Less is More - Thoughts on the NFL Expanding to an 18 Game Schedule

by maryrose on Aug 31, 2010 2:07 PM EDT

Many thanks to maryrose for this fine offering, which you can also see syndicated on the Washington Post's NFL League Panel this morning. Of all the things I've learned from MR over the past few years, the lesson of 'less is more' has been one of the most prescient and useful. It certainly applies in the case of expanding the NFL regular season schedule, if you ask me. - Michael Bean -

**************

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is on a mission to make the NFL regular season 18 games long. His first argument is that 18 games and two preseason games fit into the same 20-game window as four plus 16. Who is he kidding? Not the players. First-string players currently might play a total of one game throughout the whole preseason. Added to 16 the total is 17. With a two-game preseason, the players will still need two halves of football to get ready. Added to the 18, the total is 19 instead of 17. Mr. Goodell is recycling some of that old fuzzy math.

The commissioner's second argument is that the fans are not getting their money's worth, paying full price for two preseason games. That argument is cosmetic and can be remedied by simple math. The Steelers and every other team can simply cut the price of the preseason games in half and add 12 percent to each regular-season game. The total invoice would be the same for the same inventory. I would bet the farm that no one would care (I would not, and I am one of the season-ticket holders that Mr. Goodell is supposedly thinking about). How would his argument fly then? In fact, NFL teams might be wise to take that approach anyhow and not force the season-ticket holders to buy preseason games. This would create opportunity for fans that otherwise can never get tickets to regular games to at least attend a preseason game for a thrifty cost, but I digress.

Because this plastic surgery could easily remedy the commissioner's red herring, it leads me to believe that there are ulterior motives for the idea. Is this a façade on the horizon of the next collective bargaining agreement? Is the NFL trying to posture a bad idea so that it can then pull back the plan as a bargaining concession? Really, the idea is so bad that I can't help to believe that is what the owners' have up their collective sleeve.

This assertion is quite logical, considering the players do not want 18 games. James Harrison says he will tear up his contract. Steelers' player rep Charlie Batch is vehemently opposed to the notion. Even Aaron Smith, normally reserved about most things, speaks out against 18 games. Hines Ward claims that it will take years off the players' careers. Rashard Mendenhall can't understand it and Antwaan Randle El "hates it." The testimonials are endless. I've not heard one player agree with Roger Goodell. Moreover, the game will morph into a game of attrition rather than a game of skill. The best team has a greater chance of falling to the healthiest team.

There are at least two current problems within the NFL which will be exacerbated by the commissioner's decree. The first is the injury situation. Due to today's weight training and nutrition, players are bigger, stronger and faster than ever. Body collisions are more impactful and more stressful. We might be asking too much for players to be smacking each other for 16 days. Now we ask two more? The league recently went on a chivalrous campaign to reduce and treat concussions, and now it wants the players to bang heads a couple more times?

The second problem is the competitive aggression, or lack thereof, at the end of the season. Teams are mailing in the final games after they secure their playoff spots. The Colts do this on an annual basis. Last year the Steelers and Jets both finished 9-7, with New York winning the tiebreaker and then making it all the way to the AFC Championship Game. With two games remaining, the Jets had their two strongest opponents left on the schedule (Indianapolis and Cincinnati). Lucky for New York, both of those opponents had secured their playoff lots and were playing just to avoid injury. The Colts were leading the Jets when Peyton Manning left the game in the second half. Manning's back-up promptly changed the game in New York's direction and the Jets never looked back. Pittsburgh, who fought tooth and nail to win its final games, was left out in the cold while the Jets coasted into the playoffs with an identical record.

This type of competitive indifference is bad for the league, and I am not crying over spilled milk. Next year the Steelers may benefit unwittingly. The point is, the longer the NFL season, the more likely it is for games at the end to be meaningless. It's one thing for baseball games or basketball games or hockey games to be meaningless at the end, because each means less period. But NFL games are different. What the Colts do every year stands out like a sore thumb and changes the complexion of the playoff race. Yes, the league is now scheduling more division games at the end, and that helps, but adding more games to the schedule negates that edge and then some.

