18 games season concept

[patfanken]

18 game season concept
I was thinking about the inevitability of the 18 game season. Like most ideas it has good aspects and bad Clearly he worst part of it would be the increased injuries the longer season would bring as well as the long term wear and tear on a player's career. Here are 2 possible solutions

1. You increase the roster to 55 men, and the game day roster to 50

2. You mandate that every player can only play in 16 games a season. That way they don't get any extra wear and tear, and it might actually help by giving them now 2 weeks more each season to recover.


Think about the strategy implications. Do you rest the QB and hope you have 2 meaningless games he can miss at the end of the season, or if you do that do you wind up having to play a 2nd QB in the most critical game of the year. In some sense the 2nd guessing would be fun for the fans.

THe owners get their 18 games along with the extra revenue. The union gets more jobs without beating up their members bodies any more than they are now

THe fans get the intigue of the strategy that would go on trying to make sure that players got their 2 games off, as well as losing 2 totally meanless and boring preseason games.

Depth would be even a more critical factor and a true measure of a team

If you think its too draconian What about a 19 games season where the players have to have one game off a year instead of 2 as a compromise?

What do you think

 

[khayos]

You can't limit guys to only 16 games... who's going to carry 2 kickers, 2 punters, 2 long snappers?

 

[Gwedd]

IF this is going to happen, the I would offer that the easiest way to schedule it would be in three 6-game units.

Every team plays 6 games, then gets a bye week. Then they play the next 6 games, with another bye week, then the final 6 games. that gives each team an extra week to rest up players.

Those two bye weeks would be league-wide, so every team would be off on those two weeks. The NFL could use those times to have some sort of NFL/Local Team experience at the venues. Family days to visit the stadiums, tour the clubhouse, see the "NFL Experience" maybe meet players or retired players, stuff like that. Plenty of time for NFL Network to replay the previous games, etc. In other words, rest the teams and keep the fans engaged through new PR outreach programs.

Regardless, a season made up of three 6-game segments could work very well, and certainly make those last few weeks even more interesting for all involved.

Respects

 

[mgteich]

Your scheme would be the worst of all worlds, decreased revenue (2 bye weeks with no TV) and increased possibility of injuries (18 regular season games).

IF this is going to happen, the I would offer that the easiest way to schedule it would be in three 6-game units.

Every team plays 6 games, then gets a bye week. Then they play the next 6 games, with another bye week, then the final 6 games. that gives each team an extra week to rest up players.

Those two bye weeks would be league-wide, so every team would be off on those two weeks. The NFL could use those times to have some sort of NFL/Local Team experience at the venues. Family days to visit the stadiums, tour the clubhouse, see the "NFL Experience" maybe meet players or retired players, stuff like that. Plenty of time for NFL Network to replay the previous games, etc. In other words, rest the teams and keep the fans engaged through new PR outreach programs.

Regardless, a season made up of three 6-game segments could work very well, and certainly make those last few weeks even more interesting for all involved.

Respects

 

[mgteich]

There will be no forcing teams to sit players for 2 weeks, requiring extra kickers and punters and essentially requiring extra starters at all positions.

The reality is that the extension to 8 games may increase or decrease meaningless games at the end of the season. Many players will be rested when teams clinch early. Putting more division games at the end will help, but could backfire when these high revenue games oaccasionally ebcome meaningless.

In the end, as when the nfl went from 14 to 16 efular season games, the sky is NOT falling. There were dire predictions then. It all turned out well. What we clearly do NOT need is to continue having FOUR meaningless games for every team. Moving from 20 games to 18 games is unreasonable. If more practice games are required, scrimmages will be scheduled on an as-needed basis.

In the end, the teams now have 20 games, plus optional scrimmages. The teams can play whoever they want within the current structure. If a team CHOOSES to do so, they can sit their starters for the entire preseason. Perhaps that will reduce injuries. It is not the number of regular season games that dictates the probability of injury. It is each team's choices with regard tot he intensity of practices and camp, the use of players in the preseason, the rotation of players during all of the 20 games, and especially the sitting out of players during parts of the season when slightly injured, or not (for example, after the division is clinched). There are much more important factors than which games count for the standings.

