PDA

View Full Version : Expanding Season?


TheBuffaloBills
03-25-2009, 04:31 PM
It's a topic that will keep coming up during the offseason, until it happens, or if it happens. Personally, I am against it. It completely changes the game and wipes out most records. Lets keep it the same, since it has been working.

Thoughts?

The Great Jonathan Vilma
03-25-2009, 04:43 PM
It's all about money....

I can't complain with another week or two of football to watch, so from a fan perspective it is good. However, i'm about tradition, much like your comments, that think this throws off records and such, but begins a new era?

My guess would be the pre-season would shorten and the regular season expand by that number of games...

BeerBaron
03-25-2009, 04:46 PM
I will never ever complain about more football. Cut the preseason and get some more "real" games in there.

ElectricEye
03-25-2009, 04:49 PM
It would screw with the numbers, but yeah, two extra real games and the expense of the preseason would be nice.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-25-2009, 04:53 PM
Well, the players would get quite a bit more $$ so I can see them getting on board with it, too. Provided current contracts get scaled up 12.5%.

BmoreBlackByrdz
03-25-2009, 05:47 PM
I doubt it'll happen. Like someone said above, it would screw up many records and a longer season = more injuries, and obviously under Goodell, thats what he is trying to reduce. Plus, preseason is for those younger talented guys to get that much needed playing time. The league's schedule is fine the way it is, don't change it.

JRTPlaya21
03-25-2009, 05:50 PM
Highly doubt it as well. Maybe one more game possibly.

BeerBaron
03-25-2009, 06:29 PM
They didn't seem too concerned with records when they went from 14 to 16....

Fear of injuries I'll buy, but if they lessen the preseason too it wouldn't be as bad.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
03-25-2009, 06:31 PM
I know in 16 games my team has so many injuries. I like it how it is.

Splat
03-25-2009, 07:11 PM
Nope, keep everything the same.

vikes_28
03-25-2009, 10:52 PM
I honestly think that the preseason should be shortend. Or teams should just be smart and use that time to battle for spots that really need to be battled for. I would say don't play a for sure starter in the preseason, because that is usually where players get hurt. Young, inexperienced players going for low blocks and not knowing everything that they are doing results in injuries.

Flyboy
03-25-2009, 11:12 PM
Shorten preseason and keep everything the same imo.

Halsey
03-25-2009, 11:34 PM
No, I absolutely do not want the regular season expanded. They are taking something that works great and changing it for no other reason than money. Expanding the numbers of games makes each game less important, increases injuries and means players will be that much more worn down by playoff time. As for the preseason, I don't care much, but I have heard more than one coach say they need those games. A lot of injuries that fans and media blame on preseason games don't even occur during the games. Many preseason injuries occur during practices and workouts. Eliminating preseason games won't stop those injuries. Basically what we're talking about is sloppier play earlier in the season, less emphasis on the importance if each individual game, and players who are more beat up and worn down by playoff time. There are good reason not to do this and the only reasons for this are greed and gluttony. More is not always better.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I'm starting to not like Goodell. I like tough discipline, but his way of conducting it doesn't always make sense. I also don't like the way they he seems to be a ***** for personal publicity. The idea to expand the regular season is the main reason though. It's just about making more money.

CrackerJack465
03-26-2009, 12:52 AM
If it does change to 18, theres a chance that Adrian Peterson will be the career rushing leader when he retires. Say he plays 10 more years

2x10=20, thats a whole nother season possibly of yards.

The only thing is the injury factor. So it may still even out.

