Extending the football season to 17 or 18 games

[raptorsfan29]

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.

[TonyB0D]

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?

[Sunstroke]

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?

[Dave Gray]

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

[SportsChick]

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.

[Brian Fein]

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.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

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. 

[fyo]

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.

[Brian Fein]

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.

[fyo]

I'd guess they could add to games to the "ranked" portion of the schedule.

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).

[Phishfan]

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.

[fyo]

Life isn't fair, why should a sports league be?

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.

[run_to_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.

[Phishfan]

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

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.

[fyo]

How is the player union going to react?

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.