- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve talked with many different people about this topic. I was curious what you all thought. I do have a link with some of my friends thoughts. If you want to read a long rant at: Armchair Report
Other than that I personally think that the players are what is most important. They are the reason we watch the game. I think we should protect them as much as possible.
ArmchairReport;206856 wrote:I’ve talked with many different people about this topic. I was curious what you all thought. I do have a link with some of my friends thoughts. If you want to read a long rant at: Armchair ReportOther than that I personally think that the players are what is most important. They are the reason we watch the game. I think we should protect them as much as possible.
Bah, pay the less talented players, or rather the scrub players a better starting wage and raise the number of games. It is not going to hurt anymore than preseason does now and the fact that people can get hurt in preseason for no real good reason is worse than putting it on the line for a real game.
I’d rather give the coaches more time to evaluate talent, or lack thereof, in game situations. I don’t think the current system is broke; why fix it?
It’s about money, the NFL wants more money. Instead of risking the players bodies they could open up their market to say Dish Network and others instead of handcuffing themselves to one single provider…Direct T.V. It befuddles me why they do this. Maybe it keeps the prices up. Is that a Monopoly?
The NFL currently does not have the vehicle to put this on the air themselves, and they should not enter into that. They have to go with the networks that have the biggest reach, or potential for the biggest reach. Dish Network is certainly a viable option, but the cable companies are not.
Unless the NFL gears up a way to distribute the product on their own, they have no option other than to go with a company who can do it for them. Right now that is Direct TV.
Besides, DishNetwork sucks!
I love football, and one of the things regarding it is the tradition it covers. I have lived and followed football during the 16 game schedule and maybe this is why I prefer it not to be adjusted.
There are times for change though. I just don’t think it is now. The records which stand under the 16 game schedule will eventually be asterisks in a future 18 game schedule.
Players and their union oppose such a move, although both sides may be just a bargaining chip tactic to some degree. It’s definitely a money move right now… they get enough and the game is fine as is.
I think it should come down to the fans and our wishes which no doubt are being gauged.
Well, my opinion is a selfish one. I’m not a big fan or participant as a fan in any sport other than the NFL. I’m sad when the season is over, have withdrawals terribly. Extending the season to 18 games gives me two more games to be excited about & look forward to.
I’d rather they add two regular season games to the schedule & eliminate 2 of the pre-season games. Coaches can evaluate players in many aspects, although I understand evaluating through pre-season games is critical. No starting player truly gives his all in a pre-season game…it’s more about evaluting non starters. Maybe they should consider 2 pre-season games played just by non starters, the other 2 with starters & non starters as they do currently?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.