Simple question, would you prefer an 18 game season or 16?

The only real question is would you be more likely to watch the 17th and 18th regular season game than you are the 2 preseason games they replace and the answer of the general public to that is an overwhelming yes.

VJCPatriot said:

16 games please. 18 is only to fatten the owners' wallets. I don't think it would be good for the game to put two more weeks of wear and tear on pro football player bodies.

Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree for the following reasons.

1. The "2 extra games myth"

They ARE NOT playing 2 extra games. Right now the teams play 20 games, and that's what they would continue to do. EXACTLY the same...just now 2 more would count toward the regular season.

2. The "injury myth"

a. Because of all the situational offensive formations and and defensive packages, fewer and fewer players are on the field as much as they used to be just a decade ago. Off the top of my head I'd guess there would be fewe 4 defensive players who play more than 70% of the snaps. On offense, outside of the OL, I doubt there is more than 2 skill players who play more than 70%....and often its just the QB.

So if you think about it, starters a decade ago, were getting more snaps in a 16 game season, than most starters are likely to get now in 18 games.

b. Injuries can happen in those last 2 pre season games as well...and while the so called starters don't get many snaps in the 4th game, they get a lot in #3.

The fact is that teams get more done in those 2 team "practices" than they get done in the so called preseason games. They get more reps. They can isolate drills. More teaching. More evaluation. Less injury risk.

Teams would be much better served with at least 2 of these "scrimmages" and 2 preseason games.

c. I read several well thought out posts that sited stats that claimed that in an 18 game season with 2 preseason games, the average starter would wind up playing about 3 more plays per game more than what he does now. So I ask you, "what's the big deal."


d. The "union" should be embracing this plan. They should use it to leverage the owners for concessions like:

a. An expanded roster - say 55 players - An expanded game day roster - say 50, or better yet, let everyone on the roster play on game day (I have never figured out why they do it this way in the first place). More players who are available to play mean fewer snaps for individual players and thus fewer injuries.

b. They could lobby for fewer mandatory off season practices, though personally I don't think what they ask them to do now in that onerous, and is much to their professional benefit. Besides they get a full years pay. There is no financial need for ANY of them to do anything else but football in the off season.

c. The "union" should be paying more attention to things like better equipment and better field surfaces, than where the last dollar is going. Players now get fantastic wages, wages that have increased far faster than the rest of the working world.

d. Perhaps they should lobby to start an week earlier and have 2 bye weeks during the season

In a tough economy increasing revenues a a business' key goal. An 18 game season is the best way for the league to do this. Its that simple. If the players want to aid in this, they should embrace it. If not, they shouldn't complain when they find out that their
ever increasing paychecks start to diminish rather than expand.

PatsFanSince74 said:

But, that's the point, they don't put much into those games and a lot of (not all) injuries are avoided. So, while injuries can happen in any game or on any practice field, the reality is that there is a much greater chance of injuries in two more regular season games than in two "inter-squad scrimmages."

Most of us just ignore or pay scant attention to these games. As far as I can see, the only people really "wronged" by the two extra pre-season games are the fans who buy season ticket packages. But, the cash from those seats and concessions are an important part of the owners' revenue package.

Remember. What the owners are really trying to get out of this is a TV package that is a lot fatter. Two more regular season games is as much as 12.5% more revenue. Off of a base of a nine billion dollar contract, that's a lot of money.

Click to expand...

