Adam Schefter: "CBA has no chance"

[redskins55]

Its all the owner's faults...

The owners are the ones that started building these huge lavish stadiums and offering these outrageous contracts to rookies and free agents to generate interest in their football teams to grow revenue. Merchandising, ticket sales, concessions, TV interests all generate more money than we can ever imagine. So now that the economy has stalled and the owners have stopped making as much money as they used to, they are attempting to find ways to generate the money to increase their profits. But the players arn't buying it and rightfully so. As a player why would you give up your money just to make the boss more money? Why would you give back the money that the owners started dishing out simply because they arn't profiting as much. Players realized the game in the 80's, that the owners don't pay astronomical amounts of money to sign players because they are good. They pay the money to generate more money for the football organization.

Dont get anything misconstrued.. The owners arnt losing money, they just arnt making the same percentage as they were when the economy was booming. But they are sill turning huge profits. As owners they should agree not to pay the outrageous sums of money to players, and agree to deal with the lowered profits until the economy comes back. When the players take the money we the fans should not get mad at the players. Its the owners who started all this in the first place trying to one up on each other. And its the owners who need to suffer the consequences of what they started.

[Siven]

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.

.

As a former season ticket holder you already paid full price for the two worthless pre-season games.. so you had to buy 10 games at 100 per ticket.. of which 20% of your investment was pointless.. but considering how the skins have been playing it was much closer to 100%

[CM916]

No,they don't. Otherwise leagues like the XFL,USFL and Arena League would be wildly popular and still in existence.

.

Um, the Arena Football League just completed its 23rd season last August and are already gearing up for the 24th with preseason games starting as early as next week. Just about all of the original teams are back now plus a couple expansion franchises. Tampa Bay continued to average 14,500 fans a game as though they never even took a year off (with a high of 17,000 in a 20,000 seat arena). There's a game on NFL Network every Friday, it really annoys me that people still think it's shut down.

The USFL enjoyed massive fan support but failed due to owner stupidity and I'm not even going to touch the XFL, I'll concede that one. Also, the UFL is going to play at least one more season before it finally goes bankrupt. Three out of five franchises draw strong attendence and one even sells out despite the complete lack of advertising.

That said, I'm still against the 18 game schedule. Arena Football got the jump on that for this season so we will see how it plays out. The only thing I like about it is that I get an extra night out in downtown Tampa, I've had season tickets for three seasons and it's true that I can't get enough of the gameday experience. That's a selfish reason though. It's still going to dilute the product in the long run and make it much harder to sustain a good season. In the AFL, I think it's going to mean more 72-20 games against injury-plagued scrub expansion teams. I love blowouts myself but I know most people don't.

[Bang]

Um, the Arena Football League just completed its 23rd season last August and are already gearing up for the 24th with preseason games starting as early as next week. Just about all of the original teams are back now plus a couple expansion franchises. Tampa Bay continued to average 14,500 fans a game as though they never even took a year off (with a high of 17,000 in a 20,000 seat arena). There's a game on NFL Network every Friday, it really annoys me that people still think it's shut down.

The USFL enjoyed massive fan support but failed due to owner stupidity and I'm not even going to touch the XFL, I'll concede that one. Also, the UFL is going to play at least one more season before it finally goes bankrupt. Three out of five franchises draw strong attendence and one even sells out despite the complete lack of advertising.

That said, I'm still against the 18 game schedule. Arena Football got the jump on that for this season so we will see how it plays out. The only thing I like about it is that I get an extra night out in downtown Tampa, I've had season tickets for three seasons and it's true that I can't get enough of the gameday experience. That's a selfish reason though. It's still going to dilute the product in the long run and make it much harder to sustain a good season. In the AFL, I think it's going to mean more 72-20 games against injury-plagued scrub expansion teams. I love blowouts myself but I know most people don't.

I don't count Arena football as a competing league.

they are a completely different game, and they use inferior talent.

I've yet to become interested in it, but I'm glad it exists.

In the USFL a couple of teams drew well, the Generals, etc. Most teams were in financial trouble early on, and fans didn't support it as they had hoped. Couple that with owners writing contracts they could not cover as they tried to pry talent away from the NFL, and yet another competitor falls by the wayside.

