Why 17 games is a bad idea

[Chaos]

2 hours ago, stuvian said:

As the NFL continues to tamper with its golden goose to the point of the game becoming unrecognizable I offer my opposition to its latest attempt at milking the cash cow dry.

 

The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. We already have a 30 percent rate of permanent disability among retired players. One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This will weaken fan's relationships with stars and starters as the game evolves toward a platoon of unknowns. But the money you say?  One more game cheque won't matter if you're going to spend it all on painkillers and physio. We already have players retiring earlier now that CTE risks are in the public domain.

 

Where in the current schedule is the league going to insert the additional game?  After Christmas when home games in cold climates are a tougher sell?  Before labour day when the south is either unbearably hot or in hurricane season? How many more tweets of empty seats do we need to see before we understand that we have an oversupply? 

 

What makes the NFL great is that fewer games make each one meaningful. Watering down the product will make it indistinguishable from upstarts like the XFL. 

 thought this thread was going to be an exmplanation of why it was good the bills missed the playoffs for 20 years

[JaCrispy]

2 hours ago, TheBeaneBandit said:

Also wouldn't 17 games make an odd number of home vs away games? Just doesn't sound right.

Plus, I don’t know of any sport that has an odd number of games...

[Happy]

1 hour ago, Billl said:

8 home, 8 away, 1 neutral site

 

i'd rather the NFL stop tinkering with what made it great.  But if they absolutely must do a 17 game schedule, this is an excellent suggestion.

[Laughing Coffin]

Didn't they already say what their solution is?  I thought I heard that they'll literally alternate years where a team will have 9 home games 1 year and 9 away games the next

 

I really think if they stacked an additional bye week to be held no sooner than 4 weeks after the first bye week with the 17 game proposal, it might pass.  I don't see the NFL Owners being reasonable though

Edited February 22, 2020 by Laughing Coffin

[NoSaint]

3 hours ago, stuvian said:

As the NFL continues to tamper with its golden goose to the point of the game becoming unrecognizable I offer my opposition to its latest attempt at milking the cash cow dry.

 

The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. We already have a 30 percent rate of permanent disability among retired players. One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This will weaken fan's relationships with stars and starters as the game evolves toward a platoon of unknowns. But the money you say?  One more game cheque won't matter if you're going to spend it all on painkillers and physio. We already have players retiring earlier now that CTE risks are in the public domain.

 

Where in the current schedule is the league going to insert the additional game?  After Christmas when home games in cold climates are a tougher sell?  Before labour day when the south is either unbearably hot or in hurricane season? How many more tweets of empty seats do we need to see before we understand that we have an oversupply? 

 

What makes the NFL great is that fewer games make each one meaningful. Watering down the product will make it indistinguishable from upstarts like the XFL. 

good call, let’s do 15 games.

[Zerovoltz]

@Aussie Joe hit on it already....the Patriots have played ALOT of extra games over the last 2 decades...they are fine. 

 

I want to touch on "player safety"  .....I call BS on that.  If the concern here was for the safety of players, then you have them play ZERO games of pro football.  It's a rough, dangerous, phyiscaly game that exacts a toll on the player.  Everyone knows that going into the deal.  No one is forcing anyone to play football, and if you agree to go out and play the game, there is X number of dollars that you'll be paid.  Just about everyone who is capable of playing pro football, make the choice to accept the possible consequences.  That's not to say effort shouldn't be made to find better helmets or consider different ways to do things....but "player safety" is just a negotiating term.  Football by it's nature is unsafe...they are negotiating to play an unsafe game.  It's really.....the NFL wants to add a 17th game, wich will make them more money...and in excahnge for the players agreeing to it...we'll ease up marijana testing, and share more of the pie.  That's what it comes down to......player safety?  whatever.

 

Third....I mentioned here a long time ago when it came up....and the media has said so...and it's been said in this thread as well.....the 17th Game would be a non division game at a nuetral site.  Most correctly point out that it really allows for more international games....but I think the idea of nuetral site is brilliant on the part of the NFL.  As it has gotten more difficult to get people to pay for expensive tickets at stadiums when you can stay home.....especially if your team sucks.....then have a game at a big college stadium....it would sell out due to the novelty of it....and in alot of places, fans that have a hard time making the trek, might go if it's closer to home....

