18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I am completely against it. I think 16 games is enough and I think as Carson Palmer pointed out additional games dilute the meaning of each game played. One thing about football that doesn’t really translate to any other team sport is the importance each game holds. People bitch and complain when teams rest their starters for the last game of the season after they have locked up a playoff spot. I think that practice will increase.

I get the argument from a season ticket holders persepective, but honestly 16 games is enough. I mean Goodwell is already making the game less physical, if 18 games comes about Im sure its going to get even worse.

unless youre one of those fans that ignore the preseason altogether and pretend it doesnt exist, nothing is being diluted. we're not adding any games. were taking two completely meaningless preseason games and moving them to a meaningful regular season.

as far as the regular season itself goes, adding two games won't dilute the meaning of each game appreciably. its not like were talking about turning into football, baseball or hockey, and playing 4 games a week for six months. we're just shifting two games around in the existing schedule.

[Monkeydad]

I'm going to say NO, plus adding that we should reduce the preseason to 3 games while keeping the 16 game schedule.

A 2-game preseason would not be enough for evaluation purposes for roster battles, which I think is the main purpose for the exhibition games.

However, I think 18 games, unless they build in 2 bye weeks per team and expanded rosters to say, 57 or 58 players, is too much of a physical toll on the players, especially teams in the playoffs.

We don't want to be watching 3rd-string players in the playoffs and late battles for postseason berths.

Also, we don't want to end up shortening players' careers, especially RBs, by a year or two just to have a longer season.

[rypper11]

Having an 18 game season would make a developmental league even more important. Eliminating or reducing training camp and reducing preseason would hamper the shot of undrafted rookies and other longshots. This should further increase team revenue. My idea of this is each team in the developmental league has players allocated by NFL teams and play on Saturdays. Ex. Skins and Ravens each allocate 20 players to a team that plays on Saturdays in the Fall after the NFL season starts for 10 weeks. Thus, each team can have 73 players (allow 50 to dress on Sundays) while the other 20 can be brought to the active roster after the developmental league season is over. If a team wants to sign one of the Skins allocated players to their current roster the Skins have the right to either put him on their roster or let him go to the new team.

[Lotus]

I think that this whole issue will make negotiations for a new CBA very difficult. The owners are planting the seeds for player dissatisfaction and resistance.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I think that this whole issue will make negotiations for a new CBA very difficult. The owners are planting the seeds for player dissatisfaction and resistance.

I agree. Even if they get more money, say on an annual basis, their leaders can turn right around and say that theres a good chance that some of you are going to end up loosing a year or two on your career. In other words you make more money playing 10 sixteen game season then you do playing 8 eighteen game seasons.

Originally Posted by irish

Speaking of riding a player too hard there's a good article in Sports Illustrated about RBs. Basically it says the era of the big franchise back is over as the NFL is a QB & passing league now. Its pretty much get a RB and run him into the ground and then plug someone else in. Shanny had a quote where he says you need great players in some positions but RB isnt one of them. Also RB is now one of the lowest paid positions reflecting the organizations not wanting to drop a lot of $ on a revolving door position.

Makes you wonder. Back in the day guys like Ryan Matthews might have been considered a steal in the top 10. Now it's, 'well at 14 he's a great pick but maybe they could have got him a little later.'

[irish]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

I agree. Even if they get more money, say on an annual basis, their leaders can turn right around and say that theres a good chance that some of you are going to end up loosing a year or two on your career. In other words you make more money playing 10 sixteen game season then you do playing 8 eighteen game seasons.




Makes you wonder. Back in the day guys like Ryan Matthews might have been considered a steal in the top 10. Now it's, 'well at 14 he's a great pick but maybe they could have got him a little later.'

Yes. I think coaches are starting to not see any reason to use a high pick on a plug in position. High picks are now for QBs, LTs, CBs & DEs.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

I agree. Even if they get more money, say on an annual basis, their leaders can turn right around and say that theres a good chance that some of you are going to end up loosing a year or two on your career. In other words you make more money playing 10 sixteen game season then you do playing 8 eighteen game seasons.




