For those who claim that the NFL would suffer by dropping 2 preseason games to add 2 regular season games, how many preseason games do college football teams play? None. Why is it that college teams, who play their games where a single loss can prevent you from playing for the national championship can play without any preseason to find out who can play and who can't, but the NFL needs 4 preseason games? I see the argument that you don't always know who can play until you see them in actual game situations...yet college football doesn't play a preseason, and they get along just fine. College coaches somehow have the ability to figure out their depth charts without it...but NFL coaches can't?
NFL 18 Game Season: Good or Bad Idea?
- Thread starter Big Sexy
- Start date
smokinglizard
Dark Match Jobber
I do like the idea of more regular season games. You hit the law of diminishing returns, though. 20 games is definitely too many, right? So then is 18 too many? The big con to it, in my mind, is that so many team and season records are based on a 16 game season. Changing to an 18 game season spoils that. It's already bad enough trying to compare a guy like, say, OJ Simpson who played a 14 game season to, say, Barry Sanders who played 16.
Cactus~Clothesline
The Last Gunslinger
I'm really not a fan of this. Believe me I am all in favor of more more more football, but this just poses more problems. Injuries alone prevent me from wanting this to happen and I think most of the owners are in it for the revenue it will bring in. In the age of more and more concussions I don't think we should add any more possibilities.
Then you have the argument of, "when does it end?" I love watching the NFL because there are only so many games to prove yourself, not because the general attention span of America is at an all time low. 162 games in baseball? How many of those actually matter? The NBA has 82 and the only time anyone plays is in November, Christmas Day, and then the Playoffs.
The NFL should actually take away a game and make it a 15 week schedule which in turn would make it that much more exciting.
No to 18!
Then you have the argument of, "when does it end?" I love watching the NFL because there are only so many games to prove yourself, not because the general attention span of America is at an all time low. 162 games in baseball? How many of those actually matter? The NBA has 82 and the only time anyone plays is in November, Christmas Day, and then the Playoffs.
The NFL should actually take away a game and make it a 15 week schedule which in turn would make it that much more exciting.
No to 18!
Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
I love the idea of an 18 game schedule, and as NFL fans, you all should too. First of all, two of the meaningless preseason games that we still get charged full price for become real, important games. Yes, that may mean that Bob Johnson of Northeasten Southern North South Dakota College may have less chances to make the team, but no decisions will really be changed with 2 fewer preseason games.
I saw someone mentioned something about injuries. That is a terrible reason not to do this. Many football injuries are a part of the game, and can happen whether you play 1 game or 100. Look at Tom Brady a couple years back, he was hurt in the first game. Does that mean that we should eliminate the regular season all together because he was hurt in week one? No. There is a risk anytime you play a sport like football, and that is why the players are compensated so well.
Two more game would increase revenues for the league with the meaningful games, the fans get more football, and the players have two fewer weeks of preseason that most sit out anyway. This is a no-lose idea.
I saw someone mentioned something about injuries. That is a terrible reason not to do this. Many football injuries are a part of the game, and can happen whether you play 1 game or 100. Look at Tom Brady a couple years back, he was hurt in the first game. Does that mean that we should eliminate the regular season all together because he was hurt in week one? No. There is a risk anytime you play a sport like football, and that is why the players are compensated so well.
Two more game would increase revenues for the league with the meaningful games, the fans get more football, and the players have two fewer weeks of preseason that most sit out anyway. This is a no-lose idea.
Cactus~Clothesline
The Last Gunslinger
Why can't they keep 16 games and still get rid of two pre-season games?
Have you played football? Yes there are injuries like the Tom Brady thing, but there are also injries like Wes Welker who played all season with 100% effort and on game 17 he blew out his knew. Less games = more recovery time for nagging injuries that tend to lead to major injuries.
The last part there about more money. The NFL is the #1 sport in America, it garners more money than any other sport and it's all over TV. it's really become a year logn sport now, I don't think adding two more games is going to do much except put more money in the pockets of the owners.
Have you played football? Yes there are injuries like the Tom Brady thing, but there are also injries like Wes Welker who played all season with 100% effort and on game 17 he blew out his knew. Less games = more recovery time for nagging injuries that tend to lead to major injuries.
The last part there about more money. The NFL is the #1 sport in America, it garners more money than any other sport and it's all over TV. it's really become a year logn sport now, I don't think adding two more games is going to do much except put more money in the pockets of the owners.
TwistofRKO
The Legend Killer himself
NO. I've covered this. The pre-season tickets do cost less though, and as others on the other side of me, acknowledged they know others who'd rather go to the pre-season because of its cheaper cost. You also don't have the cost of playing the players a full, regular season game check hanging over a pre-season game, so when the game morphs from a pre-season game in August into a meaningless game in December you end up with a similar, or worse attendance and have to pay the players full game checks. They lose money. Bad idea. You lose.
