John Clayton: 18-game season off the table.

[Chevyman08]

I'm hoping for an 18 real game season with 2 less preseason games. The more football the better. I cannot understand why fans wouldn't want more football.

 

[casmith07]

In my opinion, if you're going to expand it, you might as well make it 20. That way the .500 record is 10-10, and not 9-9. 9-9 just sounds nasty.

 

[Stautner]

I'm hoping for an 18 real game season with 2 less preseason games. The more football the better. I cannot understand why fans wouldn't want more football.

If "more football" were the only consideration, why not 20 games or 30 games?

But there are other considerations. One is the increased number of injuries each season. That's been discussed. The other is the possibility of having to water down the product by playing more second level players to cover for injured players or to share time with regular players to lessen the wear and tear. Another is that in order to be a financially viable entity the NFL has to rely on the support of more than just the one sport fan who would watch football year around. Many NFL fans are also NBA fans, and/or MLB fans and/or NHL fans, and the NFL doesn't need to try and force fans to choose - they don't need too much direct competition for the attention of fans.

 

[casmith07]

This was simply an owner scheme to try and get more milk from the cow.

This is my biggest beef with the 18 game thing.

 

[Stautner]

This is my biggest beef with the 18 game thing.

Of course the owners have a herd mentality, but if they were the ones having to worry about getting bull rushed by a stampede of oncoming defenders they may not be so willing to brand the players as overpaid and selfish, and they may quit viewing them as pieces of meat.

 

[DallasEast]

was it me or did he just disagree with me then agree with your post that agreed with mine?

this isn't a good day to try and keep up with such shenanagins. is even close to spelled correctly?

anyway - i'm not really going to get into the point. like i said before XX number of games is some arbitrary number that fans will argue for or against based on their own desires. i personally think 4 months of football is enough. Tag on another month for playoffs and then 3 weeks for probowl and superbowl and we've already gone into 5+ months of football.

when i asked rogah about it all i got was a circle jerk of trying to use my own logic against me. great, but i was not fighting to reduce the schedule, but keep it where it was. so telling me we can drop back as an answer to my not wanting to add to is kinda a pointless diversion i don't want to play in.

as for no one caring about the records, i will guffaw and disagree. if we didn't care we'd not have them now would we? and if someone were to beat emmitts rushing title w/an 18 or 20 game season, you damn well better believe people would want that noted.

i'll ask again - when is enough enough? i don't want to move back to a 4 game season so leave stupidity at the door on this reply. we're talking about adding to the season, NOT taking it away.

when do we have enough games to call it a season, rogah?

He used a portion of my post to strengthen his discussion point and ignored my attached question.

I feel ... I feel ... somehow violated ...

 

[Rogah]

......

If you're asking me if I would be satisfied, well let's just say I will be watching football every week whether it's 17 weeks (16 games) or 20 weeks (18 games). I am personally hoping for 18 games but I am certainly not going to swear off football if they stay with 16.

 

[Rogah]

Another truth is that if you screw with a good thing long enough it can and will be damaged. As I said before, if there was a compelling reason to screw with what we hav - if the NFL was struggling for example - the it would make sense to start playing with the status quo. But when the league is strong and the status quo is working and the money is abundant, then why risk screwing with it? We know there will be more injuries, including serious ones and including ones to star players, so why risk that when there is no compelling reason to do so?

There are about a billion compelling reasons to move to 18 games.

 

[big dog cowboy]

There are about a billion compelling reasons to move to 18 games.

And not a single one makes any damn sense.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

NFL went from 14 to 16.
So WHAT is the big deal?


16 to 18 will happen.


Human opinion/whining, player whining, etc.... will not stop globalization of the NFL.

 

[DallasEast]

If you're asking me if I would be satisfied, well let's just say I will be watching football every week whether it's 17 weeks (16 games) or 20 weeks (18 games). I am personally hoping for 18 games but I am certainly not going to swear off football if they stay with 16.

Honestly, I wouldn't ask anyone to swear off football for any reason. That's not really it. My question asks if all options for extending the regular season beyond sixteen games were gone, would you be satisfied?

It's an easy answer for me. I'm perfectly satisfied with the current format. Not 99% satisfied. 100% satisfied.

 

[iceberg]

There are about a billion compelling reasons to move to 18 games.

so name 5.

 

[dogberry]

Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Abe Lincoln, Salmon P. Chase... .

I wasn't beaten enough as a kid.

 

[Stautner]

There are about a billion compelling reasons to move to 18 games.

yet you are at a loss to name any of them?

 

[Rogah]

yet you are at a loss to name any of them?

I thought my point was obvious but enough people in here questioned it so I take full responsibility for not being clear and I apologize. Let me rephrase:

There are about $1 billion reasons why the league wants to make this change. To say there is no reason to do it ignores financial and economic realities.

 

[Primetime42]

Sadly, putting it in those terms makes a lot more sense.

 

[Stautner]

I thought my point was obvious but enough people in here questioned it so I take full responsibility for not being clear and I apologize. Let me rephrase:

There are about $1 billion reasons why the league wants to make this change. To say there is no reason to do it ignores financial and economic realities.

1st, where does the $1 billion number come from? Has someone determined that is the added revenue from 2 more weeks of football.

2nd, nobody has denied that the league can make some additional money from 2 more weeks of football, but with the league being financially solid now, and therefore hurting for additional revenue (which would be a "compelling reason"), and knowing there is a point of diminishing returns, and with consideration to the toll to the teams and players that additional injuries may cause, and with the big chunk of the additioinal revenue that would go to the players under a CBA, is there really as much upside as all that, especially relative to the risks? All told, that $1 billion, if that is a true number, can get pared down real quickly.

