18 regular season games?

[MadScientist]

Oh gosh, it's not that big of a deal. Add 6 roster spots, make a few minor rule changes with how injuries can be handled and make it happen!!

Why? NFL football in the summer sucks. I like the preseason games, which you can sort-of half watch, but it dimishes the excitement of the season opener if it comes in August. There is a real change after labor day, schools starting, the weather cooling down, etc., and the new football season is part of that change. Summer is for vacations and leisure time activities like baseball. Fall is for the serious business of the football season.

What's the alternative, start the playoffs in late janury? That sucks too, the season is plenty long enough as it is.

18 games will make a real difference in the quality of football. There is zero reason to go this direction, other than money for the NFL owners. The other pro sports are greatly diminished by too many regular season games. Over-doing it in the NFL will be even worse, since the players get so beat-up.

This is a horrible development.

The plan is to put the games at the end of the year, pushing back the Super Bowl. There will still be no real football in August. Ice Bowls will be a more common occurrence.

If they change the injury rules (e.g. IR for 8 weeks instead of the whole season), teams could actually be healthier at the end of the season. The biggest risk is for QB injuries, but if the best teams tank the last couple of games, the risk will be reduced.

[The Leaper]

The plan is to put the games at the end of the year, pushing back the Super Bowl. There will still be no real football in August. Ice Bowls will be a more common occurrence.

Which is why I pointed out that a team like Green Bay should be SUPPORTIVE of the 18 game season. I think it slightly benefits us...with more home games in the chilly weather.

18 games is going to happen people...are you blind? Money talks in sports...and 2 extra weeks of regular season games means $$$$ for the NFL from future TV contracts.

Also, I doubt that Ray Lewis is really so hardcore against this. He simply HAS to speak out against it (like all players do right now) because it is a bargaining chip the players can use in this next round of bargaining. The fact of the matter is that the owners look to have the upper hand going into these contract negotiations...so the NFLPA will make certain that all players are united AGAINST the 18 game season (which the owners want) because that is a concession they can give the owners in order to obtain something the players want.

It's all posturing before a huge showdown over the next work agreement.

[The Leaper]

Half the teams in the league in the playoffs? No, thanks.

I agree. No interest in making the NFL like the NBA. I think 12 is the right number...and I like byes going to teams as a reward for a good season.

[vince]

I'd like to see a few more teams make the playoffs too. Go with a 16-team playoff schedule. Eliminate the playoff byes.

Half the teams in the league in the playoffs? No, thanks. Just imagine..."With two games to go, the 6-10 Bears still have a shot at the playoffs!"

You might feel differently if that borderline team was the Packers, whose star QB is finally set to come off the 4-game disabled list. More teams in the hunt would only increase interest and be good for the league IMO. A sub-500 team would infrequently make the playoffs. As it is, 8-8 teams have often made the playoffs. Why not give the couple additional teams who now are getting eliminated by some obscure and irrelevant tie-breaker - and may be the hotter team or just getting healthy at the right time - a chance to lift their cities and be the next cinderella story like the Giants from a couple years ago?

I think it would be good for the game and eliminate the huge unfair competitive advantage of an additional bye week and one less game to win at the most important time of the season. Just my opinion.

[MadScientist]

I'd like to see a few more teams make the playoffs too. Go with a 16-team playoff schedule. Eliminate the playoff byes.

Half the teams in the league in the playoffs? No, thanks. Just imagine..."With two games to go, the 6-10 Bears still have a shot at the playoffs!"

You might feel differently if that borderline team was the Packers, whose star QB is finally set to come off the 4-game disabled list. More teams in the hunt would only increase interest and be good for the league IMO. A sub-500 team would infrequently make the playoffs. As it is, 8-8 teams have often made the playoffs. Why not give the couple additional teams who now are getting eliminated by some obscure and irrelevant tie-breaker - and may be the hotter team or just getting healthy at the right time - a chance to lift their cities and be the next cinderella story like the Giants from a couple years ago?

I think it would be good for the game and eliminate the huge unfair competitive advantage of an additional bye week and one less game to win at the most important time of the season. Just my opinion.

The problem with too many teams making the playoffs is that it degrades the value of the regular season. Part of the weekly draw to football is that almost every game is important. The more teams you put in the playoffs, the less of an attraction those weekly games become. The more people think they can miss a game, the more they will and the more they will find they have other things and better things to do with their time.

[vince]

For a sport with an oversupply of tickets like baseball, I'd say that has some credence to it, but not for NFL football.

For winning teams clearly in the playoffs, there is far more demand than supply for NFL game tickets. People want to see winners. That's why tickets are so outrageously high on the open market when their team is winning. Try to scalp tickets to a game when the Packers are 13-3 and clearly in the playoffs vs. 6-10 and see how it turns out. Value goes through the roof when teams win.

