NFL 18 Game Season: Good or Bad Idea?

[Big Sexy]

The big talk in the NFL is expanding the NFL regular season form 16 to 18 games and shortening the pre season to 2 games. Roger Goodell and the owners seem to be all for it. The players, however, don't like the idea. What are your thoughts? He's some quick pros and cons.

Pros- Many people see the pre season as being too long and this will obviously eliminate that. This would also be a huge money maker for the NFL and could make it easier for a labor agreement to be reached if this goes through. Most fans would also love this. The NFL is by far the most popular league in the US and the more "real" games there are to watch the better.

Cons- A 16 game regular season is already grueling and hard on the body. Adding two games may not seem like much but to the players busting their ass every day and playing through injuries it most certainly is. The players will also want more money to be compensated for the extra games and a second bye week for each team is being tossed around as well. One final thing is that the shorter pre season will make it harder for some of the unknown players to make a roster. With 4 games the 3rd and 4th string guys are given plenty of opportunities to play. With just 2 pre season games the starters and primary backups will get more of the reps.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I'm definitely against it. The cons list sums it up pretty well. But in addition to that, you water down the value of each individual game, and right now, outside of college football, no sport places as much emphasis on each game, and I certainly don't want to lose that.

 

[Big Sexy]

That's definitely another negative to making the season longer. Carson Palmer was quoted as saying

With 16 games, every game is important and therefore the fans are very into it, the stadiums are packed because they know if their team loses, it pushes them further and further away from making the playoffs. I think if you go to 18, each game kind of loses a little bit of its significance.

Fans won't be as into their teams games and the season as a whole if their team is out of contention with a decent portion of the season left.

 

[gd]

From a fan's perspective, how can't you be for it? Instead of having to sit throug a couple more meaningless preseason games, this season would be starting this weekend. I don't agree with what Palmer said either. Adding only 2 games isn't going to make the game that much less important. 18 games is still a short enough season so that every game matters.

The playres are obviously against it, with more of an injury risk, less time to get ready, etc. I think a second bye week would definetly have to be added and the union might put up some kind of a fight, but this is more than likely going to happen. That's just how things go. There was a time when the NFL season was only 14 games. As time goes on, things grow.

 

[Isa Granke]

i'm against it for the reason that it will lead to more injuries and now that there will be more games players will want to be paid more which could raise ticket prices

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Roger Goodell and the owners seem to be all for it.

And for good reason. Expanding the Regular Season, and taking away from the Pre-Season will increase profit and fan boosting.

The Pre-Season hasn't just been loathed by fans, but players as well. Fact is; you can't win with the players who complain - because they'll find reasons to complain about anything.

(1.) They get upset that they have to play in meaningless (Pre-Season) games.

(2.) Now they're complaining because there is talks of expanding the regular season, which means instead of playing in meaningless games they'll play in games that go toward something. When, in truth, they simply didn't want to play at all.

The players, however, don't like the idea.

Big shocker. To be honest, I could give a shit less what the players have to say about the situation. Most of them are making Thousands, if not more, each year to go out there and play 16 games (if even that). If they believe it's a health risk, then maybe they should reconsider their Professional Career choice.

Instead, what these bunch of money-hungry, non-willing to work hard babies are whining about is the fact that they were finally listened to; and now they don't like the alternative being presented. When, again, their alternative was to simply play less to begin with. They wanted NO Pre-Season, but yet no increase to a Regular Season either. And yet still each year the majority of them want more and more money.

Pros- Many people see the pre season as being too long and this will obviously eliminate that. This would also be a huge money maker for the NFL and could make it easier for a labor agreement to be reached if this goes through. Most fans would also love this. The NFL is by far the most popular league in the US and the more "real" games there are to watch the better.

There is no true negative to this happening, beyond the fact that injuries (which can happen at any time, regardless of how) are a possibility.

Increasing the games from 16 to 18 would work better for helping players get more money, in my opinion, as well. Once again, this goes to my negative look toward the players who complain - because they want paid for doing nothing. They constantly want more money, but when a situation is brought up in being acceptable in earning that money - it's not good for them.

Increasing the games and taking away from the Pre-Season is also, as you pointed out, great for the fans. Most fans will charish Pre-Season games for the simple fact that they've gone monthes without Football in their lives. Yet everyone knows none of these games matter, so there is no true reason to care for them beyond seeing your next Generation Team in action.

Cons- A 16 game regular season is already grueling and hard on the body. Adding two games may not seem like much but to the players busting their ass every day and playing through injuries it most certainly is. The players will also want more money to be compensated for the extra games and a second bye week for each team is being tossed around as well.

(1.) Technically they aren't adding two additional games; so much as simply making two of the original Pre-Season games now apart of the regular season.

When you look at it through that side of things; then you should also come to understand the "Starters" on average play 2 full Quarters in the 2nd Pre-Season game, and 3 full Quarters in the 3rd Pre-Season game.

When you think of it like that, just take the 1st and Final Pre-Season games where Starters play maybe 1-2 series, and make those the 1st-2nd Pre-Season games.. then take the ones where they normally play almost all of the Game and make those the new Regular Season games. Truly not much difference at all in game play.

(2.) I don't wanna burst your bubble, but Players on average are always asking for more money - regardless of having to play more or not. That's apart of the overall negative to this sport. Most of the individuals craving more money are the same ones who mismanage their funds and go poor once they've retired.

I'm sorry, but if I was signed to a 6-yr contract for 50+ million, I doubt I'd ever need money again. Then again, I'm not stupid enough to go out and buy 3 Mansions, 5 sports cars, 2 SUVs, and who knows how many gold teeth.

(3.) I personally don't understand why a 2nd bye-week is being considered, when there's no bye week between the Regular Season and Pre-Season. However, I suppose if that's what it takes then so be it.