Records would definetly be scewed, but im all for less preseason, as a season ticket holder for the giants, preseason just costs me money for nothing. You can't even give them away sometimes

locseti
03-26-2009, 12:52 AM
No, I absolutely do not want the regular season expanded. They are taking something that works great and changing it for no other reason than money. Expanding the numbers of games makes each game less important, increases injuries and means players will be that much more worn down by playoff time. As for the preseason, I don't care much, but I have heard more than one coach say they need those games. A lot of injuries that fans and media blame on preseason games don't even occur during the games. Many preseason injuries occur during practices and workouts. Eliminating preseason games won't stop those injuries. Basically what we're talking about is sloppier play earlier in the season, less emphasis on the importance if each individual game, and players who are more beat up and worn down by playoff time. There are good reason not to do this and the only reasons for this are greed and gluttony. More is not always better.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I'm starting to not like Goodell. I like tough discipline, but his way of conducting it doesn't always make sense. I also don't like the way they he seems to be a ***** for personal publicity. The idea to expand the regular season is the main reason though. It's just about making more money.

The only reason to do this are greed and gluttony? How about the vast majority of fans would like to see more meaningful football games? How about the vast majority of fans would like to see their favorite players play in more football games? How about the vast majority of fans would like the opportunity to attend 2 more regular season games instead of two crappy preseason ones...Which are basically the same price.

If you decrease the amount of preseason games to two (4 is excessive, ask any player) there is the same amount of football being played, just at a higher quality. Honestly, you learn most about a player by the way he practices, not by the way he "rips it up" against other scrubs in the preseason. How many preseason studs become invisible once the season starts?

The position that pretty much takes the biggest pounding is RB, and most teams have committees nowadays anyways. That means less individual carries per back, less chance of injury. Think about teams that make it to the super bowl, that play 4 more games than 75% of the league, do they have more injuries than other teams at the end of the season? Give me a break, quit trying to make this sound like an attack on the dignity of the game by saying it's all about money. The bottom line is that 4 preseason games is overkill, 2 are going to get eliminated regardless, why not keep the scheduling the same and simply convert the two preseason games into regular season ones? It's the most logical solution. Halsey, would you have been one of the fans crying over the scheduling change from 14 to 16 games? Please.

Cerni88
03-26-2009, 01:00 AM
How about expand the 53 man roster, lose 1 preseason add 1 reg season

Menardo75
03-26-2009, 02:17 AM
I would be for this only if they take away two pre-season games.

Mr. Stiller
03-26-2009, 02:29 AM
For all the rules their implementing for "Player Safety" This seems a step in the opposite directions.

More like a long jump.

Hollywood
03-26-2009, 02:31 AM
Knowing what a commie Roger Goodell is he will probably just suspend 2 regular season games.

Caddy
03-26-2009, 04:38 AM
I would love to see added matches.

In Aus all our major football codes go for at least 24 rounds. It's tough going from that to a 16 game season.

Addict
03-26-2009, 05:11 AM
They didn't seem too concerned with records when they went from 14 to 16....

Fear of injuries I'll buy, but if they lessen the preseason too it wouldn't be as bad.

couldn't agree more. They may want to allow more than 53 guys on roster, and the cap may need to go up a bit more in order to make teams able to sign a few more players.

But I hate those preseason games, so I'm all for ditching two of those.

Iamcanadian
03-26-2009, 05:58 AM
What I find humorous is the NFL's attempt to limit injuries while at the same time proposing to increase the schedule by 2 games. Adding 2 more season games to the schedule will results in many, many more serious injuries, removing exhibition games where the starters are likely to see minimal action anyways hardly makes up for playing the 2 extra games. I wonder how they will convince the union to allow it considering it puts their athletes at far more risk.
I'm beginning to wonder if this was what the NFL really wanted from the new CBA all along and everything else was a red herring to disguise their intent. They offer to keep the current CBA in its place by resigning it if the union agrees to 2 more games per team. The NFL gets its extra revenue, the players get screwed re injuries, and peace is retained.
I think the idea of expanding the schedule is disgusting in lieu of the # of injuries that will increase because of it and I hope the union tells them no. The tactic of using rivalry games is just a move to placate fans from looking too closely at the what effect this will have on players health.

Iamcanadian
03-26-2009, 06:04 AM
They didn't seem too concerned with records when they went from 14 to 16....

Fear of injuries I'll buy, but if they lessen the preseason too it wouldn't be as bad.