Adding more teams to the playoffs would only ADD value for regular season games for those borderline teams in the hunt that otherwise would be out of the race late in the season and would otherwise have a harder time selling tickets.

Adding playoff teams would increase demand for tickets in the NFL where it might otherwise be softer rather than decrease it. And particularly in a more limited-supply sport like football, demand for tickets of the winningest teams will always outpace supply.

[ThunderDan]

Half the teams in the league in the playoffs? No, thanks. Just imagine..."With two games to go, the 6-10 Bears still have a shot at the playoffs!"

Hell by adding 1 more playoff week you could have all 32 teams in the playoff.

"The 2-13 Lions really need to win this week if they don't want to play the 14-1 Packers in the 1st round of the playoffs!"

[The Leaper]

Adding playoff teams would increase demand for tickets in the NFL where it might otherwise be softer rather than decrease it.

Demand is hardly a problem for except in certain cities (like Jax) where they don't show up even when they have a playoff team. Your idea can't possibly address that kind of "soft" demand.

You don't need to expand the playoffs to drive interest/demand. The last few seasons have seen most teams in the league stay in the playoff race up until the last couple weeks.

I completely agree that it would be foolish to have a 5-9 team still have a chance at the playoffs with 2 weeks to go. Yuck. You should have to EARN your way to the playoffs. The problem with the current playoff setup isn't how many teams get in, but how the rules are setup so that an 8-8 division winner can host a 11-5 division runnerup. I believe that all division winners should advance to the playoffs regardless of record...but they should not be guaranteed a home game.

[Patler]

With 12 teams in the playoffs, every once in a while a team with a very good record feels left out because they didn't make the cut.. But if you expand it to 16 teams, most years every team with a winning record would make it, and even 8-8 teams some years.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me that a barely winning record should virtually guarantee a playoff spot.

[sharpe1027]

With 12 teams in the playoffs, every once in a while a team with a very good record feels left out because they didn't make the cut.. But if you expand it to 16 teams, most years every team with a winning record would make it, and even 8-8 teams some years.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me that a barely winning record should virtually guarantee a playoff spot.

To me, it is no more ridiculous than adding extra games in the regular season. Neither are necessary nor do the seem to be wanted by many of the fans. Bottom line, both have the potential to make them more money for the NFL.

[Patler]

With 12 teams in the playoffs, every once in a while a team with a very good record feels left out because they didn't make the cut.. But if you expand it to 16 teams, most years every team with a winning record would make it, and even 8-8 teams some years.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me that a barely winning record should virtually guarantee a playoff spot.

To me, it is no more ridiculous than adding extra games in the regular season. Neither are necessary nor do the seem to be wanted by many of the fans. Bottom line, both have the potential to make them more money for the NFL.

Well, sure; but I wasn't referring to any financial reasons for doing it. Those aren't difficult to understand. As long as games are sell-outs, someone will think more would be better.

I do see a lot of difference between adding regular season games and increasing the number of playoff teams. With added regular season games the distinction between playoff teams and non-playoff teams might increase, which to me is a good thing. On the flip-side, it will just prolong the agony for the really bad teams.

I think diluting the significance of "making the playoffs" is detrimental. While the fans of a couple 8-8 or 9-7 teams might be excited for a while, overall I think some fans may be disinterested the first week of playoffs when 15-1 teams blow out some 8-8 teams. I like the format now, and the way it sort of builds just by the nature of the participants. It promotes competitive games by having wildcard weekend with the best having a bye.

[sharpe1027]

Well, sure; but I wasn't referring to any financial reasons for doing it. Those aren't difficult to understand. As long as games are sell-outs, someone will think more would be better.

I do see a lot of difference between adding regular season games and increasing the number of playoff teams. With added regular season games the distinction between playoff teams and non-playoff teams might increase, which to me is a good thing. On the flip-side, it will just prolong the agony for the really bad teams.

I think diluting the significance of "making the playoffs" is detrimental. While the fans of a couple 8-8 or 9-7 teams might be excited for a while, overall I think some fans may be disinterested the first week of playoffs when 15-1 teams blow out some 8-8 teams. I like the format now, and the way it sort of builds just by the nature of the participants. It promotes competitive games by having wildcard weekend with the best having a bye.

If I had to chose one or the other, I would agree with you - extra regular season games would be better than more teams in the playoffs; however, I really don't want either. Extra regular season games just mean more meaningless games, more money, and more dilution of the import of each game. No thanks. There are plenty of games as it is, at least for me.

[Patler]

If I had to chose one or the other, I would agree with you - extra regular season games would be better than more teams in the playoffs; however, I really don't want either. Extra regular season games just mean more meaningless games, more money, and more dilution of the import of each game. No thanks. There are plenty of games as it is, at least for me.