Yes, that's an issue that can resolved separately. Now you'd require 1 pre-season game + an extra regular season game?
Umm, they aren't out there to PERFORM in the pre-season, they are out there to ready for the regular season.
And now you get into the realm of messing up the season. Very few games are going to be a draw down the stretch, there will a few, yes. I will admit that, but you'll get more duds than not.
And why is putting more teams into the playoffs a good thing? When does watering down something improve the quality? Now wild-card teams have to win 5 games to win the Super Bowl?
You came into this thread with your "clever" ideas, but you said nothing, absolutely nothing that hasn't been addressed already.
I don't care if the CFL players don't complain (which they probably do), which means the NFL players shouldn't. Guess what? That's a stupid comparison. "The AFL players are okay with a rule change, so the NFL players would be *****es if they didn't agree to it." They are castoffs, they cant make it in the NFL, that's why they have less of a voice for complaint. If the owners use them as a tool to make themselves more money, the players deserve an accurate cut of that. End of story.
Depends. If you followed the AL Central last year, you would know that 163 games actually mattered last year between the Tigers and the Twins. The division champ was decided in a 163rd game, between two teams where a single run, changing the outcome of a single game over the course of that 162 game season could have changed everything. Even in a 162 game schedule, ultimately, they all matter. That supposedly meaningless early April loss? Yeah. Not so meaningless when you needed that one extra win to win your division and earn a playoff spot.
How does that relate to the NFL? Simple. Whether you play 16 games or 18 games doesn't matter. A single great play or blown call that affects the outcome of a single game in September can affect not only who makes the playoffs, but who wins the Super Bowl. The argument that extending the season by two games somehow makes them all less important is ridiculous.
I do have to disagree with Showtime though...how does extending the schedule lead to more playoff teams? Generally you add more playoff teams when you add more teams to the league, not when you extend the season. The NFL only has 32 teams, and almost 40% of the league already makes the playoffs. I fail to see why going from 16 to 18 would change that. Going from 32 teams to 36? Okay, maybe. That is an entirely different discussion though.
Oh Twist... while you actually made an effort to respond intelligently... ur still whining.
Did you? Like I said, your posts are often nothing more then a huge wall of denial and weak counters, so I only read this one. Go on google. You'll find two articles, one talking about how Pre season ticket prices are too high and preseason games are a risk to the players who don't want to be here, and the second is about how ticket prices are too low, since the majority of them are season ticket holders who are forced to buy preseason tickets and because they will still want the season tickets, they will fork over an extra 5 or 10 bucks per ticket to do it. If the owners we're really greedy they'd do it, but the fans have screamed that they don't want to see a half scrimmage by a group of main roster and then mostly backups and punch warmers.
Now while your right that regular season games do have the added cost of player salaries, they do also have TV money coming in, sponsors, and a greater attendance.
Then what is the point of your argument. By this account they shouldn't even bother with a preseason. No one wants to see a bunch of athletes perform at half capacity and then watch a bunch of nobodies stumble and fumble the ball. The fans have been very vocal in their complaints about preseason and not being worth it, despite your claims that tickets are cheaper. I wouldn't want to fork over 50 bucks to watch Peyton play 5 minutes. And don't hand me this bullshit they use it to get ready for regular season. So how does Farve walk into camp on the last week of training camp and play so well during the season. Several players hold out and miss much of camp and walk into the regular season in fine form. Why... this guy summed it up
they work out during the off season, they work out during training camp. Many football players have shown they can perform without game practice. The veterans don't need to play these practice games and risk injury. Eli Manning took a vicious hit in the first pre season game, needed stitches and missed several days of practice. Over a meaningless game. Imagine having to play four of these and not get paid for them. Playing 1 or 2 extra games make's sense b/c the players will earn more money, the fans will get more football, and the owners will make more money. They aren't idiots there, the NFL is one of the most smartly run leagues and the only thing that could jeopardize them is this no salary cap biz. Having two extra weeks will be profitable.
Are you dumb man? what sort of bracket are you trying to come up with. Obviously if it was an eight team bracket there would be no more bye week advantage. The team that finished top in the NFC would face the number 8 team. Same as in NBA or NHL. And yes if there were 8 playoff spots then most likely the games down the stretch would mean more. Don't tell me there isn't a lot of action down the stretch. Going into the final 2 weeks there are usually 3-5 teams gunning for 1-2 spots. Add 2 playoff spots to a conference and suddenly 5-8 teams are going for 2-3 spots. And it's not just that they would be fighting for, but positioning, home field advantage, where you want to end up and who you want to face.
My clever ideas are still a million times better than...
