The NFL structure is brilliantly-conceived - New England Patriots Forums

ironwasp · 09-26-2006, 09:33 AM

If there is one thing that the anxiety on this board this week illustrates - other than the fact that we're all nuts - it is that by accident or design the NFL has structured its season in such a way that just about every game matters, irrespective of the time of the season.

I cannot think of a single other professional sport where each game is invested with such a degree of importance. Part of it is in the scarcity value of the games. By the standards of most sports a 16-game regular season is pretty slim. So those of us who wait through the long off-season are waiting for just 16 games - and if you are lucky enough to get along live, it's just eight home games.

That means that all the emotion/heartache/exhilaration/joy/despair of a 150-odd game baseball season or a 50 game soccer season is distilled into 16 matches.

But secondly the divisional structure and play-off structure invests added important into certain results. Losing to the Broncos means there's a good chance our post-season route would have to go through Denver. Losing next weekend might mean something similar.

But already four weeks into the season some teams are struggling in their divison, others in their conference. It's fascinating. You can see something riding on every game.

The you get to the end of the season and the "Reggie Bush" bowl type games where suddenly the draft comes into focus.

I was as sore as hell on Monday morning after the result - but God, I love the NFL.

Seymour93 · 09-26-2006, 09:39 AM

Sixteen games (plus the playoffs for certain teams) is not enough for my taste. The offseason wait is too long. One of the things I like about the Premiership is that it lasts for almost ten months a year.

Edited to say, the reason why some fixtures in English soccer do not seem important week in and week out is not because of the schedule, but because of the size of the clubs within the league. In the NFL, you have a salary cap which brings parity to the game. Teams are shuffling around all of the time. In England, this is not the case. Being a supporter of one of the big clubs, it can be difficult to "get up" for the likes of Charlton, Wigan, Reading, etc.

texpat · 09-26-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironwasp

That means that all the emotion/heartache/exhilaration/joy/despair of a 150-odd game baseball season or a 50 game soccer season is distilled into 16 matches.

I agree with your message, but
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
what-in-the-hell is this game you call soccer???????????????

ironwasp · 09-26-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seymour93

Sixteen games (plus the playoffs for certain teams) is not enough for my taste. The offseason wait is too long. One of the things I like about the Premiership is that it lasts for almost ten months a year.

Part of me would love to see more games. But for one thing I think the season works well as it is, but secondly I'm not sure the players could withstand the physical punishment of a 20 or 25 game regular season.

By way of a comparison there was a report this morning about the England rugby squad which began training together for the first time yesterday. These guys are restricted to a maximum of 32 games per season, and of the 55 selected to take part in training yesterday 30 were injured.

***Mike the Brit*** · 09-26-2006, 09:56 AM

An excellent post, Ironwasp.

One of the many things that the NFL have got right is the way in which TV and live fans complement one another. By artificially restricting the supply of Pro football, they ensure that pretty much every game is sold out -- and those games are a much better TV product. The wild excitement in Jacksonville (as well, of course, as the Superdome last night) gives a real sense of occasion. What's more, a lot of those fans became NFL fans through TV. The right kind of TV exposure builds your audience as well as making you lots of money.

It's amazing that these geniuses are such idiots when it comes to trying to promote the game abroad (which they all say now is a big priority).

Seymour93 · 09-26-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironwasp

Part of me would love to see more games. But for one thing I think the season works well as it is, but secondly I'm not sure the players could withstand the physical punishment of a 20 or 25 game regular season.

That's the biggest arguement in favour of keeping the schedule the status quo. Rookies, coming from the college system where they are used to playing just ten games a year, have a hard enough time as it is getting used to the sixteen game schedule.

See my edit of my previous post.

***DarrylS*** · 09-26-2006, 11:24 AM

I have said before that the NFL has become a cash cow for all involved... but I think the season is too short, too much attrition, the game has become too physical... they could add some games but I think you need to add some bye weeks to let these guys recover.. I wonder if the roster was extended where there could be additional players available if this would be an answer... but then again why change something that works so well. I dunno, but I do know I can't wait for the NFL, then the season is over.

***Tunescribe*** · 09-26-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

I have said before that the NFL has become a cash cow for all involved... but I think the season is too short, too much attrition, the game has become too physical... they could add some games but I think you need to add some bye weeks to let these guys recover.. I wonder if the roster was extended where there could be additional players available if this would be an answer... but then again why change something that works so well. I dunno, but I do know I can't wait for the NFL, then the season is over.

I've found the NFL Network to be a big help in filling in the off-season gap -- I watch it all the time. The roster limit does seem small, I wonder why it isn't bigger or could be made bigger. Anyone know?

***alamo*** · 09-26-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

But it wont happen because the best thing for the owners is to have 4 pre season games, 2 at home, becase 100% of the pre season revenue at the stadiums goes to the owners, 0% to the players.

That's not true. Gate receipts for preseason games are included in "Defined Gross Revenues" and thus players receive their percentage under the salary cap. Everything that qualifies as DGR during the regular season also qualifies during the preseason. Yes, the players get only nominal pay for the preseason games, but the revenue from those games is included in the salary cap calculation and is part of the season's salary. In other words, increasing the season to 18 games would not cost the owners anything, the player salaries would be the same, just divided by 19 weekly checks rather than 17.

***TruthSeeker*** · 09-27-2006, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alamo

That's not true. Gate receipts for preseason games are included in "Defined Gross Revenues" and thus players receive their percentage under the salary cap. Everything that qualifies as DGR during the regular season also qualifies during the preseason. Yes, the players get only nominal pay for the preseason games, but the revenue from those games is included in the salary cap calculation and is part of the season's salary. In other words, increasing the season to 18 games would not cost the owners anything, the player salaries would be the same, just divided by 19 weekly checks rather than 17.

Based on this, the owners would actually *save* a little money since they wouldn't have to pay the pittance they do for these preseason games. Interesting.