TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Um, because we're not? I'm not following... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Ask the majority of fans and they are reasoning 16 games. Every single game means so much in 16 games. Bring it to 18 and it less the importance of each game. winning 10 games in a 18 game season wont mean much. winning 10 games in a 16 game schedule is really tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Ask the majority of fans and they are reasoning 16 games. Every single game means so much in 16 games. Bring it to 18 and it less the importance of each game. winning 10 games in a 18 game season wont mean much. winning 10 games in a 16 game schedule is really tough. Relative to every other sport though, you still have a huge significance placed on every single game. The difference is negligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I'm not following... Your blanket is too short, what do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I also believe too much is being made of the extended schedule. Why would any fan not want more of something they love? They polled it on ESPN the other day. Out of the sports fans visiting ESPN's website, 76% favored a 16 game schedule vs 24% for an 18 game schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 They polled it on ESPN the other day. Out of the sports fans visiting ESPN's website, 76% favored a 16 game schedule vs 24% for an 18 game schedule. That doesn't make ANY ****ing sense. People are thinking wayy too much about this. That, or they're just siding with the players/labor and everything they're saying. People DON'T want more football..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 18 game season means you'd have to play each division oponent three times for it to mean anything. I'm against the 18 game season. I think they've got it just right, right now. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Condescending tone aside, I completely agree with him that, in my opinion, some of those defending the players probably don't really care about the well-being of the players. I could be wrong, but I just wouldn't be surprised if some people just automatically side with labor in these cases. It is great if some worry about these players and their health, but I think that is the exception. At the end ofbthe day, most of us just want football to return...it is a team-driven sport more than any other. I'm with him on the 18 games schedule. Why are so many of ya'll against that? To me more meaningful football is better then a 4th preseason game that no one gives a crap about and almost never sell out. If the players are gonna play the game then make it count. Don't show me scrubs and stupidity. Even in a 16 game season your still playing the same amount of games. 4 preseason for every team not in the hall of fame game and 16 regular season games. If you make it an 18 game season then you just make 2 preseason games really count and are regular season games. Either way you look at it it's 20 games a year. If they give the coaches more time to practice in off-season you get all the evaluation time you need. The teams would be ready to go after 2 preseason games. The injury risk is always there. It can happen in the 4th preseason game just like the 1st or the 16th. It's a dangerous game, the risks are known to anyone who ever played it. Kinda comes with the territory to me. I don't understand why anyones against this. Its one more home game and one more away game for everyone. I support the 18 game season idea and actually love the idea. Who's against football anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 18 games = diluted product, and makes the game a war of attrition, not skill. People for the "enhanced system" are selfishly oblivious to how this will effect the quality of the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 That doesn't make ANY ****ing sense. People are thinking wayy too much about this. That, or they're just siding with the players/labor and everything they're saying. People DON'T want more football..? No,they don't. Otherwise leagues like the XFL,USFL and Arena League would be wildly popular and still in existence. Fans want a quality product. Just look at the uproar that occurs now when a team wraps up it's division and playoff seeding in week 14 and rests starters the last two weeks. Those games are horrible. That's the fans main beef with the preseason: stars aren't on the field and you're watching an inferior product. Folks don't want to pay for an inferior product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 18 games = diluted product, and makes the game a war of attrition, not skill. People for the "enhanced system" are selfishly oblivious to how this will effect the quality of the product. I'm not oblivious, I just refuse to believe that *boom* add 2 games, snap your fingers, and all the sudden, the most exciting, dramatic sport in the world is 'diluted' garbage. Give me a break, its 2 GAMES. How does 2 games remove the skill? It's already a war of attrition on some level, and in certain situations. It wouldn't be 2 meaningless games to 'ride out' while you put your skill on the shelf. Everyone will have to play 18 that COUNT, so there will be the same exciting playoff hunts/pushes. Keep in mind, they made the last week of the season divisional so that teams WOULDN'T 'ride it out' and it seemed to work nicely. THAT was a good idea, and I think 18 games is too. Diesel- I see what you mean, but as I said above, I believe they did a nice fix with the last week divisional. It could stay that way, and the extra games in between are just a couple more battles before you deal with your division at the end of the year. I just don't get why people feel so strongly about this. Is it that you're worried they'll continue to expand the season? That you're afraid of something like a 24 game season? If so, is the solution to just freeze it, and never change anything? I would think the problem people have is with the intent of an 18 game season. That the owners want it just for more revenue. And since the word 'revenue' is getting thrown around so much, it comes with a negative light for some reason.. there's nothing wrong with trying to get more revenue, especially if you're doing it by delivering more of your product people love so much. So it's at the expense of the players. Sorry, I thought they loved playing football..? If I'm so crazy for wanting more NFL, then some folks have got to be a bit crazy for looking into the future and claiming there will be all this watered down meaningless football being played. You couldn't say that with certainty, in fact, it's say it's pretty unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I'm with him on the 18 games schedule. Why are so many of ya'll against that? To me more meaningful football is better then a 4th preseason game that no one gives a crap about and almost never sell out. If the players are gonna play the game then make it count. Don't show me scrubs and stupidity. Even in a 16 game season your still playing the same amount of games. 