You make a lot of good comments throughout, but your just too damn near sighted to accept another opinion. And the unnecessary bashing of CFL players, most of whom have had to work their butts off as hard as any NFL player does, and makes about as much as a practice squad player. I didn't say the CFL players complained about it, this one man, who writes weekly in the free press and plays for the Winnipeg Bombers, wrote about the NFL owners idea for the 18 game schedule and commented on it. Mostly cracking at the NFL brass calling it their own idea and that the players would cry right away for a deserved compensation. This comparison is stupid...
The CFL didn't implement it you low level, they have been doing it for years. Don't complain a lick, or feel it's any more of a burden. In fact I'm sure they'd want to play as many games as possible given their low pay rolls. The CFL is far from castoffs. You blindly bash a league you have zero knowledge of and no clue about it's fan base and growing popularity. Hell the NFL Network purchased the rights to at least 6-12 CFL games this year and given the barn burner 54-51 CFL opener between Saskatchewan and Montreal that went to double overtime, I'm sure the NFL will increase it's CFL coverage. Call the CFL "NFL junior". The major difference in the players is most weren't big enough or fast enough. There have been several players who have played well in the CFL and then done well in the NFL. The CFL ain't complaining, and the owners don't use them to make more money, the CFL does not make a billion dollars, those greedy fat cats in the NFL it was just an example you wetard..... huff huff
oh and by the way...
and
So in the CFL the owners are making money through 18 week schedule with far less of a TV deal and lower attendence prices, while if the NFL does it it will make them less? Sorry, that makes no sense, and so do you, senior Twist.
Only bash leagues you actually watch.
Did you? Like I said, your posts are often nothing more then a huge wall of denial and weak counters, so I only read this one. Go on google. You'll find two articles, one talking about how Pre season ticket prices are too high and preseason games are a risk to the players who don't want to be here, and the second is about how ticket prices are too low, since the majority of them are season ticket holders who are forced to buy preseason tickets and because they will still want the season tickets, they will fork over an extra 5 or 10 bucks per ticket to do it. If the owners we're really greedy they'd do it, but the fans have screamed that they don't want to see a half scrimmage by a group of main roster and then mostly backups and punch warmers.
Now while your right that regular season games do have the added cost of player salaries, they do also have TV money coming in, sponsors, and a greater attendance.
Then what is the point of your argument. By this account they shouldn't even bother with a preseason. No one wants to see a bunch of athletes perform at half capacity and then watch a bunch of nobodies stumble and fumble the ball. The fans have been very vocal in their complaints about preseason and not being worth it, despite your claims that tickets are cheaper. I wouldn't want to fork over 50 bucks to watch Peyton play 5 minutes. And don't hand me this bullshit they use it to get ready for regular season. So how does Farve walk into camp on the last week of training camp and play so well during the season. Several players hold out and miss much of camp and walk into the regular season in fine form. Why... this guy summed it up
they work out during the off season, they work out during training camp. Many football players have shown they can perform without game practice. The veterans don't need to play these practice games and risk injury. Eli Manning took a vicious hit in the first pre season game, needed stitches and missed several days of practice. Over a meaningless game. Imagine having to play four of these and not get paid for them. Playing 1 or 2 extra games make's sense b/c the players will earn more money, the fans will get more football, and the owners will make more money. They aren't idiots there, the NFL is one of the most smartly run leagues and the only thing that could jeopardize them is this no salary cap biz. Having two extra weeks will be profitable.
Are you dumb man? what sort of bracket are you trying to come up with. Obviously if it was an eight team bracket there would be no more bye week advantage. The team that finished top in the NFC would face the number 8 team. Same as in NBA or NHL. And yes if there were 8 playoff spots then most likely the games down the stretch would mean more. Don't tell me there isn't a lot of action down the stretch. Going into the final 2 weeks there are usually 3-5 teams gunning for 1-2 spots. Add 2 playoff spots to a conference and suddenly 5-8 teams are going for 2-3 spots. And it's not just that they would be fighting for, but positioning, home field advantage, where you want to end up and who you want to face.
My clever ideas are still a million times better than...
You make a lot of good comments throughout, but your just too damn near sighted to accept another opinion. And the unnecessary bashing of CFL players, most of whom have had to work their butts off as hard as any NFL player does, and makes about as much as a practice squad player. I didn't say the CFL players complained about it, this one man, who writes weekly in the free press and plays for the Winnipeg Bombers, wrote about the NFL owners idea for the 18 game schedule and commented on it. Mostly cracking at the NFL brass calling it their own idea and that the players would cry right away for a deserved compensation. This comparison is stupid...
