PDA

View Full Version : What Is YOUR Opinion on an 18 Game Regular Season?



Big Daddy Tek
06-21-2009, 03:19 AM
As Many of you know, Roger Goodell wants 18 regular season games. More TV spots to sell, more revenue, etc. The players obviously have two issues: Are they making more for playing more? And, is 18 games too hard on the body? From my understanding, this will not make the season longer. The plan is to have only 2 pre-season games and go into the Regular season earlier. Here's what some of our guys had to say about this:

Mike Goff:
“Has the Commissioner ever played 16 games in a season?”
When told Goodell had never played pro football, Goff scratched his beard and shook his head.
“I don’t know what the answer is, but at some point it’s too much! The furthest I’ve made it during a season was the AFC Championship Game, and from a physical standpoint, I know how my body felt then. It hurt. It’s one of those things that were at that point you are operating strictly on adrenalin. Your body is beat up; everybody’s body is beat up. We had a quarterback playing on one knee (Phillip Rivers) and a running back without a groin (LaDainian Tomlinson) and a tight end who didn’t have a toe (Antonio Gates). From a physical standpoint, it’s going to be tougher.”

Bobby Engram:
“I don’t know enough about the situation right now to say much about it. Two extra weeks is pretty tough. I say cut two pre-season games and keep it the way it is.”
Looks like Engram wants to cut games and NOT add more.

Zach Thomas:
“There is a point where it’s too much. I don’t know what that point is. I don’t know if it’s 17 or 18 games, or if we’ve already found it at 16 games. I love the game of football, but there’s only so much the body can take and there’s only so much that the mind can overcome with the body. I’m not sure I understand why we would need more games.”

Jon McGraw:
“If they are going to pay us to play those extra games, then I’m sure some players would be for the idea, But if they just want to keep the money what it is today and divide it by 1/17th or 1/18th instead of what they do now, then I don’t think you are going to find many players supporting the idea.”

Rudy Niswanger:
“If they determine they want to play more games and pay us accordingly, then good, I’m still a young guy and I don’t have all the aches and pains that more veteran players have. Talk to me in about six years and I would have a different answer for you.”

Damion Macintosh:
“To me, I think 16 feels like plenty, unless you are adding more teams into the league. I know pre-season is a necessary evil because you have so many young players trying to make a squad and you only have so much time to evaluate them. In my opinion I think we have enough. All it does is make the season longer; there’s nothing that needs to be corrected as far as the way the league is arranged or the season and making the playoffs.”
________________________________

I say, it is fine the way it is. Goodell is lookin awful greedy right now. What do you guy's think?

DT14PRIEST
06-21-2009, 04:11 AM
I think the current 16 game season is fine as it is. I love the game as much as the next guy but enough is enough. Its done well so far so why bother changing it? Like you said Tek, greed seems to be the underlying factor here.

Sn@keIze
06-21-2009, 05:10 AM
Im down with the 18 season!


But its just like what the players say about overtime and wanting to keep it sudden death. Its stressful on the body.

But as a fan, I love football and can use more games.

The way I understand it. They will cut into the preseason games tho, so there will be two less preseason games.

Canada
06-21-2009, 05:46 AM
Cut all the preseason games, give everyone an extra bye week and play 18 games.

Canada
06-21-2009, 07:47 AM
Cutting preseason games will only make the usual preseason records translate to the reg season records. That could mean alot of losses for teams that don't have their stuff together. Maybe cut down to 2 Preseason games but I dunno about none. I don't know of a Pro sport today that has no Preseason, they have it for a reason. My belief is so the teams can adjust their rosters, how would you propose they handle that?