These are just the points. what is wrong with the owners trying to increase revenues by makeing these two games count. You must relize the incredible investment made by ownership,purches of the franchise, building and maintianing of stadiums with limited lifespans if they want to stay competitive, property taxes, payroll, benifit packages, not to mention corporat income taxes, intrest on loan to finance the franchise, also the salary cap has balloned from 58.4 mill. in 1999 to 128 mill in 2009. There are franchises who are not competitive and would go under if not for the fact that they get assistance from the more succesfull teams in the league. Just remember the players want to be treated on an equal level with the owners but they have ZERO investment in any franchise. Everyone wants to bash ownership but ownership is out to protect the rights of the fans. Go ahead and laugh. BUT if ownership and the NFL was not looking out for the fans then they would downsize and allow all unsuccesfull franchises to go under. This would increase the product share to all the succesfull franchises and drive down the pay scale for players due the the excess of existing NFL players, while increaseing the quality of play by concentrateing more quality players on fewer teams. whether you relize it or not management will always be able to find players and create teams, and the players are noware without management. Think of the last guy you worked with who thought he was irreplaceable, where is he now? You are a fan of the NE Patriots, players come and go for CASH with NO ALEGIENCE to any one. The one staple is the ownership and ther philosophy on how to field a team. That is where your alegience belongs. The players try to play the blue coller working man card to gain sympathy from the fans. We are being played, the min. salary for a rookie is 325,000, at min. salary if a player reaches the average playing term of 4 years he will earn 1,750,000. At an average of 39,000 per year you will work your whole life (45 years) to earn that sum, that is not working class blue coller earner, and I for one have only got to speak with them by paying for the privledge. Thats at min. wage, the average salary in the nfl in 09 was over 770,000. The NFL like the economy has gotten out of controll and if the NFLPA does not learn to work with ownership they will crash and burn the same way the rest of the country has for the last 3 years.

My opinion is simple. I am not begging for 18 games but I am pretty sure I will enjoy the additional games as I am sure just about everyone on here will.

I dont want to see they them switch preseason games to regular though as I think it is important to keep preseason intact inorder to allow ample time and opportunity for lower level talent to learn and prove themselves.

plk said:

Theoretically, that is certainly true, but people who aren't morons are inclined to look at all the factors involved and not just at the theory.

Teams that are going on to the postseason have more to lose in two extra games than do teams who are not going on. Injuries can quickly turn a team that might well win the Super Bowl into one that isn't going to get there. Any time a player is on the field, there is the possibility of a season ending injury. Ask Wes Welker. The best teams have two more shots at losing players, and usually nothing to gain.

Click to expand...

Possition deapth management, practiced very well by BB should be a greater concern for teams than investing all your funds in your starting 22. Whats your opinion of a better team, one who manages there deapth to last, or one who is all in with there starters? Rember this is a violent game and that is its appeal, injuries will and do happen all the time. Maby you would like to go back to a 14 or 12 game season so the all in team have a better chance to survive the season and take the advantage away from the teams practiceing possition deapth management.

Dufflebagz said:

People act like the preseason is worthless, but a lot players use it as an opportunity to show the coaches what they can do, whether it helps them make that team or another.

Do you notice how sloppy the football can be for the first couple weeks....if it's an 18 game schedule the first two games would probably look like week 3 of the preseason....and by week 3 they would be in regular week 1 form.

Then all the injuries and blah, blah, blah.....bottom line is

Don't f*** with a good thing.

Click to expand...

You do know that rosters would most likely be expanded if the season were to be two games longer right? I would also like to see division games start in late september/early october. This would give teams more time to really develop and it would improve the quality of play in bigger games. Division games are too important to be played in week 2.

TriplecHamp said:

You do know that rosters would most likely be expanded if the season were to be two games longer right?

Click to expand...

Yea, which means they would probably have bigger rosters during preseason also. So, it would basically be the same as if they weren't expanded.

part-timer said:

