18 game regular season

[stuckincincy]

They would be adjusted for the additional game(s).

 

 

Right...more pay. So they wouldn't object. Contracts would reflect 18 regular season games. Ticket prices, parking, concessions - all would rise. The union would never accept an argument by owners, about the lesser preseason attendance.

and the owners would never argue such. They get their parking cut, concession cut etc.

 

The NFL as it exists today is something that P.T. Barnum could only dream about.

[KRC]

Right...more pay. So they wouldn't object. Contracts would reflect 18 regular season games. Ticket prices, parking, concessions - all would rise. The union would never accept an argument by owners, about the lesser preseason attendance.

and the owners would never argue such. They get their parking cut, concession cut etc.

 

The NFL as it exists today is something that P.T. Barnum could only dream about.

 

The players might object on the grounds of more risk of injury. Yes, contracts would go up that year, but over the life of their career, they might see less. The added wear and tear would shorten their careers. Therefore, the added few $100G's in one year could mean less $1MMs over the life of their career. They might not want to take that risk.

[BuffaloBill]

"The only way that I've addressed it is to tell the team that it's possibly a new chapter in the season. It's a new chapter in our book. We will write it ourselves. I don't address it other than that, and it's not any different than, really, any other week.

 

We understand the differences between a 16 game schedule and a 17 or 18 game schedule. I don't know that in my experience I've ever been anywhere as a coach -- certainly not as a head coach --where a regular season was that long. Those numbers in our game are really incredible. Would it be a challenge if it happened? Certainly there would be adjustments to make but I'd be lying if I said the team and the staff is worrying about it right now."

 

Dick Jauron when asked about a possible increase in the number of regular season games.

 

 

I know he is answering the question asked of him but this is almost painful to read. Dry is the only way to describe his response - dry as the sahara.

[stuckincincy]

The players might object on the grounds of more risk of injury. Yes, contracts would go up that year, but over the life of their career, they might see less. The added wear and tear would shorten their careers. Therefore, the added few $100G's in one year could mean less $1MMs over the life of their career. They might not want to take that risk.

 

Good points. Points to mull over...

[KRC]

Would you have to add another off week for the whole league in order to accommodate the travel which would extend the season another week. Even if you took away the one bye with each team gets with a off week to travel than you can only have one neutral site game or add another bye week which means you would have two weeks with no football.

 

Its a logistical nightmare and would add at least another three weeks to the season which means you go from 17 weeks to 20 or 21 weeks. I just don't like the whole idea of ending the season in March or having a season start in mid August.

 

Calling it a "logistical nightmare" is being a little over dramatic. You can take the existing bye week, add one more game and only add one week to the season. More regular season football, same amount of downtime. Get rid of the two weeks between the conference championships and the Super Bowl and the schedule remains the same.

 

I do not favor two additional games, nor do I see players agreeing to two additional games. One is a possibility, but they might reject it on the grounds of increased injury risk.

 

The NFL has added games in the past (multiple times) and everyone has survived. I think that everyone is going to survive if the NFL adds a game or two now.

[billsfan89]

Calling it a "logistical nightmare" is being a little over dramatic. You can take the existing bye week, add one more game and only add one week to the season. More regular season football, same amount of downtime. Get rid of the two weeks between the conference championships and the Super Bowl and the schedule remains the same.

 

I do not favor two additional games, nor do I see players agreeing to two additional games. One is a possibility, but they might reject it on the grounds of increased injury risk.

 

The NFL has added games in the past (multiple times) and everyone has survived. I think that everyone is going to survive if the NFL adds a game or two now.

 

The league loves the bye week between the superbowl it gives them time to get accomidations available and ready for the media and players. Even than I still don't think you can take away a teams bye the players like the time off and it makes it stadium scheduling more flexible for emergences (hurricanes and wild fires and other things that pop up). So I just don't think it can work out without tacking on two weeks to the season. And if you want to host a whole week of international games you might have to tack on another week.

[mousetrap08]

I think 16 games is enough. The only reason to expand to 18 is $$ for the owners and the league and I don't see the point of pushing the Superbowl back to mid/late February. The 16-game schedule puts enough rigor on the players physically & mentally, as it is.

 

Plus the starters usually don't play that much in the preseason, anyway. The last two games are usually for the fringe players trying to make the team and by the end of the season, only a handful of teams are playing the starters all 60 minutes - those being the ones who are still trying to make the playoffs.

 

Not worth it, IMO.

The only reason the nfl plays any games is for the $$$.Not because we like to watch football.If the NFL did'nt make money there would be no games

[atlbillsfan1975]

The first weekend in September should kick off the season. I know it is a holiday weekend, but lots of people have off on Monday so more could go to the game from out of town. And seriously how many you guys would not go to the game? You are gonna tell me you would rather be at the lake or a bbq? Hell have the game on. Should keep the Bye week. Just go one extra week at the end. You would have the Super Bowl the second week in February. Or you could cut it down to one week between the Confrence championship game and the Super Bowl. Thats how it was for the Bills in 90.

[Coach55]

My original post, as I know most of you are too lazy to hit the link

 

The owners are in constant discussions to expand the season to 18 games, eliminating 2 preseason games. I have a better idea. The league should consider eliminating 1 preseason game and increasing the season to 17 games. Each team would then play 1 non-divisional game at an international destination (so each team would have 8 home, 8 road and 1 independent). 2 games would be played each week from week 4 through 10, with 1 game in week 1 and week 11. Each team that would be playing in an overseas game would be either coming off or going into a bye week to allow for the extra travel time.