Play more scrimmages in the preseason. Chiefs play the Viqueens every year. And the losses will not be as detrimental to a team if they have more games to play. The preseason records will not transfer into regular season records because I would highly doubt that a lot of 3rd and 4th string players would be getting out on the field when it really counts. I am sure they have preseason for a reason, but I have never heard anything but complaints about it from players and coaches. Maybe a longer season would result in teams getting more depth to last a long season. Hockey has 82 games in a season and can go up to a possible 110 games (depending on playoffs) so i don't buy into the excuse that 18 games is too hard. You make millions, earn it.

tornadospotter
06-21-2009, 07:50 AM
If they go to 18 game season, then they better increase the roster limits so teams can have enough health bodies to make it thru the season.

pbatrucker
06-21-2009, 10:12 AM
From the fans view point expanding the schedule would be awesome. Two more games were the starters played the entire four quarters. The league would definatley make out monataraly'
From the players veiw point. Two more games means more stress on the body, and more injuries and careers would be shorter. Reducing the preseason games is not the answer. The starters play the first half of most preseason games, so if you take away two, the starters still play an additional game. Adding to the roster will not be the answer, there isn't enough good talent available now.
My answer is, IF IT ISN'T BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT!!! 16 games is just about right.
:bananen_smilies046:

Vanilla Garilla
06-21-2009, 10:21 AM
Cut all the preseason games, give everyone an extra bye week and play 18 games.

I almost completely agree. But I think keep 2 preseason games, and then go straight to the NFL season, and like you said add in an extra bye week.

Chiefster
06-21-2009, 10:51 AM
While this would not increase the number of total games played in a season it does increase the amount of playing time your starters have thus, I'm assuming, is the problem that perspective starters have with this proposal. It also gives owners, GM's, and coaches less time to evaluate their talent and make the necessary cuts, which I'm not convinced is a good thing. JMHO

Chiefster
06-21-2009, 10:53 AM
From the fans view point expanding the schedule would be awesome. Two more games were the starters played the entire four quarters. The league would definatley make out monataraly'
From the players veiw point. Two more games means more stress on the body, and more injuries and careers would be shorter. Reducing the preseason games is not the answer. The starters play the first half of most preseason games, so if you take away two, the starters still play an additional game. Adding to the roster will not be the answer, there isn't enough good talent available now.
My answer is, IF IT ISN'T BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT!!! 16 games is just about right.
:bananen_smilies046:

Agreed! Rep!

hometeam
06-21-2009, 12:44 PM
This 18 games thing is just another money grab. its TOO MUCH. 32 teams, 16 games, everything fits so perfect in the system now. PLUS if you add those games one is going to at least be international (dont get me started on that) It will dilute talent pool due to injury and is a bad idea in eveyr way except for the owners money.

IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT! GRRROAR!

jmlamerson
06-21-2009, 01:03 PM
I say, it is fine the way it is. Goodell is lookin awful greedy right now. What do you guy's think?

There's an old business saying: "You're either growing or you're dying." The NFL tried to grow through NFL Europe, Arena League (which the NFL was a major backer of), and NFL Network (which a majority of football households don't even get), but they haven't been financially successful. They've expanded the number of franchises probably as far as they can go just in an American market. NFL revenues are going to flatten out unless they add more games and try to force the networks to pay for them.

And that's really all this is. The game itself will suffer as injuries increase. Players will get hurt and careers will be ended sooner. I'm not even sure NFL viewership will rise as the NFL starts butting up against college basketball. And don't discount that many fans will tire of the long season. Also, teams that seal up a division early in the 16-game season only provide us one week of backups playing - we'll get 2-3 games like that in an 18-game season.

If you want the NFL's revenue to increase and the decrease in game quality won't bother you, then the 18-game season is the way to go. If you want to keep the level of play relatively high, you're favorite player on the field, and you like to see teams fighting for playoff spots in almost every division until the last week, then it isn't the way to go.

Big Daddy Tek
06-21-2009, 03:42 PM
There's an old business saying: "You're either growing or you're dying." The NFL tried to grow through NFL Europe, Arena League (which the NFL was a major backer of), and NFL Network (which a majority of football households don't even get), but they haven't been financially successful. They've expanded the number of franchises probably as far as they can go just in an American market. NFL revenues are going to flatten out unless they add more games and try to force the networks to pay for them.