The bottom line is that less is often more. At the risk of sounding like Yogi, more of a good thing is not a good thing. I love a 14-ounce porterhouse, but force me to eat 18 ounces and I get sick. The beauty of the NFL is that it leaves its customers with just the right touch of inventory, unlike the NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball, which over-serve their fans both in regular season and in playoffs. The NFL has it right, and yet now wants to fix something that ain't broke. It is a classic case of Peter Principle. Because something works now, it will work on a higher level. Please Mr. Commissioner, do not get caught in this trap. The NFL is head and shoulders over its professional counterpoints because of one simple mantra - less is more. Don't screw it up!

Tweet Comment 78 comments | Add comment | 17 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Incredibly well put

I can’t tell you how strongly I agree with each point you made here. The NFL is obviously messing with this idea in some kind of connection with the upcoming collective bargaining talks. There is absolutely no way the NFLPA is going to go for this crap unless the NFL and the owners decide to pay these guys A LOT more money than they’re already being paid. Keep things the way they are right now, 16 games, 32 teams in 8 divisions and keep the end of the season backloaded with divisional match-ups.

by yettibrad on Aug 31, 2010 2:20 PM EDT reply actions

I wish I could rec this 30 times over

Great post MR. You summed up my thoughts on the topic better than I could have imagined too.

"I'm from Maryland, and no one can beat me!"

by John Stephens on Aug 31, 2010 2:23 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Dear Goodell

stop ruining America’s greatest sport with this BS, no agrees with you, and we wish you would get kicked out of football forever

P.S. everyone hates you

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler." Jack Lambert
"Going after the QB is like playing king of the mountain. When you get the QB, you're on top of the mountain." Joe Greene."I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play." Jack Lambert. "I'm a steeler fan, you damn well better believe I'm better than you". Yours truly

"I beat rival fans like Woodley beats QBs......With a club!!!!" yours truly

by H-burgSTEELfanatic on Aug 31, 2010 2:25 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Agree Completely, and...

On a less important front, with an 18-game schedule, certain accomplishments previously looked at as elite would no longer be: i.e., 2,000 yards rushing; 5,000 yards passing, etc. The NFL would have to essentially close its record books and start new ones for records based on an 18-game season. Every 4 yrs. in the NFL would be 4 1/2 yrs. of a 16-game schedule season…a lot more time for career records to fall.

by JudeCooper on Aug 31, 2010 2:31 PM EDT reply actions

Not to mention the wear and tear on these guys.

by yettibrad on Aug 31, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions

yes

good point Jude. The records deal is a big thing for me. Not such a statistical sport like baseball, but still.

Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)

by Michael Bean on Aug 31, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions

...

This was argued when they expanded from 12 games to 14…

And then from 14 to 16….

Just sayin’.

by VA Libertarian on Aug 31, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

i agree as well ..

if he’s concerned with people “not getting their money’s worth,” he obviously hasn’t thought of the injury factor. With this change comes the increasing possibility that every big name on every team could be hurt severely by the end of the season. this would be the ultimate way of not getting your money’s worth because we want to see the big names like Polamalu, Harrison, Hines, etc. (not to mention the other teams) play football at the best of their ability. it was a stretch to begin with adding 16 games. they need to realize that these are actual people playing this game instead of looking at them as dollar signs.

by Jenna Howell on Aug 31, 2010 2:41 PM EDT reply actions

Also, by looking out for the season ticket holders he’s adding two more games. . .

Really? Are they dropping the price of seats or just increasing your bill by 1/8?

My biggest problem is still development of new players. If the starters still get one game, that leaves 1 game for the rest of the team instead of three. You need back-ups to prepare too, when do the young guys, the now and later of the league get to develop? When does Tebow get to work on his game? How does Pouncey get tested and earn the starting center spot? Where do the undrafted gems find their game?

Such a horrible Idea. Lets add a lockout to the equation, I mean really, do they not see what they are doing? Do they care about the league at all?

by Phantaskippy on Aug 31, 2010 2:55 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs

Well put Phanta

"I'm from Maryland, and no one can beat me!"

by John Stephens on Aug 31, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions

All the more reason a minor league needs to take hold

John Clayton has been arguing this for a while now – there simply isn’t enough time/room for players to develop as they should, especially quarterbacks.

