16 or 18 Games?

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

The NFL front office and the team owners are saying its for the fans. But we may end up looking at games at the end of the season that are very much preseason like. It's not broken and as much as the fan in me craves more football IMO expanding the schedule isnt for the best.

Yeah, I think it's kind of insulting that they're trying to act like they're doing this for the fans. I can 't remember the exact quote but it was something to the effect of "The fans don't feel the preseason games are a true representation of our product." Well no ****, Sherlock. That's not what the preseason games are supposed to be about. They're supposed to be to get everyone ready for regular season and make important roster cuts. We shouldn't be surprised if a team runs reverses all the way down the field in preseason because it's essentially practice.

As much as I like watching the games I'd be happier if they just took the preseason games off of tv all together or treated them like the summer basketball league games are treated. Preseason isn't supposed to be for the fans. We don't go to dress rehearsals of Broadway shows, disappointed that they aren't going all out or that the understudy is getting most of the stage time. Fans want GOOD football, not just more football. Shortening the preseason increases the chances of the early season games being bad and increasing the regular season increases the chance of late season games being throw aways (remember, they just altered the schedules to try to avoid this but now they want to make it worse).

[KingV2k3]

I liked 14 game seasons, so 16 is plently...



The fewer that count, the more there is riding on each one played...

[SPTO]

16 game season for me.

There are plenty of reasons which have all been expressed in this thread but I will reiterate a couple of them. An 18 game season is going to really water down the level of play late in the year. Teams that clinch a playoff spot/win division are going to play out the string for at 4 games and AT LEAST half of said 4 games will be at home. How would you like it if you were a fan of that team and normally you'd see this once a year and shrug your shoulders but now you're going to the ballpark and seeing the team just roll over because they want to protect the players. I'd be pretty PO'ed myself.

Another factor in watering down the level of play is this, we've seen an 18 game season in the CFL (which is just absurd they should have a 14 game season at the most but that's another story) for decades and let me tell you it becomes a real grind where the football towards the end of the year gets to be real sloppy and tough to watch though invariably the playoffs are often quite good. I dunno if that would happen in the NFL but either way the last 5-6 games will be a killer to watch especially if you cheer for a mediocre team playing their butts off but making mistakes because they're mentally/physically fatigued.

Now the second point is in regards to records. Someone else mentioned this and i'm glad they did because we already have a debate about the relative merits of records today compared to the guys who played all or most of their career in a 14 game season. Are we going to further dilute that by adding 2 more games and then 20 years down the line some QB breaks Peyton Manning's record and we question whether Manning would've had more if he had an extra 2 games to play. It'll lead to an artificial "generational" argument that we often see in baseball and when we talk of football 30-40 years ago compared to today. Both of those generational differences are solid and can be seen for what they are but this one would be completely artificial because really, I don't see how the NFL of 2040 is going to be radically different from the NFL of 2010.

The owners are on board with this only because of the money but it's only going to make the upcoming labor negotiations even more difficult then it is.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Yeah, I think it's kind of insulting that they're trying to act like they're doing this for the fans. I can 't remember the exact quote but it was something to the effect of "The fans don't feel the preseason games are a true representation of our product." Well no ****, Sherlock. That's not what the preseason games are supposed to be about. They're supposed to be to get everyone ready for regular season and make important roster cuts. We shouldn't be surprised if a team runs reverses all the way down the field in preseason because it's essentially practice. As much as I like watching the games I'd be happier if they just took the preseason games off of tv all together or treated them like the summer basketball league games are treated. Preseason isn't supposed to be for the fans. We don't go to dress rehearsals of Broadway shows, disappointed that they aren't going all out or that the understudy is getting most of the stage time. Fans want GOOD football, not just more football. Shortening the preseason increases the chances of the early season games being bad and increasing the regular season increases the chance of late season games being throw aways (remember, they just altered the schedules to try to avoid this but now they want to make it worse).

If they really cared about the fans they wouldnt make purchasing preseason tickets mandatory. Problem solved.

[MassNole]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmood88

I don't really care either way but the season is just about perfect the way it is. I never feel like there aren't enough games, we get 17 weeks of the regular season, then another month for playoffs and the Super Bowl. That's more than enough for me.

Well they are going to play at least 20 games a year anyways, I'd rather 18 of them actually matter. Now if they propose a 4 week preseason and then an 18 game regular season then I would want a 16 game schedule.

[muggins]

I don't know how many people in the thread are season ticket holders, but you pay face value for pre-season games and I don't believe you can just buy regular season games unless you buy individual game tickets. So it really is 'for the fans' because they'll be getting real value for those tickets instead of putting them on Stubhub for $20.

Regarding "it'll be over by week 14 anyway" how many times have playoff races gone down to the wire over the last few years? Tons of times! The few times when starters were sat make huge headlines but rarely occur.

[Howie75]

I am satisfied w/ the current 16 game season. I think that the current preseason set up is about right to get the starters ready and have plenty of time to evaluate players.

2 games would not seem to be enough time to really evaluate and cut fringe players, who would suffer the most IMO.

The older guys on here might remember the USFL employed an 18 week regular season...it wouldn;t be the end of the world if the NFL adopts it, but I hope they leave well enough alone.

Unfortunately, it's all about the $$$$ so one more home game is an attractive idea to them.

And on a side note, charging full price for preseason tickets is a travesty.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

16 game season for me. There are plenty of reasons which have all been expressed in this thread but I will reiterate a couple of them. An 18 game season is going to really water down the level of play late in the year. Teams that clinch a playoff spot/win division are going to play out the string for at 4 games and AT LEAST half of said 4 games will be at home. How would you like it if you were a fan of that team and normally you'd see this once a year and shrug your shoulders but now you're going to the ballpark and seeing the team just roll over because they want to protect the players. I'd be pretty PO'ed myself. Another factor in watering down the level of play is this, we've seen an 18 game season in the CFL (which is just absurd they should have a 14 game season at the most but that's another story) for decades and let me tell you it becomes a real grind where the football towards the end of the year gets to be real sloppy and tough to watch though invariably the playoffs are often quite good. I dunno if that would happen in the NFL but either way the last 5-6 games will be a killer to watch especially if you cheer for a mediocre team playing their butts off but making mistakes because they're mentally/physically fatigued. Now the second point is in regards to records. Someone else mentioned this and i'm glad they did because we already have a debate about the relative merits of records today compared to the guys who played all or most of their career in a 14 game season. Are we going to further dilute that by adding 2 more games and then 20 years down the line some QB breaks Peyton Manning's record and we question whether Manning would've had more if he had an extra 2 games to play. It'll lead to an artificial "generational" argument that we often see in baseball and when we talk of football 30-40 years ago compared to today. Both of those generational differences are solid and can be seen for what they are but this one would be completely artificial because really, I don't see how the NFL of 2040 is going to be radically different from the NFL of 2010. The owners are on board with this only because of the money but it's only going to make the upcoming labor negotiations even more difficult then it is.

Quick Counter Points.

1. A team would have to have a 5 game division lead with 4 games left to mail in 4 games. That's extremely unlikely

2. The CFL probably looks watered down and sloppy because they are dealing with a lower caliber player. I don't see the NFL getting so watered down that it is unwatchable. Just can't see it happening

3. Records are meant to be broken. Modern day training, longer seasons, evolution of the game. Records get broken. It's just a part of the sport. Plus, when a guy is chasing a record it actually increases the interest in the sport because no one wants to miss "that" moment.