Longer Season.. what does it offer other than more revenue?

[tryfuhl]

A lot of players are already breaking down at the end of the season. I know that you can say that there will be less pre-season games, but doesn't that mean that your starters will play more in them, so that you can get them ready for the season? I don't buy the injury argument, they happen in the regular season too.

On top of that, more starters going in pre-season = less evaluation of your younger and backup talent. I just don't see what good this can do for the players/teams.

[GusFrerotte]

Nothing. It is all about the money. You will get more guys banged up or seriously injured though, but what do the owners care. Doesn't matter anyway, the pro sports leagues are going to price themsleves out of the market.

[GTripp0012]

Real football in August?

This is not good for the players, obviously, but any fan who says they wouldn't trade two preseason games for two more regular season games is crazy.

[FRPLG]

It means I get to pay for two games that mean something rather than two worthless games.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Real football in August?

This is not good for the players, obviously, but any fan who says they wouldn't trade two preseason games for two more regular season games is crazy.

If I had season tickets I'd probably agree.. but this means player salaries will be argued up most likely and probably tickets as well.

I also think that roster sizes should be bumped up if so. I mean you don't want to sign a FA to come in at week 13 without much knowledge of your system if you've lost a guy or two at a position. Can anyone see Portis going 18 weeks? I guess the people that want Betts to get more carries would like that, but I'd definitely want to have 4 backs throughout the year, at least ONE extra lineman on each side, and a linebacker or two

[SmootSmack]

All about increasing revenue. And with increased revenue, maybe the players won't be as upset when the owners ask the current CBA structure which has 60% of revenue going to the players be revised...so money and the CBA negotiations are the major driving forces (as well as, on a much smaller scale, globalization)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

If I had season tickets I'd probably agree.. but this means player salaries will be argued up most likely and probably tickets as well.

I also think that roster sizes should be bumped up if so. I mean you don't want to sign a FA to come in at week 13 without much knowledge of your system if you've lost a guy or two at a position. Can anyone see Portis going 18 weeks? I guess the people that want Betts to get more carries would like that, but I'd definitely want to have 4 backs throughout the year, at least ONE extra lineman on each side, and a linebacker or two

As long as revenues go up, thats going to drive up the player salaries anyway, so we might as well justify it while we're at it.

[jdlea]

What's going to be interesting about expanding the regular season is the way that player's salaries is structured. From what I've heard the rub, for a long time, has been that players want a 17th and 18th game check, assuming they play 18 games. Players do not get paid for the preseason, they get 16 game checks per year, so the thinking has always been that the players' union will argue for 2 more game checks equal to the 16 they get now.

Solomon Wilcotts (I believe) has said all along that the players will ask for a salary increase. They won't just say, "The 9 mil I made last year for 16 games...go ahead and divide that by 18 games this year." I agree with him, I don't think that will happen, I think players will want 18 game checks of equal value to the 16 they're all getting right now.

From a season ticket holder's standpoint (I'm not one) I'd love it. They have to pay full price for the tickets anyway, (I'm pretty sure) might as well make them count.

[Ruhskins]

I wonder if with a longer season they would increase the size of the rosters. Longer season means players can get banged up as it's been discussed. I wouldn't mind a longer regular season. Now, if they can move the Superbowl to a Saturday night, that'd be great!

[derekc4]

Well the record books will get rewritten completely.

[Daseal]

Could this possibly lead to slightly larger rosters? I could definitely see that. At the end of a 16 game season these players are beat up -- can you imagine two more weeks?

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

All about increasing revenue. And with increased revenue, maybe the players won't be as upset when the owners ask the current CBA structure which has 60% of revenue going to the players be revised...so money and the CBA negotiations are the major driving forces (as well as, on a much smaller scale, globalization)

I guess adding games would be easier to slide into playing more games overseas yeah. Although I'm way against that. It's difficult enough to adjust for a Thursday or Monday night game, imagine traveling across several more time zones and whatnot. NFL Europe couldn't even stay afloat, so these talks of in the future adding international teams is insane. I'd say that there are some markets in America that deserve a team more than anywhere in Mexico, Canada, or Europe.

[The Goat]

Yeah I don't get the appeal of overseas games. Keep it in our hemisphere w/ games in Canada and maybe South America.

[FRPLG]

I think it makes more sense to me to expand the playoffs. I would imagine those games generate proportionally more oney the in-season games. Maybe go to 17 and expanded playoffs. Then you're only adding one game for everyone and ghe other games are playoff games involving a lot less players.

One also has to understand that this could very well be CBA positioning(most likely). IN collective bargaining you have to give to get. The more the owners lay on the table the more they have to pull back when the time comes. I'd bet we don't see extra games in whatever reincarnation the next CBA is.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I guess adding games would be easier to slide into playing more games overseas yeah. Although I'm way against that. It's difficult enough to adjust for a Thursday or Monday night game, imagine traveling across several more time zones and whatnot. NFL Europe couldn't even stay afloat, so these talks of in the future adding international teams is insane. I'd say that there are some markets in America that deserve a team more than anywhere in Mexico, Canada, or Europe.

Hold on now, the NFL folded on Europe not the other way around. Europeans have plenty of interest in the sport. Combine that with the fact that there are also U.S servicmembers who went to those games and it is obvious that they had strong fan base.
NFL folds Europe league, to focus on regular-season games abroad - NFL - ESPN

I understand that there are concerns about the time zones but it is really not an issue. Here is why, currently the time zone difference between Eastern Time and Pacific Time is 3 hours. It takes roughly 6 hours to travel from one side of the U.S. to the other.

The time difference in Europe is between 5 and 6 hours and the flight takes 9 hours from the East coast. and 10 from the west coast (when they are nonstop). Now in case you are wondering, it would take the KC Chiefs roughly 12 hours.

My point is this if you are already spending 6 hours on a plane, then what is another 3-6 hours? You would probably be asleep for the majority anyway. Secondly, it would only be once a year that you have to make a trip like this. Finally, the players do not have to adjust to the time difference because they still play the games according to the standard NFL game times.