 

[tyke1doe]

so name 5.

1. NFL teams already play 20 games, 4 in the preseason. The owners are still collecting money for preseason games but producing an inferior quality of game. Why not make 2 of those 4 preseason games more competitive?

2. The extra 2 games will give the league and teams more leverage to negotiate larger contracts with the networks as well as allow owners to raise ticket prices, pumping more revenue into the NFL's coffers and, presumably, into the pockets of athletes.

3. I'm not a gambling person so this doesn't apply to me. But 2 extra games further stimulates the economy, particularly Las Vegas, which has 2 more meaningful games to offer to the general betting population.

4. Two more games add more drama to the NFL season, since playoff positioning often comes down to the final weeks.

5. Two more games allows a team to play 2 more interconference game, a game and rivalry fans wouldn't get to see a given year.

6. With the advancement of medicine and medical technology, a player could be injuried at the beginning of the year and return within the year of his injury. With 2 more games, a Tony Romo could possibly return in week 16 to either help his team make a playoff run or test his injury to see if he's recovered fully enough.

7. More meaningful football for the general public and the fan.

8. Expanding the season expands the roster. More young men get a chance to be a part of a NFL club and possibly be discovered. The argument about watering down the talent really is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. The talent will still rise to the top, teams will have to adjust accordingly and somebody's going to make the most of the situation and their talent to win the Super Bowl.

Look, I'm not saying that there aren't negatives, but there are positives also. As for two games adding more injuries, I don't think that's necessarily true.

First, playoff teams are going to be playing a maximum 24 games (if they're a wildcard team that reaches the Super Bowl). They're going to play a minimum 21 games. I'd like to see the injury rate of consistent playoff teams who've had to play 21 games a season.

Second, NFL players start a portion of the first two playoff games then play substantially more in the last two games. But it all equals out at the end of the season. Those teams not in the playoffs can adjust by pulling some of their starters and letting backups have more time. It gives them a chance to evaluate talent for next season. Teams that have clinched a playoff and bye generally treat the end of the season like the preseason, resting their starters.
There's enough flexibility in the schedule to rest players.

 

[Stautner]

1. NFL teams already play 20 games, 4 in the preseason. The owners are still collecting money for preseason games but producing an inferior quality of game. Why not make 2 of those 4 preseason games more competitive?

2. The extra 2 games will give the league and teams more leverage to negotiate larger contracts with the networks as well as allow owners to raise ticket prices, pumping more revenue into the NFL's coffers and, presumably, into the pockets of athletes.

3. I'm not a gambling person so this doesn't apply to me. But 2 extra games further stimulates the economy, particularly Las Vegas, which has 2 more meaningful games to offer to the general betting population.

4. Two more games add more drama to the NFL season, since playoff positioning often comes down to the final weeks.

5. Two more games allows a team to play 2 more interconference game, a game and rivalry fans wouldn't get to see a given year.

6. With the advancement of medicine and medical technology, a player could be injuried at the beginning of the year and return within the year of his injury. With 2 more games, a Tony Romo could possibly return in week 16 to either help his team make a playoff run or test his injury to see if he's recovered fully enough.

7. More meaningful football for the general public and the fan.

8. Expanding the season expands the roster. More young men get a chance to be a part of a NFL club and possibly be discovered. The argument about watering down the talent really is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. The talent will still rise to the top, teams will have to adjust accordingly and somebody's going to make the most of the situation and their talent to win the Super Bowl.

Look, I'm not saying that there aren't negatives, but there are positives also. As for two games adding more injuries, I don't think that's necessarily true.

First, playoff teams are going to be playing a maximum 24 games (if they're a wildcard team that reaches the Super Bowl). They're going to play a minimum 21 games. I'd like to see the injury rate of consistent playoff teams who've had to play 21 games a season.

Second, NFL players start a portion of the first two playoff games then play substantially more in the last two games. But it all equals out at the end of the season. Those teams not in the playoffs can adjust by pulling some of their starters and letting backups have more time. It gives them a chance to evaluate talent for next season. Teams that have clinched a playoff and bye generally treat the end of the season like the preseason, resting their starters.
There's enough flexibility in the schedule to rest players.

It would be hard to argue that most of these are "compelling reasons". Suupporting Las Vegas, giving more jobs to marginal players, and raising ticket prices fans have to pay certainly don't qualify. I don't think adding drama applies - the last few weeks have the same dramatic affect whether in an 18 or 16 game season, meanwhile the early to middle of the season will actually have less drama because each loss or win isn't going to have as much of an effect on the season since it only affects 1/18 of the season rather than 1/16.

 

[Stautner]

Jerry Jones Says a 22-Game Season Would Be Doable

By KEN BELSONThe N.F.L. will have no trouble playing 18 and even more regular-season games if it can persuade the players to accept an expanded schedule, Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, said Tuesday.​

“It’s something we certainly have had the ability to do,” Jones said at a news conference in Dallas. “We’ve had the ability to go to 22 games, had we wanted to as owners without anybody’s approval. We haven’t done that without the approval of players. Certainly, we want players to buy into what we do on a going-forward basis.”​

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/jerry-jones-says-a-22-game-season-would-be-doable/

This gives credence to my concern that going to 18 games is just a stepping stone to more and more. Do the owners have a Napolean/Hitler complex and want to take over the sports world? Do they intend to try and steamroll other sports for viewership? If so, they are destined to do serious damage to their product.