It's a fact that no matter what, a competing football league simply cannot get the same level of talent without going broke.

There is no competition to the NFL.

~Bang

[TimmySmith]

I wish everyone would stop with "the fans don't want 18 games" bs. The NFL has proven without question that the fans will watch what is put in front of them and the players will play the schedule regardless of what it is. Take it to the bank that there will be no CBA without 18 games, probably starting in 2012. And everyone will watch all 18 games, you can take that to the bank also.

[HailGreen28]

I don't count Arena football as a competing league. they are a completely different game, and they use inferior talent. I've yet to become interested in it, but I'm glad it exists.

But... but... Kurt Warner!

I think the if NFL won't actively use The Arena league or USFL as a minor league, the Skins ought to.

[darklight1216]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6107737

.

Wow that's crazy. It makes me wonder what will be done to make up for it. Will the the states for example, increase fines for driving infractions?

The players will cave in and take what the owners give them. A deal will get done.

Of course, don't you know the golden rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

I wish everyone would stop with "the fans don't want 18 games" bs. The NFL has proven without question that the fans will watch what is put in front of them and the players will play the schedule regardless of what it is. Take it to the bank that there will be no CBA without 18 games, probably starting in 2012. And everyone will watch all 18 games, you can take that to the bank also.

I think when people say "fans don't want it" they really mean that fans aren't demanding it. Goodell sometimes makes it sound like the fans are insisting on an 18 game season or else, and that is simply not the case.

[TheGoodBits]

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.

.

To build on this a little... Over the course of an 8 year career, the two games amounts to an entire extra season of wear and tear on the player's bodies. I would really rather not get into the situation where you see star players having to retire in their early 30s because their bodies just can't take it anymore. NFL careers are short enough as it is.

[Bang]

I wish everyone would stop with "the fans don't want 18 games" bs. The NFL has proven without question that the fans will watch what is put in front of them and the players will play the schedule regardless of what it is. Take it to the bank that there will be no CBA without 18 games, probably starting in 2012. And everyone will watch all 18 games, you can take that to the bank also.

We put up with a lot that we don't like.. such as the ridiculous rules governing receptions, or the ridiculous rules protecting quarterbacks, or the ridiculous fnes they steal from defenders for playing football.

And since we as fans don't really have a choice in what they put in front of us, we will watch, but we will watch an increasingly inferior product.

More is not always better.

~Bang

[TimmySmith]

I think when people say "fans don't want it" they really mean that fans are demanding it. Goodell sometimes makes it sound like the fans are insisting on an 18 game season or else, and that is simply not the case.

I assume you meant "aren't". The reality is the NFL knows that pre-season is a farce. Back in the day at RFK purchasing pre-season tickets was not mandatory. Now, people are paying full price for a product that is not NFL caliber, and they are not happy about it. In a way, fans are demanding it, and the NFL is trying to give it to them. The fans are not the driving force, but the Owners see this as a win-win. I don't buy the players' "injury" concerns either, that is just a bargaining chip. It's all about money.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

To build on this a little... Over the course of an 8 year career, the two games amounts to an entire extra season of wear and tear on the player's bodies. I would really rather not get into the situation where you see star players having to retire in their early 30s because their bodies just can't take it anymore. NFL careers are short enough as it is.

The NFL is not player-driven. If, out of the kindness of your heart, you would feel bad if these players were losing out on an additional year of their careers, that's very nice. However, when it comes to the NFL, the stars change every 5 years as it is. Look at the "studs" from 2006. Granted, there is some carryover (mostly with QBs), but some of the names from that list are Tomlinson, Barber, Favre, Palmer, Bulger, etc. Stars turnover in the NFL and the fans don't care (all that much) because fans care about TEAMS.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 09:26 AM ----------

We put up with a lot that we don't like.. such as the ridiculous rules governing receptions, or the ridiculous rules protecting quarterbacks, or the ridiculous fnes they steal from defenders for playing football.

And since we as fans don't really have a choice in what they put in front of us, we will watch, but we will watch an increasingly inferior product.

More is not always better.

~Bang

Did the quality go down in the 70s when the NFL went from 14 to 16 games? Popularity sure sky-rocketed since then, but I wasn't around to be able to notice if the quality of play was impacted.