Starters rarely play in pre season as it is, so shortening the pre season would have little effect on player's health. However expanding the schedule will have a major impact and obviously Goodall doesn't care. It is all about revenue for the owners.

As for the records, you should have put 12 to 14 to 16 because when I first starting watching pro football in the 50's, teams played 12 games. Jimmy Brown's totals all came on a 12 game schedule so records are for current fans consumption and have never been meaningful in the NFL.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
03-26-2009, 06:14 AM
The only reason to do this are greed and gluttony? How about the vast majority of fans would like to see more meaningful football games? How about the vast majority of fans would like to see their favorite players play in more football games? How about the vast majority of fans would like the opportunity to attend 2 more regular season games instead of two crappy preseason ones...Which are basically the same price.

If you decrease the amount of preseason games to two (4 is excessive, ask any player) there is the same amount of football being played, just at a higher quality. Honestly, you learn most about a player by the way he practices, not by the way he "rips it up" against other scrubs in the preseason. How many preseason studs become invisible once the season starts?

The position that pretty much takes the biggest pounding is RB, and most teams have committees nowadays anyways. That means less individual carries per back, less chance of injury. Think about teams that make it to the super bowl, that play 4 more games than 75% of the league, do they have more injuries than other teams at the end of the season? Give me a break, quit trying to make this sound like an attack on the dignity of the game by saying it's all about money. The bottom line is that 4 preseason games is overkill, 2 are going to get eliminated regardless, why not keep the scheduling the same and simply convert the two preseason games into regular season ones? It's the most logical solution. Halsey, would you have been one of the fans crying over the scheduling change from 14 to 16 games? Please.

Your a ******* nuts if you think that there won't be more injuries. Already established players do not play there hearts out in preseason so don't compare a preseason game to a reg. season game. If you look at the Ravens last year you will see that in a 16 game season we had all kinds of injuries going into the playoffs. You have to realize that there are a lot of older guys in the league and it is a huge risk of injury. I don't care about shortening the preseason but I do not want anymore reg. season games.

vikes_28
03-26-2009, 07:01 AM
If it ain't broke don't fix it.

nepg
03-26-2009, 08:06 AM
Expanding to 18 is stupid. Injuries, ripping the record books to shreds (again), making each game less important... Stupid. It's perfect as-is, don't change anything.

And I LOVE the pre-season. For a website for draftniks, it's sad to see so many people hating on the pre-season so much. It's the best opportunity teams have to figure out who's going to fill out their depth chart.
________
Laguna Bay Condominium Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

locseti
03-26-2009, 02:32 PM
Your a ******* nuts if you think that there won't be more injuries. Already established players do not play there hearts out in preseason so don't compare a preseason game to a reg. season game. If you look at the Ravens last year you will see that in a 16 game season we had all kinds of injuries going into the playoffs. You have to realize that there are a lot of older guys in the league and it is a huge risk of injury. I don't care about shortening the preseason but I do not want anymore reg. season games.

Why are you even mentioning the preseason and injuries together, I never even compared them in my post. Established players dont even play in the preseason. Most preseason injuries happen in training camp / practice anyway. Let's not look at hypotheticals, lets look at a real life situation. Last yr, the Cards played two more games than your Ravens, yet at the end of the season had way less injuries. In fact, the only player I remember being mentioned as out for the cards is Tuman or Urban or some white boy tight end/receiver. So what does that tell us besides the Ravens are old and injury prone? JK, I know it is an isolated example, but its the only one we can really look to right now. Yes, I know there will be a higher chance of injuries, but what, a 5 percent higher chance? It will not be a noticeable difference, that I can guarantee. Some players go there whole career without being seriously injured, it's not based solely on "how many opportunities one had to get injured" ...

If the NFL were to add two games, I bet teams would get an additional bye as well. If you're one of the people who is worried about more injuries, would this influence your view?