One final thing is that the shorter pre season will make it harder for some of the unknown players to make a roster. With 4 games the 3rd and 4th string guys are given plenty of opportunities to play. With just 2 pre season games the starters and primary backups will get more of the reps.

I disagree about the Starters and back-ups getting more reps. The fact is, I think it'll go the opposite direction.

The Starters will play 1-3 Series, in the first game, and 1-2 series in the second. The back-ups will play the majority of the 1st Quarter, and possibly into the 2nd. Whereas the players looking for spots will finish out the 1st half, and all of the 2nd half.

True Starters really don't need the playing time in the Pre-Season. If you look at how things are now, most of the Starters don't really play all that much to begin with. Some even come up with random injuries just to get out of playing in them.

All in all - I support the move, because it'll bring in more profit for the League, and in the end - that's what is truly being looked at here.

 

[Davi323]

Its the increase in profits that will ultimately turn the players from being against it to for it. With an extra two games, it means more revenue for the team which means the owners can give the players more money...which is one of the main points of contention in the collective bargaining agreement that the players want addressed.

Plus, it almost necessarily dictate a second bye week. Two extra games, twice the weeks off. Getting one week off in a seventeen game season is 1/17th. Two weeks off in a nineteen game schedule is 1/9.5. It breaks up the season better.

Then there is another obvious result...a longer season would also almost certainly require bigger rosters, and as a result, higher salary cap. Reducing the preseason down will reduce team's ability to evaluate talent, but increased rosters means less people have to be cut anyways...

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Plus, it almost necessarily dictate a second bye week. Two extra games, twice the weeks off. Getting one week off in a seventeen game season is 1/17th. Two weeks off in a nineteen game schedule is 1/9.5. It breaks up the season better.

I keep seeing everyone bringing up an additional bye week, and I've even read that they're in discussion that if the extra two games get added to the Regular Season that they could bring in an additional bye week - but I'm gonna ask again.. why?

You have 4 Pre-Season games, and no bye week between that and the Regular Season. Cutting that in half and flipping 2 of those 4 Pre-Seaosn games to Regular Season games does not increase anything. It merely changes over how many games mean something as opposed to how many are 'warm-up tests'.

So why bring in an additional bye week, when that would only require adding an additional week overall to the Regular Season so everyone can have an extra break at some point when it's simply not needed.

It's easy - currently you have a 17 week season, and 16 games.

18 games = 19 week Season. If you have 18 games, and 2 bye weeks, that would require a 20 week Regular Season. There is no need.

Then there is another obvious result...a longer season would also almost certainly require bigger rosters, and as a result, higher salary cap. Reducing the preseason down will reduce team's ability to evaluate talent, but increased rosters means less people have to be cut anyways...

I don't see this happening. Just because they're considering (and likely going to) increase the Season by 2 games; does not mean they'll allow for a bigger roster, or Salary Cap.

And besides that, wouldn't that be kinda stupid? I mean, you reduce your evaluation games to two - and you then want to turn around and increase your roster?? Why? So you can keep more worthless talent on board that you'll pay Thousands to, that likely won't see much playing time? And you won't know any sooner whether they're worth keeping or not.

 

[Goliath Uterus]

I'm all for it man. Maybe it's just cause I'm a fan who loves him some regular season football, and couldn't give a fuck less about pre-season games, but this excites me greatly. Like Will said, if the players are complaining about health risks, then they shouldn't be a proffesional football player. And I don't think that this takes away from the importance of the games, winning regular season games is just as crucial as ever.

So yea, love this decision, more money made by the league, and more regular season games for my stankin ass.

 

[justinsayne]

I don't see the point, other than for the NFL to be able to make more money, you are replacing 2 games where your starters only play a limited amount with what will essentially be the same thing to the teams that are good enough to make it to the post season, I mean think about when we get down to those final couple weeks you start seeing the better teams resting their starters and saving them for the post season, they basically are putting the same product on the field that they did in the pre-season cause they have nothing more to prove in the regular season, you are going to just get more of the same here, and pay more for it, I have no problem with them dumping two games in the pre-season and starting the regular season sooner, but I really don't see the need to two more games in the regular season

 

[TwistofRKO]

From a fan's perspective, how can't you be for it? Instead of having to sit throug a couple more meaningless preseason games, this season would be starting this weekend. I don't agree with what Palmer said either. Adding only 2 games isn't going to make the game that much less important. 18 games is still a short enough season so that every game matters.

No, if anything the season is too long. Its bad enough having teams rest starters with 2-3 weeks left, and teams out of contention by week 10, this just compounds the problem.

They make a lot of money off of pre-season games already, they'd sell a few (literally, a small amount) more tickets, and get more TV revenue, but they wont do it without paying the players more money. So it won't be the savior to the money problem.

And we have enough injury problems, I'd rather see the best of the best in the playoffs.

And again, everyone who rips athletes for complaining about their pay is flat out ignorant. If you worked at a factory and mandated an extra 10 hrs per week per person and you didn't get compensated fairly for it you'd piss at the mouth too.

 

[justinsayne]

No, if anything the season is too long. Its bad enough having teams rest starters with 2-3 weeks left, and teams out of contention by week 10, this just compounds the problem.

I think the season is about perfect at 16 games, however I do think the pre-season is too long, 4, 5, or however many games the preseason is at right now is just not necessary, 2-3 games should be enough for the players to get back into the swing of things and for the coaches to see what they need to see in order to make the decisions they need to make before the season starts

They make a lot of money off of pre-season games already, they'd sell a few (literally, a small amount) more tickets, and get more TV revenue, but they wont do it without paying the players more money. So it won't be the savior to the money problem.

