Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   National Football League (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Say "Bye-Bye" To 18-Game Regular Season? (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=23354)

Anthony 08-18-2010 08:49 AM

Say "Bye-Bye" To 18-Game Regular Season?
 
Why am I not surprised that Bob Frantz has joined the kvetchers who are sniping against the proposed 18-game regular-season schedule?

Frantz: Answers must be found to NFL schedule issue | San Francisco Examiner

Even if the current 4-game preseason is DOA, they could always extend the regular season two more weeks - but not two more games - by giving every team two more bye weeks.

Hope no one is reading this! :P

doublee 08-18-2010 09:49 AM

Personally, I think an 18 game regular season is a bad idea to begin with and I am not sure they are ever going to get the players fully on board with it. The players get beat up enough as it is during a 16 game schedule.

I agree the preseason is probably too long, but the thing with that is the regulars see minimal playing time during most of those games and teams generally running pretty vanilla offenses and defenses in those games.

I just do not see the benefit to expanding the season other than filling the league's coffers with more money. In the long run it probably hurts the on field product a lot more than it helps it.

Marc 08-18-2010 10:37 AM

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

Anthony 08-18-2010 11:43 AM

But the vast majority of fans do regard the four-game preseason as "broke" - and in this economic environment, they refuse to pay for it.

And maybe with the extra money the NFL will make from a longer regular season - with or without an increase in the actual number of games - they'll decide they can afford to do the right thing and give the home-field advantage in the Super Bowl to the team that earned it: The team with the better regular-season record (I'm almost - and I stress almost - rooting for Dallas to make it to this year's Super Bowl, since the last argument against doing it on a permanent basis would come tumbling down if that happened).

doublee 08-18-2010 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 302325)
But the vast majority of fans do regard the four-game preseason as "broke" - and in this economic environment, they refuse to pay for it.

But aren't you forced to pay for the preseason games if you want season tickets though? Won't going to 18 games increase the total amount of money fans have to shell out for season tickets? The reality is that preseason games are the only games fans can take their kids to because the prices for those games are significantly lower in comparison to preseason tickets.

Quote:

And maybe with the extra money the NFL will make from a longer regular season - with or without an increase in the actual number of games - they'll decide they can afford to do the right thing and give the home-field advantage in the Super Bowl to the team that earned it: The team with the better regular-season record (I'm almost - and I stress almost - rooting for Dallas to make it to this year's Super Bowl, since the last argument against doing it on a permanent basis would come tumbling down if that happened).
Keep dreaming. It would bad business to do so and the NFL is not in the business of taking money off the table.

Anthony 08-19-2010 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublee (Post 302330)
But aren't you forced to pay for the preseason games if you want season tickets though? Won't going to 18 games increase the total amount of money fans have to shell out for season tickets? The reality is that preseason games are the only games fans can take their kids to because the prices for those games are significantly lower in comparison to preseason tickets.


But they're willing to pay for the games if they actually mean something. And I'm tired of hearing this business about the kids; if Morton Downey Jr. was still alive, you know what he'd say.



Quote:

Keep dreaming. It would bad business to do so and the NFL is not in the business of taking money off the table.

What if Dallas finishes 9-7, gets the 6th seed in the NFC and suddenly gets hot (or lucky) in the playoffs, while the team that comes out of the AFC is 14-2?

That would be awesome, from my point of view - since we all know how the resulting media dialogue would go.

And hoping they'd give the better record the home field in the playoffs before the Super Bowl seemed like a "dream" all through the 1930s, '40s, '50s, '60s and early '70s. But that "dream" came true in 1975.

doublee 08-25-2010 01:27 PM

Apparently football fans are not overwhelmingly in favor of or opposed to the idea. A SportsNation poll showed fans are split 50/50 on the issue.

CKFresh 08-25-2010 02:10 PM

I'm opposed to the 18 game schedule because it would decrease the quality of the product. Two more games means more injuries, which means low-quality players getting more playing time.

16 games plus playoffs games. That's a lot of football. Players are getting bigger, stronger and faster. The abuse they take is unreal.

I believe the average career in the NFL is less than 4 years. I'd hate to see that down to 3 years.

