Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

I'm going to say NO, plus adding that we should reduce the preseason to 3 games while keeping the 16 game schedule.

A 2-game preseason would not be enough for evaluation purposes for roster battles, which I think is the main purpose for the exhibition games.

However, I think 18 games, unless they build in 2 bye weeks per team and expanded rosters to say, 57 or 58 players, is too much of a physical toll on the players, especially teams in the playoffs.

We don't want to be watching 3rd-string players in the playoffs and late battles for postseason berths.

Also, we don't want to end up shortening players' careers, especially RBs, by a year or two just to have a longer season.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;724089]I fully support eliminating two preseason games. Presently, a full 20% of the NFL's 20-game schedule is devoted meaningless games - its retarded. The players don't like it. The coaches don't really need it. The owners and fans hate it. So, its pretty much universally agreed upon that the NFL needs to lose 2 preseason games.

Now, if we get rid of two preseason games, there are really just two choices - 1. Leave the 16 game regular season and cut player salaries to compensate for lost revenue. 2. convert those two meaningless preseason games into two regular season games. Starters generally play about 6 quarters of football in the preseason anyways, so its not like they'll really be playing that much more.

Scenario 2 makes the most sense. Now, there are things to do to make the longer regular season less grinding on the players:

1. Every team gets two bye weeks. As a consequence of this, we'll now have 20 weeks of regular season football to watch instead of just 17. Football season is my favorite time of the year, so i'm all about adding a few weeks.

2. Increase roster sizes and/or allow the full roster to be eligible to play on gamedays.

3. Change IR rules to allow players to come back from IR during the regular season.

4. Provide some kind of incentive for playoff-bound teams to play starters during the final weeks of the regular season. My suggestion - have the last 4 weeks of a teams schedule be divisional games.

5. On the flip side of the previous suggestion, have the first few games of the regular season be non-conference games for every team. these games are less important from a tie-breaking standpoint, and should be played near the beginning of the season to allow teams to "Gear up" more for the "more important" regular season games to be played later in the year.[/quote]

Rather than IR, change to a MLB-like Disabled List...with 4 and 8-week options where the roster spot can be filled with an active player? If someone is hobbled by a 2 or 3-week injury, they'll just be taking up an unused roster spot like right now. The IR could be retained for players who DEFINITELY aren't returning this season.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;724089]
4. Provide some kind of incentive for playoff-bound teams to play starters during the final weeks of the regular season. My suggestion - have the last 4 weeks of a teams schedule be divisional games. [/quote]

I like this idea.

Also, keep in mind Ease of Schedule could be made much more equitable with 2 more games.

The way the schedule is currently set up is that you have 6 rivalry games and then you play 2 other divisions of 8 games.
That is 14 games right there out of 16...the other 2 games are typically ones that help a little with ease of schedule issues depending on prior year team results. That usually doesn't make things equitable.

This system does not currently work well....with 2 more games, ease of schedule would be a better fit.

(I know...you guys may say a last placed team in one division plays last in another...but that doesn't mean that team sucks....sometimes they are 8-8...otherwise explain why our 4-12 team has such a hard schedule!)

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;724115][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I am completely against it. I think 16 games is enough and I think as Carson Palmer pointed out additional games dilute the meaning of each game played. One thing about football that doesn’t really translate to any other team sport is the importance each game holds. People bitch and complain when teams rest their starters for the last game of the season after they have locked up a playoff spot. I think that practice will increase. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
I get the argument from a season ticket holders persepective, but honestly 16 games is enough. I mean Goodwell is already making the game less physical, if 18 games comes about Im sure its going to get even worse. [/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

unless youre one of those fans that ignore the preseason altogether and pretend it doesnt exist, nothing is being diluted. we're not adding any games. were taking two completely meaningless preseason games and moving them to a meaningful regular season.

as far as the regular season itself goes, adding two games won't dilute the meaning of each game appreciably. its not like were talking about turning into football, baseball or hockey, and playing 4 games a week for six months. we're just shifting two games around in the existing schedule.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

Having an 18 game season would make a developmental league even more important. Eliminating or reducing training camp and reducing preseason would hamper the shot of undrafted rookies and other longshots. This should further increase team revenue. My idea of this is each team in the developmental league has players allocated by NFL teams and play on Saturdays. Ex. Skins and Ravens each allocate 20 players to a team that plays on Saturdays in the Fall after the NFL season starts for 10 weeks. Thus, each team can have 73 players (allow 50 to dress on Sundays) while the other 20 can be brought to the active roster after the developmental league season is over. If a team wants to sign one of the Skins allocated players to their current roster the Skins have the right to either put him on their roster or let him go to the new team.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