Either the UFL needs to pick up steam, or the NFL should launch it’s own minor league.

by VA Libertarian on Aug 31, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions

I like the idea

I would love something like the NFL Europe, just in the US. One knock on the American pro-sports leagues in general for me is that there is no ‘thorough’ league system in which one could potentially work his way up from a complete amateur to a professional player. I realize that the sports and college system might make this a little bit more difficult than it is for soccer in Europe, but a minor league would be a great way for young talent to develop and get ready for the big boys. IIRC, Football is the only major US sport that doesn’t have one in place.

by Simonsen on Aug 31, 2010 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes

and all those late blooming rookies will never get a chance to shine if there are only two preseason games. Plus, I love hating the last preseason game. It’s annoying and tedious to get through (mostly because the announcers stop paying attention and some of the best plays are never acknowledged.) but I wouldn’t miss it for the world. Those rooks are playing their hearts out.

by Damnscot on Sep 1, 2010 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions

And let us say...amen

Brilliantly stated, MR.

Are they so foolish as to put the goose that lays the golden eggs on the disabled list?

I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer.
- Homer J. Simpson

by Homer J. on Aug 31, 2010 3:02 PM EDT reply actions

Cant Tony Dungy or someone please take over for Goodell

"I beat rival fans like Woodley beats QBs......With a club!!!!" yours truly

by H-burgSTEELfanatic on Aug 31, 2010 3:04 PM EDT reply actions

i dont want to watch the national prayer league

by klompus on Aug 31, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

you like the “i am the all mighty Rodger Goodell league” better?

"I beat rival fans like Woodley beats QBs......With a club!!!!" yours truly

by H-burgSTEELfanatic on Aug 31, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

for now, but tony dungy already has enough unneeded hands in the proverbial nfl cookie jar of decision making

by klompus on Aug 31, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions

true, i just really want Goodell out of football…..

"I beat rival fans like Woodley beats QBs......With a club!!!!" yours truly

by H-burgSTEELfanatic on Aug 31, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm going to take the minority report here

and respectfully disagree. While I can’t argue against the logic, maryrose. I can say that I would prefer more games. Does that makes me selfish, that I would put my wants over player safety? A little. But truth be told, I only want 18 games if they can manage the injury situation better.

Less OTAs and camp. The vets don’t need it and most players are in shape year round now. Less strain on the body equals a healthier body. Vets only need one good half of football to get back right. I’d give the other 6 quarters to those trying to make the team. Does it hurt those guys, maybe – but didn’t it also hurt them when there were 6 pre-season games? Somehow I think scouting departments will adjust they always do.

I’d also throw in an extra bye week to help teams heal. There is no way you could do an 18 game schedule without two bye weeks in my mind. It would be too long of a pounding. Then throw in playoff games and you increase the beating, so there has to be an extra bye week.

This may be the only way a new CBA gets done and a lockout avoided. What are the owners crying about? Money. In its current form they aren’t generating enough money for their greed. So expand the season, go to ESPN and CBS and Fox to work out a brand new tv deal worth 1 trillion dollars (exaggerations intended) to satisfy you greed. That way its easier to divide up money until your greed compels you to ask for more. We all agree that no football is a bad thing, if the 18 game schedule prevents this then its worth it. Although it could just be a ploy to use at the bargaining table, but I really think they consider this a serious idea to get more money.

This is all about more money and thats it, so lowering pre-season tickets aren’t an option for these guys. I believe they want to make more money while keeping prices the same, I don’t believe they want to raise prices and make it even more difficult for people to make it to regular season games. Adding two extra games does this. It increase revenue for parking, concessions, merchandise.

Of course the players are going to be against it. Why? Because no one is talking about giving them more money for the 18 games. They don’t want to do more work for the same salary, they want to get paid more. And I don’t blame them. When the owners start talking compensating the players for the extra two games with an increase in salary then the players will jump on board and they won’t until this is discussed. But say a 10% increase in salary is given to the players and more roster spots are available then you you will hear a different tune. But right now they are talking about reducing salaries and adding games. That is just insane.

