NFL: Owners have shown widespread support for going to an 18-game schedule.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5497448

Mo money mo money mo money mo problemsX360PS3AMD05

As for this news, I wouldnt mind an extra 2 games because it would rid of the 2 preseason and extend the roster for other players in case one gets hurt. This is my understanding of it from listening to Herm Edwards. The bad news is that most players will cry and figure because of an extension, they want more money added to their current contract.Fuhgeddabouditt

I agree with this.

I don't really like how the last two games are throw away games for teams that generally already have their top spot wrapped up so how is adding more games going to make it more interesting to watch? The gap is most likely going to get wider and there may be a team or two who need those extra games to get the last playoff spot. Sounds like a money grab for the richest league in US.Lostboy1224

Those are all prblems that hvae solutions that are never enacted. The league could mandate contract stipulations for playing the whole season, or the teams could as well, but neither seems very willing to do so. Fan backlash could cause players to make the case for staying in, but that doesn't seem to be a problem with guys like Favre and Manning. They could do like the NHL does and use a points system so that teams who score more points get higher seeds, but that's not without its problems and again is something no one seems to be discussing.

The money grabbing is disgusting, though. One thing that might be beneficial is if they agreed to this, but only under the condition that there aren't any more blackouts for non-sold out games. Of course no one's going to agree to that as long as the NFL continues to be the most-watched sport in America. It's supply and demand, as long as we keep supporting the league they're going to keep blacking out games to sell more tickets because they can, which creates a sucky catch-22 for us.

I dont really think this is the best idea at all.

I dont really think this is the best idea at all.

scarecrowM

How about they just get rid of the 1 or 2 pre-season games and leave the regular season at 16?

Mixed feelings. On one hand, more football = awesome. And players get hurt in the pre season anyways, the games may as well mean something. On the other hand, old statistics won't mean anything, and it will just feel different.monkeytoes61

Yeah I feel the exact same way.

NFL players should holdout. They need to get paid more if there's going to be an 18 game schedule.CleanPlayer

[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]NFL players should holdout. They need to get paid more if there's going to be an 18 game schedule.Chutebox

Ummm...why? They're already among the highest-paid atheletes in the world, and really two games is not that much of a difference. If you think about it, many teams play their starters for probably a good six quarters during the preseason, that just means those quarters actually mean something now. If anything player incentive requirementsshould go up as it will be easier for them to reach landmarks.

Mixed feelings. On one hand, more football = awesome. And players get hurt in the pre season anyways, the games may as well mean something. On the other hand, old statistics won't mean anything, and it will just feel different.monkeytoes61

[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]Mixed feelings. On one hand, more football = awesome. And players get hurt in the pre season anyways, the games may as well mean something. On the other hand, old statistics won't mean anything, and it will just feel different.Lostboy1224

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]NFL players should holdout. They need to get paid more if there's going to be an 18 game schedule.theone86

Ummm...why? They're already among the highest-paid atheletes in the world, and really two games is not that much of a difference. If you think about it, many teams play their starters for probably a good six quarters during the preseason, that just means those quarters actually mean something now. If anything player incentive requirementsshould go up as it will be easier for them to reach landmarks.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] I'm pretty sure they will. They have to. If not it should be a no go. Like said above, stats will be shattered and that's the real downer for me. That and I think it'll be harder to play in the NFL at an older age.Chutebox

Ummm...why? They're already among the highest-paid atheletes in the world, and really two games is not that much of a difference. If you think about it, many teams play their starters for probably a good six quarters during the preseason, that just means those quarters actually mean something now. If anything player incentive requirementsshould go up as it will be easier for them to reach landmarks.

I mean, they could pass a portion of the extra revenue on to the fans, stop the blackouts, lower ticket prices, reduce the number of commercials during games, perhaps get rid of one of the two breaks that sandwiches every kickoff. I know they would never do that, but still I can wish.