I think that this whole issue will make negotiations for a new CBA very difficult. The owners are planting the seeds for player dissatisfaction and resistance.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=rypper11;724122]Having an 18 game season would make a developmental league even more important. Eliminating or reducing training camp and reducing preseason would hamper the shot of undrafted rookies and other longshots. This should further increase team revenue. My idea of this is each team in the developmental league has players allocated by NFL teams and play on Saturdays. Ex. Skins and Ravens each allocate 20 players to a team that plays on Saturdays in the Fall after the NFL season starts for 10 weeks. Thus, each team can have 73 players (allow 50 to dress on Sundays) while the other 20 can be brought to the active roster after the developmental league season is over. If a team wants to sign one of the Skins allocated players to their current roster the Skins have the right to either put him on their roster or let him go to the new team.[/quote]

Play on Saturdays in the fall, that's when colleges play and there is no way tv will cover these teams over college football. Plus the added cost of operating these teams is something the owners will never go for. The NFL already has a developmental league called college football. It provides a steady stream of players at zero cost to the NFL. Its the perfect setup for the NFL and will not change anytime soon.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=rypper11;724122]Having an 18 game season would make a developmental league even more important. Eliminating or reducing training camp and reducing preseason would hamper the shot of undrafted rookies and other longshots. This should further increase team revenue. My idea of this is each team in the developmental league has players allocated by NFL teams and play on Saturdays. Ex. Skins and Ravens each allocate 20 players to a team that plays on Saturdays in the Fall after the NFL season starts for 10 weeks. Thus, each team can have 73 players (allow 50 to dress on Sundays) while the other 20 can be brought to the active roster after the developmental league season is over. If a team wants to sign one of the Skins allocated players to their current roster the Skins have the right to either put him on their roster or let him go to the new team.[/quote]

The NFL definitely needs a developmental league. I think an 8 team league where each NFL division can pool players from a developmental would be an interesting league.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

For some teams it'll be like making it to the divisional round of the playoffs every year. I mean sure they can expand the roster, but you're always going to have that one coach that's going to ride that one player a little to hard. And with McNabb already being injury prone it's certainly not going to help us.

Maybe some sort of compromise with 1 less week of practice, and no two a days full contact. You get one practice to hit and another to do walk throughs. Kind of like an OTA. Still you can't make up for playing two extra games every year.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=Mattyk;724098]Could we see the end of training camp as we know it? With all the offseason work I don't think a full camp is even necessary anymore. At the least I think two a days will be out the window.[/quote]

Someone, I can't remember who now, was just saying the other day that Shanahan is probably ahead of the game with cutting back on two a days during training camp.

Training camp, if anything, will become more important. And more and more teams will hold joint-training camp sessions. Believe the Bucs and Jags did that this summer. Because with only two preseason games, teams will mostly want to give their starters significant playing time to get ready for the regular season. So one of the only way teams can evaluate the Brian Mitchells of the world is through training camp and inter-squad scrimmages

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;724163]For some teams it'll be like making it to the divisional round of the playoffs every year. I mean sure they can expand the roster, but you're always going to have that one coach that's going to ride that one player a little to hard. And with McNabb already being injury prone it's certainly not going to help us.

Maybe some sort of compromise with 1 less week of practice, and no two a days full contact. You get one practice to hit and another to do walk throughs. Kind of like an OTA. Still you can't make up for playing two extra games every year.[/quote]

Speaking of riding a player too hard there's a good article in Sports Illustrated about RBs. Basically it says the era of the big franchise back is over as the NFL is a QB & passing league now. Its pretty much get a RB and run him into the ground and then plug someone else in. Shanny had a quote where he says you need great players in some positions but RB isnt one of them. Also RB is now one of the lowest paid positions reflecting the organizations not wanting to drop a lot of $ on a revolving door position.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=Lotus;724129]I think that this whole issue will make negotiations for a new CBA very difficult. The owners are planting the seeds for player dissatisfaction and resistance.[/quote]

I agree. Even if they get more money, say on an annual basis, their leaders can turn right around and say that theres a good chance that some of you are going to end up loosing a year or two on your career. In other words you make more money playing 10 sixteen game season then you do playing 8 eighteen game seasons.