The CFL didn't implement it you low level, they have been doing it for years. Don't complain a lick, or feel it's any more of a burden. In fact I'm sure they'd want to play as many games as possible given their low pay rolls. The CFL is far from castoffs. You blindly bash a league you have zero knowledge of and no clue about it's fan base and growing popularity. Hell the NFL Network purchased the rights to at least 6-12 CFL games this year and given the barn burner 54-51 CFL opener between Saskatchewan and Montreal that went to double overtime, I'm sure the NFL will increase it's CFL coverage. Call the CFL "NFL junior". The major difference in the players is most weren't big enough or fast enough. There have been several players who have played well in the CFL and then done well in the NFL. The CFL ain't complaining, and the owners don't use them to make more money, the CFL does not make a billion dollars, those greedy fat cats in the NFL it was just an example you wetard..... huff huff
oh and by the way...
and
So in the CFL the owners are making money through 18 week schedule with far less of a TV deal and lower attendence prices, while if the NFL does it it will make them less? Sorry, that makes no sense, and so do you, senior Twist.
Only bash leagues you actually watch.
Cactus~Clothesline
The Last Gunslinger
I still disagree.
In Baseball that April game IS meaningless if the team can put together a two game winning streak in September. The point I was really attempting was that you can have a losing record half way through the season and still make the playoffs or even win a championship because there are so many games. You can lose multiple games, and if your team is good enough, make it up at the end of the summer.
The Tigers and Twins didn't need to have an extra game if one of them could have played better and won an extra game near the end of the season.
For Football if you start the season 2-6, chances are you aren't making the playoffs because on average you could go 8-2 and wind up 8-8. That isn't USUALLY a playoff team (Unless it's the NFC West
). If you lose 3 games in the first four weeks of the NFL it's incredibly hard to make up the ground unless you really play well. Those first 3-4 weeks of the season matter a hell of a lot more than the first 4 weeks of the baseball season.People's Champ
Bleeding Teal
Seeing as how I haven't been here for a minute, I'll just give my opinion without reading anyone's.
I'm against it. I'm probably one of the few people who like preseason games. While it may not mean anything in the standings, I love watching guys play hard trying to battle for a spot on the teams. And when preseason comes, I'm already dying to watch any type of football. Like I said, I probably am the only one who can watch preseason, but I have no issues with it.
And if the season is extended, more injuries are likely to occur. Football is an intense, physical sport, an to make more games mean something mean more physicality and more chances to get injuried. Yea I know it can happen anyway, but I would hate to see Brady or Manning or Patrick Willis injured in a game that didn't need to happen and miss the playoffs.
Yea a lot of rambling but I'm fine with the way things are right now and am not really convinced that things need to change.
I'm against it. I'm probably one of the few people who like preseason games. While it may not mean anything in the standings, I love watching guys play hard trying to battle for a spot on the teams. And when preseason comes, I'm already dying to watch any type of football. Like I said, I probably am the only one who can watch preseason, but I have no issues with it.
And if the season is extended, more injuries are likely to occur. Football is an intense, physical sport, an to make more games mean something mean more physicality and more chances to get injuried. Yea I know it can happen anyway, but I would hate to see Brady or Manning or Patrick Willis injured in a game that didn't need to happen and miss the playoffs.
Yea a lot of rambling but I'm fine with the way things are right now and am not really convinced that things need to change.
TwistofRKO
The Legend Killer himself
Your perception is not reality.
So you want me to read articles from a obviously biased media who acts like this is what every fan wants?
I haven't seen one quote from a player that favors the 18 games regular season. There are about 200 from players who oppose it.
And, AGAIN, you repeat yourself like its a superior point. This does not mean you enhance the season. For the 4th time, this is an issue that can be resolved separately (forcing holders to buy seats/price change/etc).
The NFL is expected to see its biggest decline in attendance this year due to the economy. How is adding 2 more games going to get more people to go to the games they weren't going to be going to anyways. The main attraction is seeing the star players, more football = more injuries.
Very few players skip the season and don't miss a beat. Favre and LT are the only ones I can directly think of. Its a big timing thing. Especially if you have a young team. The Rams want to throw Bradford in there, that would be excellent, you know, to have him face his first NFL competition in a game that really matters. College football can get away with it because the big schools will usually schedule crap teams for the freshman to face, this is completely different.
Well, technically they do get paid, its in the form of bonuses and/or claused in their base salaries.
The NFL is very smart, VERY smart. But they have it going nearly perfect right now, especially if they get the CBA taken care of, why tinker with the best thing? These aren't minor tweaks, this is changing the entire season.
It's not bashing, its the truth. If they were good enough to play in the NFL they would probably be there. They have less rights to complain. That's the point.
I didn't say the CFL players complained about it, this one man, who writes weekly in the free press and plays for the Winnipeg Bombers, wrote about the NFL owners idea for the 18 game schedule and commented on it. Mostly cracking at the NFL brass calling it their own idea and that the players would cry right away for a deserved compensation.I didn't put words into your mouth. You made it sound like they are innocent, hard working guys who are underpaid and perform to feed their families. No, no, no. They are at best no more hard working than NFL players.
Never said they did
Really? And how do you know this? A quote from the LT who just wants to make it sound like he's tougher for playing more games isn't proof.