As for the schedule, just make the last month of games divisional games. It’l be hard to wrap up the division early with the last 4 games of the schedule divisional games. It’ll create a ‘mad-dash’ to the playoffs and could be very exciting. No one likes to lose to a divisional opponent and I think it will remedy the problems of teams laying down at the end of the season. There would be no chance of teams resting anymore than they already do for the playoffs, they won’t wrap up a division until the second to last week at most.

Maybe I can’t see past my fan-issued-Steeler-painted glasses on this issue. But I do believe that it can be good for the league, if these things are worked out.

Steelers football is supposed to be 60 mins, recently it's been 45. The additional 15 are currently under construction.

by tannofsteel84 on Aug 31, 2010 3:13 PM EDT reply actions

you’ve argued this in other topics and its just a weak argument in general

by klompus on Aug 31, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Thats fine

I know few people will agree with me on this. If its weak, then its weak. Thats your opinion.

Steelers football is supposed to be 60 mins, recently it's been 45. The additional 15 are currently under construction.

by tannofsteel84 on Aug 31, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

But might I add

I think where people make the mistake on this issue is that they assume one side is just going to be ‘less greedy’ just to keep games going. There are only two ways to avoid a lockout at this point.

1) The players take their pay cut and like it.
2) The NFL creates a bigger revenue stream.

I just happen to think that option number two is more likely and can be accomplished through adding 2 more games with the parameters I mentioned above. That way all parties are relatively satisfied for the time being.

Steelers football is supposed to be 60 mins, recently it's been 45. The additional 15 are currently under construction.

by tannofsteel84 on Aug 31, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Just FYI

Players would be getting extra game checks if the season increased. I think that is known by the players. One of the radio stations I was listening to was interviewing Jeff Saturday (I think) and he was talking about the only benefit being the extra checks.

The fact is players don’t want to play because it is really takes a beating on their body. Even with a bye week most NFL players are feeling exhausted by week 12-14. London Fletcher was talking about just that on a Washington radio station this morning. Fletcher also talked about how more money would not make it worth it.

The biggest thing that needs to be done to help fix the money problem is create a pay scale for rookies. No one should receive 50 million before playing a single snap.

"I'm from Maryland, and no one can beat me!"

by John Stephens on Aug 31, 2010 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed

with the Rookie scale, but i think everyone except rookies agree with that issue.

They would be getting extra game checks but what does that mean. I don’t think that issue has been solved yet, at least I haven’t seen any report on it. Does it mean that their salary stays the same they just get their checks in 1/18th formats instead of 1/16th. Or does it mean that their salaries will increase in their actual amount to compensate for those games. I guess I am trying to say is instead of getting 300,000 dollar game checks for 16 games would they instead be getting 225,000 dollar pay checks for 18 games. The players aren’t going to leap at that idea. They want 300,000 dollar game checks for 18 games.

Remember the whole CBA disagreement is over how much of the pie the players get in comparison to the owners. They haven’t figured out who is going to get what yet. This (18-game season) is a way to say the players can take less of the pie and still make more money.

Steelers football is supposed to be 60 mins, recently it's been 45. The additional 15 are currently under construction.

by tannofsteel84 on Aug 31, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions

The toll on players' bodies

The NFL really needs an extra bye week.

by VA Libertarian on Aug 31, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Why do you consider this argument weak?

I think he makes some very valid points. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about an 18 game schedule. But, I can see both arguments and tann ties his argument up well.

"Successful destination is the pinnacle, make no mistake, but the fun is in the journey." - Tim Gleason

by chewiesteeler on Aug 31, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

ditto

I think its a well-reasoned argument. I was for it before I was against it, and now I’m for it, but I’ll be against it later.

by SteelersVT on Sep 1, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

I'll agree with you

I’m sure the same arguments were made when it expanded from the 14 game season too. They can make up for the lack of playing time for rookies by doing a short developmental league in the spring, and generate more revenue from that as a bonus. Cutting the OTA’S and training camp down then would only benefit the veterans while giving the work to the young guys who need it. They also can expand the roster and add an extra bye week as you suggested to help on the injury front. As you suggested, having a heavy back end on the schedule with divisional games would fix the issue of coasting to the playoffs and I don’t see that being the real issue here.

