The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

could a poll be created for this?

I read on the Espn ticker at the bottom of the screen that Goodall is thinking of extending the season to 17 or 18 games and eliminated 1 or 2 pre season games. So is anyone in favor of or against this.

I LOVE This idea....it's about time. 

the games played will remain the same, so why not make 2 of the preseason games count for real?

Poll added...

I am ok with extending the schedule...though I wonder if we may be pushing the envelope a little in regards to the physical endurance of the players. How many more will go down with injuries with the longer schedule?

I'm all for cutting out the preseason games.  I suppose that adding them to the regular season would be okay.

I have a similar worry as Stroke. I think that most players have x amount of hits their bodies can take (ie running backs) and that adding to the schedule over time may shorten careers.

I think that cutting the preseason will also make the transition for rookies harder - their learning curve is going to be steeper as they'll have less time.

I think that some "season ending" injuries early on in the season may no longer be "season ending" anymore.  I don't think there'll be an injury risk because those players typically play at least half the game in preseason anyway.

It will put an emphasis on roster depth, that's for sure.

I don't like the idea at all.  The objective of the preseason is to get a look at the rookies and backups.  With less games, that's less chances to evaluate them and for them to improve. 

The schedule should remain as it is.  However, they should lower the prices of preseason games, or maybe even play them in lesser known places. 

I'd love to have more games in a season - and I don't buy the argument that a longer schedule would make each game "matter less" (an argument I've heard many times put forward by the NFL and owners). I also don't buy the injury argument. First of all, if teams are so concerned about overuse, why are they playing their best players late in the fourth quarter up by multiple touchdowns? If overuse were truly a concern, we'd see A LOT more players getting pulled in the second half. Secondly, it would be easy to mitigate the injury issue by, e.g., allowing more players on the roster.

My biggest concern with more games is that it wrecks the great schedule and structure that's currently in place. Everything just fits now. 32 teams. 4 teams per division. 16 games.

It's the same problem I have with expanding the league. 32 teams is an exceptionally good number if you want "fair" schedules. To really reach the next good number (and still not quite as good as 32) you'd need to jump to 40 teams. 33 is horrible. 34 is bad. 35 is horrible. 36 is maybe okay, but would still have issues.

If you extend the regular season to 17 or 18 games, what's the proposed schedule and league structure? I've not heard a single plausible (and fair) suggestion.

I'd guess they could add to games to the "ranked" portion of the schedule.  For example, this year the Dolphins get to play the Chargers and the Steelers, thanks to the first-place finish in the division.  To that, you could add two NFC first-place teams (of course with three to choose from, I don't know how you'd determine which two), adding the Giants and the Vikings to the Dolphins' schedule this season, perhaps.

That just goes against the "fairness" of the schedule. I really like that only 2 games are determined by last years' standings. If anything, I would want FEWER of those games. My suggestion would be to drop those 2 games and add another whole division. You could blur the line between AFC and NFC by making that division one from the opposing conference, or you could strengthen the distinction between AFC and NFC by going with the remaining division in the same conference.

The latter, probably my preference, would ensure that all teams within a given division played against the same teams. That would make the division title more "fair", since everyone had the same teams to play (although home/away still causes a difference). They would also play against all teams in 2 out of 3 divisions in their own conference, making playoff tie-breakers a bit more fair (and perhaps resulting in more rivalry games).

Life isn't fair, why should a sports league be? I think you are going way too in depth on this personally. Just play football. Win or lose and go on from there.

WTF kind of lame-ass faux-argument is that? Might as well let one team play 14 against 11, to be decided by coin flip before the game.

The whole POINT of sports is for the playing field to be level, so the best individual or team can win.

How is the player union going to react?

Since many vets don't play much in the preseason are they going to consider this an increase in work and demand compensation?  Any union that had a 12% increase in work would demand a 12% increase in pay.

You and I disagree here then. The whole point of sports is to play within the rules given, build the best team you can under those rules, and win. Scheduling as a point of "evening the playing field" is no where near the top of the purpose of sports as far as I am concerned.

Oh, I don't think there's the slightest question that the players will want to be compensated. If you go by the current CBA (which the owners have opted out of, leaving an uncapped 2010 and no CBA beyond that), the salary cap is 57.5% of "Total Revenues". There's no guarantee an owner spends that much, though, but with a minimum salary of 86.4% (for 2009) of the salary cap, players WILL get more money of "Total Revenues" go up.

So I guess the question is, how much will revenues increase and will the players accept the same slice (percentage-wise) of that bigger pie?