[quote=irish;724201]Speaking of riding a player too hard there's a good article in Sports Illustrated about RBs. Basically it says the era of the big franchise back is over as the NFL is a QB & passing league now. Its pretty much get a RB and run him into the ground and then plug someone else in. Shanny had a quote where he says you need great players in some positions but RB isnt one of them. Also RB is now one of the lowest paid positions reflecting the organizations not wanting to drop a lot of $ on a revolving door position.[/quote]

Makes you wonder. Back in the day guys like Ryan Matthews might have been considered a steal in the top 10. Now it's, 'well at 14 he's a great pick but maybe they could have got him a little later.'

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;724218]I agree. Even if they get more money, say on an annual basis, their leaders can turn right around and say that theres a good chance that some of you are going to end up loosing a year or two on your career. In other words you make more money playing 10 sixteen game season then you do playing 8 eighteen game seasons.




Makes you wonder. Back in the day guys like Ryan Matthews might have been considered a steal in the top 10. Now it's, 'well at 14 he's a great pick but maybe they could have got him a little later.'[/quote]

Yes. I think coaches are starting to not see any reason to use a high pick on a plug in position. High picks are now for QBs, LTs, CBs & DEs.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;724218]I agree. Even if they get more money, say on an annual basis, their leaders can turn right around and say that theres a good chance that some of you are going to end up loosing a year or two on your career. In other words you make more money playing 10 sixteen game season then you do playing 8 eighteen game seasons.




Makes you wonder. Back in the day guys like Ryan Matthews might have been considered a steal in the top 10. Now it's, 'well at 14 he's a great pick but maybe they could have got him a little later.'[/quote]

The players right now are paid based on their being available to play in anywhere from 20 to 25 games per season (HOF game, pre-season, regular season, post season). Under the new system, players will be paid based on their being available to play in anywhere from 20 to 25 games per season. Therefore, I don't think players careers will necessarily be any shorter.

Further, its almost certain that the modified NFL season will include provisions to increase roster sizes, practice squad sizes, and game day roster sizes. Having more players available to take snaps means less snaps will be available to each individual player. I would actually think the modified season would ultimately wind up extending careers. For example, instead of teams using primarily one or two primary running backs during the season, they'll split the load more evenly between two or three.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

I'm going against most here and ONLY for selfish reasons, but I'd LOVE to see the Skins an extra two games a year.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

I love watching the NFL, but i think a 16 game season is enough, if you increase the games eventually you are going to water down the product just like baseball has done.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;724258]I love watching the NFL, but i think a 16 game season is enough, if you increase the games eventually you are going to water down the product just like baseball has done.[/quote]

Its not more games that has watered down MLB, too many teams did. 18 games wont water-down the NFL, adding more teams will.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=irish;724259]Its not more games that has watered down MLB, too many teams did. 18 games wont water-down the NFL, adding more teams will.[/quote]


Well if that's the case why don't we make it a 52 game schedule make Football a year round sport.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;724266]Well if that's the case why don't we make it a 52 game schedule make Football a year round sport.[/quote]

Everyone is acting like 18 games is going to start a snowball effect where we constantly are adding additional games each year. What's the problem with just two more? I know for me, football always ends too soon (with the Redskins especially!).

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;724240]I'm going against most here and ONLY for selfish reasons, but I'd LOVE to see the Skins an extra two games a year.[/quote]


Ok, against who, who are these 2 games going to be played against divisonal,in conference or out?It will water down the product ,lets just face the truth this will make the TV contracts bigger = more money for the owners and less quality football for the fan.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

I am indifferent...can we have "don't care" or "not sure" options? In all honestly 16 games season seems perfectly fine.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

I like the idea, for selfish reasons of course, only if it doesn't open the door for more teams. With added roster spots on top of additional teams I don't want to see the talent pool get too shallow.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

Terrible idea IMO.

1) there are already a lot of meaningless (no playoff implications) games at the end of year.
2) the "shorter preseason" argument is bogus; starters don't play that much & coaches still need games to evaluate the guys fighting for roster spots.
3) Injuries. winning in the end will be even more about who's healthy & who's roster is deep. It's a tough game but I don't want to see it become a battle of attrition.
4) Bailout of a compromise; the NFL & NFLPA need to come to real terms on revenue sharing & such, this is just an easy, short sighted answer. Long-term it's not good for the game, more games makes the NFL more like the nba, major league baseball & nhl, where each game doesn't seem as important.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=freddyg12;724293]Terrible idea IMO.

