John Clayton: 18-game season off the table.

[Wood]

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

there are several ways to look at that. Right now...if you get off to bad start after few weeks your done. In 18 game season...you would see more teams who started off bad recovering and making a run late. I wasnt against the 18 game season as pre-season is painful and already marketed (ie jerry preseason circus) in such a way it feels alot like NFL games.

 

[zrinkill]

16 games is plenty.

If they want to lengthen the season ..... they should have more bi-weeks to stretch the season out.

 

[Stautner]

Two points I want to address.


That's just it. Injuries are a part of the NFL. So the question then becomes what is so significant about injuries in week 17 and 18 that would support an argument against adding two more regular season games, especially if injuries are par for the course?

The injuries aren't happening merely because you add two more regular season games. The injuries are a part of a violent sport.

But if you take this tack, then what would be significant about injuries in weeks 19 and 20, or weeks 27 and 28? I'm not saying you can prevent injuries or that they aren't part of the NFL, but what happens as seasons go longer and more injuries occur, that is less time a team has with starting players and more time backups have to play, thus watering down the product.

Again, 18 games may not have a dramatic effect in this regard (although it will have some), but it is a step toward more and more.

And, again, if a person feels that 18 games is it and expanding the season wont come up again for 15-20 years, then 18 game probably isn't a big thing, but I personally don't believe that. As I said before, it's a different era than when expansion occurred in the 1970's - mass media and access to the public is greater, and people have dramatically more disposable income. I think the owners want to tap into that more and more and more, and I think going to 18 games is just a step in the owners push for more and more

Of course, you understand the reverse logic here? You're arguing that the league shouldn't add two regular season games because of the injury factor. You also argue that injuries happen in every week of the season. So why not REDUCE games if you're so worried about injuries?

IMO, you just argued yourself out of not only a 17, 18 game season but also a 16 or 14 game season. Of course, if there's no difference, then why not add two more regular season games.

Apparently you didn't read my last post completely - I addressed this.

Wrong. The Cowboys routine played more than 18 games in the 90s. So did the Bills. So did the Patriots 2000. So did the Steelers 2000. So did the Colts in 2000. So did the Niners in the 80s. So did the Cowboys and Steelers in the 70s/80s.

One could look at those squads and study the injury rate on those teams to determine whether, indeed, adding additional games result in more injuries. Whether that study has been done, I don't know.

Do you really think there is even the slightest chance that teams in the 1970's and 1980's went through the playoffs with no injuries? Come on, be realistic. Heck, you can go back and look at the week by week injury reports online these days, and there is NEVER a week that goes by that new names aren't on the injury report. And besides, the two added weeks of games we are talking about isn't just restricted to a limited number of playoff games, the number of which goes down each week as teams are eliminated - this is adding 2 more games to every team, thuse more injuries than just a handful of playoff teams.

And yees, teams played 18 games, but that can't be helped unless anyone wants to advocate eliminating the playoffs, which is ridiculous. The difference is, playoffs are essential to bring the season to a logical conclusion, but 18 regular season games is not. I am not saying all risk can be avoided, and I'm not trying to steer things that way. I get pissed off enough at the way the rules are starting to "pussify" the game. I'm just saying there are things that are necessary for a meaningful regular season and playoff structure, and that injuries are part of that, but adding 18 games is not necessary, and therefore I don't see the point of the added risk.

Also keep in mind that I have not pinned all my thoughts about this subject solely on a concern for the health of the players. I also think there is a point the season gets too long, there is a point that it is overlapping and competing too much with other sports, and there is a point of oversaturation. Again, I'm not necessarily saying 18 games does all that, just that I believe it is a step in the owners design to push more and more and potentially to a point that can all happen.

 

[casmith07]

Click Here! Off the table!

 

[Rogah]

yea, and i've said all you reference above but i'm in no way going BALLISTIC over this. i just don't see the value or need.

So you don't see value in getting more of a sport that we all love? Gotta disagree with you there.

also:
Originally Posted by Doomsday101 [URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][/URL][/URL]
So then player’s health means nothing, all the talk of safety by the NFL means nothing.

it's a point, nothing more. you're the one who's making it as if dooms is saying the sky is falling. maybe you WANT to read it that way but i don't see him doing the drama dance you accuse him of.

