

[Doomsday101]

Yes, I enjoy watching games. Would you prefer going back to 12 games? I'm sure the same argument occurred in 1978. Which said of the fence were you on then?

As for how does 18 games improve the game? It doesn't, each game is played one by one. No amount of games improves a single game.

If it is not going to improve the product and only add to the the toll placed on players then why do it? As I said 16 is enough.

I also think getting rid of the 2 pre season games will be a mistake because in the end pre season is not so much for the vets outside of the last 2 games as it is for the guys who are trying to make it in the NFL and for those whose only action during the season will be pre season games

 

[aikemirv]

16 is silly too when the season used to be 12 games. ...right?

Actually I think 14 is a good number and 16 is not necessary. 12 is a bit short.

 

[Doomsday101]

I admit that my selfish personal entertainment goals makes me want an 18 game schedule. Why shouldn't that be a good enough reason?

At least you admit it for me I would rather do things that are good for the game not what is good for me.

 

[jimmy40]

At least you admit it for me I would rather do things that are good for the game not what is good for me.

How about shortening the season to 10 games? There would be more division games than non, division games mean more, every game means more, less injuries, longer careers, less crippled players after they retire. I really see no reason for more than 10 games other than all of our selfish personal entertainment goals.

 

[tyke1doe]

16 games is more than enough. Can you imagine our season this year with two extra games knowing we can't clinch the playoffs?

And two more games to fret winning as to ruin our draft status.

 

[Doomsday101]

How about shortening the season to 10 games? There would be more division games than non, division games mean more, every game means more, less injuries, longer careers, less crippled players after they retire. I really see no reason for more than 10 games other than all of our selfish personal entertainment goals.

Fewer would be better than more, however players are content with 16 games along with having a bye week.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I think us arguing the point is moot. We don't make this decisions. The players and owners do. What we think is irrelevant and pointless.

 

[Stautner]

All the same arguments were made against going to 16 games they just weren't made on internet forums. I think the NFL survived.

That argument makes no sense moving forward though, because if it did then it wouldn't matter if we had 18 games, or 22 games or 42 games. It just doesn't make sense to argue that because the league survived the last increase we should just keep going higher.

What I've always said about this is that if the NFL were in a position where the financial viability of the league was becoming questionable and steps had to be taken to improve the product, then the league should consider whatever steps needed to be taken, and if adding games was the solution they should go for it. But when the league is having no such problems, and since adding games obviously adds physical risk to players and increases the chance of teams going to the playoffs with star players not available, then what is the point? I don't want to see greed for more and more and more start to hurt the product.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

According to John Clayton on Dari and Mel today, the 18-game regular season is pretty much off the table at CBA negotiations.

So rejoice, I guess...I hope he's right.

I think the owners did that on purpose. played it like that's the only way. focused on it but their goal all along was more money, so the players would give up part of the 60% they are getting.

nice manuvering by the owners.

 

[dogberry]

My assumption is that the owners do not believe their teams are earning enough given their values.

They made a bad deal with the previous CBA, and they want a good deal now.

 

[baj1dallas]

The expanded rosters won't cost the owners anything. Once they figure out that X% of revenue goes to the players, it won't matter if every team has 47, 55 or 63 players on the roster.

What I really don't get is why you have 53 on the roster but only 45 active. Who does that even benefit? Allowing 53 or at least 50 to be active would reduce injuries (hopefully) and you're already paying them anyway. I don't understand who benefits by only having 45 active.

 

[iceberg]

16 is silly too when the season used to be 12 games. ...right?

well hell, by that logic let's just pull a hockey stunt and make the season 6 months long.

 

[Doomsday101]

What I really don't get is why you have 53 on the roster but only 45 active. Who does that even benefit? Allowing 53 or at least 50 to be active would reduce injuries (hopefully) and you're already paying them anyway. I don't understand who benefits by only having 45 active.

I agree. If you a member of the team I think you should be active period. Why have a 53 man roster if only 45 can dress?

 

[Rogah]

In reality if your team is winning you are ready for the playoffs by week 14. If your team is out of it, you are ready for it to be over by week 14.

18 would be just silly IMO, no use whatsoever!

Whuh huh? There are an awful lot of teams that go into week 14 on the bubble, i.e. they're not out of it but they're certainly not locked in. And even the teams who have clinched the playoffs by then are usually still jockeying for seeding.

 

[Rogah]

Not sure what is ridiculous about the situation I raised.

Because your hypothetical creates a situation we have never seen before and even if they go to 18 games, likely will never see anytime in our lifetimes - and even if we do see it, it will never be more than a once-every-25-years oddity. So I don't see it as a valid reason to oppose an 18 game season.

If you think that teams should win a division based more on their play outside the division, then we're not going to agree on this issue.

This isn't college, where only your conference games are factored into your conference record. I think NFL teams should win a division based on their total record which, obviously, includes 6 division games and 10 non-divisional games. A don't see a shift to 6 and 12 as being a huge factor.