4 preseason for every team not in the hall of fame game and 16 regular season games. If you make it an 18 game season then you just make 2 preseason games really count and are regular season games. Either way you look at it it's 20 games a year. If they give the coaches more time to practice in off-season you get all the evaluation time you need. The teams would be ready to go after 2 preseason games. The injury risk is always there. It can happen in the 4th preseason game just like the 1st or the 16th. It's a dangerous game, the risks are known to anyone who ever played it. Kinda comes with the territory to me. I don't understand why anyones against this. Its one more home game and one more away game for everyone. I support the 18 game season idea and actually love the idea. Who's against football anyway? For the same reason you should get a longer blanket if your blanket is too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 18 games = diluted product, and makes the game a war of attrition, not skill. People for the "enhanced system" are selfishly oblivious to how this will effect the quality of the product. Again it's the same game if you called it a preseason game or a regular season game. The difference is that one matters and another doesn't, what dilution are you seeing if the only difference is the standings? And I gotta disagree Bang on that why would it require playing your division opponents three times? We play 16 games now, 6 to 10 clip against division and other opponents. Your suggesting 9 to 9? Ratios are all wrong like that. If you had 6 to 12 is more reasonable and what they would do. ---------- Post added February-13th-2011 at 09:07 PM ---------- For the same reason you should get a longer blanket if your blanket is too short. Ok that went over my head you want to break that down for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dub70s Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 This is all a bunch of over paid manhood BS.....18 games, pay increase, and expand the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I'm against the 18 game season because it will give the refs, the comissioner, and whoever else wants flag football, to come up with more ridiculous rules. I'd rather watch a 12 game season under the old rules than what we see now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I'm against the 18 game season because it will give the refs, the comissioner, and whoever else wants flag football, to come up with more ridiculous rules.I'd rather watch a 12 game season under the old rules than what we see now. I agree with you but that's not gonna happen. The rules are being pushed by people with the opinion this is more dangerous today then it ever used to be. I don't know if that's the case or more so that all these business deals made by these companies want to protect there investments so will turn this into flag football eventually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Again it's the same game if you called it a preseason game or a regular season game. The difference is that one matters and another doesn't, what dilution are you seeing if the only difference is the standings? And I gotta disagree Bang on that why would it require playing your division opponents three times? We play 16 games now, 6 to 10 clip against division and other opponents. Your suggesting 9 to 9? Ratios are all wrong like that. If you had 6 to 12 is more reasonable and what they would do. 6 out of 18 makes them almost meaningless. The division should mean something, it should mean almost everything. If you don't play well within your division, you're going to have a hard time getting to the playoffs, even though there's ten games out of division to make up the ground. With 12 games to cover it, it really just makes division games almost pointless. One opther thing I like about the way it's set up now is everyone in the division plays practically the exact same schedule, with the exception of 2 games. I think what that has done is make the division even that much more of an accomplishment, because you all run pretty much the same gauntlet. It's a very good indication of who is actually the division champion. With four games left up to parity scheduling,, well, water that on down as well. I also believe that an extra two games means increased roster sizes to cover the wear and tear. I'd say at least 3 more roster spots should be added. And what that does is allows almost 100 players into the league that weren't good enough a year prior. Even if you increase it by two, that's 64 practice squadders and waiver wire bums that suit up. That will definitely water down the league. 18 games means you have to re-write the record books. 