18 game season (split off)

[MikeO]

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.

How is that a fact?That isn't a fact at all. In 2 weeks those teams could just as easily be bunched together as they were in Week 16. Or more teams could catch up and be bunched in as well. You have no facts to back anything up!

And don't get on your high horse about being called silly and foolish. You people dish it out at a much faster rate than I do. So pipe down there junior!!

[fyo]

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.

Sigh...

Really trying to restrain myself here...

Mike, please read what I wrote. I never claimed what you seem to think. Not that it's necessarily an indefensible position, but it isn't what I wrote.

Let me try, once more, to calmly rephrase my initial argument:

Playing time of top players won't decrease (baring injury) unless there are a lot of meaningless games, which would lead to lower ratings.

Actually, that's exactly what I wrote with the sole changes being added emphases and a change of tense. Note the first highlighted word, "unless". What follows is a hypothetical construct which (I claim) must be fulfilled in order for the effect initially stated to occur.

In other words, what I claimed was that in order for top players to receive less playing time, there would have to be a lot of meaningless games (the unstated, but obvious, argument being that coaches wouldn't pull top players from meaningful games). I also claimed that "a lot of meaningless games" would directly cause lower ratings, which would also seem rather obvious.

If you have anything to add, anything I need to clarify, on this issue, feel free to post in your usual bombastic style and I'll do my best to calmly explain what I mean and argue any points that are raised.

[Dave Gray]

How is that a fact?That isn't a fact at all.

Yes.  It is mathematical fact, statistically speaking.

A shorter sample size leaves more room for anomaly.  In a 10 game season, a .500 team and a .600 team will be separated by about 1 game.  An anomaly win can mean the difference in that 1 game.  Over a 100 game season, those same two teams will average to be 10 games apart, making an anomaly win much less likely to matter.  As a season is smaller, each win, is statistically, more important.

This is not up for debate.  There is no disagreement.  It is not my opinion.  It is cold, hard, verifiable fact.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If the season is extended two things will occur:

1. There will be more meaningful games. 

2. There will be more meaningless games. 

Right now there are 256 regular season games played each season.  Most of them such as the Patriots-Dolphins week 3 match up were meaningful.  Some of them such as the week 17 Patriots-Dolphins matchup was meaningless. 

Extending the season to 18 games will add 32 extra games.  Some of those additional game will be meaningful, some won't.  A bigger part of the question is how many of the extra games will be meaningful, how many won't.

A few random points:

1. Meaningless games from the perspective of the cliched fan base doesn't seem to harm interest.  E.g. I don't know of any Patriots fans who decided to not watch the final game or attend because it was meaningless.  OTOH, meaningless games from the perspective of the fan base that is out of if it does diminish interest. 

2. Even the most meaningless regular season game seems to draw more interest than any pre-season game.  And worse case (from a fan perspective) that is what we are doing.   Replacing two meaningless pre-season games with two meaningless late season games. 

3. While Dave is absolutely correct and MikeO is blowing air out of his backside regarding it making each game less important, I don't think that is a bad thing.  It will only be a small drop, it is not like we are jumping to a baseball season.  And having a larger number of games will increase the likelihood of good teams making the playoffs instead of lucky teams.  As it is right now a good team that has two or three bad bounces can miss the playoffs while a bad team with two or three lucky bounces can make it.  Increasing the number of games will decrease the luck factor. 

[Sunstroke]

I'm all for the 18 game schedule... I hate preseason football, so anything that replaces two of those games with real games is good by me.

This is not up for debate.  There is no disagreement.  It is not my opinion.  It is cold, hard, verifiable fact.

If we could interrogate some of the numbers, I'm sure we could get a confession out of them. #7 looks ready to crack at any time.

...MikeO is blowing air out of his backside

The Autumn wind is a Raider...

[tepop84]

I am for an 18 game season.  I wish they would play 6 division games, and 1 game against each of the other teams in the division.  18 game schedule would be good because it would make the tiebreakers much less important, which i think is a good thing.

[Dave Gray]

I am for an 18 game season.  I wish they would play 6 division games, and 1 game against each of the other teams in the division.  18 game schedule would be good because it would make the tiebreakers much less important, which i think is a good thing.

You mean 6 in the division, and then all of the other teams in the conference?  I thought about that, but you would lose interconference play, which people (and I) like. 

If you're going to expand the number of games, I think that 19 is a sweet spot.