[darklight1216]

I assume you meant "aren't". The reality is the NFL knows that pre-season is a farce. Back in the day at RFK purchasing pre-season tickets was not mandatory. Now, people are paying full price for a product that is not NFL caliber, and they are not happy about it. In a way, fans are demanding it, and the NFL is trying to give it to them. The fans are not the driving force, but the Owners see this as a win-win. I don't buy the players' "injury" concerns either, that is just a bargaining chip. It's all about money.

Yeah that was a typo.

I can see your point, but I think that fans would be just as happy if the pre-season games were cheaper. I mean if those four games were a third of the price, you probably wouldn't hear a peep out of the fans.... but like you said it is all about the money.

[clskinsfan]

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.

I am already paying for 4 games that I dont want. Now I will only have to pay for 2. And to say the fans dont want it is wrong. All of the polls I have seen show the fans favor the 18 game schedule by a wide margin.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Verizon aggressively wrestled the NFL exclusive wireless partner tag away from Sprint Nextel earlier this year via a $720 million pact. Included in this agreement were the rights to broadcast games on its V-Cast network, and also the use of NFL players in its commercials. The Indianapolis Colts’ Peyton Manning was particularly desirable because he has proven his acumen as a pitch man for a number of products over the last decade. Regardless, if the entire 2011 season is locked out, Verizon Wireless has the ability to sue for breach of contract and could seek up to $750 million in damages.

[/Quote]

This is scary...

[TimmySmith]

Did the quality go down in the 70s when the NFL went from 14 to 16 games? Popularity sure sky-rocketed since then, but I wasn't around to be able to notice if the quality of play was impacted.

You can probably credit the change in the number of games to the change in the attitude of the NFL. It went from "North Dallas Forty" to "Any Given Sunday" almost overnight, and the teams whose business plans and organizational plans (Like the 49ers and Skins) were the most solid, took over the NFL. The teams that were "old school" and player driven like the Steelers and Cowboys, started their decline. That changing of the guard, plus rules encouraging offense, and a change in the playoff system, really brought in fans. The quality in play actually skyrocketed in most senses.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This is scary...

Things like that are great...incentive to play football should make all of us happy.

Honestly, whether you tend to side with the owners or the players, does anyone here really care who "wins" this dispute? I tend to side with the owners (but not by a large margin) and I couldn't care less what resolution they come to as long as there is football.

[KDawg]

This is scary...

No. That's good. It means we'll likely see football.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You can probably credit the change in the number of games to the change in the attitude of the NFL. It went from "North Dallas Forty" to "Any Given Sunday" almost overnight, and the teams whose business plans and organizational plans (Like the 49ers and Skins) were the most solid, took over the NFL. The teams that were "old school" and player driven like the Steelers and Cowboys, started their decline. That changing of the guard, plus rules encouraging offense, and a change in the playoff system, really brought in fans. The quality in play actually skyrocketed in most senses.

That makes sense.

I wonder if a 14% increase in the number of games 30+ years ago didn't crush the quality of the game why a 12% increase in games (during an era with better conditioning, etc.) would do so? I don't see the validity in that argument.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

That makes sense.

I wonder if a 14% increase in the number of games 30+ years ago didn't crush the quality of the game why a 12% increase in games (during an era with better conditioning, etc.) would do so? I don't see the validity in that argument.

The NFL was almost certainly under-valued in the 70s. Since 1976, the NFL has added 5 teams, increased the number of regular season games by 2, and expanded the playoffs. At the end of the day, an 18 game schedule will become the new norm, but there was a demand for more football in the 70s that I just don't see today. As it stands, the season is taking us into February.

MLB, the NBA, and the NHL are all examples of sports with too many teams and regular seasons that are far too long. Most reasonable fans in all those sports would like to see a reduction in the regular season. Baseball, in particular, needs to go back to a 150 game schedule since the Wild Card (which is awesome) has pushed the sport into November. And I still think the NHL needs to cut nearly all the teams below the Mason Dixon Line.