2000 yards rushing in a season is going to start becoming more commonplace, likewise 4000 yard passers, 40 TD passes in a season, etc. All the benchmarks of excellence will have to be re-marked to account for two more games to "accomplish" these feats. Someone mentioned above how it would become more a war of attrition than it already is. It's only two more games, sure. But it's less recuperation time in the offseason, and players need that. An NFL player puts his body thru an enormous amount of punishment. (I read a study once that BMW conducted.. they concluded that during an average football game, a starting player sustains the same concussive force as three head on car accidents at 35 MPH. Every week.) They need recovery time. Without it, an injury this year nags into next year, and possibly throughout a career. It will dilute the product. Someone else also made the point that every competing league has failed. People want to see more than football. They want to see GOOD football. Early on in the thread someone wrote that "blah blah blah, the owners will hire replacements, and people will watch." No they won't. They didn't in the past. In 87 they tried that and no one cared. No one showed up. Even when the NFL players got together and played two "all star games".. east vs west.. no one showed up. They played in front of literally dozens of people. The only fan base with any recollection of their replacements is us, because of the game vs Dallas... which hardly any of us watched. We want NFL football. It's the best professional football product there is. Ever watch Canadian league? It's an old established league, and people who can't play here go there. And it sucks. The level of play is so inferior it's barely enough to keep any interest for more than 5 minutes. This is why competing leagues always fail. They cannot compete with the best, even when they try to do it in the spring with no other football competition on TV. I used to be all for the 18 game season. But the more I've thought about it, the more I believe they've got it right, right now. More football does not mean better football. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 For the same reason you should get a longer blanket if your blanket is too short. You've done this twice now...do you want to just make your point or explain your analogy? How does keeping the schedule at 16 games equate to getting a longer blanket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 You've done this twice now...do you want to just make your point or explain your analogy? How does keeping the schedule at 16 games equate to getting a longer blanket? I mean really, amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Someone needs to make a poll about the 18 game season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Bang, you make some really good points, but I'm going to have to sell the one about scrubs making it onto rosters. You've gotta keep in mind, they didn't make rosters because they're wasn't enough room, not just because they were bums. And I think it's awfully petty to think 3 extra players that you won't really even notice will create this watered down game that you suggest. 6 out of 18 makes them almost meaningless. The division should mean something, it should mean almost everything. If you don't play well within your division, you're going to have a hard time getting to the playoffs, even though there's ten games out of division to make up the ground. With 12 games to cover it, it really just makes division games almost pointless. I see what you mean. Last year was a good example. Just ask the Giants and Bucs. And Seahawks. But 2 more games would just make the gauntlet a bit longer, and who's to say teams still can't play the same gauntlet? With 12 non division games, maybe they could turn that into 3 whole other divisions you could play..2 NFC and one AFC. Then the 'gauntlet' would be even more similar. What you're talking about should maybe be a different rule altogether, no matter how many games the season has. You're suggesting that a team who sweeps its division (6-0) but loses everything else should be in at 6-10. Maybe not entirely, but that's what you're leaning toward at least. Changing the marks for records is unfortunate, but really inevitable. It's already been happening, as the league has become more pass-happy. And I don't really see how it steals recovery time from anyone. We're assuming this won't make the regular season go 2 weeks into January, rather, it starts sooner, when the preseason usually is. And although those guys aren't playing their hardest in preseason, they're still getting those 35MPH hits. This just means it counts. People do want to see GOOD football, and, again, I think it's awfully petty to think that 2 games will turn good football into bad football just like that. That's not the reason the CFL sucks, or why the XFL failed. And it's not comparable to replacement games. People didn't watch them for an entirely different reason. And btw, why no labor negotiation cartoon? It's a gold mine, man, would practically write itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 For better football, I think they need to keep the number of regular season games the same, and increase the roster size. Reward teams that establish deep rotations of talent. Have less situations, for example, where a QB has to come in to punt or kick. I imagine teams would instead stock up on rotational guys like DL or corners, but that points to a need for more roster spots there as well. Just off-hand go from 45-active and 8-practice, to around 50-active and 11-practice, and see if that helps improve team play. Maybe CUT the number of pre-season games by one. If coaches overwhelmingly agree to that. If that helps the players by giving them an extra "week off", good as well. (yeah yeah I believe there is no offseason, really) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasthunder Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 According to ESPN's Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter, the NFL and the NFL Players Association are expected to meet this week to continue CBA talks, as scheduled. The talks broke off last week because the owners were not satisfied with the manner in which the NFLPA unveiled their documents "as something other than a collective bargaining proposal." There remains "growing discord and mistrust" between the two sides. The owners continue to be "unreasonable" while union boss DeMaurice Smith ruffled feathers by going public with details of last week's meeting. Source: ESPN.com As for the 16 to 18 games, I would much rather see 18 games that have meaning, and no preseason games, then have the BS where a player gets injured in a meaningless pre-season game. For 17 years the NFL played 14 games, and then they switched to 16 games (I believe 1978 ??), the game didnt get watered down, it got stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Bang, you make some really good points, but I'm going to have to sell the one about