18 game season concept
I was thinking about the inevitability of the 18 game season. Like most ideas it has good aspects and bad Clearly he worst part of it would be the increased injuries the longer season would bring as well as the long term wear and tear on a player's career. Here are 2 possible solutions

1. You increase the roster to 55 men, and the game day roster to 50

2. You mandate that every player can only play in 16 games a season. That way they don't get any extra wear and tear, and it might actually help by giving them now 2 weeks more each season to recover.


Think about the strategy implications. Do you rest the QB and hope you have 2 meaningless games he can miss at the end of the season, or if you do that do you wind up having to play a 2nd QB in the most critical game of the year. In some sense the 2nd guessing would be fun for the fans.

THe owners get their 18 games along with the extra revenue. The union gets more jobs without beating up their members bodies any more than they are now

THe fans get the intigue of the strategy that would go on trying to make sure that players got their 2 games off, as well as losing 2 totally meanless and boring preseason games.

Depth would be even a more critical factor and a true measure of a team

If you think its too draconian What about a 19 games season where the players have to have one game off a year instead of 2 as a compromise?

What do you think

 

[Deus Irae]

There will be no forcing teams to sit players for 2 weeks, requiring extra kickers and punters and essentially requiring extra starters at all positions.

The reality is that the extension to 8 games may increase or decrease meaningless games at the end of the season. Many players will be rested when teams clinch early. Putting more division games at the end will help, but could backfire when these high revenue games oaccasionally ebcome meaningless.

In the end, as when the nfl went from 14 to 16 games, the sky is NOT falling. There were dire predictions then. It all turned out well. What we clearly do NOT need is to continue having FOUR meaningless games for every team. If more practice games are required, scrimmages will be scheduled on an as-needed basis.

But if it were really about "what the fans want", and not about "how to milk more from the money cows", the league would just cut one exhibition game and move forward with the same 16 game season.

Since the NFL doesn't give a rat's ass what the fans, or players, want, the goal is 18 regular season games. That will eventually be followed by a second bye week. People can start getting ready for 2 exhibitions, 18 regular season games, 2 bye weeks and the 4 playoff weeks.

Half the weeks of the year will now be occupied by NFL football games, plus the Hall of Fame game week. That's the NFL goal, regardless of what's best for the fans and players.

 

[mgteich]

You have set up a straw man.

I never said that the move to 18 games and 2 byes was about what the fans wanted rather than increasing revenue.

The change is about increasing revenue, as well it should be. The players will have their percentage of a larger revenue pot.

Apparently you are baseball fans who doesn't want a longer nfl season. I ahve one sport I care about: nfl football. 2 weeks of exhibitions and 24 weeks of the regualr season and playoffs is fine with me. Personally, I don't think that the fans will be upset with the extra weeks of meaningful football to replace the exhibition games.

Has the team done a poll of paying customers? How many season ticket holders prefer to replace 2 exhibition games with 2 regular season games? How many fans want to shorten the season and wait longer in the offseason for football to begin?

But if it were really about "what the fans want", and not about "how to milk more from the money cows", the league would just cut one exhibition game and move forward with the same 16 game season.

Since the NFL doesn't give a rat's ass what the fans, or players, want, the goal is 18 regular season games. That will eventually be followed by a second bye week. People can start getting ready for 2 exhibitions, 18 regular season games, 2 bye weeks and the 4 playoff weeks.

Half the weeks of the year will now be occupied by NFL football games, plus the Hall of Fame game week. That's the NFL goal, regardless of what's best for the fans and players.

 

[Calciumee]

I was trying to work out how the schedule would work, if it carried on the way it is.

It's an extra home and away game per season; but who would them teams be?

 

[A.C Vegas]

I would guess a rotating game aganst to other conference 2 divisons and in the same place has the team finshed

 

[mgteich]

There are many options. 14 games would be set as now:
6 division games
4 games with an entire division within the conference
4 games with an entire division outside the conference.
=============
NOW
The final two games are with teams in the other two divisions; we play the two teams that placed the same as we did within each division.

ALTERNATIVE 1 TO ADD TWO GAMES
We could add 2 nonconference games against the two teams that placed the same us we did within the division. This option wouls assure that we played at least one team from every division every year.