And that's really all this is. The game itself will suffer as injuries increase. Players will get hurt and careers will be ended sooner. I'm not even sure NFL viewership will rise as the NFL starts butting up against college basketball. And don't discount that many fans will tire of the long season. Also, teams that seal up a division early in the 16-game season only provide us one week of backups playing - we'll get 2-3 games like that in an 18-game season.

If you want the NFL's revenue to increase and the decrease in game quality won't bother you, then the 18-game season is the way to go. If you want to keep the level of play relatively high, you're favorite player on the field, and you like to see teams fighting for playoff spots in almost every division until the last week, then it isn't the way to go.

Yeah, I didnt even think about the playoff bound teams using backups in weeks 17-18. Thats a good point. IF Goodell does change it to 18, I think an extra bye week in the middle of the season would be beneficial to the players, but then again, that only leads to a longer season. All in all, Im against this.

Bike
06-21-2009, 03:45 PM
Quality wins over quantity. Keep it at 16.

Chief Tyler
06-21-2009, 09:56 PM
There could be some sort of middle ground. One idea I've played with in the past has been to add another bye week for each team, keeping the number of games still at 16. I'm not sure where most of the revenue lies for the NFL, but I'd be pretty confident in saying that television is a big chunk, if not the biggest, of their profits. The season is extended to 18 weeks, the fans wouldn't have another game to pull for their team, but I do think viewership for all games would increase. People can't watch their team for a second week, other teams get more viewers due to fans of football in general.

I don't think 18 games is the answer. You put the staples and icons of your business at risk, thereby risking interest in the sport. 18 games would have a sort of dimishing returns effect, with the players careers being generally shorter, sports clashing, and fan exaustion whereas an extra bye would extend the season while protecting your player investments at the same time.

AussieChiefsFan
06-21-2009, 11:27 PM
I think having an 18 game regular-season would be good. More games means we can defeat the raiders 3 times in 1 season, instead of only 2!:D

Chief Tyler
06-21-2009, 11:50 PM
If they added 2 more games I bet they would be out of division.

AussieChiefsFan
06-21-2009, 11:53 PM
If they added 2 more games I bet they would be out of division.
Yeah, that's probably what would happen but I was just making a point.:bananen_smilies046:

Vanilla Garilla
06-22-2009, 12:18 AM
If they added 2 more games I bet they would be out of division.

Definitely. 2 more games against the NFC would be likely. And I would be all for that, as long as it aint the NFC North, we see enough of them this year.

PawnshopMarimba
06-22-2009, 03:26 AM
This would be fine with me IF they allow an extra 5-10 men on each team's final roster; and that's really key. Maybe throw in an extra draft round, too.

With only two pre-season games, you have half the time to evaluate your young guys in real game situation, so the coaches need more roster slots to compensate for the guess work they'd have to be doing.

And, of course, there's the injury factor from the extra two games that would need to be accounted for.

But, on the whole, I think an extra two games would be great. It gives you more time to finalize tight division races an further serves to reward the teams that have the most fleshed out roster as a whole, from starters to third stringers.

I understand that there are vets who don't like the idea, but they ARE paid handsomely to do what they do, and last time I checked, no one was holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to participate in the game. If they don't wanna put their bodies through that, they certainly don't have to.

dbolan
06-22-2009, 10:15 AM
Play more scrimmages in the preseason. Chiefs play the Viqueens every year. And the losses will not be as detrimental to a team if they have more games to play. The preseason records will not transfer into regular season records because I would highly doubt that a lot of 3rd and 4th string players would be getting out on the field when it really counts. I am sure they have preseason for a reason, but I have never heard anything but complaints about it from players and coaches. Maybe a longer season would result in teams getting more depth to last a long season. Hockey has 82 games in a season and can go up to a possible 110 games (depending on playoffs) so i don't buy into the excuse that 18 games is too hard. You make millions, earn it.


