From Those That Have Been Through an 18 game season

[BJNT]

If this has been posted before forgive me. Makes me against an 18 game season even more.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...Top+Stories%29

[mestevo]

Would be more relevant if it was an article about the Packers, Steelers, Jets devastated with fatigue after playing 19 games last season (not counting preseason...) and the Seahawks and Ravens played 18... but there isn't one. Packers had an exceptional year injury-wise, but had nothing to do with the length of their season.

Flutie complaining about his arm hurting 4 weeks into a season with no bye week kinda deflates the whole article too IMO. 18 games don't suddenly make the first 16 harder.

As for the rest of it... much of that's been proposed by the owners before the players walked away... adjusted offseason and inseason workout/training camp rules, reduced workouts, etc.

[kingkilla56]

This 2 more games on the schedule is the biggest load of crap ever. If their pay reflects the two game increase they should be complaining.

EDIT: meant to say SHOULDN'T be complaining. Money talks, and if they get a raise they will shut up.

[grunt]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

Would be more relevant if it was an article about the Packers, Steelers, Jets devastated with fatigue after playing 19 games last season (not counting preseason...) and the Seahawks and Ravens played 18... but there isn't one. Packers had an exceptional year injury-wise, but had nothing to do with the length of their season. Flutie complaining about his arm hurting 4 weeks into a season with no bye week kinda deflates the whole article too IMO. 18 games don't suddenly make the first 16 harder. As for the rest of it... much of that's been proposed by the owners before the players walked away... adjusted offseason and inseason workout/training camp rules, reduced workouts, etc.

I guess when Nate Newton said he had to rest for the next month didn't have an impact either. No, the 18 doesn't make the first 16 harder but the impact would be on the 17th and 18th game. The chances of an wildcard team going to the Superbowl would be diminish and the chances for a repeat champion would also go out the door. A 21 game season for both Super Bowl participants are insane.

The owners took the 18 game off the table because no one wanted a longer season.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

I guess when Nate Newton said he had to rest for the next month didn't have an impact either. No, the 18 doesn't make the first 16 harder but the impact would be on the 17th and 18th game. The chances of an wildcard team going to the Superbowl would be diminish and the chances for a repeat champion would also go out the door. A 21 game season for both Super Bowl participants are insane. The owners took the 18 game off the table because no one wanted a longer season.

It's happened twice recently though (Cardinals, Steelers). With few exceptions, the playoffs have not been the injury/fatigue-riddled injury fests that the arduous 17th and 18th games people claim they would be.

What's the more likely reason a wildcard doesn't make it, because they're tired or because they're only the 5th or 6th best team in the conference playoffs? Can a case genuinely be made for the former over the latter? I really don't think anyone seriously could.

With changes to training and workouts, and other things to accommodate the statistical likelihood of more injuries, the 18 game season isn't as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. Players take time to recover over their bye week and after the season, it's changes to existing routines that would reduce wear during the season. In fact I think a lot of those were being proposed independent of the 18 game season.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

It's happened twice recently though (Cardinals, Steelers). With few exceptions, the playoffs have not been the injury/fatigue-riddled injury fests that the arduous 17th and 18th games people claim they would be. What's the more likely reason a wildcard doesn't make it, because they're tired or because they're only the 5th or 6th best team in the conference playoffs? Can a case genuinely be made for the former over the latter? I really don't think anyone seriously could. With changes to training and workouts, and other things to accommodate the statistical likelihood of more injuries, the 18 game season isn't as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. Players take time to recover over their bye week and after the season, it's changes to existing routines that would reduce wear during the season. In fact I think a lot of those were being proposed independent of the 18 game season.

We just watched a six-seed in the playoffs win the Super Bowl. Are they really the sixth-best team in the conference?

With an 18-game schedule, those wildcard teams that go to the Super Bowl end up playing a ridiculously long 22 game seasons. The effects of the expanded schedule surely will be felt by then.

Beyond the injury example, I'm still not convinced that there is any added fan value in an 18 game season. I mean, no one wants to watch a team who has been eliminated from the playoffs once Week 15 rolls around, how many fans will be in the stadium come Week 17? Particularly if the team is in a cold-weather town such as (recent example) Buffalo?

[grunt]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

It's happened twice recently though (Cardinals, Steelers). With few exceptions, the playoffs have not been the injury/fatigue-riddled injury fests that the arduous 17th and 18th games people claim they would be. What's the more likely reason a wildcard doesn't make it, because they're tired or because they're only the 5th or 6th best team in the conference playoffs? Can a case genuinely be made for the former over the latter? I really don't think anyone seriously could. With changes to training and workouts, and other things to accommodate the statistical likelihood of more injuries, the 18 game season isn't as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. Players take time to recover over their bye week and after the season, it's changes to existing routines that would reduce wear during the season. In fact I think a lot of those were being proposed independent of the 18 game season.

All teams are injury riddled all through the season. Steve Young said you just battle through the pain but more games mean more nagging injuries.

[Cardot]

Is the proposal to start the season 2 weeks earlier? Or have it go too weeks later?

I am not really interested in either. August is too early for football, and mid February is too late.