This is largely a matter of feel, but the NFL seems to be right at its saturation point. With Sunday Ticket, I literally give up 17 entire Sundays to the sport along with 17 Monday evenings and a good number of Thursday nights. In the last year, it's been starting to feel like too much. And I'm nuts. And I know how I am: Once I say, I just can't devote the time to Monday Night Football anymore, it will be a real easy jump to stop watching a lot of Sundays. The NHL lost me in the 90s, because it became a chore to follow the league and the quality of play declined.

A longer season will lead to more injuries which will lead to even more draconian rules which will lower the level of play - which already feels like it is teetering on something dangerous now. Roger Goodell should be forced to watch the Saints roll out of the corpse of Julius Jones in a playoff game on an endless loop until he sees the future.

[Bang]

The NFL is not player-driven. If, out of the kindness of your heart, you would feel bad if these players were losing out on an additional year of their careers, that's very nice. However, when it comes to the NFL, the stars change every 5 years as it is. Look at the "studs" from 2006. Granted, there is some carryover (mostly with QBs), but some of the names from that list are Tomlinson, Barber, Favre, Palmer, Bulger, etc. Stars turnover in the NFL and the fans don't care (all that much) because fans care about TEAMS.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 09:26 AM ----------

Did the quality go down in the 70s when the NFL went from 14 to 16 games? Popularity sure sky-rocketed since then, but I wasn't around to be able to notice if the quality of play was impacted.

No, it didn't really show much change, but at the same time we didn't have as many teams, so the added roster slots (8 of them I believe) were covered because the dispersal of talent was among a smaller set of teams. I believe over time it has been shown that the league can sustain a 16 game season. As I've said above, I believe that this is the optimum.

The big benchmarks remain as goals that are meaningful.. it's still hard to throw for 4000 yards or rush for 2000 for example.

Now we've got four more teams than we had then. There are 436 more players in the league then there was at that time of the 16 game expansion. If we add another 100+.. I just can't help but believe we're going to see a steadily declining product .

Plus, you have to factor in the major differences in the league, namely player movement, which was pretty much non-existant then. Trades happened, but a "free agent" was a guy who nobody wanted. Teams like Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburgh, the 70s powerhouses,, they maintained basically the same roster throughout their glory runs.

As it is, with free agency and unlimited player movement like we have now we already have seen teams become collections of haves and have nots. Teams are populated by rosters that take into account that one or two or three guys are making the lion's share of the cash, and with the cap, that doesn't leave much room for the middle of the road meat -n- taters type players that are indispensable. (Monte Coleman, etc.)

Add more people to the roster, that pie gets smaller and those guys who are those types either get shoved aside for cheaper options, or they take their highlight reel and try to go cash in elsewhere (and remain the same player.).

~Bang

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The NFL was almost certainly under-valued in the 70s. Since 1976' date=' the NFL has added 5 teams, increased the number of regular season games by 2, and expanded the playoffs. At the end of the day, an 18 game schedule will become the new norm, but there was a demand for more football in the 70s that I just don't see today. As it stands, the season is taking us into February.[/quote']

While I agree about the timing (February), I don't see how you can say that the demand for more football isn't there. We now have a channel that is dedicated to around-the-clock league programming. They play old games that people watch. They televise the combine and the draft now spans an entire weekend. If those things don't constitute demand, what was happening in the 1970s??

MLB' date=' the NBA, and the NHL are all examples of sports with too many teams and regular seasons that are far too long. Most reasonable fans in all those sports would like to see a reduction in the regular season. Baseball, in particular, needs to go back to a 150 game schedule since the Wild Card (which is awesome) has pushed the sport into November. And I still think the NHL needs to cut nearly all the teams below the Mason Dixon Line.[/quote']

I actually agree with you 100% when it comes to the other sports. However, baseball season runs for 162 games and spans 6 months even if you don't make the playoffs. Basketball and hockey have over 80 games and take up even more of the calendar than that! Football still only runs for 4 months (September through December) unless you make the playoffs. Adding two more games/weeks isn't even putting it in the same ballpark as the rest of those sports.