The NFL has a good thing going. Just like the NCAA tournament (and as Marc said), "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

doublee 08-25-2010 03:34 PM

It also leaves the league open for more throw away games at the end of the year. The Chargers, Colts, and Saints all had their divisions wrapped up with two or three weeks to go. Just think of the excitement if they had two more regular season games to play until starting the playoffs.

What is odd to me is the timing of this thing. Why push it through now when the CBA is up at the end of the season? If the players end up being vehemently opposed to expanding the season wouldn't that be reason for them not to sign a new CBA?

Anthony 08-26-2010 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 302419)
I'm opposed to the 18 game schedule because it would decrease the quality of the product. Two more games means more injuries, which means low-quality players getting more playing time.

16 games plus playoffs games. That's a lot of football. Players are getting bigger, stronger and faster. The abuse they take is unreal.

I believe the average career in the NFL is less than 4 years. I'd hate to see that down to 3 years.

The NFL has a good thing going. Just like the NCAA tournament (and as Marc said), "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."



Pardon my cynicism, but if Carson Palmer separates his shoulder in Buffalo on Saturday and misses the first four games of the regular season, something tells me that you'd change your tune.

But hey, you're a fan uber alles - and I've got mad respect for that.

And playing 18 games in the USFL sure had a deleterious effect on the careers of Steve Young, Jim Kelly, Herschel Walker, Reggie White etc. - I must say!

CKFresh 08-26-2010 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 302422)
And playing 18 games in the USFL sure had a deleterious effect on the careers of Steve Young, Jim Kelly, Herschel Walker, Reggie White etc. - I must say!

And there are a few people who raise up from poverty to become millionaires...

The point is, exceptions to the rule don't prove anything.

Sorry, I just don't want two more weeks of back-ups playing in "meaningful" games. I'd rather see the back-ups play in the preseason. If we move to 18 games, weeks 17 - 19 will be nothing more than a bunch of backups playing for teams who have already clinched, or filling in for injured, better players.

Anthony 08-27-2010 12:40 AM

While there is no way to prepare for every mathematical eventuality, much can be done to minimize the incidence of what I have labeled "Siesta Bowls."

First off, did you notice that all of this year's Week 17 games are same-division games? This is actually a horrible idea! What they should have done instead is have all these games be "position games" matching up first-place teams from the previous season, second-place teams, and so on; if you do this, it greatly decreases the possibility of meaningless games because the head-to-head tie-breaker comes into play.

Another thing they can do is make the result of the regular-season finale either the first tie-breaker, or the second after head-to-head; that is to say, if two teams tie for a playoff seed (but not an actual playoff spot), and one of them won their season finale while the other lost, the former team wins the tie-breaker; and if they both won (or lost) in the last week, you can use the next-to-last week, and even go back three or four games.

Of course the ultimate cure for "Siesta Bowls" would be to award home-field advantage in the Super Bowl on the basis of regular-season record, but that has already been covered here.

doublee 08-27-2010 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 302439)
First off, did you notice that all of this year's Week 17 games are same-division games? This is actually a horrible idea! What they should have done instead is have all these games be "position games" matching up first-place teams from the previous season, second-place teams, and so on; if you do this, it greatly decreases the possibility of meaningless games because the head-to-head tie-breaker comes into play.

Assuming, of course, the teams that were playoff teams one year are in contention for a playoff spot the next year. The Panthers went from winning the division in '08 to barely winning 8 games last year. The Falcons went from 11 wins to 9 and only got to 9 wins by winning their last three games and two of those were against the Bills and Bucs.

The Pack went from 6-10 in '08 to 11-5 in '09.

Cincy went from 4-11-1 to 10-6.

The problem with this scenario is there are always two or three teams who were playoff caliber teams the previous year who struggle to get to .500 the next year and there is almost always two or three teams that are in playoff contention that only won five or six games the year before.

So trying to match them up that way would not necessarily solve the probelm entirely when you end up having a team playing for nothing against a team playing for playoff position.

Anthony 08-28-2010 03:34 AM

But I did say "decrease," not "eliminate;" and my other proposal would have the undeniable effect of reducing the number of meaningless games.

And to hear everyone from Mike Golic to Marcellus Wiley talk about it, the 18-game season is inevitable; all that needs to be worked out is how much the owners are going to have "bribe" the players' union to get it done (unless of course someone does step forward and proposes a regular season extended solely by the addition of more byes, as per the post that started this very thread).


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.