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

tryfuhl · 03-26-2009, 10:27 PM

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 · 03-26-2009, 10:43 PM

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.

Monkeydad · 03-27-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

But aren't tickets to the preseason games priced the same as regular season games?

FRPLG · 03-27-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

But aren't tickets to the preseason games priced the same as regular season games?

Yeah but they are also attended at best 50%. I'd guess The take of a regular season game is on the order of 3X that of even an interesting preseason game. And that probably means millions for a team like the Skins/Cowboys/Pats.

GTripp0012 · 03-26-2009, 10:45 PM

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.

tryfuhl · 03-26-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

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

GTripp0012 · 03-26-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

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.

FRPLG · 03-26-2009, 10:48 PM

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

SmootSmack · 03-26-2009, 11:02 PM

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)

tryfuhl · 03-27-2009, 12:11 AM

Quote:

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.

KLHJ2 · 03-27-2009, 02:48 AM

Quote:

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.

FRPLG · 03-27-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry

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.

I think another 3-6 hours for guys 6'6" and 300 LBs is actually not insignificant.

KLHJ2 · 03-27-2009, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think another 3-6 hours for guys 6'6" and 300 LBs is actually not insignificant.

Don't those guys ride in First or business class. I do not know I am just asking. I figured that they did or do.

redskingrove · 03-27-2009, 12:53 PM

It's going to happen. The league owners just incorporated several safety rule changes in their meetings, and they are pushing for more generated revenues (tickets, media contracts, etc. ) to help cover player's increasing salaries. Their concerns are business ended, and they view the players as conpensated well enough to justify longer seasons. If the players are to get paid then they have to produce.

jdlea · 03-26-2009, 11:34 PM

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.

03-26-2009, 10:27 PM	#1
tryfuhl Gamebreaker Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Waldorf, MD Age: 42 Posts: 12,514	Longer Season.. what does it offer other than more revenue? 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.

03-26-2009, 10:43 PM	#2
GusFrerotte Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Detroit area Posts: 4,153	Re: Longer Season.. what does it offer other than more revenue? 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.

03-26-2009, 10:45 PM	#5
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Evanston, IL Age: 37 Posts: 15,994	Re: Longer Season.. what does it offer other than more revenue? 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. __________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

03-26-2009, 10:48 PM	#8
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	Re: Longer Season.. what does it offer other than more revenue? It means I get to pay for two games that mean something rather than two worthless games.

03-26-2009, 11:02 PM	#9
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Re: Longer Season.. what does it offer other than more revenue? 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) __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

03-27-2009, 12:53 PM	#14
redskingrove Camp Scrub Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 57	Re: Longer Season.. what does it offer other than more revenue? It's going to happen. The league owners just incorporated several safety rule changes in their meetings, and they are pushing for more generated revenues (tickets, media contracts, etc. ) to help cover player's increasing salaries. Their concerns are business ended, and they view the players as conpensated well enough to justify longer seasons. If the players are to get paid then they have to produce.

03-26-2009, 11:34 PM	#15
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 41 Posts: 3,109	Re: Longer Season.. what does it offer other than more revenue? 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.

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

Locker Room Main Forum