If they are doing this simply to make more money then right now is the wrong time, most people I know who go to pre-season games go because it's a cheaper alternative to the regular season games that they can't afford, and if they were to do this then the players have every right to demand more money, if my employer changed my hours and expected me to work more then I would demand more money too

And we have enough injury problems, I'd rather see the best of the best in the playoffs.

Personally I would like to see the preseason shortened, the regular season start sooner, and an extra week off before the start of the playoffs, to give the players time to heel up for injuries, giving us the best of the best in the playoffs

 

[TheOneBigWill]

No, if anything the season is too long. Its bad enough having teams rest starters with 2-3 weeks left, and teams out of contention by week 10, this just compounds the problem.

Actually, if anything it'd be no different than it already is. New Orleans had clinched a Playoff spot, and even after they lost their first game continued to play starters until the final week.

Teams that are "no longer in it" won't stop playing. Carolina was out of it after the first four games when Delhomme was pushing Favre for an INT record. But did they stop? No. We were as low as 1-3, 3-5, and 4-7 before making our turn-around to finish 8-8.

That doesn't sound like a team that knew it was out of it, and simply quit on it's starters.

What you're describing are teams who clinch early, and begin slowly pulling starters to help not risk injury. So, how would you solve that? Decrease the season so no team clinches until the final week?

You can't guarantee no single team won't make a solid undefeated run - clinch and be able to rest. That's kinda the benefit of playing hard, and winning games.

Adding two more games helps to give more excitement because it's at least one extra game that's a "must win", since the .500 record would be 9-9, and it's also an advantage to the better teams who start and stay strong - to rest their starters more.

They make a lot of money off of pre-season games already, they'd sell a few (literally, a small amount) more tickets, and get more TV revenue, but they wont do it without paying the players more money. So it won't be the savior to the money problem.

Only true Football fans attend Pre-Season games, but that isn't enough. Regular Season games can sellout. I've never heard of Pre-Season games selling out. Why? Because nothing is on the line. No one truly cares.

They will increase profit two fold by ticket sales and TV revenue.

And we have enough injury problems, I'd rather see the best of the best in the playoffs.

And you typically do. The Best of the Best as you put it, are teams that are solid all the way around. Not just the teams who have solid Starters and nothing else. Teams that have back-ups that came contribute if they need to.

Besides, can you guarantee injuries won't happen at a rapid pace through a 16 game season? No, you can't. Injuries happen regardless how many games are played - and one more time - we aren't increasing the amount of games being played, just the amount of games being meaningful.

And again, everyone who rips athletes for complaining about their pay is flat out ignorant. If you worked at a factory and mandated an extra 10 hrs per week per person and you didn't get compensated fairly for it you'd piss at the mouth too.

On average what do you think a Factory worker brings in on a weekly basis. $350.00-400.00. And if they put in the mandated OT, what would that jump it to (if anything)? $500.00, at most.

So.. you're wanting us to compare a Factory worker (who truly busts his ass and is hard working) compared to a guy who plays a sport that is viewed by almost every Male in the world, as a hobby and recreational.. and makes, on average, what per game? In the Thousands, most likely. And what do they do differently? Play a 60 minute game of Football, once a week, for up-to (currently) 20 weeks. (including Playoffs)

Let me just add something extra to this..

ST. LOUIS -- No. 1 overall draft pick Sam Bradford agreed to a six-year, $78 million contract with the St. Louis Rams, with $50 million in guaranteed money.

The Rams and the former Oklahoma quarterback concluded negotiations in time for the first full-squad workout, set for Saturday. The guaranteed money is the highest ever in the NFL.

Sources told ESPN that the deal can be worth as much as $86 million.

So, on average this #1 Draft pick who has made history by collecting the largest amount (yet given) could be dealt the issue of playing upwards of 12 extra games over the course of his 6 year - $78 MILLION deal. Oh yeah, I am going to go to bed in just a bit thinking about how unfair that shit is, as I prepare to wake up - go to work - and earn under $10.00 an hour.

Oh, and let me leave you with this. Each year, #1 Draft picks always seem to earn more and more. Regardless of how many more - or less - games they play in. And I'm ignorant for not thinking if he's forced to play more, he should earn more? I'll get right on that.

 

[justinsayne]

So, on average this #1 Draft pick who has made history by collecting the largest amount (yet given) could be dealt the issue of playing upwards of 12 extra games over the course of his 6 year - $78 MILLION deal. Oh yeah, I am going to go to bed in just a bit thinking about how unfair that shit is, as I prepare to wake up - go to work - and earn under $10.00 an hour.

Oh, and let me leave you with this. Each year, #1 Draft picks always seem to earn more and more. Regardless of how many more - or less - games they play in. And I'm ignorant for not thinking if he's forced to play more, he should earn more? I'll get right on that.

Will they are not just payed to play games, they're payed for the hours spent in the weight room, on the practice field, in team meetings, studying film, plus add to the fact that they are always being watched by the media, so they sacrifice much of their privacy for millions of dollars, plus their bodies tend to take a huge beating, I'm willing to bet the toll the NFL takes on them is a tad bit more brutal then the toll that video store takes on you as you are standing behind the counter taking money and putting it in a cash register, or putting DVDs back on the shelf

 

[Megatron]

Will, you're acting like these guys are just out there playing a game of street football. Yeah, it looks like a game to us, but guys spend pretty much the whole season evaluating football. Not just coaches. Players too. I read an article that Matt Ryan was spending this offseason studying guys like Manning/Brees/Brady to see how they work. It's not a simple 'oh time to go do our job for 60 minutes this week then sit on our asses for the other 6 1/2 days.' Plus, guys are always working out to stay in shape and shit. And frankly, if they're going out there balls to the walls every game, then you throw 2 more games at them that count, they damn well better get paid more.