6 in your division.
4 from a rotating AFC division. (every 3 years)
4 from a rotating NFC division. (every 4 years)
5 - 1 each from each remaining division (#1 plays #1, #2 plays #2, etc.)

The rub is that you'd have an odd number of home/away games, so that would have to rotate each year.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You mean 6 in the division, and then all of the other teams in the conference?  I thought about that, but you would lose interconference play, which people (and I) like. 

If you're going to expand the number of games, I think that 19 is a sweet spot.

6 in your division.
4 from a rotating AFC division. (every 3 years)
4 from a rotating NFC division. (every 4 years)
5 - 1 each from each remaining division (#1 plays #1, #2 plays #2, etc.)

The rub is that you'd have an odd number of home/away games, so that would have to rotate each year.

18 could work as follows:

6 in your division.  (same as now)
4 from other conf every four years (same)
4 from a div in your conf every three years (same)
4 from your conf based on record 1's and 2's play all other 1's and 2's; same for 3's and 4's  (expanded by 2)

Increases the number of conf games but keeps the interconf games. 

[Dave Gray]

^ Yeah, that works.  Is that the proposed plan?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^ Yeah, that works.  Is that the proposed plan?

From what I read that is what the league is leaning towards but not a set plan. 

[MikeO]

Yes.  It is mathematical fact, statistically speaking.

A shorter sample size leaves more room for anomaly.  In a 10 game season, a .500 team and a .600 team will be separated by about 1 game.  An anomaly win can mean the difference in that 1 game.  Over a 100 game season, those same two teams will average to be 10 games apart, making an anomaly win much less likely to matter.  As a season is smaller, each win, is statistically, more important.

This is not up for debate.  There is no disagreement.  It is not my opinion.  It is cold, hard, verifiable fact.

Its only a fact in your head. Games being more important and games being meaningless are 2 different things!!!

You people act like by adding 2 games, TV ratings will drop over time, top stars will play less,. and games won't mean as much. That notion is so silly its laughable on every level. It's 2 games! 2 games!

When the league jumped from 14 to 16 games not that long ago (and cut back from 6 preseason games), people like you guys were saying the same thing you are saying now. And over time how did that work out? Yeah, exactly what I thought. DEAD WRONG!!!

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Its only a fact in your head. Games being more important and games being meaningless are 2 different things!!!

You people act like by adding 2 games, TV ratings will drop over time, top stars will play less,. and games won't mean as much. That notion is so silly its laughable on every level. It's 2 games! 2 games!

When the league jumped from 14 to 16 games not that long ago (and cut back from 6 preseason games), people like you guys were saying the same thing you are saying now. And over time how did that work out? Yeah, exactly what I thought. DEAD WRONG!!!

Mike as usually your are the one that is dead wrong!

It is a mathematical fact that extending the season will create more meaningless games at the end of the season.  IIRC when we had 14 game seasons it was much less common for divisional winners to be determined prior to the last game of the season and almost unheard of for the wildcard to be locked up. 

Also it is a mathematical fact that more games means that that each one is less important.

And while I am as strong supporter of extending the season to 18 games or even 20.  You're hyperbola, lack of basic reading comprehension and overall bullheadedness does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion.   

[MikeO]

it's not a fact at all. Really it isn't. You people say this "mathematical fact" and throw the term around so much you have actually started to believe. You can believe that theory or have that opinion, but its not a FACT! And there is no hard evidence to back it up! Because you don't know how many teams will be alive heading into those new final 2 weeks of the season or how many teams will be fighting for how many spots. For it to be a "FACT" you would have to know that. And you dont' know that! So to say there would be more meaningless games is a guess. Not a FACT!!

Call me all the names you want, throw in your cheap shot jabs.....but fact is you have no proof to back up your very weak stance. And you can call me all the names ya want and come off like 3 years olds if it makes ya feel better....but it still doesn't make ya correct in this debate!!

[Sunstroke]

How dare you guys saddle MikeO with mathematical facts like that. If he already believes in something, then it is empirical truth and brooks no debate. If he doesn't believe in it, then it can't possibly be real...

[Phishfan]

Common sense tells you that the more games you play the less each one matters individually. That is simple math. I don't understand how you can keep arguing against that.

Actually I do, you keep throwing other things out there to create a haze. Just look at the simple math and forget the rest of your arguments. 1/16 is a greater number than 1/18. That is all you need to understand.