The part of this entire negotiation that seems crazy to me is that the owners won’t open their books. Why not if they are not making enough money? It stinks a little to me like a CEO crying about how the company is doing poorly, laying off workers, and then giving himself a $100M bonus.

If the owners need to generate more revenue and cut salaries to make the league solvent, then opening the books should only help their argument. If it’s a bunch of greedy bastards just trying to squeeze more from their customers and their employees then opening the books would hurt them. I’m leaning heavily towards the latter.

One thing is for certain. If the owners do force this lock out and it costs an entire season they are cutting their own throats. Fans are already paying too much for this entertainment, and giving them a full year off will open their eyes that the money spent on season tickets could be spent somewhere else. If they cancel a full season, I doubt they’ll get back to the current level of revenue again in my lifetime.

by lkwdsteel on Aug 31, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Agreed

The NFL definitely needs a developmental league in the spring. I’m also glad that someone else seems to sense history and realize that this was all argued back at the 14-to-16 game season expansion.

by VA Libertarian on Aug 31, 2010 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions

nail, meet hammer

If they cancel a full season, I doubt they’ll get back to the current level of revenue again in my lifetime.

I dunno if it would be that bad, but I don’t watch hockey or baseball anymore since their strikes years ago. I just lost interest. I don’t know that I’d lose interest in football ever, but I can see the casual fan just getting disinterested and not coming back.

The real problem would be what the hell I’d do with my Sunday afternoons in the fall. The idea of not sitting down and watching some games with my kids all day terrifies me. They will miss out on some great memories. :/

by SteelersVT on Sep 1, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

I knew this comment was yours when I saw how long it was, I don’t even need to look at the user.

by Bleed-Black&Gold on Aug 31, 2010 3:58 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

and your point is?

by Simonsen on Aug 31, 2010 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions

that is my brother

being a little douche, lol don’t mind him.

Steelers football is supposed to be 60 mins, recently it's been 45. The additional 15 are currently under construction.

by tannofsteel84 on Sep 1, 2010 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions

got ya

Didn’t know what to make of it before :D

by Simonsen on Sep 1, 2010 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Wow, sounds exactly like what my little brother would do.

And that is why I punch him in the face when he sleeps.

by SteelersVT on Sep 1, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Please don't cut down OTA's and camp

This is me being selfish as well, I don’t ever want SVC to be without Steelers camp. If the time is reduced, the Steelers won’t find it worth to go any further than their Southside facilities.

But even aside from that, I think that cutting down camp and OTAs would significantly hurt young player’s chances to make teams and contribute. They need camp, they need practice. They can’t just jump in after a few sessions and play with the big boys. Which in turn means that veterans will have to play more during the regular season than they already do, right? I know it might be a slippery slope, but I think that cutting down camps, even though many veterans might not need them (aside from maybe free agents to learn new offenses/defenses) would ultimately have an effect on those same veterans in terms of exposure, exhaustion, and injuries – and a very negative one at that.

I also disagree with your ‘most players being in shape all year round’ argument. Just think back to this year’s OTA and camp articles about all the players coming in out of shape to them, or how NFL shape is different from being in physical shape.

by Simonsen on Aug 31, 2010 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Ok

Make most of camp only for rookies and second year players. Then have a week for the vets for them to get into football ‘shape’. This all can be worked out.

Steelers football is supposed to be 60 mins, recently it's been 45. The additional 15 are currently under construction.

by tannofsteel84 on Sep 1, 2010 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions

but that still leaves the problem of less preseason games

This has been said before, but veterans need their time to get ready for the season – while still playing in a game. Cutting the preseason in half means the starters and veteran back ups have to play the majority of it, leaving almost no room for rookies to get into game-time action. And I don’t think you can simulate actual game action during a practice session.

by Simonsen on Sep 1, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Perhaps they could go to 18 games and keep 3 or 4 preseason games too.