ALTERNATIVE 2 TO ADD TWO GAMES
Add another conference division giving every member of each division the same schedule.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES
I'm sure there are others

I was trying to work out how the schedule would work, if it carried on the way it is.

It's an extra home and away game per season; but who would them teams be?

 

[Gwedd]

Your scheme would be the worst of all worlds, decreased revenue (2 bye weeks with no TV) and increased possibility of injuries (18 regular season games).

I never said I was in favor of an 18 game season. In fact, I am against it. However, IF it is to become fact, then I still stand by the concept I proposed. How can adding an extra bye week be labeled a loss of revenue? I don't get that at all. It extends the season and keeps people interested, especially if the league sponsors fan appreciation activities during the bye weeks. That will lead to more merchandise sales, and further revenue.

respects,

 

[Deus Irae]

You have set up a straw man.

I never said that the move to 18 games and 2 byes was about what the fans wanted rather than increasing revenue.

The change is about increasing revenue, as well it should be. The players will have their percentage of a larger revenue pot.

There's no straw man there. The "what the fans want" is the justification being put forth by Goodell himself.

Apparently you are baseball fans who doesn't want a longer nfl season. I ahve one sport I care about: nfl football. 2 weeks of exhibitions and 24 weeks of the regualr season and playoffs is fine with me. Personally, I don't think that the fans will be upset with the extra weeks of meaningful football to replace the exhibition games.

Actually, I no longer follow baseball. Well, to be accurate, I no longer watch or listen to games. I still follow player flow and the like, but I've not watched/listened to more than an inning or two since they took away the World Series. I love the game, but the league can go crap in its hat. Little Leagues and semi-pro ball are fun to watch, and it's not two sides willing to repeatedly screw the game over just to add cash to their pockets.

Has the team done a poll of paying customers? How many season ticket holders prefer to replace 2 exhibition games with 2 regular season games? How many fans want to shorten the season and wait longer in the offseason for football to begin?

I don't know, and I don't care. The season ticket holders aren't the "fans". They are just a subset with their own ox (full price for exhibition games) to gore.

As for fans in general, I've not seen any scientific poll. Someone noted an ESPN poll, but those are notoriously unreliable. That really leaves us with just anecdotal evidence. So, here's my anecdotal evidence:

Outside of this board, which seems very much (although not universally) opposed to the 18 game schedule, I've spoken about this with well over 100 people, of varying levels of football devotion (it's the party season, and it comes up in conversation). Not one person has spoken in favor of going to an 18 game regular season.

Not one.

 

[Pats726]

Limiting players to 16 games is a BAD idea..that simple..I don't like any EXTRA added feature to change the game..THAT does. Having larger rosters..game available players is a MUST for any extension of games. Changes in IR rules as well are needed IF they go to 18. Having 6 and a bye and 6 more and a bye is NOT good for the reasons stated. Maybe more uniform byes..more teams per week...so that byes start later than Game 5....and are uniform..meaning the second bye will come first for the first teams with byes...etc. BUT not all at once. NO TV..no revenue..always a bad idea. I think it's FINE now...a good balance...but extending it MORE will I think change the game more and make injuries MORE what is important at the end..They have a near perfect set up now...why change it??? The preseason serves a purpose for coaches and players..and so MANY overlook that. Of course, they will not leave it be...and I fear will wreck what is really the best league.. One thing that Goodell overlooked is/was his wanting overseas games. THAT he very conveniently did not mention...OR is that just an added bonus for 18 games???

 

[MoLewisrocks]

You can't limit guys to only 16 games... who's going to carry 2 kickers, 2 punters, 2 long snappers?

Two viable QB's would be impossible in a league where half the teams don't have one...

The folly in the 18 game season beyond increased injury is you will end up with those two meaningless or uncompetitive games one way or another, most likely in the last two weeks of the season, something the league has been moved to attempt to mitigate recently already.

There really is no valid reason to do this beyond balancing the leagues need to recapture the reveue it lost in 2006 without the players having to give back 18% of the windfall they gained under that CBA. Maybe if players were willing to let franchises retain some of the rollback's rather than somehow insisting the money just get reshuffled back to them (the rookie contract cap flowing to veterans and retirees only)...