This is largely a matter of feel' date=' but the NFL seems to be right at its saturation point. With Sunday Ticket, I literally give up 17 entire Sundays to the sport along with 17 Monday evenings and a good number of Thursday nights. In the last year, it's been starting to feel like too much. And I'm nuts. And I know how I am: Once I say, I just can't devote the time to Monday Night Football anymore, it will be a real easy jump to stop watching a lot of Sundays. The NHL lost me in the 90s, because it became a chore to follow the league and the quality of play declined.

A longer season will lead to more injuries which will lead to even more draconian rules which will lower the level of play - which already feels like it is teetering on something dangerous now. Roger Goodell should be forced to watch the Saints roll out of the corpse of Julius Jones in a playoff game on an endless loop until he sees the future.[/quote']

Well, that seems more like your personal tolerance than anything else. I'm not doubting that you're a die hard (I know better from reading your posts), but I have a hard time believing that these games will go unwatched or be played in front of apathetic audiences. Just as you believe we're saturated, I'm not so sure we are. But, that's just my opinion. From a timing standpoint, the NFL has the advantage that nothing happens in February. If they extend into the middle of that month (remember, that's just the playoffs...so 4 teams or so), they aren't bumping up against anything that might take interest away.

No, it didn't really show much change, but at the same time we didn't have as many teams, so the added roster slots (8 of them I believe) were covered because the dispersal of talent was among a smaller set of teams. I believe over time it has been shown that the league can sustain a 16 game season. As I've said above, I believe that this is the optimum.

The big benchmarks remain as goals that are meaningful.. it's still hard to throw for 4000 yards or rush for 2000 for example.

Now we've got four more teams than we had then. There are 436 more players in the league then there was at that time of the 16 game expansion. If we add another 100+.. I just can't help but believe we're going to see a steadily declining product .

Plus, you have to factor in the major differences in the league, namely player movement, which was pretty much non-existant then. Trades happened, but a "free agent" was a guy who nobody wanted. Teams like Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburgh, the 70s powerhouses,, they maintained basically the same roster throughout their glory runs.

As it is, with free agency and unlimited player movement like we have now we already have seen teams become collections of haves and have nots. Teams are populated by rosters that take into account that one or two or three guys are making the lion's share of the cash, and with the cap, that doesn't leave much room for the middle of the road meat -n- taters type players that are indispensable. (Monte Coleman, etc.)

Add more people to the roster, that pie gets smaller and those guys who are those types either get shoved aside for cheaper options, or they take their highlight reel and try to go cash in elsewhere (and remain the same player.).

~Bang

But, at the time, you were taking guys who wouldn't have played pro football and making them pro football players. That's all you're doing now. And, you have arguably a much larger pool to draw from. There are so many more talented players in colleges no one has ever heard of. Also, every year you see nobodies becoming good players in the league...not just taking up roster spots because we've run out of real players, but becoming legitimate NFL players. Those guys might not have ever gotten a chance to succeed in the past.

As for records and stats, that really doesn't bother me personally. The numbers are creeping up anyway and really nobody seems to lose sleep about Brady and Manning having two extra games on some QBs from the 1960s and 1970s. The only time you even hear the 14-game schedule referred to is as a caveat to the Dolphins' perfect 1972 season. I think it's just not a big deal to people because football doesn't have those magic records that are in jeopardy. Maybe I'm in the minority, but can anyone tell me the (off the top of their heads) what the single season passing, rushing, receiving records are? When it comes to career stats, it seems that a major point being made is that an 18-game schedule would decrease the length of players' careers. If that's true, then the integrity of career stats would take care of itself in a way.

Lastly, I'm not really pro-18 games, per se. I just don't get the uproar against it. I think it's inevitable and I don't think it's a big deal. On a very fundamental level, if someone is saying that I might get two extra Redskin games per year and have two extra weeks of NFL football before the off-season, I'm going to be happy about that as a fan.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

No, it didn't really show much change, but at the same time we didn't have as many teams, so the added roster slots (8 of them I believe) were covered because the dispersal of talent was among a smaller set of teams. I believe over time it has been shown that the league can sustain a 16 game season. As I've said above, I believe that this is the optimum.

The big benchmarks remain as goals that are meaningful.. it's still hard to throw for 4000 yards or rush for 2000 for example.

Now we've got four more teams than we had then. There are 436 more players in the league then there was at that time of the 16 game expansion. If we add another 100+.. I just can't help but believe we're going to see a steadily declining product .

