18 game season (split off)

[fyo]

Of course its considered. But its a non issue

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP803819da98b34032b1a5d96604eb35e4.html

And last week ESPN gave the NFL $2 billion a year for 10 years for a MNF contract extension.
 ($20 billion)

Don't really think Ratings are an issue for the NFL!

Ratings are great right now, no question. But you are delusional if you don't think the NFL considers the effect of actions upon ratings. Future ratings matter. A lot. ESPN didn't just buy all games for all eternity. They bought one game a week for 10 years. Even if they ALL rights were covered 10 years ahead, ratings would still matter. A LOT.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I doubt the NFL would do it because of losing the AFC/NFC matchups, but it's an interesting possibility.

From what I read what the league is leaning towards is adding two more conf games based on record.

Would still have the 6 division games, the one entire AFC div, and one entire NFC div.  Now we have the 1s play each other as do the 2s, 3s and 4s.  What would be added would be the 1's & 2's would play all the 1's and 2's and 3's & 4' would play all the 3's and 4's.

For example this would add Bengals and Texans to the schedule for the Dolphins next year. 

[fyo]

What would be added would be the 1's & 2's would play all the 1's and 2's and 3's & 4' would play all the 3's and 4's.

Increases the gap between finishing 2 and 3, that's for sure.

In the end, though, teams change so much from year-to-year that when you meet them is almost as important as who you meet.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Increases the gap between finishing 2 and 3, that's for sure.

Yeah...but on the plus side it means that there is a very good chance all of last year's playoff games would have repeat next year.  (other than SB and not if one division sends three teams). 

For example it would add these exciting match ups to next years schedule:

Jets-Colts
Patriots -Ravens
Colt-Ravens
Saints-Eagles
Saints-Seahawks
Packers-Eagles

Would add a bunch of less exciting matchups as well such as Panthers - 49rs in the new 3&4 mix, but the adds of 1&2 would add some great games. 

[Pappy13]

Yeah...but on the plus side it means that there is a very good chance all of last year's playoff games would have repeat next year.

You're not suggesting the NFL would purposely try to create these matchups just for ratings are you?  They wouldn't do that....would they? 

[MikeO]

^^^You must not get into baseball discussions then. Seriously compare the NFL's 16 game every game is so important situation with the 162 game schedule in baseball (sorry enthusiasts but football games weigh heavier during the course of a season) and tell me how more games doesn't water down a schedule.

So going from 16 to 18 games is like 162?!

Sorry that makes no sense

[MikeO]

Ratings are great right now, no question. But you are delusional if you don't think the NFL considers the effect of actions upon ratings. Future ratings matter. A lot. ESPN didn't just buy all games for all eternity. They bought one game a week for 10 years. Even if they ALL rights were covered 10 years ahead, ratings would still matter. A LOT.

With all of the gambling on football and the Fantasy Football being a billion dollar business, the ratings will stay strong!

NFL is doing fine. Your notion that switching 2 preaseason games and making them regular season games would hurt ratings is foolish.

[Dave Gray]

how do you "water down a schedule"?

Seriously, I'm just curious how that happens? I have never heard of such a thing.

Fair question.  What I mean by watering down games is that games become less important. 

With only 16 games in a season, winning or losing a particular game means a lot.  With 18 games, each one will be a little less important.

[fyo]

NFL is doing fine. Your notion that switching 2 preaseason games and making them regular season games would hurt ratings is foolish.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, man.

My whole ratings comment was part of a larger argument about playing time and the effect more games would have on "good" players (i.e. none). Like some childish Internet troll, you picked out one out-of-context item (and one presented in parenthesis even) and started to go nuts.

Well, go ahead. I'm done, save to say that I never compared anything to preseason games. That's just stupid. Again, it all comes back to the primary part of the argument I made, that the only way good players would experience less playing time would be for there to be more meaningless games and THAT would result in lower ratings (compared to FEWER meaningless games, not compared to the current schedule, not compared to preseason, etc)... with the implied argument that the NFL would never allow that (because they DO care about ratings, whether you believe so or not).

[MikeO]

Fair question.  What I mean by watering down games is that games become less important. 

With only 16 games in a season, winning or losing a particular game means a lot.  With 18 games, each one will be a little less important.

2 more games makes games a little less important? I don't see. I don't get that logic. It's 2 games people! 2 games.

With all the tiebreakers and all the teams fighting for playoff spots, every game is still important and adding 2 games won't change that

[MikeO]

Well, go ahead. I'm done, save to say that I never compared anything to preseason games. That's just stupid. Again, it all comes back to the primary part of the argument I made, that the only way good players would experience less playing time would be for there to be more meaningless games and THAT would result in lower ratings (compared to FEWER meaningless games, not compared to the current schedule, not compared to preseason, etc)... with the implied argument that the NFL would never allow that (because they DO care about ratings, whether you believe so or not).

And ratings are at an all time high. If you don't expand now you never will. And adding 2 games doesn't make games meaningless. That is a huge leap to make. It's 2 games. 8 quarters for crying out loud.   Who said the NFL doesnt' care aboug ratings, ratingsa re at an all time high right now! But you are saying adding 2 games means in time ratings will go down. That is a flawed and foolish thing to say because you have no basis to back it up at all. Since the owners are pushing for an 18 game schedule, they must have crunched some numbers and seen the financial benefit. Which right there washes your entire argument away!!