I do agree this is mostly about profiteering. I saw a video on NFL.com of an owner talking about 18 games being necessary for their profits in this economy, I wanted to punch the smug **** in the face.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Ummm...why? They're already among the highest-paid atheletes in the world, and really two games is not that much of a difference. If you think about it, many teams play their starters for probably a good six quarters during the preseason, that just means those quarters actually mean something now. If anything player incentive requirementsshould go up as it will be easier for them to reach landmarks.

theone86

I mean, they could pass a portion of the extra revenue on to the fans, stop the blackouts, lower ticket prices, reduce the number of commercials during games, perhaps get rid of one of the two breaks that sandwiches every kickoff. I know they would never do that, but still I can wish.

I do agree this is mostly about profiteering. I saw a video on NFL.com of an owner talking about 18 games being necessary for their profits in this economy, I wanted to punch the smug **** in the face.

And ya, that owner is full if **** . They make a ton of money as it is.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] Because the owners are going to make more money. Why else would owners care about lengthening the season?Master_Live

I mean, they could pass a portion of the extra revenue on to the fans, stop the blackouts, lower ticket prices, reduce the number of commercials during games, perhaps get rid of one of the two breaks that sandwiches every kickoff. I know they would never do that, but still I can wish.

"I know they would never do that, but still I can wish"

I guess you missed that part of his post.

[QUOTE="Master_Live"][QUOTE="theone86"]

I mean, they could pass a portion of the extra revenue on to the fans, stop the blackouts, lower ticket prices, reduce the number of commercials during games, perhaps get rid of one of the two breaks that sandwiches every kickoff. I know they would never do that, but still I can wish.

SaintBlaze

"I know they would never do that, but still I can wish"

I guess you missed that part of his post.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27415543

Take some time and defend your Bricks, I guess you missed that thread in specific.

[QUOTE="SaintBlaze"]

[QUOTE="Master_Live"] Wow, someone is being naive. Master_Live

"I know they would never do that, but still I can wish"

I guess you missed that part of his post.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27415543

Take some time and defend your Bricks, I guess you missed that thread in specific.

I wasn't online for about a week and a half. Missed that thread. Happy he isn't coming back. Althought it wasn't the Knicks stupidity, it was James Dolan. Get it right next time.

Also: I don't want to derail this thread with anymore discussion on this so just PM me if you feel the need to respond to this post.

I thought Mike Golic made a good point about them losing two preseason games. There are a lot of fringe players that either make or don't make the team based on their performance in the preseason. Sometimes it comes down to the extra playing time that they get in that forth game when the starters basically sit that game out. With only two games, it may be more difficult to properly gauge the talent and get the work in for the starters. I'm sure they would adjust and the starters would get their work in, but you can't deny that a lot of fringe players may lose that opportunity to prove that they can be a productive NFL player.DJ_Magneto

I was thinking about this. I think what might be a good idea is go to 18 games, but leave the projected starters completely out of it. Keep the same roster limits, only mandate 22 fewer players in the preseason. Of course then you can't guage new talent against entrenched NFL starters.

I was watching ESPN at the gym and they said the owners are shooting for 2012 to be the season to impliment this.

I think this is a terrible idea because it leads to increased risk of injury for players. And I don't really mind four games in preseason any way.The-Apostle

Nope, it wont

Also when the schedule went from 14 to 16 games there were 6 preseason games and they cut that by 2 and added 2 games to the regular season.

There were adjustments made to the pay scale for the players working more and there was no significant rise in injuries

If adopted the same thing will happen here.

Anyone who has a problem with this has hated all football past 1959

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]I think this is a terrible idea because it leads to increased risk of injury for players. And I don't really mind four games in preseason any way.Jaysonguy

Nope, it wont

Also when the schedule went from 14 to 16 games there were 6 preseason games and they cut that by 2 and added 2 games to the regular season.

There were adjustments made to the pay scale for the players working more and there was no significant rise in injuries

If adopted the same thing will happen here.