That way, the preseason stays the same, and the no-name and new faces can still get highly visible playing time. Vets still play a minimum needed to get used top the game again.

by SteelersVT on Sep 1, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Hypothetically speaking:

Say there were only 2 presason games this year. Who would have/have not been selected for the 53 man roster that should/should not have been? What I’m trying to say is that with OTAs, a full training camp, and 2 weeks of preseason games, I’m pretty sure the coaches and staff have a very good idea of who’s making the team and who isn’t. This preseason has proven (at least for the Steelers) that the more preseason games that are played, the more a players’ stock could drop. It sure looked to me like a lot of those guys would’ve liked for the 53 man roster to be set before last Sunday night. And our QB situation is a unique one right now, so the DD vs BL argument in preseason doesn’t apply here.

"If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane" - Jimmy Buffett

by WVSteel6SB on Sep 1, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions

I really don

"If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane" - Jimmy Buffett

by WVSteel6SB on Sep 1, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions

I really dont see 18 games as being a problem:

Its better for the fans, it will eventually be better for the player, and its obviously better for the league. And as far as the increased chance of injury argument is concerned. Well, wouldn’t I be more likely to get into a car accident than you if it takes me 30 mins to get to work and it only takes you 15? Still wont stop me from driving to work. Besides there are more season ending injuries in training camp, than in week 17.

"If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane" - Jimmy Buffett

by WVSteel6SB on Sep 1, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions

A better analogy...

Would you be more likely to get injured if you crashed your car into a wall 10 times, or 20?

Because car accidents, more often than not, are chance occurences. Football injuries, more often than not, are just a matter of time.

I bet a fun thing would be to go way back in time to where there was going to be an eclipse and tell the cave men, "If I have come to destroy you, may the sun be blotted out from the sky." Just then the eclipse would start, and they'd probably try to kill you or something, but then you could explain about the rotation of the moon and all, and everyone would get a good laugh.

by NYSteelersFan4 on Sep 1, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Exactly

A matter of time. Hence the 30 vs 15 minutes analogy.

"If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane" - Jimmy Buffett

by WVSteel6SB on Sep 1, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Too much of a good thing is actually bad

I agree with the comments suggesting that 18 games is too many. However, it all comes down to money, and the NFL, the commissioner and the owners will always want more. If that is the case then how can the 18 game schedule be used to maximum benefit? Begin by condensing the bye week. It isn’t fair that one team gets it’s bye week in week 3 and another gets it in week 12. Why not schedule two NFC and two AFC divisions off in week 9 and the other 4 divisions in week 10. This way all teams get the same time to heal. Secondly, expanding the schedule may warrant adding an additional team from each conference to the play-offs, and make everyone have to play 3 games to get to the SB. If you’re going to make all teams play 18 games it isn’t fair to give two teams one week off before they have to play a playoff game.

by babaganoosh on Aug 31, 2010 3:18 PM EDT reply actions

It really is a shame that you don’t write very well, or know how to lucidly and cogently express your side of a debate.

by worldtrip on Aug 31, 2010 3:34 PM EDT reply actions

reply fail?

by klompus on Aug 31, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Nope

I was talking to MR

by worldtrip on Aug 31, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions

good I agree

by klompus on Aug 31, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Are you trying to make sarcasm go out of style? You’re doing a good job so far.

"I'm from Maryland, and no one can beat me!"

by John Stephens on Aug 31, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

sarcasm is timeless

by klompus on Aug 31, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m not sure how to take this

by worldtrip on Aug 31, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

follow your nose

"I'm from Maryland, and no one can beat me!"

by John Stephens on Aug 31, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Follow YOUR nose!

by worldtrip on Aug 31, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

I want to unrec this post

because of the picture of Satan up top…

by shleeve on Aug 31, 2010 3:34 PM EDT reply actions

I like the 18 game idea...

with 1 less preseason game, and I more at the end.

too many teams end up with the same record right now, and maybe 2 more games gives us an actual wild card, instead of someone who wins via some sort of tie breaker

or keep it at 16 and have some sort of game to decide the wild card teams if there is a tie