The only true audience is the Canadian market. If the Arena league gets back on its feet, the CFL is third. What is appealing about that? Ricky Williams went there just to stay fresh. The talent level is much lower, and simply the fact that they are paid less doesn't back your ludicrous notion that they work harder and don't complain.
The only reason they picked it up is because they need actual games to air over the summer.
You are using ideas than are only scraping the surface. That's not how you make billions of dollars. The CFL would be a terrible barometer for the NFL to use.
What about "watch-ed"? I've seen a few games. Nothing appealing about watching 4th string-NFL caliber players try to replicate the NFL, only on a longer field.
I'm against it. If you've ever watched HBO's Hard Knocks then you should know how important the pre season is. It gives coaches a chance to evaluate their roster. They get to see their second/third stringers in live game situation. Thar may not sound important but if injuries occur and they will occur a team will be better prepared to deal with it.
Also the two extra game will take their toll on the bodies of the players diminishing their ability to preform in the post season. A 16 game season is taxing enough on these players but the extra games will just compound on that.
I think the system is fine as it is now. I see no reason to tinker with it.
Also the two extra game will take their toll on the bodies of the players diminishing their ability to preform in the post season. A 16 game season is taxing enough on these players but the extra games will just compound on that.
I think the system is fine as it is now. I see no reason to tinker with it.
I repeat a point made earlier...why can college coaches fill out their depth chart without any preseason at all? Why do they have that ability, and NFL coaches don't? The whole "need to see players in game situations" justification for a 4 game preseason just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
In fact, college coaches are under even more pressure to get it right...they lose any more than one game all year, they have no chance to win the title...NFL teams can lose four or five and still make the playoffs.
But college teams have more players! Which is exactly why going to 18 games would probably require expanded roster sizes, as well as a larger salary cap so teams can keep more players (obviously, more players means more money needed to pay them). PLUS NFL teams can sign free agents throughout the year if the injury bug hits them particularly hard. College teams have no free agent pool to draw from...yet still no preseason games.
Until someone can explain adequately why NFL teams NEED four games, and two simply won't do, while college teams don't need any, I call bullshit on that particular reason.
In fact, college coaches are under even more pressure to get it right...they lose any more than one game all year, they have no chance to win the title...NFL teams can lose four or five and still make the playoffs.
But college teams have more players! Which is exactly why going to 18 games would probably require expanded roster sizes, as well as a larger salary cap so teams can keep more players (obviously, more players means more money needed to pay them). PLUS NFL teams can sign free agents throughout the year if the injury bug hits them particularly hard. College teams have no free agent pool to draw from...yet still no preseason games.
Until someone can explain adequately why NFL teams NEED four games, and two simply won't do, while college teams don't need any, I call bullshit on that particular reason.
TwistofRKO
The Legend Killer himself
In addition to that, you completely undersell the roster size. The NFL needs to get the best 53 they possibly can. College teams cant sign free agents, but they have red-shirted players they can take the red-shirt off of, and walk-ons.
NCAA teams get 63 players...so if you increased NFL roster sizes, so teams didn't have to cut as many, increase the amount of players allowed on the practice squad, I fail to see why they can't drop 2 games. Redshirting is a rough equivalent to being practice squaded in the NFL. You practice, but don't play.
But, you missed a key point, Twist....
Those powderpuff teams that get scheduled by the big teams also don't play preseason games, so its not really relevant...plus some would argue that some NFL teams, like the Lions, Bears, Seahawks, Raiders, Rams, Browns etc count as powderpuff too.
Basically, any arguments about maintaining a proper depth chart would be taken care of by increasing roster sizes, the 2 or 4 preseason games debate doesn't really address it directly. Whether you play one, six or no preseason games at all, NFL depth charts are small. That doesn't really have anything to do with how many preseason games you play or not though. I think even with the current 16 game schedule, 53 players is too low. Dropping down to two preseason games doesn't really change anything as far as roster sizes...so roster sizes are the wrong argument to make regarding dropping preseason games, because it isn't affected by it. Thus, its a bullshit argument, as far as using it to justify a four game preseason goes.
But, you missed a key point, Twist....
Those powderpuff teams that get scheduled by the big teams also don't play preseason games, so its not really relevant...plus some would argue that some NFL teams, like the Lions, Bears, Seahawks, Raiders, Rams, Browns etc count as powderpuff too.
Basically, any arguments about maintaining a proper depth chart would be taken care of by increasing roster sizes, the 2 or 4 preseason games debate doesn't really address it directly. Whether you play one, six or no preseason games at all, NFL depth charts are small. That doesn't really have anything to do with how many preseason games you play or not though. I think even with the current 16 game schedule, 53 players is too low. Dropping down to two preseason games doesn't really change anything as far as roster sizes...so roster sizes are the wrong argument to make regarding dropping preseason games, because it isn't affected by it. Thus, its a bullshit argument, as far as using it to justify a four game preseason goes.
