Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Ian, Jun 16, 2010.
It Is What It Is Brady weighs in on possible extended season
They're calling it an "enhanced" season
Adding to the season is an additional health risk to players who already substantially risk their present and future post NFL health every day in practise. Don't do it.
I don't understand the disconnect on this issue. None of the fans I know want 18 games, and I sure don't. Yet, Goodell says the fans want it and Kraft says it won't hurt the players, talking like it's a done deal.
It's not about what fans want. It's about money. Even if the fans "don't want it", the networks will still show the 18 games, and the people will still watch them. Brady is right, 18 games would be bad for the players and the fans. Good luck getting the NFL to see it that way.
I'll be damned if the Brady/Moss records are broken due to two additional games.
Yeah, agree with the others here. Why fix something that isn't broke? It is definitely all about the money.
If Goodell does this, it's pretty much icing on the cake. He will be, by FAR, the worst commissioner in NFL history and will be among the worst in professional sports today (dare I say, even worse than Bud Selig).
I don't know what's worse -- ignoring blatant existing problems or changing things on a whim usually for the worse
What the hell, you can't be serious. David Stern's led NBA has been filled with corrupt officiating and is now turned into "foul-ball". Hell one of the refs under his watch went to PRISON. And Bud Selig completely ignored the steroid era, the most disgusting act in sports history if you ask me.
Roger Goodell has been a GREAT commissioner, it baffles me how any person can call him bad let alone THE WORST out of the 3 major sports. Changes under his watch....
Three day draft = Proven sucess
Pro-Bowl before Super Bowl = Proven success
Harsh punishment for NFL thugs like Big Ben, Pacman = GREAT
Finally changing NFL overtime rules = GREAT
New York Super Bowl = GREAT
Adding third Thanksgiving Game = GREAT
NFL games outside of US (Dear god no, I will agree this is HORRIBLE)
Handling of SpyGate (Fine/draft pick were OUTRAGEOUS but I am glad he destroyed tapes)
So yeah Goodell has done A LOT more good than bad.
That's enough for me to call him a failure.
Although I agree that a 3 day draft is a success, and maybe harsher punishments it too, but that's it. Who gives a crap about the pro bowl? The overtime rule change accomplished nothing, and added complexity. A NY superbowl rewards a team that is being fiscally irresponsible in an uncapped year, which makes it neutral at best. A thrid game on Thanksgiving is completely retarded. If he wanted to make a change to Turkey day, he should have removed the Lions from it. Goodell is a tool.
Just say no to Don Goodleone..
18 games would be a disaster.
As long as Brady quarterbacks 19 games this regular and post season, with the 19th game being a win then all good.
Not a single thing that you called a "good" is actually a "good". Well, that's not fair. If the NY Super Bowl leads to the acceptance of more outdoor Super Bowls in cold weather cities, I would then consider it a "good". Until that time, though, it's in the "bad" column.
Don't the numbers disagree with your opinion Deus Irae? Viewers and money is what defines something being good or bad in this current environment.
The AFL in Australia is mimicking almost everything the NFL has done over the last decade and they seem to measure everything in attendances, membership, television ratings and ultimately revenue... just like the NFL.
It's quite funny given the NFL's commissioner and the AFL's CEO objectives appear eerily similar.
I don't define good or bad in that sense. I realize that it's just one man's opinion, but that is mine. Money and ratings are irrelevant. America is a land full of examples of horrid crap garnering mass attention and making huge coin.
The Pro Bowl, for example, is a bad idea from the start because of the nature of football, and now it doesn't even have players from the two "best" teams because they're practicing for a game that matters.
18 games is an embarrassingly dumb idea. As it is, 16 games pushes the limit. The bye week gives the NFL 17 weeks of televised games. A second bye week would be better that 18 games, but better still is to leave it as is.
You speak the exact truth. And Goodell's smiling claims that we, the fans, are behind this push is downright insulting.
Pro Bowl before superbowl just means that any players picked who have a playoff game would automatically sit out. How is that giving the fans the best game to watch? It's not! Goodell has been a terrible commissioner. All he does is want to show off that 'he's in charge'.