Plus, you have to factor in the major differences in the league, namely player movement, which was pretty much non-existant then. Trades happened, but a "free agent" was a guy who nobody wanted. Teams like Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburgh, the 70s powerhouses,, they maintained basically the same roster throughout their glory runs.

As it is, with free agency and unlimited player movement like we have now we already have seen teams become collections of haves and have nots. Teams are populated by rosters that take into account that one or two or three guys are making the lion's share of the cash, and with the cap, that doesn't leave much room for the middle of the road meat -n- taters type players that are indispensable. (Monte Coleman, etc.)

Add more people to the roster, that pie gets smaller and those guys who are those types either get shoved aside for cheaper options, or they take their highlight reel and try to go cash in elsewhere (and remain the same player.).

~Bang

Want to know the other problem?

High schools and colleges are not producing the same talent they did in the 70s and 80s.

In the 70s and 80s, the leagues were still feeling the impact of the first generation of desegregation. College football powers had virtually unlimited scholarships and could develop players over 5 years. There was - for all intents and purposes - no soccer at the high school or college level to compete with athlete's time.

High schools - city schools in the northeast - have been dropping football at an alarming rate over the last decade. This is only going to get worse as budgets tighten and convern over injuries and liabilities rise. In the South, football competes with other sports now. And the best players are more often than not choosing private, Catholic schools that are football factories. So, you get a few players who are remarkably polished but not the same volume.

Throw into this the decline in scholarships at the NCAA level, the change in rules allowing players to leave after three years, the dramatic shifts in the college coaching landscape and you get players coming out of college who may be far more athletic than players 30 years ago, but not nearly as polished.

Yes, the American population has increased since then, but it's not like high school football teams are overwhelmed with players with the last name of Ortiz or Nguyen. This year, I attended my first 5A Texas high school football game with a friend of mine. It turned out that his old high school happened to have its best team ever. And - through complete dumb luck - I followed them all through the playoffs to the 5A Title Game in Dallas. Despite the fact that the majority of teams I followed had schools that were in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 percent Hispanic, they were hardly any Hispanic players on the team.

In the 50s and 60s, you had the first generation of middle class Italians and Irish going to college and that produced the first great wave of football players. In the 70s and 80s, you had the first huge waves of African Americans. There is no new wave coming - at leat not immediately.

Think of it this way: MLB is now something like 25 percent Latino. Blacks have more or less stopped playing baseball, but the sport found a new labor market. NHL and NBA are filled with Europeans. NBA has a pipeline coming out of South America now as well.

The NFL is going to have a real labor shortage in the next 25 years unless something changes.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 11:41 AM ----------

But, at the time, you were taking guys who wouldn't have played pro football and making them pro football players. That's all you're doing now. And, you have arguably a much larger pool to draw from. There are so many more talented players in colleges no one has ever heard of. Also, every year you see nobodies becoming good players in the league...not just taking up roster spots because we've run out of real players, but becoming legitimate NFL players. Those guys might not have ever gotten a chance to succeed in the past.

I think that is demonstrably false. The NFL's potential labor pool has shrunk dramatically over the last 20 years and it's only going to get worse. Yes, dudes from Tiffin are playing in the NFL now, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

A friend of mine wrote this article 12 years ago. I've seen nothing to indicate that it is out of date now.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1014576/7/index.htm

[SMOSS89]

Something tells me this is going to be the 'CBA' thread. So anything CBA related I'll just post in here.

[Dick Edds]

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

exactly, look at how the raiders swept their division (6-0) ... but they're overall record was not good enough to win the division. I'm tired of all the unnecessary hype around division games. It only means anything if there is a tie-breaker involved. if they went to 3 div games per team (in the 18 game schedule) I'd be down with that ... but all you have to do is have the best "overall" record in your division to win it. I've always disliked this. Either play more division games, or make the playoffs more like March madness, and seed the teams based on their "overall" record ... and not what division they play in.

How anyone is ok with Seattle hosting a home playoff game with a losing record boggles my mind.

[Bang]

Latest post..

I don't want you to think I've ignored your post, but LKB answered perfectly. I can't add anything to that.

~Bang