TwistofRKO
The Legend Killer himself
The powderpuff teams aren't contending for the title though. So the point behind them not having time to find the roster is irrelevant, they don't have to battle the pressure of being eliminated after 1 loss.
The issue is with finding the best 53. Lots of players would be cut that belong on teams after only 2 games. Increasing the roster includes players who dont belong on rosters now, lowering the level of talent, causing the owners to pay more salaries. Lots of effort for a minimal gain in money.
And did you call the Bears powderpuff? I don't like them, but really man? And you don't choose your schedule, + those teams have much higher success rates against the best teams. The Raiders beat the Eagles and Steelers last year, Browns beat the Steelers, Rams beat the Cowboys in '08. Not the same at all.
The issue is with finding the best 53. Lots of players would be cut that belong on teams after only 2 games. Increasing the roster includes players who dont belong on rosters now, lowering the level of talent, causing the owners to pay more salaries. Lots of effort for a minimal gain in money.
And did you call the Bears powderpuff? I don't like them, but really man? And you don't choose your schedule, + those teams have much higher success rates against the best teams. The Raiders beat the Eagles and Steelers last year, Browns beat the Steelers, Rams beat the Cowboys in '08. Not the same at all.
Neither are the powderpuff teams in the NCAA. That is the point. Weak team, strong team, it doesn't matter. None of them play any preseason whatsoever, the coaches still find a way to settle on a roster.
Yes, I called the Bears a powderpuff team. There are a lot of sportswriters who pick them to finish dead last in the NFC North this year, on the basis of Jay Cutler's inability to avoid throwing to the other team, having to throw MORE because of Mike Martz (thus even more INTs), the complete lack of any real WRs at all, and a defense that isn't nearly as good as they used to be, and finished with a losing record at 7-9. And then, two of those 7 wins were against my Detroit Lions, so those don't even really count. The Chicago Bears are simply not a good football team. When you finish 3rd in your division and have a losing record, that means you weren't very good in my book. But, I wasn't trying to pick on the Bears specifically, this isn't a Bears bashing post...I simply felt that they belonged in my list of other teams that could be considered fodder for the "good" teams. At a neutral site location, how many other NFL teams would you actually pick the Bears to get the win against? I will bet that after you think about it, excluding the other teams I mentioned as being "powderpuff", you will have a very short list.
But back to the topic. Having a four season preseason is unnecessary. I am not saying wipe out the entire thing, because college doesn't have one, merely that the importance of the preseason is perhaps overstated, because college doesn't have one, and gets along just fine. Let me ask you something...did the NFL suffer when they dropped two preseason games, going from six to four? Because the same arguments that are being made now, in defense of the four game preseason, were made back in 1977, when they decided to switch starting in the 78 season. Did the NFL suffer when they went from a twelve game regular season to fourteen in 1961? Or when they went to a sixteen game schedule in 1978? Players adjust, the league adjusts, and the fans adjust. I want more meaningful games, not more meaningless ones. The NFL can address the concerns of the players with other items in a new CBA, as I have already mentioned. Increase cap space to account for the additional playing time, Increase roster sizes to account for possible injuries. Once the NFL can address those issues, the players will probably come around, because it means more cash in their pocket too.
Yes, I called the Bears a powderpuff team. There are a lot of sportswriters who pick them to finish dead last in the NFC North this year, on the basis of Jay Cutler's inability to avoid throwing to the other team, having to throw MORE because of Mike Martz (thus even more INTs), the complete lack of any real WRs at all, and a defense that isn't nearly as good as they used to be, and finished with a losing record at 7-9. And then, two of those 7 wins were against my Detroit Lions, so those don't even really count. The Chicago Bears are simply not a good football team. When you finish 3rd in your division and have a losing record, that means you weren't very good in my book. But, I wasn't trying to pick on the Bears specifically, this isn't a Bears bashing post...I simply felt that they belonged in my list of other teams that could be considered fodder for the "good" teams. At a neutral site location, how many other NFL teams would you actually pick the Bears to get the win against? I will bet that after you think about it, excluding the other teams I mentioned as being "powderpuff", you will have a very short list.
But back to the topic. Having a four season preseason is unnecessary. I am not saying wipe out the entire thing, because college doesn't have one, merely that the importance of the preseason is perhaps overstated, because college doesn't have one, and gets along just fine. Let me ask you something...did the NFL suffer when they dropped two preseason games, going from six to four? Because the same arguments that are being made now, in defense of the four game preseason, were made back in 1977, when they decided to switch starting in the 78 season. Did the NFL suffer when they went from a twelve game regular season to fourteen in 1961? Or when they went to a sixteen game schedule in 1978? Players adjust, the league adjusts, and the fans adjust. I want more meaningful games, not more meaningless ones. The NFL can address the concerns of the players with other items in a new CBA, as I have already mentioned. Increase cap space to account for the additional playing time, Increase roster sizes to account for possible injuries. Once the NFL can address those issues, the players will probably come around, because it means more cash in their pocket too.