Anyone would have punished Pacman and Roethlisberger for being douches. The one guy got involved in a nightclub shooting, and the other guy allegedly sexually assaulted or raped a girl in addition to his bad rap. I don't see Goodell as having done anything special in that regard.
And the handling of 'Spygate' so to speak was ridiculous. The only reason he stripped the Pats of a 1st round pick is because BB ignoring his memo made him feel silly and the Ratfink was more than eager to turn in his mentor to get any edge that he could. Even though other teams have cheated in other ways - such as stealing signals through mics, those teams have NEVER been punished like the Pats were. That is BS and Goodell is a shoveler of BS.
Nobody needs 18 games EXCEPT that it makes MORE money. Goodell should just admit that he's all about the money on this issue. Why don't you be up front about it you big PHONEY!?
Fair enough. Not that I disagree with you but whilst something makes a heap of money executives will always consider it good.
Sure.... when you scrape off the pretense of the league giving a rat's ass about anything other than the bottom line, and you look at things from the league's point of view, you can easily come to the conclusion that some of those things are good. I just don't buy into "good for the league's wallets = absolute good" as a 100% correlation.
I'm yet to meet a high powered sporting official/executive who was there "for the betterment of the sport". It's always money and growth as the first priorities. Everything is secondary to that.
Titans 86 yhear old owner gets fined 250,000 dollars for flipping the bird to abusive fans by Der Fuhrerdell.
Pats lose a first round pick, and fined a million dollars by the corporate Criminaldell.
Fat slob,drunk, blubbering ,making obscene gestures and lewd remarks to young femalefans, the NFL's Wrecks Cryan gets fined 50 K by the Jets...NOTHING by Tammanydell.
Please...in the words of Vincent Caccardia in True Romance.."you're saying nothing but you're telling me everything"
Benito Baddell is just clinging to the hope that his planned criminal masterplan to hijack the Super Bowl and get a Jet/Giant matchup in 2014 stays on course.
The problem with that sort of thinking by those officials/executives is that short term gains are frequently followed by long term issues. Just ask baseball. While I'm sure that the steroid era is privately viewed as an overall positive by the the league's front office, since the sport was floundering prior to the steroid heyday, the impact of that era is still being felt today, with less fan loyalty (I'm talking loyalty, not attendance) and far more cynicism towards the game.
Football is heading down that very same path.
Is this even English?
Ask any season ticket holder to choose between paying for their 10 games and getting 8 regular season and 2 preseason or the 9-1 split Goddell is proposing and it is probably almost unanimous for the 9-1. That is where his statement comes from.
Now there are probably other options that fans might prefer more (such as not having to pay at all for preseason games or paying reduced rates) but those are not and never will be options since they would reduce revenue and one thing the owners and players agree on is there is no desire to entertain anything that does that.
Like changing the Pro Bowl.
The season is long enough. If anything add 2 more playoff teams per conference.
I can't remember TB speaking out like this on any player related issue before.
When you think about it, you realize that he's in a unique position to understand the impact of an 18 game "real" season on players, since he's played in more of them than any QB in the league: 19 regular and 23 total games in 01, 03, 04, 06 and 07; 18 (22) games in 05. P. Manning comes in second with a 20 (24) game season in 06; 19 (23) game seasons in 03 and 09; an 18 (22) game season in 04.
Brady is quite passionate: "Look no further than the players that came before we did. Each player today has to play three years in order to earn five years of postcareer health care."
This doesn't sound like a guy who's going to conduct his own contract negotiations with a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings about management, especially after they throw his blind side protection up in the air.
I want it and most people I know want it.
The question is simple: do you like to watch football or not?
Some people can take it or leave it. i am disappointed when the regular season ends, and would be happy to see more.
The 'more injuries' in an 18-game season is the dumbest argument in the world. A longer season does not have to mean more games per player. There is no reason why an 18 game season has to mean players play more games.
There are ways to work around this, including a requirement that a player can play in only 16 regular season games. This will require the team to sit him 2 games a year.
All the records tied to a 16-game season remain intact. Players get three weeks off during the year which should actually benefit them more than the one week off they get now with the bye.
It just takes a little thought, that's all.
Separate names with a comma.