Any task BIG or small, Do it well or not at all

by Rickfansince76 on Aug 31, 2010 3:51 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Although the tie breaker scenarios make my nose bleed

they are amusing to see- "we only need the chargers lose this game here, and win this one here, and the moon is full, and the ketchup red, we will be in the playoffs!’ year after year, they only get more ridiculous.

by SteelersVT on Sep 1, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions

tv revenue

nfl gets something like 66% of it’s revenue from tv.
televising a season game is far more valuable than a preseason one.
the tv contract is also recession-proof money
I don’t care for an 18 week schedule, but I will (as I am sure most fans would) watch those games.
It will impact the health of players, but the bump in the tv contract could mean increased player salary, and it could provide for increased health benefits for retired players (these things are going to be played out in the next cba, no sense at all with the league weakening it’s hand to delcare wage increases ahead of the possible strike). And if it gets rolled out in 2014, a large chunk of the players now in the league will be part of that retired nfl.

I think if the league wants it to happen, it will happen. And as the tv money is guaranteed in 2011, even if there is a lockout, that $4+ billion is going to let them win against a player strike. Increased salaries/retiree benefits from the expanded season will be used to get the players aboard.

by vherub on Aug 31, 2010 3:57 PM EDT reply actions

Actually, history may be repeating itself...

If the crux of the matter is revenue, then can the league really tap its current market for significantly more by basically just relabeling a couple of games?

No.

Everyone is talking about “expansion” in all the wrong ways, which is precisely what the NFL prefers at this time. At the risk of being jeered, read this one-and-only Bleacher Report article of mine, then jump back in here and read on. Or not…

There are signs here and there as to where this league is going, and fans of this team should know better than anyone else: Both the US and the NFL each have one the most well-respected ambassadors to ever set foot in Europe currently holding office in Ireland. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the last time a Pittsburgher of such stature and in a somewhat similar situation turned philanthropic, something big and international got built…

by msusey on Aug 31, 2010 4:30 PM EDT reply actions

Wow

I more or less just argued the same thing over in the fanposts, though I disagree all the games should be international.

by VA Libertarian on Aug 31, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions

It's not what I think SHOULD be...

I put on my parity glasses and tried to view the matter from as many business angles as I could for each side. With regard to the pros and cons of what I could conjure, this had a very favorable win ratio for both sides – and also translated well for that “Europa” fan base and others around the world…

by msusey on Aug 31, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions

eh

I think 16 games overseas is far too many. It’d also be a logistical nightmare for the NFL, and the costs involved would probably outweigh the benefits. I can’t see the players being fans of having to go overseas every year as well.

by VA Libertarian on Aug 31, 2010 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions

i know it has little to do with what everyone is talking about

but i was watching The Replacements the other day, could that possibly happen if there’s a holdout, “scab” or replacement players playing football while all the other players are on strike? that and i was think maybe that players on strike could have a 1 year contract in the UFL so they can still play football. It would keep the players in shape, and give a ton of revenue to the UFL (maybe a jump start to a NFL-UFL developmental league). If Steeler players were playing in the UFL i know id watch. Or would this be a conflict with the players current NFL contracts

"I beat rival fans like Woodley beats QBs......With a club!!!!" yours truly

by H-burgSTEELfanatic on Aug 31, 2010 4:43 PM EDT reply actions

I"m pretty sure

this would violate current contracts and no way the UFL can pay the guys what they are getting now.

Steelers football is supposed to be 60 mins, recently it's been 45. The additional 15 are currently under construction.

by tannofsteel84 on Aug 31, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions

im sure the players would rather get paid something rather than nothing and to play football, they can afford to take a slight pay cut to stay in shape for next season. But it think your right that it would violate current contracts… dang

"I beat rival fans like Woodley beats QBs......With a club!!!!" yours truly

by H-burgSTEELfanatic on Aug 31, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions

unsigned rookies and free agents could do this though, couldnt they?