I totally agree withe the portion I coded in red.

If they cut down to 2 preseason games and maybe had an extra controlled scrimmage or two, that should be enough. Besides, the way scouting has eveolved over the past 10 years, the scouts and coaches should (and I believe they do) know who they want when they invite them to camp (to the team).

What it boils down to, is that the players are saying that they will be playing 2 extra "games" and they should get paid more money, however, it is really no different than being in exempt salary status in the real world. If you have to work 60 hours a week to get it done, you do it but there are also perks to it as well.


The thing that really gripes my arse, as with some others, is that these guys make damn good money to prepare for and play a GAME. If you break it down, they are asctually on the clock for a maximum of 6 months out of the year. The rest of the time, they do what they please and it's apparent that a lot of them do exactly that since they habitually come into camp out of shape (not just ours but many others as well)!!

What about their bye-week? Is that a week without pay? Don't think so. Should a team make it to the SB they get another wek as well to help "heal and prepare".

I guesss you can tell that I am FOR the 18 game schedule but I don't have a problem with reducing the amount of pre-season games as well.

Canada
06-22-2009, 10:26 AM
YEAH!!!! :sign0098::bananen_smilies046:

ARKIESTEEL
06-22-2009, 10:50 AM
That could put a team playing 22 games in a season (if they go to the playoffs as a wild card and make the Superbowl). That seems like a lot on one hand but I also feel that the players are well paid for what they do. The non playoff teams would have a lot more time to heal each year. If you had 18 games with two bye weeks then you have a 20 weeks of football if you make it to play offs you are looking at a lot more. You might see some of the players not have as long a tenure in the NFL due to this. If they do this they need to increase the amount of players by 10 or so and the amount of practice squad guys by 3 to 5 to keep a team filled.

Just my 2 cents

dbolan
06-22-2009, 01:43 PM
This would be fine with me IF they allow an extra 5-10 men on each team's final roster; and that's really key. Maybe throw in an extra draft round, too.

With only two pre-season games, you have half the time to evaluate your young guys in real game situation, so the coaches need more roster slots to compensate for the guess work they'd have to be doing.

And, of course, there's the injury factor from the extra two games that would need to be accounted for.

But, on the whole, I think an extra two games would be great. It gives you more time to finalize tight division races an further serves to reward the teams that have the most fleshed out roster as a whole, from starters to third stringers.

I understand that there are vets who don't like the idea, but they ARE paid handsomely to do what they do, and last time I checked, no one was holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to participate in the game. If they don't wanna put their bodies through that, they certainly don't have to.

A couple of extra controlled scrimmages could do that as well.

However, if they expand the roster, I am not against expanding the cap enough to counter the additional revenue as well.

Along the lines of salary though....Professinal sports seems to be the only profession that has a significant increase (agreed upon) in salaries each year.

I mean Jeeez...What is it now?? About $120 Million for 53 players Which averages in the 2.3 mil per year per player? THAT is a lot of jack! LOL!

If you divide the 2.3 mil by 16 games, that is about $140,000 per game and it drops to about 126,000 per game if it bumped up to 18.

THAT is why I don't get to happy when these guys start bictching. Many of them got their education on a scholarship (FREE) and even though teir longevity plays a role in how much money they can make, a VAST majority of them should have degrees to fall back on.

So...In a more direct tone..I say "Play the damn games and quit your whining." LMAO

dbolan
06-22-2009, 01:50 PM
A couple of extra controlled scrimmages could do that as well.

However, if they expand the roster, I am not against expanding the cap enough to counter the additional revenue as well.

Along the lines of salary though....Professinal sports seems to be the only profession that has a significant increase (agreed upon) in salaries each year.

I mean Jeeez...What is it now?? About $120 Million for 53 players Which averages in the 2.3 mil per year per player? THAT is a lot of jack! LOL!