Smooth Criminal
03-26-2009, 02:35 PM
I'm all for anything that will extend the football season another 2 weeks. The more football the better. And the way these players are getting paid I don't really care about them getting two more weeks work.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
03-26-2009, 02:38 PM
Why are you even mentioning the preseason and injuries together, I never even compared them in my post. Established players dont even play in the preseason. Most preseason injuries happen in training camp / practice anyway. Let's not look at hypotheticals, lets look at a real life situation. Last yr, the Cards played two more games than your Ravens, yet at the end of the season had way less injuries. In fact, the only player I remember being mentioned as out for the cards is Tuman or Urban or some white boy tight end/receiver. So what does that tell us besides the Ravens are old and injury prone? JK, I know it is an isolated example, but its the only one we can really look to right now. Yes, I know there will be a higher chance of injuries, but what, a 5 percent higher chance? It will not be a noticeable difference, that I can guarantee. Some players go there whole career without being seriously injured, it's not based solely on "how many opportunities one had to get injured" ...

If the NFL were to add two games, I bet teams would get an additional bye as well. If you're one of the people who is worried about more injuries, would this influence your view?

Well if it did happen I would want another bye week but I still say the season is long enough and like someone said before if it's not broke don't fix it

derza222
03-26-2009, 02:54 PM
I see no reason to change it, the current system is perfectly fine as it is. Changing the amount of regular season games creates messes with salary, records, etc but I think the biggest factor is the injuries. Shortening the preseason doesn't do a ton because starters obviously generally get held out of the majority of the time in those games anyways. In this case I think the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" rule really applies. It would certainly be fun to see more games, but I just think the system is fine and with all of the precautions they're taking with player safety this would be a bit hypocritical and counterproductive. Still, I think the fact that there are no real issues with the current 16 game regular season schedule is enough not to change it.

Wouldn't mind shortening the preseason anyways, though.

Bills2083
03-26-2009, 02:55 PM
I will never ever complain about more football. Cut the preseason and get some more "real" games in there.


I agree completely

locseti
03-26-2009, 02:59 PM
I'm sure that when the NFL switched from 14 to 16 games, critics thought "If it's not broke, why fix it?" That was back when they had 6 preseason games! So basically, they took two of those needless preseason games and converted them to real games. I say we do it again.

vikes_28
03-26-2009, 03:13 PM
Sooooo...your saying that we should add two games to the regular season and take away two preseason games?

E-Man
03-26-2009, 03:18 PM
Football is far and away my favorite sport, so I wouldn't complain of adding two more games. But still I'm not playing the sport so I wouldn't want to make it harder on the guys already doing it. If there is an 18 game season the wear and tear on a player would definitely add into the equation right now. As it is players prepare for a full 16 game season with the possibility of the playoffs and Super Bowl. For about a decade these players could possibly see more injuries than normal, until a newer generation of players is used to that preparation.

I personally wouldn't vote for it, but I definitely wouldn't disagree with it. You have to take into account that in time the players will adjust to the schedule. Either way it goes we as fans win. If the schedule is expanded we get to see more football. Who wouldn't like to see that? If they keep it as is then we still keep a schedule system that's works very efficiently. 16 games plus playoffs is enough for me to get my "fix," but it keeps me yearning for more. lol

To add to the record breaking discussion, all records get broken at some point. Adding more games still won't change the importance of the records. Look at Jim Brown's numbers. He never played a 16 game season, yet he still is one of the all time leading rushers. It was his consistency that keeps him up there. 9 years of greatness is still something you rarely see from a running back this day in age. Most of them have about 3 or 4 years of glory, 2 more average years after that then they're done. It would be the same with an 18 week schedule. Someone will come along and have a legendary 10 year run to a record, but they would've gotten there whether it be 16 or 14 games because they were just that damn good.

GB12
03-26-2009, 03:22 PM
I really don't want any change. It's fine the way it is.

AJHawk50
03-26-2009, 03:28 PM
I say keep it the same or decrease the preseason to 2 games and have 18 weeks in the regular season.

BlindSite
03-26-2009, 04:14 PM
A lot of records and a lot of players will break really quickly in fact if they increase the season they'd probably need to increase the roster size, plenty of times I've seen teams down to stop gaps at certain positions. Brown at CB for example, Nick Goings at RB in 04 for the Panthers, Vinny Testaverde rehired a year into retirement to play QB due to injury in 07.