"I beat rival fans like Woodley beats QBs......With a club!!!!" yours truly

by H-burgSTEELfanatic on Aug 31, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions

yes they could, but if theyre not in the nfl, odds are ufl is already on their mind

by klompus on Aug 31, 2010 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions

not worth taking a slight pay cut and risking their bodies. the same reason players hold out will be the same reason players wont go play in the UFL.

by klompus on Aug 31, 2010 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions

but then some (not all) are out of shape and gets hurt or cut coming back to the NFL anyways, idk it was just a thought

"I beat rival fans like Woodley beats QBs......With a club!!!!" yours truly

by H-burgSTEELfanatic on Aug 31, 2010 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions

no starting caliber nfl player will be out of shape if they have any hope of playing football again. when players are waiting for football, they usually wait. i.e. most holdouts, and the strike is just a massive holdout

by klompus on Aug 31, 2010 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Not to mention:

The UFL doesn’t have enough teams to compensate for the influx of NFL players that would be coming their way. They would have to create 20 more teams to be able to accomidate. And it would not be a “slight” pay cut from what they are making now. It would be a very significant pay cut. I think they would rather work out on their own, and stay in shape as they would during any off season, than play in the UFL.

"If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane" - Jimmy Buffett

by WVSteel6SB on Sep 1, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

In 1987

This happened for weeks 4-6 in 1987 (the teams playing with replacement players).

by VA Libertarian on Aug 31, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

I find myself extremely torn on this topic...

I fully agree with almost all of MR’s great article (another tip of the hat your way MR… always good stuff), but at the same time I do think two more games would be a good thing for the fans, and the league in the long run.

I’m trying to find that delicate balance in my mind, until then, I’m Swiss on this idea, neutral.

by NYSteelersFan4 on Aug 31, 2010 5:02 PM EDT reply actions

Hope everybody has good health insurance

Because they’re going to need it.

Chris Andersen could be in a porno with his 'stache. Too bad he still wouldn't know how to box out.
Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy.

Quitter's Proud United Member #11

by Mini Hulk on Aug 31, 2010 7:34 PM EDT reply actions

Good stuff in here

I personally like the idea of going to 17 games with a second bye week. That gives the NFL 2 extra weeks of regular season broadcasts, while only increasing the actual schedule by one week. But, MR definitely makes a good argument against the 18 game season proposal.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Aug 31, 2010 9:17 PM EDT reply actions

I'm torn

I mean, I am a football fan. Every year once the beginning of February rolls around, I cannot wait for September to come. Would I personally enjoy seeing two more meaningful games involving my Steelers? Heck yeah!

Needless to say I loved the idea of an 18 game season when it first was tossed around. Actually, I enjoyed it so much I turned around and told everybody how great it was going to be, how much more we would get to see of our team, and so on. But then I started thinking about it. And thinking about it some more. And then reading some articles on the topic. Listening to and reading player’s opinions. Man, did my view change.

I have to say MR that your post (once again) brings up some great arguments against two more regular season games. The others that immediately came to my mind were already brought up in the comments above, so I won’t go into them. To make it short, I would hate to see even more players getting injured than are right now (which by the way seems to me like a ridiculous rate), individual records becoming meaningless, and everything else that goes along. Let’s try to improve on the treatment of young players, including a rookie wage scale, a minor league system, and maybe even an extended mentoring system that is already done extensively with the steelers, but often seems neglected in other teams. At Saint Vincent College, every Freshman class goes out for one day before the start of their first semester to do community service in the area. Painting houses, cleaning sidewalks, you name it, they do it. Given that so many rookies are being treated like they are the greatest thing on earth, might something similar be a good idea to preserve some humility?

by Simonsen on Aug 31, 2010 10:49 PM EDT reply actions

Very well said

However, I’m not as opposed to this as others are. If they expand the rosters, and say, start training camp a week or two earlier (even if it’’s just for the rookies and younger players), then that could counteract any injury issues that arise. The only thing I do not like is the almost certain increase in playoff teams. That hasn’t been discussed by anyone, but I can see it coming. With 18 games, that would give more teams reason to bitch if they barely miss the playoffs. And if you add 2 more playoff teams to each conference, that eliminates first round byes and does away with what I believe is the greatest advantage in the postseason.

by Anthony Defeo on Sep 3, 2010 1:21 AM EDT reply actions