Anyone who has a problem with this has hated all football past 1959

The great thing about football is that every single game counts. The more you add the more you devalue this aspect of the sport. There is NO reason to change the system right now. Just because it has changed in the past does not mean that this is ok. At what point does the season become too long? When do we start seeing players get worn out and playing at a lower level? When do we start seeing players sitting for 2 or 3 games in a row at the end of the season because their team clinched the playoffs weeks ago? I am sure fans will love that.

If Ray Lewis thinks 18 is too much, than so do I. You tell them Lewis!

Its like the mo money we come across, the more problems we see.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]I think this is a terrible idea because it leads to increased risk of injury for players. And I don't really mind four games in preseason any way.limpbizkit818

Nope, it wont

Also when the schedule went from 14 to 16 games there were 6 preseason games and they cut that by 2 and added 2 games to the regular season.

There were adjustments made to the pay scale for the players working more and there was no significant rise in injuries

If adopted the same thing will happen here.

Anyone who has a problem with this has hated all football past 1959

The great thing about football is that every single game counts. The more you add the more you devalue this aspect of the sport. There is NO reason to change the system right now. Just because it has changed in the past does not mean that this is ok. At what point does the season become too long? When do we start seeing players get worn out and playing at a lower level? When do we start seeing players sitting for 2 or 3 games in a row at the end of the season because their team clinched the playoffs weeks ago? I am sure fans will love that.

If Ray Lewis thinks 18 is too much, than so do I. You tell them Lewis!

Yeah, I think resting starters is one of the biggest problems with this. A way to get around that would be to seed playoff teams by points, teams like the Colts might think twice about putting Curtis Painter in if it means losing their bye week in the playoffs.

[QUOTE="scarecrowM"]

I dont really think this is the best idea at all.

How about they just get rid of the 1 or 2 pre-season games and leave the regular season at 16?

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]I think this is a terrible idea because it leads to increased risk of injury for players. And I don't really mind four games in preseason any way.Jaysonguy

Nope, it wont

Also when the schedule went from 14 to 16 games there were 6 preseason games and they cut that by 2 and added 2 games to the regular season.

There were adjustments made to the pay scale for the players working more and there was no significant rise in injuries

If adopted the same thing will happen here.

Anyone who has a problem with this has hated all football past 1959

I really think this needs to be filed in the "Don't" drawer. 18 games? Are the owners hurting for money that bad?

That's the reason I oppose this. It is all to make more money, not to provide us fans more football. Watching weeks 18 and 19 will just make me feel all dirty inside.monkeytoes61

[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]That's the reason I oppose this. It is all to make more money, not to provide us fans more football. Watching weeks 18 and 19 will just make me feel all dirty inside.flowersjf

I prefer the schedule to stay 16 games.

If we do get a 18 game season, rosters had better be expanded to 80. Can you imagine how much shorter the lifespan of a starting running back would be?

stupid idea, but it will generate more money, which is all the owners really care for...

I don't watch much pre-season, but i still think its more importsnt than people give it credit, its a chance for late draft picks tomake a roster. With only two games the majority of pre-season play will have to go to the starters to make sure their intune for the season, thus making it more difficult for coaches to judge talent on their roster.

mark this NFL season, if we go to an 18 game format, a decade later we'll look back on the 16 game season as a golden age of football.

Interesting post on yardbarker dsandgnat 7:11 pm on September 1st, 2010 The CFL (Canadian Football League) plays an 18-game schedule with 2 pre-season games. And all their teams, except Toronto, play outside on artificial turf. Plus, they play on a longer and wider field, and they have only 37 players per team. Their championship game, except when played in Toronto or Vancouver, is played on a cold day with the possibility of snow and ice, not like our cushy Super Bowl in a warm climate. With all that said, these guys get less than half of what our crybabies in the NFL get. I would rather watch a CFL game any day then listen to the whinny thugs of the NFL.X360PS3AMD05

WTF the CFL is as soft of a pro football league can get. Big hits rarely ever happens in a CFL game, because the players are smaller and on a larger field.