1) there are already a lot of meaningless (no playoff implications) games at the end of year.
[B]2) the "shorter preseason" argument is bogus; starters don't play that much & coaches still need games to evaluate the guys fighting for roster spots. [/B]
3) Injuries. winning in the end will be even more about who's healthy & who's roster is deep. It's a tough game but I don't want to see it become a battle of attrition.
4) Bailout of a compromise; the NFL & NFLPA need to come to real terms on revenue sharing & such, this is just an easy, short sighted answer. Long-term it's not good for the game, more games makes the NFL more like the nba, major league baseball & nhl, where each game doesn't seem as important.[/quote]

Could not agree more. Plus if he's so concerned about the players safety then he would be pushing for 18 games. Keep it at 16!

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=Giantone;724285]Ok, against who, who are these 2 games going to be played against divisonal,in conference or out?It will water down the product ,lets just face the truth this will make the TV contracts bigger = more money for the owners and less quality football for the fan.[/quote]

2 game is not going to water down the product. I don't even think 20 would. I think that might be the threshold where it starts getting watered down. And I would just say out-of-conference games maybe?

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

Worst idea ever. Just another wedge between owners and players for the looming lockout next year.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

Some people are against it, but I'd actually to see an 18 week season where each team has two byes.... the season would begin on labor day weekend like it used to do, and everyone would have two byes...maybe its because we're so bad lol, but the bye weeks are some of my favorite weeks of football of the season. I like just kicking back and not getting to into it sometimes.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=SouperMeister;724311]Worst idea ever. Just another wedge between owners and players for the looming lockout next year.[/quote]

Let's take the players and owners out of it and just think about it for our own selfish desires. Tell me you wouldn't enjoy watching the Skins another two games a year...

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=Player_HTTR;724290]I like the idea, for selfish reasons of course, only if it doesn't open the door for more teams. With added roster spots on top of additional teams I don't want to see the talent pool get too shallow.[/quote]

I think they would have to add 8 teams to make an expansion work. Lol, the 32 team 8 division system is perfect.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;724337]Let's take the players and owners out of it and just think about it for our own selfish desires. [B]Tell me you wouldn't enjoy watching the Skins another two games a year...[/B][/quote]

Of course, except during a Zorn year.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

Maybe we could have a 17 game season:
The 17th game's results would be the total points in the first quarter of all 4 preseason games....total points above the league average would get a win....total points under the league average get a loss....teams that hit the average exactly get a tie....a literal tie.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

Especially with more divisional games/more important games moving towards the end of the season, just spells disaster.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

I heard him (Goodell) say that with the current CBA, he could extend the season by 8 additional games right NOW if he wanted to. This sounded kinda shady, but I dunno. Can anyone shed light on what I heard? Is that true?

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=Lotus;724346]Of course, except during a Zorn year.[/quote]

could not have answered that question better.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=skinsnut;724359]Maybe we could have a 17 game season:
The 17th game's results would be the total points in the first quarter of all 4 preseason games....total points above the league average would get a win....total points under the league average get a loss....teams that hit the average exactly get a tie....a literal tie.[/quote]

Dan Patrick: With the first nine months of the Baseketball postseason out of the way, the playoff picture is starting to emerge.
Kenny Mayne: So, with last night's victory over Boston, next week the Milwaukee Beers must beat Indianapolis in order to advance to Charlotte. That's in an effort to reduce their magic number to three.
Dan Patrick: Right, and then the Beers can advance to the National Eastern Division North to play Tampa.
Kenny Mayne: So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;724297]2 game is not going to water down the product. I don't even think 20 would. I think that might be the threshold where it starts getting watered down. And I would just say out-of-conference games maybe?[/quote]


Ok lets think about this....

Camp.......

2 Pre season games

18(plus the extra 2 weeks of practice) regular season games

2 or 3 playoff games .depending on if your a wild card befor you even play the Super Bowl, yes it will be water down their bodies can't take it .

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

I would love to see more football but I think the toll on the players would be bad. For sure, you'd have to increase the roster.

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

Increase roster, which means more money to players, which they're trying to reverse. Less offseason work..

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

Question: What value does having two extra games add to the game itself? In what meaningful way does it improve the product the NFL sells?

Re: 18 Game Schedule.. Good or Bad?
 

[quote=saden1;724409]Question: What value does having two extra games add to the game itself? In what meaningful way does it improve the product the NFL sells?[/quote]

none, they just sell more product