[Dave Gray]

2 more games makes games a little less important? I don't see. I don't get that logic. It's 2 games people! 2 games.

With all the tiebreakers and all the teams fighting for playoff spots, every game is still important and adding 2 games won't change that

2 games, when talking about only 16, is a 1/8th increase.  That's pretty significant.  The same amount over a season of baseball would be more than 20 games.

I'm not up in arms against this decision.  If the choice is 4 preseason games vs 2 more regular season games, I suppose I'll take it.  I'd rather they just ditch 2 preseason games and leave it like it is....but I understand the motivation.

[David Fulcher]

But you are saying adding 2 games means in time ratings will go down. That is a flawed and foolish thing to say because you have no basis to back it up at all. Since the owners are pushing for an 18 game schedule, they must have crunched some numbers and seen the financial benefit. Which right there washes your entire argument away!!

Ummm...no.  Like fyo said (and I completely agree with him), perhaps you should look into pursuing some further reading comprehension skills courses because his argument is not "flawed and foolish" with "no basis to back it up at all" and washed right away if you actually think about it for a second before you type--which I don't even know why I'm wasting my breath (excuse me, finger dexterity,  ) because people try to say this to you time and time again, and apparently it's of no avail. 

Anyways, look at this season, for instance--what game freakin' meant anything in the grand scheme of things, out of 16 of them, to the playoff picture, besides that St. Louis--Seattle game to close the season on Sunday Night?  Not that many at all.  As a matter of fact, aside from Jacksonville's game against Houston (which they lost anyways) and Indy's game against Tennessee, the AFC was completely set--completely, aside from some reseeding possibly.  But the teams that had their byes, already had their byes and such so you're looking at 2 games out of 8 that had any significance to the playoff picture in the AFC.  Meanwhile, in the NFC, aside from the Rams--Seahawks game, I'll give you that the Bucs beating the Saints as well as the Giants beating the 'Skins kept things kinda interesting for the Packers against the Bears.  But even then, that's still only 4 games out of 8 that meant anything, and the Buccaneers had to go and *upset* the Saints in the Superdome for one of those 4 games to really mean anything. 

Granted, that's one year, but we can go back to last season, for example, where our arch-nemesis, the *beloved Jets, happened to sneak their damn way into the playoffs because not just one, but two teams decided to lay down for them in route.  Hell, if our own team hadn't sucked so much down the stretch against the Browns, Bills, and Lions, and it had been between us and the Jets with no effect on the Patriots playoff standings in that game on January 2nd--who knows, we might've seen something similar happen in Foxboro, in our favor this time!  It's a moot point because of the suckiness of our chosen franchise, but still, it's something to consider. 

So, if the season was extended by 2 more games (as Dave said, extending the season by 1/8th), that would provide for even more games "early on" for the strong to pull away from the weak--resulting in possibly multiple weeks of teams not having to worry about jockeying for playoff positions because they already established them week(s) before the season finale, and thus resulting in "watered down" play in general those last few weeks, in most games...not exactly what you want to see as your season is winding down and gearing up for the playoffs!  I'm sorry, but in my mind and obviously in others', I can certainly see how that would hurt ratings. 

I honestly don't care if they scrape 2 of the 4 or 5 preseason games, but I don't think they need to add two more regular season games to the schedule--and I LOVE the NFL!  However, it's not that far-fetched of a concept to understand why it might be a bad idea.

[MikeO]

Get all of your little childish insults out of the way? Feel like a tough guy now. Too bad your argument is still weak and you are sticking up for an even weaker stance made by someone else!

The final week of any season has some pointless games in ALL sports. That's just how sports is.

That's no reason to not add 2 games. It's a silly stance to take. The final week of the NBA season has meaningless games. As does in MLB, and the NHL, and NFL. It's just how sports is. Teams are gonna lock up spots and some teams will be out of it come the final week. Whether its week 16 or 18 in the NFL it doesn't matter, that won't change.

And this year in the NFL, the Packers-Bears game had playoff impact. The Giants-Skins game did. Indy-Tenn game did as did Jax-Houston. St.Louis-Seattle had impact. Pitt-Browns and Ravens-Cincy as Pitt and Balt were fighting for AFC North title and  a 1st round bye.

There are 7 games in the final week of the season that were meaningful in whether a team made the playoffs or won a division!!! Damn near half the games in the final week had huge implications on teams the following week.

The whole notion that adding 2 games will hurt ratings and make games meaningless is silly beyond belief. It's downright laughable actually.

[Dave Gray]

There are 7 games in the final week of the season that were meaningful in whether a team made the playoffs or won a division!!! Damn near half the games in the final week had huge implications on teams the following week.

Are you using this to support your point?  The fact that there are meaningful games in the NFL now at season's end (and very rarely are there in the other sports) helps point to why a short schedule leads to more meaningful games.  The longer the schedules get, the farther apart teams will be in terms of record, statistically speaking.  That is FACT.  You might think that 2 games isn't a difference maker, but the rest of us do.  We don't need to be told that we're silly for thinking it.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them laughably foolish, you know.