TwistofRKO
The Legend Killer himself
They did not suffer, at the same time, they were not the most popular sport when they made those changes. It is perfect as is.
I don't understand your first line though, what part is that in response to?
And the Bears are not powderpuff, period. They are not Super Bowl contenders, but they have a competitive football team. They were a few plays away from 10-6 last season.
I don't understand your first line though, what part is that in response to?
And the Bears are not powderpuff, period. They are not Super Bowl contenders, but they have a competitive football team. They were a few plays away from 10-6 last season.
If you are going to counter my assertion that the NFL didn't suffer back in 78 when they took 2 preseason games away and added them to the regular season (still keeping 20 total games, excluding playoffs, exactly as it would remain now) because they weren't as popular then as they are now, explain how they would suffer now because they are the most popular thing on TV. Explain why 2010 is different from 1978. If the NFL's current popularity is the reason its a mistake, explain why. Back that statement up with something. What about this is going to diminish the NFL's popularity? Do you really think the NFL will suffer from expanding to 18 games? That people are simply going to stop watching MORE games that have actual meaning? Will they suffer because they have more TV revenue, more stadium revenue, more concessions revenue and more parking revenue? Sorry, the NFL is not going to be tarnished one bit by replacing two meaningless games with two meaningful ones.
The Bears were also a few plays away from being 5-11, and if they didn't get to play the Lions every year, two almost guaranteed wins, they could have easily been 4-12 or 3-13.They only beat the Steelers by a FG, and won in OT against the Vikings. They also gave up almost 50 more points than they scored, and with 375 points given up, they ranked in the bottom third of the NFL in defense, combined with an offense that ranked in the bottom half in scoring, they weren't as competitive as you want to make them.
The Bears were also a few plays away from being 5-11, and if they didn't get to play the Lions every year, two almost guaranteed wins, they could have easily been 4-12 or 3-13.They only beat the Steelers by a FG, and won in OT against the Vikings. They also gave up almost 50 more points than they scored, and with 375 points given up, they ranked in the bottom third of the NFL in defense, combined with an offense that ranked in the bottom half in scoring, they weren't as competitive as you want to make them.
TwistofRKO
The Legend Killer himself
If they were powderpuff the Lions would be beating up on them every year. They've been .500 over the last two seasons, and went to the Super Bowl 4 years ago. Holy crap, stop talking like an idiot, you can't be that off.
Dude, you asking me to go in circles. Re-read my posts, I explained numerous times why its not beneficial to add 2 regular season games. 1978 is not 2010, its completely different. The NFL was only 11 years into its current format after the merger. They found a working formula, the fans and players seem to be perfectly fine with the 16 game schedule. That;s why its different. They won't have that much more meaning, like i've already said, they will have to pay increased sized rosters, like i've already said. So you tell me, what makes you special enough for me to repeat everything I've already said simply because you cannot go back and read my earlier posts?
Dude, you asking me to go in circles. Re-read my posts, I explained numerous times why its not beneficial to add 2 regular season games. 1978 is not 2010, its completely different. The NFL was only 11 years into its current format after the merger. They found a working formula, the fans and players seem to be perfectly fine with the 16 game schedule. That;s why its different. They won't have that much more meaning, like i've already said, they will have to pay increased sized rosters, like i've already said. So you tell me, what makes you special enough for me to repeat everything I've already said simply because you cannot go back and read my earlier posts?
The Lions were one of the two worst teams in the league. They went 0-16 two years ago, and won 2 last year, and those wins were against Washington and Cleveland, both of whom were dreadful. I didn't say the Bears were the worst team in the league, but that most teams would pencil that game as a win. The Bears were a powderpuff team, but the Lions, MY Lions, since I am a Lions fan, were absolutely dreadful. Even powderpuff teams should have been able to beat them. That particular argument of yours holds no water at all, when you consider the state the Lions team has been in. Even the other dreadful NFL teams that had them on the schedule won way more often than not. If a team with a losing record beats another team with a losing record, it doesn't mean the team is good, it just means they beat a bad team. Two piles of shit are still two piles of shit, regardless if one stinks marginally less.
So, if the majority of fans determine that they are okay with the change in schedule, you would be okay with it then? Because that is what you are arguing. You are arguing that it was different in 1978 because of 4 factors:
1. The NFL's time in their previous 14 game format of 11 years, compared to the 32 years they have played 16. The amount of time spent under a particular scheduling format is complete irrelevant as to whether or not adding 2 regular season games is a good idea or not. The length they have played 14 games compared to the length they played 16 has nothing to do with anything.