 

Examples....and you could do a ton of these before you ran out combos and places to play

 

Denver VS Seattle, Boise Idaho.

Cleveland VS Detroit, Ann Arbor Michigan.

Chicago VS Indianapolis from South Bend.

Kansas City VS. Minneapolis from Lincoln, NE

Dallas VS Chargers from Albequeque

New Orleans VS Miami from Tuscaloosa

Buffalo VS NY Giants ....(you guys tell me...Carrier Dome, West Point...Yankee Stadium....IDK!)

Philly VS Pitt from Happy Valley

Redskins VS Baltimore from Blacksburg, VA

Tampa VS Tennesee from Athens, GA

San Francisco VS Cincy from Tokyo

Houston VS LA Rams from Salt Lake City

 

 

Or, as a KC fan....just these possibilities alone are interesting

 

KC Vs Chicago in St. Louis

KC Vs Dallas from Fayetteville, AR

KC Vs Minnesota in Iowa City, IA

 

And so many others. 

 

You rotate these around all over the place.....you tell me that a game between KC and Dallas in Fayettevill wouldn't sell out or be a big draw in TV?  It's like printing money.....and staying engaged with out of town fans.

 

And...Buffalo...I don't know the area....but as far as regional fan engagement....what would you do?  Toronto?  Montreal?  Syracuse?  Erie?  I am sure there are places Bills fans would travel to or who live in the area and would go to a game every other year or 2 or 3. 

 

[Saxum]

2 hours ago, Hardhatharry said:

I guess someone said this when they went from 14-16 also... And the world didn't implode.

Really? The way some complain about records being broke I am guessing they have been complaining since AFL was merged with NFL.

[Xwnyer]

4 hours ago, Steptide said:

I'm fine with 17 games. Actually I've said it shoukd be 17 vs 18. I'd like to see the NFL let teams activate their entire rosters though. Let more guys play and take some stress off the key guys 

 Ay be extend the roster to 65 and allow all to dress.  This could help relive the stress.   Maybe 17 weeks with two bye weeks is a better idea.  Five to six games than a bye than 5 or 6 next bye and than end of season.   1/2 the league does the 5 week than 6 week other half 6 week than 5

[Mr. WEO]

Hurricane season?!

 

And a 16 game schedule is what is keeping the NFL from being "indistinguishable from the XFL"!

 

Wow.  

 

The human body wasn't made for many things.  But people of all ages get hurt playing games that kids play.  They aren't paid for that though.  As NoSaint says, if this was at all a concern, why not cut down to 15 or 12 or 10?  Or just have the 2 teams with the best record in each conference play in the SB?  The simple answer his that the risk of a single extra game can't be quantified.  

 

 

Anyway, give me another game in the NFL.  I'm watching, just like every poster on this board.   Everyone will tune in just as ever.   Zero reason to believe otherwise.

[CSBill]

I’m all four 17 games, and more play-off teams. Especially if it rids us of a pre-season game, and they expand the game-day rosters. It all seems like common sense to me. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by CSBill

[djp14150]

5 hours ago, TheBeaneBandit said:

Also wouldn't 17 games make an odd number of home vs away games? Just doesn't sound right.

 

Yet the team has played international sites

 

they could make that extra game an international site or neutral site

 

8 games inUK 

2 in germany

3 in mexico

2  in Canada 

2 in australia/Asia ... in November a game could be played at noon on Sunday locally and air at 8pm ET on Saturday night.  Thus could doa Monday night air game from there . Can do the late Monday night game or late ngoni Saturday game from China.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MJS]

Let them have as many regular season games as they want. I just don't want expanded playoffs unless they add more teams to the league.

[Steve O]

6 hours ago, stuvian said:

 

The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. 

So you're saying Whaley was right

[CommonCents]

 By 2025 everyone is going to be like “oh Mark Cuban was right”

[without a drought]

The league has been garbage since going from 14 to 16 games,  so who cares at this point. 