These are just the points. what is wrong with the owners trying to increase revenues by makeing these two games count. You must relize the incredible investment made by ownership,purches of the franchise, building and maintianing of stadiums with limited lifespans if they want to stay competitive, property taxes, payroll, benifit packages, not to mention corporat income taxes, intrest on loan to finance the franchise, also the salary cap has balloned from 58.4 mill. in 1999 to 128 mill in 2009. There are franchises who are not competitive and would go under if not for the fact that they get assistance from the more succesfull teams in the league. Just remember the players want to be treated on an equal level with the owners but they have ZERO investment in any franchise. Everyone wants to bash ownership but ownership is out to protect the rights of the fans. Go ahead and laugh. BUT if ownership and the NFL was not looking out for the fans then they would downsize and allow all unsuccesfull franchises to go under. This would increase the product share to all the succesfull franchises and drive down the pay scale for players due the the excess of existing NFL players, while increaseing the quality of play by concentrateing more quality players on fewer teams. whether you relize it or not management will always be able to find players and create teams, and the players are noware without management. Think of the last guy you worked with who thought he was irreplaceable, where is he now? You are a fan of the NE Patriots, players come and go for CASH with NO ALEGIENCE to any one. The one staple is the ownership and ther philosophy on how to field a team. That is where your alegience belongs. The players try to play the blue coller working man card to gain sympathy from the fans. We are being played, the min. salary for a rookie is 325,000, at min. salary if a player reaches the average playing term of 4 years he will earn 1,750,000. At an average of 39,000 per year you will work your whole life (45 years) to earn that sum, that is not working class blue coller earner, and I for one have only got to speak with them by paying for the privledge. Thats at min. wage, the average salary in the nfl in 09 was over 770,000. The NFL like the economy has gotten out of controll and if the NFLPA does not learn to work with ownership they will crash and burn the same way the rest of the country has for the last 3 years.

Click to expand...

That's quite a long winded misrepresentation of my post. If you read what I said, much more succinctly BTW, you'll see that I was only describing the players' position (two more real games mean higher potential for injuries) and the owners' position (two more real games mean a billion plus in extra revenue). Both are accurate on the facts and each represents a valid point.

Please don't lecture me on the owners' economics, as I am reasonably certain that I understand them at least as well as you.

As for your analysis of the players' economics, yes, the average salary is high by the standards of the average guy. But, the average NFL career is only 3.3 seasons, so for every guy who does well enough to secure his family's future, there are many who end up looking for meaningful employment with significant physical and mental impairments as a result of their play.

I've seen nothing (yet) in either the owners' or the players' arguments that suggests that either side is being unreasonable. Like many, I think that there is a "deal to be done" here and I am confident that it will get done. Each side knows that it must not overplay its hand with the public.

The major weakness in the owners' argument is their unwillingness to open their books to the players. A benevolent reading of that unwillingness is that there are issues of privacy because the owners' personal finances are so intertwined with the team's operations; a less benevolent reading is that the owners are parking a lot of unrelated expenses in the P&L of the team, thereby reducing their tax burden. I honestly don't know which is the truth.

(BTW, I have never nor will I ever pay for the "privilege" of speaking with an NFL player.)

Roger Goodell is a POS liar. I'm sooooooo so sick of this guy spouting this nonsense that "the fans want it," just because many hate paying full price for pre-season games. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING and it's patently dishonest to insinuate otherwise. And he's been doing that for nearly a year. It's infuriating.

I'm fine with the 16 game schedule. I love to watch football, but I don't know if I would love it more because there were 2 more regular season games.

If they eventually expand the schedule, I hope that Kraft trademarks "21-0."

PatsFanSince74 said:

That's quite a long winded misrepresentation of my post. If you read what I said, much more succinctly BTW, you'll see that I was only describing the players' position (two more real games mean higher potential for injuries) and the owners' position (two more real games mean a billion plus in extra revenue). Both are accurate on the facts and each represents a valid point.

Please don't lecture me on the owners' economics, as I am reasonably certain that I understand them at least as well as you.

As for your analysis of the players' economics, yes, the average salary is high by the standards of the average guy. But, the average NFL career is only 3.3 seasons, so for every guy who does well enough to secure his family's future, there are many who end up looking for meaningful employment with significant physical and mental impairments as a result of their play.

I've seen nothing (yet) in either the owners' or the players' arguments that suggests that either side is being unreasonable. Like many, I think that there is a "deal to be done" here and I am confident that it will get done. Each side knows that it must not overplay its hand with the public.