So you don't see statements like "player's health means nothing (to the owners)" as a bit of a drama dance? Again, gotta disagree.

When you're ready to talk somewhere in the middle about this, cool. until then i think i need to move along cause you're the one stirring up drama around this - not the people who oppose it for their own reasons.

I am (and shall continue) respectfully stating my point on this issue. And when the players once again take the field, whenever that may be, I know that I'll be watching and enjoying football whether it be 16 or 18.

 

[Rogah]

the point is there is no "magical number" here. but a line has to be drawn. how many games can a body take? didn't we have a former player committ suicide just to donate his brain to science to help players who suffer after their time is over?

Yes, we did. So I guess according to you, that means we should go back to 14 games.

wow. but a few more games won't mean anything to the players, right? these injuries are no big deal, just a part of the game, right?

that explains all the rules to *protect* the players does it not? how many football games *should* someone be expected to play a year w/o breaks?

i keep forgetting, you won't answer that.

Yes, I have answered it. I want a season with 2 preseason games, 1 week off, then 18 games in 20 weeks, followed by the current format of a 12 team playoff.

 

[Rogah]

and when they went to 16 there was no evidence of going to 18 then, was there?

I honestly wasn't around back then. I don't remember the changeover.

no. that comes later as they continue to search for revenue to milk the fans who already pay too much, imho.

For someone who said he wasn't going to be participating in this thread anymore, you're sure doing a lot of participating.

 

[Rogah]

I keep hearing that it will dilute the talent, but the NFL has added teams throughout its history and yet the popularity of the NFL has not only increased but the league still produces dominant teams, see the 80s Niners, 90s Cowboys, the 2000 Patriots.

The phrase "dilute the talent" is one of those ridiculously vague, nonsensical terms that people use to try and prove some sort of point because there's no way whatsoever to measure it empirically.

 

[Rogah]

16 games is plenty.

If they want to lengthen the season ..... they should have more bi-weeks to stretch the season out.

The problem with that is you often have a situation where you just can't carry a full slate of good games. They tried having 2 bye weeks one season (1993) but it created a situation where a lot of weekends were too thin to support a major late afternoon game broadcast to most of the nation plus the 2 big major national games on Sunday and Monday nights.

 

[tyke1doe]

But if you take this tack, then what would be significant about injuries in weeks 19 and 20, or weeks 27 and 28? I'm not saying you can prevent injuries or that they aren't part of the NFL, but what happens as seasons go longer and more injuries occur, that is less time a team has with starting players and more time backups have to play, thus watering down the product.

But that's the case now, isn't it? You just made the argument that injuries occur every week. Yet teams have to overcome those injuries. Heck, the Packers overcame such injuries and won a Super Bowl.

Sorry, but I'm not really seeing your point.

Again, 18 games may not have a dramatic effect in this regard (although it will have some), but it is a step toward more and more.

We don't know this, though. It has taken the league nearly 30 years to move from 14 to 16 games. I don't see why we would move to more games. Remember, all the major sports leagues have exhibition games. With 18 games, teams would only have two preseason games to iron things out until the regular season. I doubt the league will take those two games and expand to a 20 game regular season.

And, again, if a person feels that 18 games is it and expanding the season wont come up again for 15-20 years, then 18 game probably isn't a big thing, but I personally don't believe that.

Well, I don't believe the game will move beyond 18 games for the reasons I stated above.

As I said before, it's a different era than when expansion occurred in the 1970's - mass media and access to the public is greater, and people have dramatically more disposable income. I think the owners want to tap into that more and more and more, and I think going to 18 games is just a step in the owners push for more and more

But aren't they making more already with the preseason games? And people may have more disposable income, but they have more distractions also. It's not a given that the NFL is going to get that money.

Apparently you didn't read my last post completely - I addressed this.

I read it. I just don't feel your explanation was adequate. Be that as it may, this may be an agree-to-disagree moment.

Do you really think there is even the slightest chance that teams in the 1970's and 1980's went through the playoffs with no injuries? Come on, be realistic.