 

Adding an international game would help the league in so many ways:

 

1. It will increase league revenue by having a 17th regular season game

2. It will increase the NFL's world exposure (NFL Europe failed because the level of play sucked)

3. The players would enjoy the overseas game (many of the players have never travelled outside of the US and it would benefit them both socially and culturally)

4. It will allow US Expatriates to enjoy the world's greatest game live

 

Just think you could have annual games in London, Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Madrid, Mexico City, Prague, Rome, etc. Basically any major city that has a soccer stadium with capacity of 75,000+. You would need to contain to destinations less than 8-10 hours away (i.e. Asia wouldn't work unless it was 2 west coast teams). In addition, the opening game on opening weekend would be a Super Bowl rematch.

[Haven Moses]

Actually, interconference games make a huge difference in tie-breakers.

No they don't. For example take this year. Start with Atlanta and New Orleans in the first two. Have expanded rosters and even scrimmage for an extra quarter if the coaches agree.

 

 

The lure of a 17 game schedule would be neutral site games that would draw big.

[Steely Dan]

It would have to be negotiated into the new CBA. I can see the union possibly accepting one more game, but I cannot see them accepting two more games.

 

I don't think that you need to add another round to the draft. You already have plenty of players not making the squads with the current setup.

 

I think the union will go for it because it will increase revenue for the league and therefore for the players. I've seen interviews with players about this and some have expressed some of the concerns like some of the posters here have. However, most of the players didn't seem to mind. They seemed to feel the pre-season was too long and would like to turn two of those games into regular season games.

 

 

What about contract incentives for in-season statistics?

 

IIRC, MLB players lobbied to have rain-out delay stats included for that very reason.

 

The league went from 14 games to 16 games in 1978. I don't think that'll be much of a consideration. $$$$$$$ is the thing that will carry the most weight, JMO

 

If they went to 18 games, what would you rather see schedule wise?

 

1. 2 additional non-conference games from a different division, where the Bills play the NFC East and then 2 teams from the NFC West.

or

2. 2 additional conference games, similar to the 2 non-common opponents, so each team now has 4 non-commons. the Bills play the AFC West, and then play both the 3rd and 4th place teams from the other 2 divisions.

or

3. off the wall idea - 2 non conference home-and-home "rivalry games," such as Jets-Giants, Steelers-Eagles, Ravens-Redskins?

 

I like it.

 

No too much of a good thing is a bad thing. To accommodate the added dates you would have to add dates at the beginning of the year (The last weeks of August and Labor day weekend) or tack on games towards the end of the year (which means the super bowl would be played sometime around Valentines day). No thanks to both of those scenarios.

 

Or you would have to tack on a week at the beginning and one week at the end. Which means the Super bowl gets played Around February 8th and the season starts on labor day (which would be the best way to do it if you had to do it). Just don't want to see the game get over exposed. Also you have so many injuries once you reach the playoffs as is with two more games the rosters would be further depleted.

 

Also the carers of the players are already so short. If you added two games a year that would further shorten the carers of players if you play 8 years with an 18 game schedule it would be like adding a another 16 games to a players carer. I also don't think the players would like it they already go through so much in a 16 game season adding on 2 more games just seems like too much for even those guys to handle.

 

As for preseason I don't like it but I see the point. The starters only get big playing time during two games anyway. The coaching staff needs those extra games to slot backups and find out who the last guys on the roster and practice squad are going to be.

 

I think they would add a second bye week. It would give the players another week of rest and make the TV contract a 20 week schedule instead of 17. That would increase TV contract revenue a lot and since the players get a slice of that money it will help the players. The players would probably ask for an increase in the season rosters and game day rosters. I think the owners would agree to that because of the risk of more injury to a team.

 

If they do this it will coincide with the new TV contract date. JMO

 

 

The league loves the bye week between the superbowl it gives them time to get accomidations available and ready for the media and players. Even than I still don't think you can take away a teams bye the players like the time off and it makes it stadium scheduling more flexible for emergences (hurricanes and wild fires and other things that pop up). So I just don't think it can work out without tacking on two weeks to the season. And if you want to host a whole week of international games you might have to tack on another week.

 

I've heard the SB is a huge week for business' to get work done. IIRC, more contracts are made during SB week than any other week of the year. The two weeks probably won't change IMO.

 

I like the idea of having the SB played the day before Presidents Day. The biggest call in sick day of the year is the day after the SB.

This article sums up the importance and huge American interest in the game.

 

In North Carolina, four men are collecting signatures for a petition that would seek national-holiday status for the Super Bowl.

 

That official day off would be observed on a Monday, in the grand American tradition of the three-day weekend -- and in recognition of the debilitating Sunday excess of unhealthy food, strong beverage, televised sporting violence, relentless commercialism and not a small amount of gambling. No need to call in sick if the office is closed.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

SuperBowlMonday.com's statistical research, which Robert Chute said is culled from countless submissions and Internet browsings, indicates that Super Bowl plans are made, on the average, 41 days in advance of the big game, as opposed to a 35-day advance for New Year's plans and 30 days for anniversary plans. Early each autumn, Newsday's sports department begins fielding telephone calls requesting the upcoming Super Bowl date, so that personal and public schedules can be structured around the game. Chute's group contends there is no slower weekend for weddings.