Makes you wonder. Back in the day guys like Ryan Matthews might have been considered a steal in the top 10. Now it's, 'well at 14 he's a great pick but maybe they could have got him a little later.'

The players right now are paid based on their being available to play in anywhere from 20 to 25 games per season (HOF game, pre-season, regular season, post season). Under the new system, players will be paid based on their being available to play in anywhere from 20 to 25 games per season. Therefore, I don't think players careers will necessarily be any shorter.

Further, its almost certain that the modified NFL season will include provisions to increase roster sizes, practice squad sizes, and game day roster sizes. Having more players available to take snaps means less snaps will be available to each individual player. I would actually think the modified season would ultimately wind up extending careers. For example, instead of teams using primarily one or two primary running backs during the season, they'll split the load more evenly between two or three.

[irish]

Originally Posted by rypper11

Having an 18 game season would make a developmental league even more important. Eliminating or reducing training camp and reducing preseason would hamper the shot of undrafted rookies and other longshots. This should further increase team revenue. My idea of this is each team in the developmental league has players allocated by NFL teams and play on Saturdays. Ex. Skins and Ravens each allocate 20 players to a team that plays on Saturdays in the Fall after the NFL season starts for 10 weeks. Thus, each team can have 73 players (allow 50 to dress on Sundays) while the other 20 can be brought to the active roster after the developmental league season is over. If a team wants to sign one of the Skins allocated players to their current roster the Skins have the right to either put him on their roster or let him go to the new team.

Play on Saturdays in the fall, that's when colleges play and there is no way tv will cover these teams over college football. Plus the added cost of operating these teams is something the owners will never go for. The NFL already has a developmental league called college football. It provides a steady stream of players at zero cost to the NFL. Its the perfect setup for the NFL and will not change anytime soon.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by rypper11

Having an 18 game season would make a developmental league even more important. Eliminating or reducing training camp and reducing preseason would hamper the shot of undrafted rookies and other longshots. This should further increase team revenue. My idea of this is each team in the developmental league has players allocated by NFL teams and play on Saturdays. Ex. Skins and Ravens each allocate 20 players to a team that plays on Saturdays in the Fall after the NFL season starts for 10 weeks. Thus, each team can have 73 players (allow 50 to dress on Sundays) while the other 20 can be brought to the active roster after the developmental league season is over. If a team wants to sign one of the Skins allocated players to their current roster the Skins have the right to either put him on their roster or let him go to the new team.

The NFL definitely needs a developmental league. I think an 8 team league where each NFL division can pool players from a developmental would be an interesting league.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I'm going against most here and ONLY for selfish reasons, but I'd LOVE to see the Skins an extra two games a year.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I'm going against most here and ONLY for selfish reasons, but I'd LOVE to see the Skins an extra two games a year.

Ok, against who, who are these 2 games going to be played against divisonal,in conference or out?It will water down the product ,lets just face the truth this will make the TV contracts bigger = more money for the owners and less quality football for the fan.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ok, against who, who are these 2 games going to be played against divisonal,in conference or out?It will water down the product ,lets just face the truth this will make the TV contracts bigger = more money for the owners and less quality football for the fan.

2 game is not going to water down the product. I don't even think 20 would. I think that might be the threshold where it starts getting watered down. And I would just say out-of-conference games maybe?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

2 game is not going to water down the product. I don't even think 20 would. I think that might be the threshold where it starts getting watered down. And I would just say out-of-conference games maybe?

Ok lets think about this....

Camp.......

2 Pre season games

18(plus the extra 2 weeks of practice) regular season games

2 or 3 playoff games .depending on if your a wild card befor you even play the Super Bowl, yes it will be water down their bodies can't take it .

[Fan033]

I would love to see more football but I think the toll on the players would be bad. For sure, you'd have to increase the roster.

[NYCskinfan82]

I love watching the NFL, but i think a 16 game season is enough, if you increase the games eventually you are going to water down the product just like baseball has done.