Now Felger and Maz are on and it's all on the billionaire owners (but Tony thinks players should demand time and a half or double time (25%) increases for increasing the schedule by 12.5%... although Felger makes a rare valid point that the NFL is the only league that seemingly leaves it's fans jonesing for more - whereas baseball, basketball and hockey the games and the seasons and even the playoffs drag on incessantly to the point fans are glad when it's finally over...).

Smart players want no part of an 18 game season because they know the toll it will take on careers will make it a financial wash for players at best. Unfortunately the majority of players and the union on the other hand remain willing to be convinced of the logic of anything that funnels them a better percentage of revenue than the alternative.

 

[jah]

I was trying to work out how the schedule would work, if it carried on the way it is.

It's an extra home and away game per season; but who would them teams be?

Possibly like the "teams in the conference with the same place as you", except it could also include the "opposite place" as well. Like for instance, the Patriots 18-game schedule would be the same, plus the Jaguars and Chiefs. At least that's how I would do it.

 

[mgteich]

There are three choices
A) Keep the current schedule and deal with the revenue situation, likely resulting in a work stoppage because of the need for lower player compensation.
B) Change to a 2 and 16 schedule and further decrease revenue.
C) Change to a 2 and 18 schedule and increase revenue.
D) Your additional option.

Since you have your personal poll of 100, which do you favor?

Personally, I favor increasing revenue by converting exhibition game to regular season games, plus having two bye weeks. This would give 24 weeks of meaningful nfl football, plus a 2 week preseason (plus scrimmages if needed).

There's no straw man there. The "what the fans want" is the justification being put forth by Goodell himself.



Actually, I no longer follow baseball. Well, to be accurate, I no longer watch or listen to games. I still follow player flow and the like, but I've not watched/listened to more than an inning or two since they took away the World Series. I love the game, but the league can go crap in its hat. Little Leagues and semi-pro ball are fun to watch, and it's not two sides willing to repeatedly screw the game over just to add cash to their pockets.



I don't know, and I don't care. The season ticket holders aren't the "fans". They are just a subset with their own ox (full price for exhibition games) to gore.

As for fans in general, I've not seen any scientific poll. Someone noted an ESPN poll, but those are notoriously unreliable. That really leaves us with just anecdotal evidence. So, here's my anecdotal evidence:

Outside of this board, which seems very much (although not universally) opposed to the 18 game schedule, I've spoken about this with well over 100 people, of varying levels of football devotion (it's the party season, and it comes up in conversation). Not one person has spoken in favor of going to an 18 game regular season.

Not one.

 

[moosekill]

I like going with all of the teams from a second division. It allows us to see different teams, and truthfully, ends up helping the stronger teams a bit. Since we have been a stronger team for so long now I like that idea more.

 

[tasmlab]

You can't limit guys to only 16 games... who's going to carry 2 kickers, 2 punters, 2 long snappers?

I suppose there could be an exception for kickers, punters and long snappers since they arguably don't take the same wear and tear.

I love the 18 game format idea as it provides more football, just as the 16 game format was more than the 14. I'm sure all of the complaints about wear and tear, injuries were all the same when they went to 16.

Last year, Peter King tried to justify not going to 18 games because of St. Tom's 2008 injury. By that logic, the season should be less than 15 minutes long.

I would just add another bye, increase rosters, and let the players play every game. All of the strategic decisions, having a strong/deep roster, et al would still be critical even if a 16-week limitation wasn't put in per the first poster's idea.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

There's no straw man there. The "what the fans want" is the justification being put forth by Goodell himself.

The players aren't going to accept two extra regular season games without getting paid more, AND the owners don't get to keep all the gate proceeds from regular season home games the way they do for preseason games.

So while there would almost certainly be more money from TV contracts for a longer season, I can't imagine the extra would be 100% profit for the owners.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I was trying to work out how the schedule would work, if it carried on the way it is.

It's an extra home and away game per season; but who would them teams be?

That's the big problem with going to 18 games.

Right now, the schedule is about as fair as it can reasonably be (every team plays four games against teams that won their division, four against second-place, etc.).

Going to 18 games would have to unbalance that. I assume the only fair way to do it would be something like having 1s/4s play 1s/4s and 2/3s play 2s/3s, or vice versa. [mgteich's solutions, while "pretty," would both require three extra games, though.]