Goodell Suggests Longer Season

by robbbbbb on Mar 26, 2009 10:00 AM PDT Comment 21 comments

Surprised nobody's mentioned this one yet. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is pushing for a longer NFL season.

Goodell wants a 17 or 18 game season, with fewer preseason games. Says the Commish: "A key point is the fans also recognize players they want to see are not in those preseason games; that’s why they are not attractive. They want to see those players play.”

Obviously, huge issues to work out with the NFLPA and the rest of the league. I doubt this gets done for the 2009 season, or even 2010. It is, however, a real possibility as part of the 2011 season, assuming Goodell avoids a strike.

(And how, you ask, does the league get a 17 game season? Easy. Each team plays one game at a neutral site, and this gives the NFL a chance to move some more games to international locations.)

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Take away 2 weeks of preseason

And add 2 weeks of regular season but just one regular season game.

by gobo on Mar 26, 2009 10:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

never thought of this

but thats a really good idea

by cro-mag! on Mar 26, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the players might fight it.

And for good reason. Football is a brutal game, adding two games a season makes the season that much more difficult to get through. Think how many more carries starting RBs will get per season, etc — it’s another 12.5% more regular-season pounding. One could argue this would cut career length by 12.5% too, if you consider career length directly linked to durability and body wear.

I think 16 games is plenty long, and a good number for schedule-making purposes. You can cut a week of preseason without adding to the regular season.

by sev79 on Mar 26, 2009 10:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely they will

Absolutely the NFLPA will fight it. The question is: Are they absolutely opposed, or is it just a question of a piece of the increased revenues?

Will the NFLPA accept a 5% or 7% increase in compensation for an extra game per year? Or will they demand 10% to go to an extra game? Would an extra bye week, like gobo suggests above, be enough to offfset some of the complaints?

The NFLPA’s response to this will be worth watching closely. Look for the nuances in their response. Of course they’ll come out and say they’re opposed, but catch the little things to see if it’s just a question of compensation.

by robbbbbb on Mar 26, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would feel differently if football was a game like basketball that required more than 16 games to see what's what.

After 16 games, it’s pretty clear which teams are good. Subjecting the players to more injury risk for the sake of revenue is reprehensible.

by abender20 on Mar 26, 2009 11:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There's a selfish part of me that would love two extra meaningful games

but there’s another part of me that is absolutely frightened that those two games could translate into devastating injuries.

by BrianL on Mar 26, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is terrible and I hope it doesn't ever happen.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 26, 2009 12:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Would You Have Felt That Way

In the 70s, when they expanded the schedule from 14 games to 16?

by robbbbbb on Mar 26, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps But I Do Not Know

I already think 16 games is the absolute limit, 18 would be ludicrous.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 26, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Printing money

there’s such a huge incentive to do this I have to think that it will happen. Getting rid of two weeks of preseason, adding two weeks of regular season with just one additional game (as suggested above), seems like a plan that everyone could get on board with.

Why not eliminate preseason altogether? How much a viable and necessary purpose does it serve? (I’m really asking, I’m not sure)

by Snuffleupagus on Mar 26, 2009 12:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How about

to get in a team chemistry outside of practice, would you like Hass to try passing to Housh without any ‘live bullets’? We’re installing a new offense and defense, it’d give the coaches a chance to see how they worked and how our players adapt to them against other defenses and talent.

Matt Hasselbeck even said if it wasn’t for the 4th preseason game he wouldn’t be here. So where would that leave our QB situation? It gives us a chance to look at other uncertain players. I was impressed with Michael Bumpus last year in the preseason. If we don’t give them a chance to get a try out, how do we know what we really have?

It also gives players a warm up phrase to get back in the mind set. I know when I just try to play serious basketball after taking a break I miss shots like crazy. So the real practice, especially against uncertain play call. This also applies to injured players like Nate Burleson. It gives him a chance to get into the swing of things. Helps them catch up to the speed of the game and to the hits they’ll be feeling so it’d let them handle the ball better. Think what happened when Billy McMullen was hit by the 49er DB and fumbled.

by Trepidation on Mar 26, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

what about college?

college teams have no pre-season, and the better prepared teams are rewarded early in the season.

by cro-mag! on Mar 27, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can sort of argue

that playing crappy schools and I-AA schools is a preseason, though there is always a Michigan losing to a Appalachian State (though in hindsight, not really an upset) or a Washington BBall losing to Portland.

by LantermanC on Mar 27, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it would work if they did two things

First they would have to expand the current 53 man roster to at least 60 to allow for more depth so players can rotate a little more and for the extra injuries. This might also be a big reason for the players association to be on board, since if it was put to a vote, all of the fringe players would probably be for it.