As for the question, I'm not a big fan of it. The thing about football is that every single game matters. If you start 0-2 in a 16 game season you're fucked for achance in teh playoffs almost every single time. But if you start that in an 18 game season you could still end up 10-8, which may or may not be good enough to make it all the way. Yeah, the fans would get more, but a lot of those late season games are already rest games for teams that have a spot clinched, an a lot of people aren't gonna turn the channel to a Rams/Lions game in October, let alone in Week 17. I understand why they're doing it, to get more revenue, but I'm not a fan of it. Keep it at 16.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I think the season is about perfect at 16 games, however I do think the pre-season is too long, 4, 5, or however many games the preseason is at right now is just not necessary, 2-3 games should be enough for the players to get back into the swing of things and for the coaches to see what they need to see in order to make the decisions they need to make before the season starts

I agree on the regular season length being good. I don't want it shortened, but there are flaws with it, just none that can be solved with adding games.

The pre-season may be too long, but I'd sacrifice having these games than to screw up the regular season. They'll never just take two games off of the schedule.

If they are doing this simply to make more money then right now is the wrong time, most people I know who go to pre-season games go because it's a cheaper alternative to the regular season games that they can't afford, and if they were to do this then the players have every right to demand more money, if my employer changed my hours and expected me to work more then I would demand more money too

Summed up my post.

Personally I would like to see the preseason shortened, the regular season start sooner, and an extra week off before the start of the playoffs, to give the players time to heel up for injuries, giving us the best of the best in the playoffs

I like the concept, but the pre-season wont be shortened unless games are added on the back end. I agree with a week earlier start and the bye week before the playoffs.

Actually, if anything it'd be no different than it already is. New Orleans had clinched a Playoff spot, and even after they lost their first game continued to play starters until the final week.

They had to play for home-field advantage before week 17. Elementary football here.

Teams that are "no longer in it" won't stop playing. Carolina was out of it after the first four games when Delhomme was pushing Favre for an INT record. But did they stop? No. We were as low as 1-3, 3-5, and 4-7 before making our turn-around to finish 8-8.

The Rams started 0-7, then 1-7, then finished 1-15. Nobody gives a crap about the Panthers, do you watch any other teams?

That doesn't sound like a team that knew it was out of it, and simply quit on it's starters.

Who cares? I don't. Talk to yourself by yourself. What I was talking about was how pointless it is to watch games between 1-13 vs 2-12 teams. It'll only get worse. Bad rosters aren't solved by more games.

What you're describing are teams who clinch early, and begin slowly pulling starters to help not risk injury. So, how would you solve that? Decrease the season so no team clinches until the final week?

No, I simply ask that no games are added so we don't see 3-4 weeks at the end of the season where half the games are fluff football.

You can't guarantee no single team won't make a solid undefeated run - clinch and be able to rest. That's kinda the benefit of playing hard, and winning games.

Ok?

Adding two more games helps to give more excitement because it's at least one extra game that's a "must win", since the .500 record would be 9-9, and it's also an advantage to the better teams who start and stay strong - to rest their starters more.

The point of adding the games is for the fans and revenue. How is watching Curtis Painter blow entertaining? It's not.

Only true Football fans attend Pre-Season games, but that isn't enough. Regular Season games can sellout. I've never heard of Pre-Season games selling out. Why? Because nothing is on the line. No one truly cares.

They will increase profit two fold by ticket sales and TV revenue.

Doesn't matter who goes, season ticket holders MUST purchase pre-season tickets. You still have relatively large crowds there. You aren't making a huge gain at the end on the extra few thousand tickets when you're putting that right into the player's wallets.

Besides the games sold at before the season begins, such as the Packers, Eagles, Giants, and Steelers games, who is going to go out and buy tickets to a week 18 game between a 3-14 and 6-11 team? Nobody.

And you typically do. The Best of the Best as you put it, are teams that are solid all the way around. Not just the teams who have solid Starters and nothing else. Teams that have back-ups that came contribute if they need to.

Typically do because of the system that is currently in place. That's not the topic. Its applied to the 18 game schedule.

And you lose depth when you have to play your 2nd-stringers. On top of that, you endorse pre-season, since that's the best way for teams to solidify their final 15-20 roster spots.

Besides, can you guarantee injuries won't happen at a rapid pace through a 16 game season? No, you can't. Injuries happen regardless how many games are played - and one more time - we aren't increasing the amount of games being played, just the amount of games being meaningful.

Tom Brady playing in 6 drives vs playing the entire game = huge difference. I pay to see the best players play. You really ARE adding games to the schedule.

On average what do you think a Factory worker brings in on a weekly basis. $350.00-400.00. And if they put in the mandated OT, what would that jump it to (if anything)? $500.00, at most.

Thats not the point. Don't get lost in a simple example. You deserve to be compensated for what you agree to. If you sign a contract during a 16 game season, it should be prorated to 18 games, just like mandatory overtime is justified for factory workers.

So.. you're wanting us to compare a Factory worker (who truly busts his ass and is hard working) compared to a guy who plays a sport that is viewed by almost every Male in the world, as a hobby and recreational.. and makes, on average, what per game? In the Thousands, most likely. And what do they do differently? Play a 60 minute game of Football, once a week, for up-to (currently) 20 weeks. (including Playoffs)

Are you joking? Just because you're famous means you don't work hard? That is IGNORANT, like it or not. The entire paragraph, really.

They practice every day, they watch film every day. The games last in upwards of 3 hours. They go through two-a-days, and they meet the demand.

Let me just add something extra to this..



So, on average this #1 Draft pick who has made history by collecting the largest amount (yet given) could be dealt the issue of playing upwards of 12 extra games over the course of his 6 year - $78 MILLION deal. Oh yeah, I am going to go to bed in just a bit thinking about how unfair that shit is, as I prepare to wake up - go to work - and earn under $10.00 an hour.

Oh, and let me leave you with this. Each year, #1 Draft picks always seem to earn more and more. Regardless of how many more - or less - games they play in. And I'm ignorant for not thinking if he's forced to play more, he should earn more? I'll get right on that.

Since you're too swept away about what you can't understand, would you think its unfair if they simply didn't pay you for a day of work? You know, stretch the money out, from $400/wk for 5, 8 hr days, to $400/wk for 6, 8 hr days?

 

[Big Sexy]

I keep seeing everyone bringing up an additional bye week, and I've even read that they're in discussion that if the extra two games get added to the Regular Season that they could bring in an additional bye week - but I'm gonna ask again.. why?

You have 4 Pre-Season games, and no bye week between that and the Regular Season. Cutting that in half and flipping 2 of those 4 Pre-Seaosn games to Regular Season games does not increase anything. It merely changes over how many games mean something as opposed to how many are 'warm-up tests'.

So why bring in an additional bye week, when that would only require adding an additional week overall to the Regular Season so everyone can have an extra break at some point when it's simply not needed.

It's easy - currently you have a 17 week season, and 16 games.

18 games = 19 week Season. If you have 18 games, and 2 bye weeks, that would require a 20 week Regular Season. There is no need.



I don't see this happening. Just because they're considering (and likely going to) increase the Season by 2 games; does not mean they'll allow for a bigger roster, or Salary Cap.

And besides that, wouldn't that be kinda stupid? I mean, you reduce your evaluation games to two - and you then want to turn around and increase your roster?? Why? So you can keep more worthless talent on board that you'll pay Thousands to, that likely won't see much playing time? And you won't know any sooner whether they're worth keeping or not.

Don't act like the pre season and regular season are similar at all. The starters in pre seasons games 1 and 2 play a couple series. In the third preseason game they play a half and sometimes into the third quarter. Then the 4th game they usually don't play at all. So 4 pre season games and the starters are on the field for a total of probably one game. 18 regular season games and 2 pre season is completely different from 16 regular and 4 pre season. Thinking otherwise is just wrong. A second bye week is being discussed because it makes a lot of sense.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Will they are not just payed to play games, they're payed for the hours spent in the weight room, on the practice field, in team meetings, studying film,

And that's all apart of the job/career choice they decide. Coming in from College, they know that they have to go through all of that - and they willingly do so, for the money they get to simply start off.

It's similar to a person asking for a pay raise, simply because they're asked to do something extra that they weren't used to doing. On average, how many people get those pay raises whenever a little extra work is added onto their daily/weekly list of things that must be done? Very damn little.

And besides - most people work and bust their ass for a job simply to get by. We're talking about kids who decided because they were Athletes in school, and could play the game, they'd make easier money by playing a sport they loved to play as children. It's truly quite different than your everyday average job.

So don't try and pawn off how much work and shit they have to go through - because at the end of the day - they decided to go into Pro Football for the love of the game and/or the money. Whereas most people decide on jobs, simply because of the lack of options - or because they need to pay bills.

plus add to the fact that they are always being watched by the media, so they sacrifice much of their privacy for millions of dollars, plus their bodies tend to take a huge beating

This has to be the dumbest thing I've read yet. So, because they're Role-Models and in constant spotlight, that should earn them extra things? Why? Because they're celebraties? Hey, I didn't twist any Pro Athlete's arm and force them into that spotlight or career choice. So I'm not about to give up sympathy for how much of their lives are viewed under a mircoscope. Again - it was their choice.

Will, you're acting like these guys are just out there playing a game of street football. Yeah, it looks like a game to us, but guys spend pretty much the whole season evaluating football. Not just coaches. Players too. I read an article that Matt Ryan was spending this offseason studying guys like Manning/Brees/Brady to see how they work. It's not a simple 'oh time to go do our job for 60 minutes this week then sit on our asses for the other 6 1/2 days.' Plus, guys are always working out to stay in shape and shit. And frankly, if they're going out there balls to the walls every game, then you throw 2 more games at them that count, they damn well better get paid more.

I get that what I originally said apparently sounded like it was merely them playing a game. I'm sorry that the majority of people arguing my point(s) weren't able to see I was clearly talking about more than just that.

The point I'm making, is just like any other job - they shouldn't be given extra money (in this case, extra Thousands) for an extra two weeks. Go to your Boss the next time he gives you an extra amount of work, and demand a raise or threaten not to do the extra work.. see how fast you get replaced.

What I was talking about was how pointless it is to watch games between 1-13 vs 2-12 teams. It'll only get worse. Bad rosters aren't solved by more games.

You still have every chance to witness games with two crappy ranked teams at the end of a 16 game Season. Your logic fails here.

Fact is, the difference is you're replacing two Pre-Season games that have no meaning and turning them into two games that will add onto an overall Season record.

Whether you play Starters, or not. Whether you have two crappy ranked teams battling out in the final weeks or not. You're getting the same exact thing you would get currently, with exception to the games actually COUNTING!

That is what the League is truly trying to have done. People have complained for years about the Pre-Season being boring and unentertaining. So, because they don't wish to do away with those games - they're merely turning them into Regular Season games. Which is (in turn) causing a massive cluster-fuck of up-roar, all because people can't come to terms with the fact that nothing is truly changing, except for a record being kept and it's an extra set of games you would be pushed to win, to make the Playoffs.

No, I simply ask that no games are added so we don't see 3-4 weeks at the end of the season where half the games are fluff football.

You see that currently at the beginning of the Season, with the Pre-Season. If anything, technically wouldn't this be better - since it'd give Playoff bound teams the time to rest up their Starters and make the Playoffs even more competitive?

who is going to go out and buy tickets to a week 18 game between a 3-14 and 6-11 team? Nobody.

The same people who are seen in the Stadium's of teams such as; Cleveland, Kansas City, Oakland, Tampa Bay, Washington, and multiple others that truly haven't had a solid shot at anything in a few years.

They're called fans of those specific teams. I'm sorry because you apparently love a team that doesn't lose as much, to you, the rest are considered Nobodies. Thankfully, thats why you aren't running anything in the Financial Offices of the NFL.

Don't act like the pre season and regular season are similar at all. The starters in pre seasons games 1 and 2 play a couple series. In the third preseason game they play a half and sometimes into the third quarter. Then the 4th game they usually don't play at all. So 4 pre season games and the starters are on the field for a total of probably one game. 18 regular season games and 2 pre season is completely different from 16 regular and 4 pre season. Thinking otherwise is just wrong. A second bye week is being discussed because it makes a lot of sense.

Wk 1 of the Pre-Season, most teams played their Starters for the first full Quarter.

Wk 2 of the Pre-Season, most teams played their Starters for the first full half.

Wk 3 of the Pre-Season, most teams played (and will play) their Starters for 3 full Quarters.

Wk 4 of the Pre-Season, most teams will play their Starters for 1 (maybe 2) drives.

So, adding those up.. you get 6 Quarters. Two games = 8 Quarters. I'm so sorry that the difference is going to be a Half of Football.

Justin said it best..

All they're doing is taking two of the four Pre-Season games, and simply moving them to the END of the Regular Season. I see no reason for an extra bye week, when no extra games are technically being added. I see no reason for a massive pay increase for players, when most of the ones who'd set to make a ton of money - likely still wouldn't play at the end of the Season any longer than they would in a Pre-Season game, to begin with.

 

[Big Sexy]

Wk 1 of the Pre-Season, most teams played their Starters for the first full Quarter.

Wk 2 of the Pre-Season, most teams played their Starters for the first full half.

Wk 3 of the Pre-Season, most teams played (and will play) their Starters for 3 full Quarters.

Wk 4 of the Pre-Season, most teams will play their Starters for 1 (maybe 2) drives.

Maybe if this wasn't completely wrong you'd have a point. The first pre season game they play MAX one quarter but in most cases it's usually just a couple series. The second pre season game they play MAX a full half but again in a lot of cases it's just the first quarter and maybe a series in the second. The third preseason game they play MAX 3 quarters but a lot of teams will give the starters the first half and a series in the third. Then the 4th pre season game if they play at all it's just one series.

It usually averages to maybe 5 full quarters that the starters play in the pre season. It's also a little different having those quarters spread out over 4 weeks rather then it being in a 1-2 week span. You also have to remember that the starters will be playing more in the pre season if it's cut to two games so they can get ready for the regular season. They will end up playing close to 4 quarters all together in those games.

 

[justinsayne]

And that's all apart of the job/career choice they decide. Coming in from College, they know that they have to go through all of that - and they willingly do so, for the money they get to simply start off.

Aren't most people who go to college essentially doing the same thing?, I mean isn't that the reason for college, to give you the knowledge and training you are going to need to prepare you for the field of work you are going into so that you can be successful?

It's similar to a person asking for a pay raise, simply because they're asked to do something extra that they weren't used to doing. On average, how many people get those pay raises whenever a little extra work is added onto their daily/weekly list of things that must be done? Very damn little.

Ok, Idk how they do things down there in Iowa, but every job I've had when I'm given more responsibilities to take care of 9 out of 10 times I'm given more money as well, as is the case for most people I know

And besides - most people work and bust their ass for a job simply to get by. We're talking about kids who decided because they were Athletes in school, and could play the game, they'd make easier money by playing a sport they loved to play as children. It's truly quite different than your everyday average job.

Jesus Christ Will, you make sound as if any jackass who can catch or throw a fucking ball can make it in the NFL, fact is less then 1% of all HS athletes will make to the pros, the ones who do bust their asses their entire lives to get there, and then continue to bust their asses once they do make it, with all the hits these guys take, the injuries they suffer, years are taken off their lives, so yeah it's quite different than your everyday job, and to say they are making easier money is just plain ignorant

So don't try and pawn off how much work and shit they have to go through - because at the end of the day - they decided to go into Pro Football for the love of the game and/or the money. Whereas most people decide on jobs, simply because of the lack of options - or because they need to pay bills.

So they shouldn't be rewarded for all their hard work, all the sacrifices they had to make, they worked their asses of so they could have their dream job and get played well to do it, and yet you seem to think they should be punished for it, and not get payed? right now you're just coming across as bitter

The point I'm making, is just like any other job - they shouldn't be given extra money (in this case, extra Thousands) for an extra two weeks. Go to your Boss the next time he gives you an extra amount of work, and demand a raise or threaten not to do the extra work.. see how fast you get replaced.

Yes they would, seriously I don't get why you would think differently, I personally have asked for more money when given more responsibility and work, and as I've said before 9 out of 10 times I get more money, it may not come right away but at some point I get more money for doing more work

You still have every chance to witness games with two crappy ranked teams at the end of a 16 game Season. Your logic fails here.

Which is basically the same quality of football you get out of the pre-season, therefore it's pointless

Fact is, the difference is you're replacing two Pre-Season games that have no meaning and turning them into two games that will add onto an overall Season record.

Fact is, the difference is you're replacing two pre-season games with more affordable tickets, with two regular season games with more expenses tickets, if you really think about it you are taking away the ability for people who don't have a ton of disposable income (which at this current point in time is a lot) and replacing them with games they won't be able to afford tickets too

Whether you play Starters, or not. Whether you have two crappy ranked teams battling out in the final weeks or not. You're getting the same exact thing you would get currently, with exception to the games actually COUNTING!

You'd also be paying the MORE MONEY FOR TICKETS!

That is what the League is truly trying to have done. People have complained for years about the Pre-Season being boring and unentertaining.

So instead they are going to replace boring and unentertaining games that mean nothing with boring and unentertaining games that mean something and will cost the fans more to see?

So, because they don't wish to do away with those games - they're merely turning them into Regular Season games. Which is (in turn) causing a massive cluster-fuck of up-roar, all because people can't come to terms with the fact that nothing is truly changing,

over something that is more or less pointless, so why bother changing it?, just leave it as is, things are about as perfect as they are gonna get

 

[M. Winters]

As a football fan I would love to get two more meaningful games during the season, but going to an 18 game season completely ruins the history of the league. Every season single record will be smashed and 25 years from now none of the old records will exist, so I'm completely against it. Looks like it's a sure thing though so what can ya do.

 

[Davi323]

As a football fan I would love to get two more meaningful games during the season, but going to an 18 game season completely ruins the history of the league. Every season single record will be smashed and 25 years from now none of the old records will exist, so I'm completely against it. Looks like it's a sure thing though so what can ya do.

Ridiculous. It won't "completely ruin the history of the league" any more than going to 14 games instead of 12 did, or going to 16 games instead of 14 games did. Barry Sanders will still be the human highlight reel after switching, Jerry Rice will still be the greatest WR ever. Babe Ruth didn't play a 162 game schedule in baseball, and yet, he is still Babe fucking Ruth.

 

[TwistofRKO]

And that's all apart of the job/career choice they decide. Coming in from College, they know that they have to go through all of that - and they willingly do so, for the money they get to simply start off.

Yeah, they worked hard to get there. Guess they do really earn their pay though.

It's similar to a person asking for a pay raise, simply because they're asked to do something extra that they weren't used to doing. On average, how many people get those pay raises whenever a little extra work is added onto their daily/weekly list of things that must be done? Very damn little.

No, its exactly like getting paid for what you do. They signed contracts as according to 16 game regular seasons. They deserve to get paid accordingly.

And besides - most people work and bust their ass for a job simply to get by. We're talking about kids who decided because they were Athletes in school, and could play the game, they'd make easier money by playing a sport they loved to play as children. It's truly quite different than your everyday average job.

Why, because they have a talent you and I don't? That means they don't work? Grow up.

So don't try and pawn off how much work and shit they have to go through - because at the end of the day - they decided to go into Pro Football for the love of the game and/or the money. Whereas most people decide on jobs, simply because of the lack of options - or because they need to pay bills.

You don't just decide, you bust for it. There's always someone who can take your job and knock you out of football. You really don't understand what their job is, and what it takes to get there.

This has to be the dumbest thing I've read yet. So, because they're Role-Models and in constant spotlight, that should earn them extra things? Why? Because they're celebraties? Hey, I didn't twist any Pro Athlete's arm and force them into that spotlight or career choice. So I'm not about to give up sympathy for how much of their lives are viewed under a mircoscope. Again - it was their choice.

You pay to see them, you choose to watch them on TV, you buy their merchandise. Yes, by giving up their privacy, they are entailed to more than you.

I get that what I originally said apparently sounded like it was merely them playing a game. I'm sorry that the majority of people arguing my point(s) weren't able to see I was clearly talking about more than just that.

The point I'm making, is just like any other job - they shouldn't be given extra money (in this case, extra Thousands) for an extra two weeks. Go to your Boss the next time he gives you an extra amount of work, and demand a raise or threaten not to do the extra work.. see how fast you get replaced.

That's not even close to the same thing. Have your boss raise your hours and not pay you for them. See how long it takes for the employees to complain.

There's a better example.

You still have every chance to witness games with two crappy ranked teams at the end of a 16 game Season. Your logic fails here.

Really? Doesn't look like you understood the logic.

If it already happens at the end of 16 games, what would be solved by adding two more weeks of it?

Getting it now? You'll end up losing money in the long run.

Fact is, the difference is you're replacing two Pre-Season games that have no meaning and turning them into two games that will add onto an overall Season record.

With huge-side effects that will end up doing nothing positive.

Whether you play Starters, or not. Whether you have two crappy ranked teams battling out in the final weeks or not. You're getting the same exact thing you would get currently, with exception to the games actually COUNTING!

If they are essentially worthless, then whats the point?

That is what the League is truly trying to have done. People have complained for years about the Pre-Season being boring and unentertaining. So, because they don't wish to do away with those games - they're merely turning them into Regular Season games. Which is (in turn) causing a massive cluster-fuck of up-roar, all because people can't come to terms with the fact that nothing is truly changing, except for a record being kept and it's an extra set of games you would be pushed to win, to make the Playoffs.

No, they aren't doing it for the fans, its the owners wanting more money. It hurts the season, and is a waste of time. The owners will lose money in the long run.

You see that currently at the beginning of the Season, with the Pre-Season. If anything, technically wouldn't this be better - since it'd give Playoff bound teams the time to rest up their Starters and make the Playoffs even more competitive?

Not exactly. The playoffs are great now. What you'll see here
is more player getting injured. You're not giving Peyton Manning 4 weeks off before the playoffs.

The same people who are seen in the Stadium's of teams such as; Cleveland, Kansas City, Oakland, Tampa Bay, Washington, and multiple others that truly haven't had a solid shot at anything in a few years.

They sell out because they have good fans, minus Tampa Bay. Not sure why you included them. Along with Tampa, Jacksonville and St. Louis, among others are already having trouble selling seats. How does taking away two cheap games and replacing them with more expensive, just as meaningless games, solve the problem? It doesn't.

They're called fans of those specific teams. I'm sorry because you apparently love a team that doesn't lose as much, to you, the rest are considered Nobodies. Thankfully, thats why you aren't running anything in the Financial Offices of the NFL.

That's an emotional reaction, and not a thought out one. I never said everyone else had bad fans, its the fact that teams are, for a fact, already starting to have problems selling tickets. You're not grasping this.

Wk 1 of the Pre-Season, most teams played their Starters for the first full Quarter.

Wk 2 of the Pre-Season, most teams played their Starters for the first full half.

Wk 3 of the Pre-Season, most teams played (and will play) their Starters for 3 full Quarters.

Wk 4 of the Pre-Season, most teams will play their Starters for 1 (maybe 2) drives.

So, adding those up.. you get 6 Quarters. Two games = 8 Quarters. I'm so sorry that the difference is going to be a Half of Football.

Not exactly accurate, but let's run with this.

You're taking the time to prepare and get back into football, so you're ready for the real games, with very basic plays, and equating them to two real games? Yeah, it doesn't add up.

Justin said it best..

All they're doing is taking two of the four Pre-Season games, and simply moving them to the END of the Regular Season. I see no reason for an extra bye week, when no extra games are technically being added. I see no reason for a massive pay increase for players, when most of the ones who'd set to make a ton of money - likely still wouldn't play at the end of the Season any longer than they would in a Pre-Season game, to begin with.

 

[goodlay]

I say keep it the way it is. I think the pre-season is fine. You get your starters in-game reps to prepare them for the regular season, and you give the guys trying to make the team an opportunity. With a 2 game pre-season, the starters wouldn't get enough reps, because the coaches would be trying to evaluate the back-ups and guys trying to make the team.

So you would see coaches either choosing to give their starters more reps, or giving the back-ups more reps to see who is good enough to make the team. I think most, if not all coaches, would choose the latter. Then in regular season you would see more sloppy play in the first couple of games, and it would take longer for teams to get into their groove. Of course with 2 more regular season games you would probably see more injuries, but that argument is moot for me, as every football game you have a potential risk of injury.

I wouldn't hate it or anything if they went to an 18 game season, but I think it's fine the way it is right now.

 

[Showtime]

You people are getting way too sensitive about this. Twist

I just found out about this possible scenario happening today when I read an article by CFL linebacker Doug Brown. Canadian Football League for those of you who don't know. Anyway, the article stated how the owners got together with Goodell and came up with this cutting edge idea they called an "enhanced schedule" While the league and owners have touted the idea as new, the 18 regular season/2 preseason game schedule has been used by the CFL for the last number of years.

It would be naive of me say that the players in the CFL are as big, strong, and athletic as those in the NFL. They aren't, so the hits, tackles, throws, sprints, and all the other athletic and painful shit would be less extreme. However, the CFL runs on a 4.25 Million Dollar Team payroll. The 50 million Sam Bradford is getting could run the whole CFL for a year. I'm sure more than half of all starting QB's are making more money than that, if not all. So that means we run on archaic devices and no "state of the arts". No first class treatment here, no spot light. Bench players here aren't going to make a couple grand a week, they are living off a couple hundred. Here we don't have the best physical trainers and medical staff, a whole team of personal to cater to their whims and demands, heck, a lot of players in the CFL work winter jobs, or keep trying to improve by playing additional season time in other leagues like Arena. So the last thing I want to hear is some whining bullshit from some pampered ass players who wants to be greatly compensated for playing 2 more games that mean something, especially when there is still a chance they could have an additional bye week and only play 1 extra game, which in the end would be 1 less game if you included preseason. Did I mention the CFL only has 1 bye week for it's teams? Makes them seem even more badass.

The NFL isn't going to do nothing until the 2012 season. That is the last year of the players CBA with the league. No doubt they will demand to be compensated extra if this situation were to occur. Of course, why wouldn't they? If the owners are going to make a ton more money doing this than so should the players right. I agree with this to an extent. The players should be compensated, but marginally, that's it. They are not being asked to play and perform more than they already are. They should be training just as hard b/w games in regular season as they do for preseason. In fact, they may actually play fewer games if the 2 bye week approach is accepted. As well, teams that do in fact lock up early playoff spots have the advantage of keeping their players well rested for the playoffs. The weak argument is that this will lead to lackluster and less star power driven regular season games. The upside, players would be 100% for the games that truly matter. The NFL is single handedly making the players lives easier by not risking thier necks for meaningless preseason games, as well as provide them with an opportunity to make more money by having a slightly longer season, and all Twist and the players will say is "Hey, where's my money" Greedy players.

I browsed over a normally weak Twist counter argument about meaningless matches between two bottom teams happens in 16 schedules and will be worse in 18 schedules and fewer fans will watch/attend. I'm sorry, does preseason sellout? Season Ticket holders have filed lawsuits against teams for making it mandatory they purchase Preseason tickets. Players themselves feel little motivation to perform since they don't begin to get paid until the regular season begins. The Owners already make a good fortune from these games, from not having to pay the players and still getting an almost full gate, all they want is to make the league a little more revenue by getting 2 more weeks of games out that can be massively televised and sell a few extra thousand tickets, not less, more. And a longer schedule may one day lead to the playoffs changing from a 6 team to an 8 team format. More league profit, which can lead to more player profit.

Really, the idea has few faults. It'll make the league more money, it'll make the players more money and entitle them to a greater season pay, they have the benefit of playing a more relaxed schedule, they won't have to play as many preseason games that they are not payed for, it'll decrease the hold out time of certain players who merely use this play to avoid preseason games and get more money. If people are afraid that the younger and secondary talent won't get a fair chance t make the team here's an innovative idea, start training camp two weeks earlier. Get the rookies out there early, before the veterans and all-stars have to arrive. I don't care if the NFL implements the thing or not, I just strongly think that it will have mostly positive outcomes and that they should acknowledge the CFL for it, rather than call it their little "enhanced" schedule.