2. The formula worked. Just because something works, doesn't mean it is perfect. My car works. It works just fine. But if I took it to a mechanic and tuned it up, it would work even better. That you think a 16 game is perfect as is, and I see room for improvement is opinion, not fact. Further, we don't know that the 14 game schedule didn't work, do we? I was 3 when they changed from 14 to 16, and you weren't even alive during the last NFL players strike in 1987. Neither of us know what the players felt back in 1977-78.
3. The fans acceptance of the switch to 16 games from 14, and consequently the loss of 2 preseason games, that wouldn't occur going from 16 to 18. This premise of yours is absolutely ridiculous. The vast majority of fans would welcome trading 2 meaningless games for 2 meaningful games, and you know it. NFL Fans aren't going to bitch about having two more NFL games to watch.
4. The players acceptance of the switch to 16 games from 14, and consequently the loss of 2 preseason games, that wouldn't occur from 16 to 18. Did you know that the owners have the right to add 2 games under the CURRENT CBA? I bet you didn't. That means that the players technically signed off on this idea a long time ago. We both also know that as soon as the players find out that they will be getting something out of the deal too, that they will come around. They are complaining about the possibility now, to use it as leverage in the CBA bargaining sessions. DUH. They know damn well the owners are going to end up doing this, so they are just making sure they are in a position to maximize their bargaining power. What you will see is the bitching about injuries, money, etc until the CBA is agreed on, and then as soon as its all over, those same players will talk about how its beneficial to the league, how its great for the fans, blahblahblah. Its all part of the game between owners and players. Their complaints now, and the longer they take the opposition position could be the difference between a 10 million dollar rise in the salary cap and 10 additional roster spots, and 8 million dollars and 5 roster spots. The NFL Players Union isn't stupid, they know what the deal is.
So, if the majority of fans determine that they are okay with the change in schedule, you would be okay with it then? Because that is what you are arguing. You are arguing that it was different in 1978 because of 4 factors:
1. The NFL's time in their previous 14 game format of 11 years, compared to the 32 years they have played 16. The amount of time spent under a particular scheduling format is complete irrelevant as to whether or not adding 2 regular season games is a good idea or not. The length they have played 14 games compared to the length they played 16 has nothing to do with anything.
2. The formula worked. Just because something works, doesn't mean it is perfect. My car works. It works just fine. But if I took it to a mechanic and tuned it up, it would work even better. That you think a 16 game is perfect as is, and I see room for improvement is opinion, not fact. Further, we don't know that the 14 game schedule didn't work, do we? I was 3 when they changed from 14 to 16, and you weren't even alive during the last NFL players strike in 1987. Neither of us know what the players felt back in 1977-78.
3. The fans acceptance of the switch to 16 games from 14, and consequently the loss of 2 preseason games, that wouldn't occur going from 16 to 18. This premise of yours is absolutely ridiculous. The vast majority of fans would welcome trading 2 meaningless games for 2 meaningful games, and you know it. NFL Fans aren't going to bitch about having two more NFL games to watch.
4. The players acceptance of the switch to 16 games from 14, and consequently the loss of 2 preseason games, that wouldn't occur from 16 to 18. Did you know that the owners have the right to add 2 games under the CURRENT CBA? I bet you didn't. That means that the players technically signed off on this idea a long time ago. We both also know that as soon as the players find out that they will be getting something out of the deal too, that they will come around. They are complaining about the possibility now, to use it as leverage in the CBA bargaining sessions. DUH. They know damn well the owners are going to end up doing this, so they are just making sure they are in a position to maximize their bargaining power. What you will see is the bitching about injuries, money, etc until the CBA is agreed on, and then as soon as its all over, those same players will talk about how its beneficial to the league, how its great for the fans, blahblahblah. Its all part of the game between owners and players. Their complaints now, and the longer they take the opposition position could be the difference between a 10 million dollar rise in the salary cap and 10 additional roster spots, and 8 million dollars and 5 roster spots. The NFL Players Union isn't stupid, they know what the deal is.
TwistofRKO
The Legend Killer himself
The VAST MAJORITY OF FANS IN THIS THREAD ALONE oppose it. Fans on every football MB i'm on, as a whole, do not support it. The players don't support it. You wouldn't get a tune up if your V8 car was getting 90 mpg, would you? The NFL is as popular as ever, why screw it up? I don't care about the owners. The NFL has the best schedule formula out of any of the major sports, they have the best postseason, the current schedule works perfectly, why would you take away from the importance of every game, and get more star players injured?
I know that they can switch from 16 to 18 under the current CBA, guess what? It's not going to last until then. The CBA is going to be restructured. Completely irrelevant.
I know that they can switch from 16 to 18 under the current CBA, guess what? It's not going to last until then. The CBA is going to be restructured. Completely irrelevant.
TwistofRKO
The Legend Killer himself
I didn't cite a poll, yet alone try to use it as evidence. I was simply countering your unfounded claim that the entire NFL fanbase would welcome the change. Well, obviously not.