The major weakness in the owners' argument is their unwillingness to open their books to the players. A benevolent reading of that unwillingness is that there are issues of privacy because the owners' personal finances are so intertwined with the team's operations; a less benevolent reading is that the owners are parking a lot of unrelated expenses in the P&L of the team, thereby reducing their tax burden. I honestly don't know which is the truth.

(BTW, I have never nor will I ever pay for the "privilege" of speaking with an NFL player.)

Click to expand...

Points well taken. I feel we are not far off in our opinions and assesments of the curent situation. But I do feel the owners stance on opening up the books to players representitives is justified in the same respect that any empolyer would not do so in a negociation for raises for individuals or union negociations at contract time, after all they are not partners in joint venture. the exception being in the case of Grean Bay where I believe they are a publicly owned franchise who's books should be subject to public disclosure. But a compromise to check for inapropriately conceling of related funds might have been to open the books to an independent auditor spacificly to inspect for them with out reveiling unrelated funds or information to the NFLPA.

Uncle Rico said:

My wife says "16 is enough."

Click to expand...

Lol. Good answer.


//

part-timer said:

Points well taken. I feel we are not far off in our opinions and assesments of the curent situation. But I do feel the owners stance on opening up the books to players representitives is justified in the same respect that any empolyer would not do so in a negociation for raises for individuals or union negociations at contract time, after all they are not partners in joint venture. the exception being in the case of Grean Bay where I believe they are a publicly owned franchise who's books should be subject to public disclosure. But a compromise to check for inapropriately conceling of related funds might have been to open the books to an independent auditor spacificly to inspect for them with out reveiling unrelated funds or information to the NFLPA.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The Owners, as owners of private businesses, do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I've often thought about the independent auditor option, but the problem would be defining what they're supposed to look for. It's not so much "unrelated funds" but stuff on the P&L that, from the perspective of the IRS, is a legitimate expense but that might not be directly related to the football business.

My simple answer... 16 games. Two bye weeks.

part-timer said:

Maby you would like to go back to a 14 or 12 game season so the all in team have a better chance to survive the season and take the advantage away from the teams practiceing possition deapth management.

Click to expand...

There is a lot to be said for that position. I prefer to see teams play when they are at their best and have their best players healthy.

NFL seasons tend to turn into a war of attrition. Depth management is very important, and with an 18 game season it will become even more important, but with a 53 man roster teams are limited in what they can do. Too often seasons are determined by the bad luck of injuries to irreplaceable players.

Now that you bring it up, a 12 game season seems about right.

Claiming that an 18 game regular season will bring more injuries has merit, but it does require study. For example, how many injuries occur during pre-season games 3 & 4 vs. how many occur during regular season games 1 & 2. Starters play a good amount of time in pre-season 3 and much less in 4. Changing pre-season 3 to regular season 1 may not have much of an effect at all. An argument could be made for changing PS 4 to RS 2. In the end I don't think it will make much of a difference. Players being in top game condition will have the largest impact. Depth will become more important. It would be useful to review injuries when the league went from 14 to 16 games. Neither side seems to be presenting hard evidence either way though which fosters the belief that it's all about money and any players mentioning injuries are just tossing out a bargaining chip.

Conceding an 18 game season by the union while gaining other concessions from the league is fine by me if it means a new CBA and football next year.

16.

It's harder to go 21-0

I would love 18 games, 2 pre-season.
Having football to the end of February would make this dismal month much better.
Or in dropping 2 pre-season games, it could end at the same time.


I think the transistion would be advantage Pats , BB would have it all thought out, and properly planned.
I would expect a lot of teams would come in unprepared, with the short pre-season.

pats60 said:

2 more games for my blood pressure to go up.no thanks

Click to expand...

ditto (10 char)

I used to argue strongly in favor of 18 games. Now I don't even bother anymore because it is an inevitability. It's coming. I expect 2 preseason games, 1 week off, then an 18 game season in 20 weeks. Rosters will be allowed to expand by a couple players per team. The Super Bowl will be held the day before Presidents' Day in mid February.