Anyway, that's certainly going to be a major issue in the upcoming CBA negotiations. The owners apparently cannot live with giving players close to 60% of total revenues, so either the salary cap goes away or players settle for a smaller slice. One thing that might make a smaller (relative) slice more palatable is a bigger pie.

You're quoting completely out of context and twisting what I'm saying to mean the exact opposite.

Let me be perfectly clear: Schedules for competing teams should be as close to the SAME as possible. If you're competing against each other, the rules need to be the same. If one team has to play a bunch of tough opponents, while the other gets cakewalks, then you might as well let one team have more men on the field.

I'm NOT saying scheduling should be used to "level the playing field" - which is what happens now, since teams that did well the previous season are matched up against (2) opponents who did equally well, whereas teams that did poorly are matched against (2) other teams that did equally poorly.

What I am saying is that the rules, and that includes the schedule, should be the same for everyone. THAT is the point of sports.

Your notion that teams facing tough schedules should just suck it up and that "life isn't fair, why should a sports league be" is, to me, frankly idiotic.

And I think your points are idiotic as well. No one gets all cakewalks while the other gets all tough games and you know it. How do you propose that you guarantee everyone plays the same schedule? The only way possible is to play ever other team once giving a schedule that is way too large. Get over it. Things are as fair as it gets so just play the games.

I think you're missing the point of this whole thread. Let me remind you: "Extending the football season to 17 or 18 games".

Teams compete primarily with other teams in their own division. With the current scheduling rules, 2 games each season are NOT in common with the other teams within the division. When discussing an extension of the season, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss whether such an extension should INCREASE the inherent unfairness or DECREASE them.

As I pointed out in my proposal, it would be perfectly possible to completely eliminate differences in scheduled opponents (although not necessarily any home/away differences) with a season 18 games long. This wouldn't require "playing every other team once" (which would be 31 games - and isn't actually correct, since this would also ignore home/away differences), but simply the 2 extra games that were the topic of this thread, lest you forgot.

So, no, things are not "as fair as it gets".

If any of my points still seem idiotic to you, I would be happy to explain them further - or you could perhaps enlighten me and point out WHY they are idiotic.

  I'm 100% against it.

My concern is SOME players really need the full time to get ready for the season,some early season games are horrible to watch because they don't have thier timing quite right...I like the idea of MORE FOOTBALL! I think we'd have to addd roster spots,and allow more practice time (non Voluntary) in the offseason...

I don't like it at all, for several reasons.

17 games, if it winds up here, - who gets the extra home game? 

Who has the extra travel?  I remember a couple of years ago when Seattle had a pretty good team but has this ghastly schedule on the east coast.  By the time the playoffs came you could tell they were tanked.  I think they played all but one of their road games beyond St. Louis that year.  Adding another roadie to Philly?  New England?  Any additional games should be within reasonable travel distance.  Anyone that has sat on a plane from the east coast to San Fran or Seattle can testify to how brutal that travel is.

18 games and overseas travel.  From what I hear the commish, in all his wisdom, wants to have something like upwards of 10 overseas games a YEAR.  Screw that. 

I say to keep the schedule at 16 games AND eliminate two pre season games.

If it goes to 17, they've talked about "neutral venue" games. That would make stunts like London a neutral venue game instead of, say, a Dolphins home game. We're not talking about shipping 16 games overseas, of course. The vast majority would stay in the US, but be moved to a neutral venue to give fans there a chance to see "their" team (or just *any* team) without traveling.

I don't really like the idea, but that's what they're talking about.

With regards to scheduling, a lot could be done to give teams less travel distance and fewer back-to-back road games. That's all up to the owners, however, and since it hasn't changed, they don't appear to have a problem with it. They could easily mandate a change to the way the schedule is made or even rework the divisions to give shorter travel times.

Do it more football.  Also sick of seeing people getting hurt during the preseason when those games mean nothing.  Would just make it harder for players to land starting jobs.

I just thought of something.  If they extended the NFL season to 17 games, it could work in this scenario:

Quit playing the teams in your division twice, and instead play another division in the opposite conference.  Keep the same number of preaseason games. 

For example:  The Dolphins would see the Jets, Pats and Bills only once a year instead of twice, and would play two divisions in the NFC each year instead of one. 

This would ensure that every team plays each other at least once every three years.

As for whether the extra game is a home game or not, the top two teams in each division have the extra game on the road, and the bottom two have it at home to create parity.   

I am all for the extra games. I would rather lose a valuable player in a game that counts instead of a meaningless pre season game.

Why not add another week of the playoffs letting more teams in?