If you divide the 2.3 mil by 16 games, that is about $140,000 per game and it drops to about 126,000 per game if it bumped up to 18.

THAT is why I don't get to happy when these guys start bictching. Many of them got their education on a scholarship (FREE) and even though their longevity plays a role in how much money they can make, a VAST majority of them should have degrees to fall back on.

So...In a more direct tone..I say "Play the damn games and quit your whining." LMAO

After a little more thought and learning that the cap increased this year by $4mil to $127mil....I take back what I said about increasing the cap due to the extra revenue generated by 2 additional games per season.

Sorry...May sound cruel to most but like I said...For a 53 man team, I have never seen a salary pool increase like it does in Pro Sports. It is incredibly ridiculous.

In 2005 the cap was $85.5 million...In 2009, 4 years later it is $127 million. So we are looking at an average of $10.3 million per yer year. Again....Sorry but tough titty! LOL!

Chiefster
06-22-2009, 03:40 PM
This would be fine with me IF they allow an extra 5-10 men on each team's final roster; and that's really key. Maybe throw in an extra draft round, too.

With only two pre-season games, you have half the time to evaluate your young guys in real game situation, so the coaches need more roster slots to compensate for the guess work they'd have to be doing.

Agreed.


I understand that there are vets who don't like the idea, but they ARE paid handsomely to do what they do, and last time I checked, no one was holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to participate in the game. If they don't wanna put their bodies through that, they certainly don't have to.

What constitutes reasonable employer expectations of their employees? True, these vets are paid very well, but where does one draw the line between what is considered to be reasonable and unreasonable physical demands upon ones body. Not necessarily disagreeing; just playin debils advocate. :D

pbatrucker
06-22-2009, 04:31 PM
All you supposed real fans that are in favor of expanding the schedule to 18 games, probably won't like the finish product. I've already stated my veiws earlier in this tread. I don't like watching bad football.
:11:

Chiefster
06-22-2009, 04:37 PM
All you supposed real fans that are in favor of expanding the schedule to 18 games, probably won't like the finish product. I've already stated my veiws earlier in this tread. I don't like watching bad football.
:11:

I understand and also feel that we should keep it to a sixteen game season, but let's not start calling into question peoples fandom. I think that most of us here are good, true fans of the game.

dbolan
06-22-2009, 04:39 PM
All you supposed real fans that are in favor of expanding the schedule to 18 games, probably won't like the finish product. I've already stated my veiws earlier in this tread. I don't like watching bad football.
:11:

The NFL use to be a 14 game schedule, so do you have bad football now?

Expand the roster and there will be more depth and/or allow the practice squad to be expanded in an effort to create better depth.

Give the fans what we want. I don;t think 2 more games in the regular season and 2 less games in preseason would hurt anything.

pbatrucker
06-22-2009, 04:44 PM
So do I!!!

PawnshopMarimba
06-22-2009, 04:51 PM
The NFL use to be a 14 game schedule, so do you have bad football now?

Expand the roster and there will be more depth and/or allow the practice squad to be expanded in an effort to create better depth.

Give the fans what we want. I don;t think 2 more games in the regular season and 2 less games in preseason would hurt anything.

Yep. You could really just pull the vets almost entirely out of the preseason games.

As for whoever was questioning the fan dedication and their ability to follow 18 games; bud, I haven't missed a Chiefs regular season game, whether it be on the radio, on TV or live since 1990. 2 extra games isn't magically going to make me apathetic about watching my favorite sports team every week, same for anyone else who love the Chiefs.

Chiefster
06-22-2009, 04:59 PM
Yep. You could really just pull the vets almost entirely out of the preseason games.

As for whoever was questioning the fan dedication and their ability to follow 18 games; bud, I haven't missed a Chiefs regular season game, whether it be on the radio, on TV or live since 1990. 2 extra games isn't magically going to make me apathetic about watching my favorite sports team every week, same for anyone else who love the Chiefs.

Well said. Rep!