scrubs making it onto rosters. You've gotta keep in mind, they didn't make rosters because they're wasn't enough room, not just because they were bums. And I think it's awfully petty to think 3 extra players that you won't really even notice will create this watered down game that you suggest. I see what you mean. Last year was a good example. Just ask the Giants and Bucs. And Seahawks. But 2 more games would just make the gauntlet a bit longer, and who's to say teams still can't play the same gauntlet? With 12 non division games, maybe they could turn that into 3 whole other divisions you could play..2 NFC and one AFC. Then the 'gauntlet' would be even more similar. What you're talking about should maybe be a different rule altogether, no matter how many games the season has. You're suggesting that a team who sweeps its division (6-0) but loses everything else should be in at 6-10. Maybe not entirely, but that's what you're leaning toward at least. Changing the marks for records is unfortunate, but really inevitable. It's already been happening, as the league has become more pass-happy. And I don't really see how it steals recovery time from anyone. We're assuming this won't make the regular season go 2 weeks into January, rather, it starts sooner, when the preseason usually is. And although those guys aren't playing their hardest in preseason, they're still getting those 35MPH hits. This just means it counts. People do want to see GOOD football, and, again, I think it's awfully petty to think that 2 games will turn good football into bad football just like that. That's not the reason the CFL sucks, or why the XFL failed. And it's not comparable to replacement games. People didn't watch them for an entirely different reason. And btw, why no labor negotiation cartoon? It's a gold mine, man, would practically write itself Man, i have no time for cartoons at the moment, and don't think it's not killin' me. I've got ideas busting out from behind my ears. I can barely find enough time to come in here and yuk it up with you guys. ( to clarify, I wasn't comparing these extra 2 games to replacement games, , someone had said earlier in the thread that the coming lockout would result in replacements, and we'd watch. From experience, i can safely say we won't. ) See, those players we're talking about dont make rosters now because they aren't good enough, or in some cases, they're too young or raw and need development time on practice squads. To expand the roster by default allows people in that aren't able to cut it without that extra space. The reasoning that they are only on the outs due to roster size can go on and on and on down to the lowliest scrub, and even lower,, like where Danny Smith finds his kickers. Hell, the only reason I'm not on a roster myself is that there isn't enough room. I think that 2 games will dilute the product significantly, not just because it's "only two games" but because it's two whole regular season games. That's a LOT when it comes to the playing life of a professional football player. A player starting next year will have effectively played nine full seasons in only eight, for example. That may not seem like much, but put that on your star running back and look how much faster you've got to replace him. Your OL, your DL.. the guys who carry the most weight and absorb the most punishment,, they'll drop like flies, because not only are you adding to their workload, you're decreasing their recovery time. As they go down, chances raise that quarterbacks go down, and then we get new bull**** rules to protect them, and so on and so on and so on.. dilution. Changing the marks by having offense adapt new strategies like the more open passing game is inevitable, but it's a natural evolution of football. These records and marks I'm talking about will be reached with the assistance of extra games, on top of the new offensive innovations. Innovation is what SHOULD shatter records, not just increased opportunity due to more playing time. It's like if they decided to start timing 100m dashes in the Olympics after they'd already run 10m. Someone else mentioned earlier that the war of attrition was recently won by the Packers, who overcame injuries and won the Super Bowl after playing four postseason games. That's great for them, but now it will be a 22 game grind to do that, and it won't be over til March. It's already a grind. Teams like GB who overcome so much injury are the exception, far from the rule. Usually injuries make or break a season more than any other factor. It could go the other way and begin in August, which means going to camp earlier.. and again decreasing the recovery time. Two more weeks to the season means free agency has to start almost immediately after the Super Bowl, and mini camps not far after, and then boom it's the draft, and these guys still have aches and pains from the season that just ended. Rookies coming in will effectively see their schedule almost doubled or more, depending on their preseason play time, which for rooks is usaully pretty significant. and that means they won't be as effective, and will require more play-in time to acclimate. Coaching interviews and hires are also now condensed, and a new coach coming into a team has had his prep time drastically cut as he evaluates his team, and looks at free agency and the draft. He's behind the 8 ball immediately, and so is the team trying to improve by hiring him.. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Two games is 12.5% increase to a sport that is already a medical drama by the end of the season. It's not needed and the vast majority of fans don't want it. Who does? Owners because they get a chance to make more money. Players don't. Fans don't. Plus your season tickets will be more expensive as you are forced to buy tickets to two games you'd rather not exist. Oh joy. This lock out is simple to understand. Less money for more work is what is being offered. The "smaller piece of a larger pie" argument needs to come with a time line because the massive shift in income I see the owners proposing 2 billion off the top instead of 1 and a 50/50 spilt of the rest instead of 60/40 is a *HUGE* decrease that is coupled with increased games. No way in hell players agree to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.