Who said they didn't have injuries? I'm asking for the rate of injury. If one is going to make an argument that injuries would increase adding two more games, then that's an argument that should be supported by quantitative data not individual data.

Be that as it may, I don't remember too many starting quarterbacks, receivers or defenders, i.e., the big stars, missing much playoff time. But maybe I just missed those situations.

Heck, you can go back and look at the week by week injury reports online these days, and there is NEVER a week that goes by that new names aren't on the injury report. And besides, the two added weeks of games we are talking about isn't just restricted to a limited number of playoff games, the number of which goes down each week as teams are eliminated - this is adding 2 more games to every team, thuse more injuries than just a handful of playoff teams.

I'm sorry, but I just don't find that argument convincing. We shouldn't add two more games because players get injuried every week? If you're worried about player injury, why even play football? I really don't see how adding two more games changes the dynamic any more than playing just 10 games.

And yees, teams played 18 games, but that can't be helped unless anyone wants to advocate eliminating the playoffs, which is ridiculous. The difference is, playoffs are essential to bring the season to a logical conclusion, but 18 regular season games is not. I am not saying all risk can be avoided, and I'm not trying to steer things that way. I get pissed off enough at the way the rules are starting to "pussify" the game. I'm just saying there are things that are necessary for a meaningful regular season and playoff structure, and that injuries are part of that, but adding 18 games is not necessary, and therefore I don't see the point of the added risk.

Actually, 18 games would bring an end to the season just as 16 games does. I really don't understand your point.

Also keep in mind that I have not pinned all my thoughts about this subject solely on a concern for the health of the players. I also think there is a point the season gets too long, there is a point that it is overlapping and competing too much with other sports, and there is a point of oversaturation. Again, I'm not necessarily saying 18 games does all that, just that I believe it is a step in the owners design to push more and more and potentially to a point that can all happen.

Well, given the fact that basketball plays more than 80 regular season games and baseball more than that (not to mention exhibition games), the football season has already been intruded upon.

 

[iceberg]

Yes, we did. So I guess according to you, that means we should go back to 14 games.
Yes, I have answered it. I want a season with 2 preseason games, 1 week off, then 18 games in 20 weeks, followed by the current format of a 12 team playoff.

this is what makes talking to you so damn frustrating.

did i EVER say go back to 14?

HELL NO.

yet you want to put words in my mouth so you can support your own argument. either let me speak my own mind or just shut up and move on w/o me.

 

[zrinkill]

I am happy because I do not want Emmitt's record broken.

 

[iceberg]

I am happy because I do not want Emmitt's record broken.

i brought up records and was promptly told by the 18+ crowd that this isn't baseball.

wow. did you know that zrin, this isn't baseball? the revelations that come through in here are astounding.

and records are important. HOF balloting, pro bowl, team and individual records, top offense, top defense... all those are things we keep track of and 2 more games changes how you must view those records and accomplishmennts.

i admit fully i'm disappointed when the season is over but sooner or later all shows end. the overall question of health of players, what they want (and to date i've not heard many players go YES TWO MORE GAMES!!!) and the rare and few fans who are happy with where we are. but somehow to the terminally thoughtless, this means i want 14 games. or 12. shakespere to a dog man.

i see 2 more games not as a destination but a path to more and more greed and coming after my $$$. if this can't happen then explain to me how hockey took a nosedive then they outpriced themselves from the market and hell, hockey is what, 6 months long in their own season?

i still see pay per view as an option many years down the road when they've milked all other opportunity. the entire argument of "growing the business" is great on paper but you can grow in many ways without simply going to the most obvious.

i lost total interest in baseball for almost a decade because i was tired of the bickering among millioniares for money. football is fading to me now for the same reasons.

 

[Arch Stanton]

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
One thing to clarify on the @DeSmithNFLPA comments from last night, he said the players said "no" to 18 games, not that it's off the table.
34 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

 

[Rogah]

this is what makes talking to you so damn frustrating.

Is someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to respond? Feel free to drop out of the conversation anytime you want (like you already said you were going to).

did i EVER say go back to 14?

HELL NO.

Did I EVER say go up to 20 regular season (or higher)? HELL NO.