[Bangarang]

I couldn’t care less about player safety. I’d be good with more games

[KD in CA]

10 hours ago, stuvian said:

As the NFL continues to tamper with its golden goose to the point of the game becoming unrecognizable I offer my opposition to its latest attempt at milking the cash cow dry.

 

The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. We already have a 30 percent rate of permanent disability among retired players. One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This will weaken fan's relationships with stars and starters as the game evolves toward a platoon of unknowns. But the money you say?  One more game cheque won't matter if you're going to spend it all on painkillers and physio. We already have players retiring earlier now that CTE risks are in the public domain.

 

Where in the current schedule is the league going to insert the additional game?  After Christmas when home games in cold climates are a tougher sell?  Before labour day when the south is either unbearably hot or in hurricane season? How many more tweets of empty seats do we need to see before we understand that we have an oversupply? 

 

What makes the NFL great is that fewer games make each one meaningful. Watering down the product will make it indistinguishable from upstarts like the XFL. 

 

That seems like a strange and difficult to substantiate conclusion to draw.

[LABILLBACKER]

This will be an interesting fight between the elite high contract players and the 50% of the players who make the league minimum. Good luck telling Aaron Rodgers he's only making $250k for the last game. The idea of a 7th playoff team is excellent and will generate more revenue but the NFLPA will be hard pressed to get that 17th game passed.

[eanyills]

12 hours ago, longtimebillsfan said:

My first reaction to a 17th game is that we see the real lack of concern by the NFL for player safety.  The NFL implemented the concussion protocol and modified rules to reduce injuries due to social pressure.  When there is potential to increase revenue, player safety takes a back seat every time.

It’s not like the NFL can just add a 17th game against the wishes of the NFLPA. The player’s union has to sign off on it. Now, union leadership is generally weighted towards the most tenured/powerful members and maybe that leadership has the persuasive clout to tell its members, “***** you, we are/aren’t playing a 17th game” but the majority still has to vote in favor of playing an extra game to get it done.

 

I expect it will pass, because the majority of members are lower wage/shorter playing career guys who will benefit from an extra game check. That will be the players choosing to have “player safety take a back seat.”

Edited February 23, 2020 by eanyills

[SoTier]

17 hours ago, row_33 said:

some see the danger inherent in a change but most go along thinking all change is good

 

and when the obvious problem shows up inevitably the all-change-is -good people don’t bother to care at all and look to cheer the next dangerous change

 

but you can leave that team, think a little bit...

 

 If we, as a species, didn't embrace change, we'd still be wandering naked in the warmer parts of the world, hiding from all the carnivores big enough to eat us, and grubbing/scavenging for whatever we could find to eat.  Where do you think change should have stopped?  With the use of fire?  With the domestication of the wolf?  With learning to cultivate crops?  With the invention of writing?    Where do you draw the line where you oppose more changes?   Every change brings positives and negatives, but generally, those changes make things "good" for things better in the long run.

 

5 hours ago, eanyills said:

It’s not like the NFL can just add a 17th game against the wishes of the NFLPA. The player’s union has to sign off on it. Now, union leadership is generally weighted towards the most tenured/powerful members and maybe that leadership has the persuasive clout to tell its members, “***** you, we are/aren’t playing a 17th game” but the majority still has to vote in favor of playing an extra game to get it done.

 

I expect it will pass, because the majority of members are lower wage/shorter playing career guys who will benefit from an extra game check. That will be the players choosing to have “player safety take a back seat.”

 

That's a generalization that's totally unsupported by any facts.   Why do you think that just because a player makes big $$$ that he would opposed to sharing the largess from the NFL's pot of gold with his teammates?    NFL teams stress being "a band of brothers" rather than individuals, so it's more likely that opposition to a 17th game would stem from individual perspectives not from a general divide between the elite and the rest of the players.

 

FTR, since the "union leadership" is answerable through elections to the rank-and-file, why would they favor the relatively few players making huge salaries to the detriment of the majority?  If the NFLPA leadership opposes the new CBA, it's because it's not giving the rank and file good enough salary, health insurance, and retirement benefits.