2 more games is going to hurt a few teams.

The Legend
03-26-2009, 04:42 PM
How about two more playoff games.

Addict
03-26-2009, 04:51 PM
How about two more playoff games.

... what sense would that make? If you have two extra playoff games, assuming you mean with a wildcard-like system that you'd add 8 more teams to teh mix. Meaning that 20/32 will make the playoffs. If you ment two actual rounds extra, that would mean all 32 teams will go into the playoffs, making the wildcards absolete. You can't just randomly add games without ruining the entire setup. With a 32 team league, you can't have more than 12 teams (37%) making the playoffs. If you increase that percentage, the playoffs lose their exclusivity.

The Legend
03-26-2009, 04:57 PM
Like have 8 playoff teams over 6.

TheBuffaloBills
03-26-2009, 08:53 PM
I think 4 preseason games is the perfect amount. If there wasn't four preseason games, I bet the Bills would have cut Fred Jackson.

yodabear
03-27-2009, 09:48 AM
I like it the way it is right now, but I think I would like it more if it was 18 regular season games and 2 preseason games

Mr.Regular
03-27-2009, 09:59 AM
I really don't want any change. It's fine the way it is.
Same. Only I would eliminate 2 preseason games, but wouldn't touch the regular season.

brat316
03-27-2009, 10:23 AM
If its about money so be it. The players are getting paid, even when injured they are getting payed. Now the owners and commissioner wants theirs.

Or it could be another thing to hang over the player's head for the CBA.

I'm for 17 games, and 3 preseason games. Send one game out of the country, a few to Mexico, Canada, 1 or 2 to Japan and London, 1 to Germany.

LonghornsLegend
03-27-2009, 10:42 AM
The only way I'd be in favor of this is if they expanded rosters, 53 isn't enough with the amount of injuries that will probably be suffered...The fan, and fantasy football nut in me wants more games, but the realistically it makes you wonder how injured your favorite team would be after 18 games, then imagine not getting a bye that next week either if you make the playoffs.


First they want to make teams fly all across the country to play games, now adding games, their getting a little out of control too fast for my taste.


Oh and I'm definately not in favor of decreasing the pre-season, I actually enjoy seeing those bottom of the roster guys fighting for a spot, the starters need to be taken out early anyway...But those games are fun for me to watch especially when you have some young guys your trying to see who can contribute, you shorten the pre-season and you barely have time to evaluate your younger guys.

Jvig43
03-27-2009, 11:05 AM
The only way I'd be in favor of this is if they expanded rosters, 53 isn't enough with the amount of injuries that will probably be suffered...The fan, and fantasy football nut in me wants more games, but the realistically it makes you wonder how injured your favorite team would be after 18 games, then imagine not getting a bye that next week either if you make the playoffs.


First they want to make teams fly all across the country to play games, now adding games, their getting a little out of control too fast for my taste.


Oh and I'm definately not in favor of decreasing the pre-season, I actually enjoy seeing those bottom of the roster guys fighting for a spot, the starters need to be taken out early anyway...But those games are fun for me to watch especially when you have some young guys your trying to see who can contribute, you shorten the pre-season and you barely have time to evaluate your younger guys.

And other countries now..... stupid idea.

Nalej
03-27-2009, 07:08 PM
Oh and I'm definately not in favor of decreasing the pre-season, I actually enjoy seeing those bottom of the roster guys fighting for a spot, the starters need to be taken out early anyway...But those games are fun for me to watch especially when you have some young guys your trying to see who can contribute, you shorten the pre-season and you barely have time to evaluate your younger guys.



I agree.

I also think we should leave the regular season alone.
I love the exact format of everything. I don't like the idea.
The players are going to want more money for playing more games.
the roster size will have to increase to accomadate (sp?) for injuries and fatigue
Too much of a mess... just leave it as is

General Zod
03-27-2009, 07:22 PM
Live it alone.

Limit pre season to 3 games max.