Ya, I don't need a longer season either. I'm satisfied with 14 games...oh wait...I mean 16! Actually, I was satisfied with 14, and with fewer teams in the league.

[packerbacker1234]

Well, sure; but I wasn't referring to any financial reasons for doing it. Those aren't difficult to understand. As long as games are sell-outs, someone will think more would be better.

I do see a lot of difference between adding regular season games and increasing the number of playoff teams. With added regular season games the distinction between playoff teams and non-playoff teams might increase, which to me is a good thing. On the flip-side, it will just prolong the agony for the really bad teams.

I think diluting the significance of "making the playoffs" is detrimental. While the fans of a couple 8-8 or 9-7 teams might be excited for a while, overall I think some fans may be disinterested the first week of playoffs when 15-1 teams blow out some 8-8 teams. I like the format now, and the way it sort of builds just by the nature of the participants. It promotes competitive games by having wildcard weekend with the best having a bye.

If I had to chose one or the other, I would agree with you - extra regular season games would be better than more teams in the playoffs; however, I really don't want either. Extra regular season games just mean more meaningless games, more money, and more dilution of the import of each game. No thanks. There are plenty of games as it is, at least for me.

Meaningless games are completely subjective. 2 extra games would of gave the vikings last year a chance to get the #1 seed back, and if the saints have to roll into the metrodome... chances are they lose, and were looking at the Vikings as super bowl champs.

I don't think ANY regular season game is meaningless unless you have nothing to play for. And, even if you have nothing to play for, you still could use the remaining games to evaluate players for next season.

Example: Lets say for some god aweful reason we are out of it after 10 games with some retard 2 and 8 record. It would be nice to put Burnett out there over Bigby, or toss JJ in the starting WR's, etc etc - just so you can figure out what you really have for next season. Those games would be used in much the same way the preseason already is - evaluation for next year.

For others, those 2 games ar ethe difference in what seeding you get, if you can still win your division, if you can grab a WC spot. There are advantages to 18 game schedules. And money wise, at least for the teams that seem to always have sell outs (such as Green Bay) it makes complete logical sense. Our franchise would make more money.

The big downside is of course, injuries, disinterested players, etc etc.

Thats a risk you take every time you step on the field. I don't think this diminishes the playoffs, I think it makes it more intriguing. Said 8-8 team (or 9-7) gets in over other "hot" 9-7 team because of tie breakers? Throw on two more weeks and lets see what sort of tie breakers there really are.


Dunno, I wouldn't mind, as a fan, more football. I love watching football. I could see players opposed and franchises that loose money being opposed, but as a fan, I would love to see 2 more MEANINGFUL games on the schedule.

[sharpe1027]

Meaningless games are completely subjective. 2 extra games would of gave the vikings last year a chance to get the #1 seed back, and if the saints have to roll into the metrodome... chances are they lose, and were looking at the Vikings as super bowl champs.

I don't think ANY regular season game is meaningless unless you have nothing to play for. And, even if you have nothing to play for, you still could use the remaining games to evaluate players for next season.

Example: Lets say for some god aweful reason we are out of it after 10 games with some retard 2 and 8 record. It would be nice to put Burnett out there over Bigby, or toss JJ in the starting WR's, etc etc - just so you can figure out what you really have for next season. Those games would be used in much the same way the preseason already is - evaluation for next year.

For others, those 2 games ar ethe difference in what seeding you get, if you can still win your division, if you can grab a WC spot. There are advantages to 18 game schedules. And money wise, at least for the teams that seem to always have sell outs (such as Green Bay) it makes complete logical sense. Our franchise would make more money.

The big downside is of course, injuries, disinterested players, etc etc.

Thats a risk you take every time you step on the field. I don't think this diminishes the playoffs, I think it makes it more intriguing. Said 8-8 team (or 9-7) gets in over other "hot" 9-7 team because of tie breakers? Throw on two more weeks and lets see what sort of tie breakers there really are.


Dunno, I wouldn't mind, as a fan, more football. I love watching football. I could see players opposed and franchises that loose money being opposed, but as a fan, I would love to see 2 more MEANINGFUL games on the schedule.

Well, but your standard, preseason games are not meaningless either since they are used to evaluate players for the season. I did not mean meaningless in the most absolute sense, just in my subjective "the game is not that important" sense.

I am not in favor of adding games because in my subjective opinion, there would be more meaningless games AND because it dilutes the importance of each game AND because it will probably end up costing me more money AND because it restarts all the records AND because I don't see enough upside. Sure teams would make more money overall, but it would further the income gap between the bottom teams and the top teams (not a good thing in my opinion).

Just my opinion. I can see your point about wanting more games to enjoy and I would be OK with them doing it. I just don't prefer it.