 

[Rogah]

i brought up records and was promptly told by the 18+ crowd that this isn't baseball.

wow. did you know that zrin, this isn't baseball? the revelations that come through in here are astounding.

and records are important. HOF balloting, pro bowl, team and individual records, top offense, top defense... all those are things we keep track of and 2 more games changes how you must view those records and accomplishmennts.

Sorry, but you either don't follow football, don't follow baseball, or don't follow either.

When Cal Ripken challenged (and broke) Lou Gherig's consecutive game streak, it became a national obsession. When Mark McGwire challenged (and broke) Roger Maris' single season HR record it became a national obsession. When Barry Bonds challenged (and broke) Hank Aaron's all time HR record, it became a national obsession.

Nobody has ever gotten anywhere near as excited over an NFL record. When Favre broke Marino's all time TD record a couple years ago, it was little more than an "oh by the way" moment.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Sorry, but you either don't follow football, don't follow baseball, or don't follow either.

When Cal Ripken challenged (and broke) Lou Gherig's consecutive game streak, it became a national obsession. When Mark McGwire challenged (and broke) Roger Maris' single season HR record it became a national obsession. When Barry Bonds challenged (and broke) Hank Aaron's all time HR record, it became a national obsession.

Nobody has ever gotten anywhere near as excited over an NFL record. When Favre broke Marino's all time TD record a couple years ago, it was little more than an "oh by the way" moment.

NFL records are just not that important. Eventually the league will expand to more games (if not this CBA, then in the next one), so eventually all the records will be broken.

There is some kid in the 4th grade right now that is going to shatter Emmit's rushing record or Favre's "iron man" record.

 

[casmith07]

Sorry, but you either don't follow football, don't follow baseball, or don't follow either.

When Cal Ripken challenged (and broke) Lou Gherig's consecutive game streak, it became a national obsession. When Mark McGwire challenged (and broke) Roger Maris' single season HR record it became a national obsession. When Barry Bonds challenged (and broke) Hank Aaron's all time HR record, it became a national obsession.

Nobody has ever gotten anywhere near as excited over an NFL record. When Favre broke Marino's all time TD record a couple years ago, it was little more than an "oh by the way" moment.

People got excited for the INT record though :laugh1:

 

[big dog cowboy]

People got excited for the INT record though :laugh1:

I know I did.


:bounce:

 

[DallasEast]

Sorry, but you either don't follow football, don't follow baseball, or don't follow either.

When Cal Ripken challenged (and broke) Lou Gherig's consecutive game streak, it became a national obsession. When Mark McGwire challenged (and broke) Roger Maris' single season HR record it became a national obsession. When Barry Bonds challenged (and broke) Hank Aaron's all time HR record, it became a national obsession.

Nobody has ever gotten anywhere near as excited over an NFL record. When Favre broke Marino's all time TD record a couple years ago, it was little more than an "oh by the way" moment.

Brett Favre eclipsed Dan Marino's record in twelve years. The popularity surrounding that broken record and the others you mentioned are subjective.

Lou Gehrig's record wasn't overtaken by thousands and thousands of players for 56 years. A much better comparison will be made once an NFL player catches Brett Favre's consecutive starts record.

The sports world was mesmerized by Mark McGwire, Ken Griffey Jr. and Sammy Sosa attempting to break not only Roger Maris ASTERISK record (which stood 37 years), but that of Babe Ruth's. Why? All three players were hitting balls out of the park at a blistering pace which could (and did) bring down the record in less than 152 games--which Ruth had attained 51 years prior. The closest NFL comparison which I can think of in short order would be three running backs competing to break the single season rushing touchdown record during the same year.

Funny that you mention Roger "Mr. Asterisk" Maris in this particular thread.

Maybe the next running back who threatens Emmitt Smith's all-time rushing record will be widely rumor to be juicing as well and under both intense media and governmental scrutiny. Barry Bonds would have still gotten a lot of attention from sports fans regardless, but their attention would have most likely peaked only around the time the record fell--and not every day with the chase being overly hyped along with the latest Balco query.

Maybe we'll return to the central topic surrounding the increase in regular season games where analogies such as Jim Brown's and Emmitt's all-time rushing records are much better comparisons.