The second would be to take the extra game or two, and make them rivalry games. Kind of like what we have in the preseason. We’d get matched against 1 or 2 AFC West teams every year, including maybe a home and away game in years where the current schedule cycle matches us up against the AFC West. Or for some teams, it might be a regional such as Texas vs Dallas, Pittsburgh vs Philly, NYJ vs NYG, SF vs OAK and so on.

The downside to adding 1 extra game, might be the odd number. I have no proof to offer, but i don’t recall ever seeing a team with a losing record make the playoffs before. It could happen, but it seems unlikely for a 7-9 team to ever sneak in, but considering how often we see 8-8 teams get in, I could see one of those teams losing their extra game and going in as a 8-9 division winner. I think that would be pretty sad.

by Mind of no mind on Mar 26, 2009 3:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The league has been around too long

It would be disrespectful to those who hold records or had very successful careers from recentish years.

by SPENCEMAN on Mar 26, 2009 4:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Question mark?

Sorry, I guess I don’t understand how adding a game or two would be disrespectful. If you mean that it would be easier to get certain records (TDs in a season, etc.), then the same argument would apply for when the league moved from a 14 to a 16 game season. People 20 years ago also were disadvantaged in terms of nutrition and strength conditioning, which allows current athletes to more easily rack up records.

The injuries argument makes a lot of sense to me. However, on the flip side, with the current 16 game season, 1 key injury pretty much rocks a team’s season. Thus, a couple of extra games might in fact help teams RECOVER from injuries and make a playoff push. I don’t know if I agree with myself, but I thought I would just throw it out there.

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Mar 26, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure if I like this

A lot of players have a hard enough time staying healthy for 16 games. Add 2 more and it’s only going to get worse.

by Ezzra on Mar 26, 2009 5:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't like the idea

I think the length of the season is fine the way it is. I like it being the shortest of the 3 major sports in this country. I like the fact that every game has a sort of do or die mentality, where every loss is a substantial blow to the post season success of the team. Any additional games would water down this concept, which at least in my opinion, would take away from an essential part of football.

by gumbostu on Mar 26, 2009 7:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't care either way.

It would change the records and add for more debate. But it would mean added revenue for the teams, and you can’t blame the NFL for trying to make more money, that’s what good businesses do.
I do however like the schedule the way it is right now though, 6 games within the division, 4 more against another NFC division, 4 against an AFC division, and then the remaining 2 against your relative NFC competition in the two division we haven’t played in yet. However adding a 17th game against the Raiders or the Broncos or anyone really in Hawaii, Mexico City, London, or Beijing would be pretty awesome.

by LantermanC on Mar 27, 2009 4:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Seahawks in Hawaii?

I’d be done with that.

by Carl Shinyama on Mar 28, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

18 games makes more sense

Not that I’m for it, but an 18-game season would be easier to construct given that the league does not expand. Just add two conference games depending on top-half/bottom-half division finish.

Currently every team plays:
- 6 games against teams in its own division
- 4 games against another division in its own conference
- 2 games against teams that finished in the same position in the rest of the divisions in its own conference (1st plays 1st, 2nd plays 2nd, etc.)
- 4 games against a team in the other conference

So just add two more games in the conference based on a top/bottom half split within the divisions.

Ok, example: If you finish in 2nd place in addition to the games played against other teams in your conference that finished 2nd, you’d also play the teams that finished 1st. Teams that finished 3rd and 4th would play all the other teams that finished 3rd and 4th.

So you’d have this:

- 6 games against teams in its own division
- 4 games against another division in its own conference
- 4 games against teams that finished in the same 2-team tier in the rest of the divisions in its own conference
———-(1st plays 1st and 2nd, 2nd plays 1st and 2nd, 3rd plays 3rd and 4th, 4th plays 3rd and 4th.)
- 4 games against a team in the other conference

However I’m more inclined to believe 16 games is enough.

--Shrug
Field Gulls - The SBN Seattle Seahawks Blog

by Shrug on Mar 30, 2009 6:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs