Oline

[nfoligno]

Prices go up now, so I don't think it matters. season tickets will go up, but I am not sure single game tickets would increase more than otherwise.

 

I am for it. You say you like the 16 game season, but the season used to be 14 games, and pretty much every argument you are making today was made then, and you like the expanded league (from 14 to 16).

 

Personally, while I think owners are serious, part of me wonders if this isn't part of the negotation process. A chip they have which they are willing to give up in exchange for something else. Similar, on the other side, I think the union is willing to move to a form of draft payscale, but they will not give that chip away for nothing, and will want something in return.

 

I could also see that. It's just too up in the air.

 

On a side note, I really hate the idea of the "expanded" season... I just see more injuries, more teams resting starters longer before the playoffs, a skewing of records...to name a few. Season ticket holders may think it's good, but I guarantee prices will go up for those 2 regular season games. Somehow shape or form, we fans always pay...

 

[madlithuanian]

I think prices will go up accross the board. People will pay, especially in Chicago and other serious sports towns.

 

I totally get why many want the expanded season...and in many ways I agree. But I like the fewer games as each becomes FAR more important, and holds some history.

 

Never said I liked 16! I'd prefer it to go back to 14! I'm old school... Maybe more old, than school. Keep in mind, this isn't the early 80's...football is king and making boatloads of money. People tend to pay more for a rare item than they do a saturated one... The NFL must retain their exclusivity and not go to more and more games...the overall product is jeopardized in the long term for a short term gain I feel.

 

I do think you're onto something as a part of the negotiation process. I've read where players are clamorring for a shortened off-season as part of this. I think there's too much uncertainty in this...but it will be interesting to see how it plays out!

 

Prices go up now, so I don't think it matters. season tickets will go up, but I am not sure single game tickets would increase more than otherwise.

 

I am for it. You say you like the 16 game season, but the season used to be 14 games, and pretty much every argument you are making today was made then, and you like the expanded league (from 14 to 16).

 

Personally, while I think owners are serious, part of me wonders if this isn't part of the negotation process. A chip they have which they are willing to give up in exchange for something else. Similar, on the other side, I think the union is willing to move to a form of draft payscale, but they will not give that chip away for nothing, and will want something in return.

 

[Pixote]

(When I grew up there was 12 games for the season and if you were good enough you got to play a 13th game in the post season for the Championship. That being said:)

 

I am all for going to 2 preseason games and 18 regular season games.

 

If you are going to risk the health of a player you are paying huge money to, then make the game count at least.

 

The players share in owners revenue. Therefore the increased profits will allow players and management to profit.

 

If they then install a salary cap on Rookies so that the money saved there could be used to pay players who have earned it more money, then all will be good.

 

Those are my 2 items on my list for the current players/union/nfl negotiations.

[Lucky Luciano]

(When I grew up there was 12 games for the season and if you were good enough you got to play a 13th game in the post season for the Championship. That being said:)

 

I am all for going to 2 preseason games and 18 regular season games.

 

If you are going to risk the health of a player you are paying huge money to, then make the game count at least.

 

The players share in owners revenue. Therefore the increased profits will allow players and management to profit.

 

If they then install a salary cap on Rookies so that the money saved there could be used to pay players who have earned it more money, then all will be good.

 

Those are my 2 items on my list for the current players/union/nfl negotiations.

 

i don't agree. although the risk for a player can be extensive, pre-season or not, your premium players usually are only working a game and a half to two games max during pre-season play when you count up the actual time in. also in this time they are 'supposedly' getting into game shape where they are adjusting to actual blocking and tackling to hopefully reduce their chance of injury.

 

i also believe you are really upping the chances to burn your players out physically sooner over the life of their career playing this many games. their chances of injury are escalated as the season wears on from the natural wear and tear on their bodies for this long of a period of time. take url's calf injury for instance. he would be nearly forced to come back sooner from injury to play in the regular season.

 

i do agree with you there should be some kind of rookie salary decline. it's just getting way out of hand.

 

in a perfect world i would like to see them cut the pre-season to 3 games and the regular season to 14 again. i would also like to see a lock on the number of teams in the nfl. it is already watered down talent we are seeing play with this many franchises in the league.

[Pixote]

I agree with no more expansion teams.

 

Your the 2nd person who wants the season shortened??

 

Why in the world would you want to shorten it?

 

In that case go back to the old 10 or 12 game schedule of the past, LOL.

 

There is no way the season will be shortened, owners and players would lose too much money.

[AZ54]

I don't mind 16 and I wouldn't mind 18 but with 18 games we must expand the roster, both final roster and game-day roster. For all this talk about the wear and tear on players it is a factor for some positions but for many others it not like it used to be. Many teams, like the Bears, rotate a lot of players in some positions like Dline, RB, TE. On the other hand, it's a big concern for starters like the Oline, DBs, and QB. However, it's possible an expanded roster allows teams more flexibility to rotate out more positions like DB. The only other way I can see offsetting the wear and tear is by adding a second bye week during the season. Thus the season would be more or less broken into 3 periods of 6 games and then the playoffs. I think the IR policy needs to be revisited as well because with a longer season it makes it more likely a player can recover from a significant injury in time to contribute later that season.

[Pixote]

Excellent points, and with the additional revenue there is no reason they could not expand the roster to let's say, 60, giving you a chance to have more depth available to weather the longer season,.

 

I don't mind 16 and I wouldn't mind 18 but with 18 games we must expand the roster, both final roster and game-day roster. For all this talk about the wear and tear on players it is a factor for some positions but for many others it not like it used to be. Many teams, like the Bears, rotate a lot of players in some positions like Dline, RB, TE. On the other hand, it's a big concern for starters like the Oline, DBs, and QB. However, it's possible an expanded roster allows teams more flexibility to rotate out more positions like DB. The only other way I can see offsetting the wear and tear is by adding a second bye week during the season. Thus the season would be more or less broken into 3 periods of 6 games and then the playoffs. I think the IR policy needs to be revisited as well because with a longer season it makes it more likely a player can recover from a significant injury in time to contribute later that season.

[Lucky Luciano]

I don't mind 16 and I wouldn't mind 18 but with 18 games we must expand the roster, both final roster and game-day roster. For all this talk about the wear and tear on players it is a factor for some positions but for many others it not like it used to be. Many teams, like the Bears, rotate a lot of players in some positions like Dline, RB, TE. On the other hand, it's a big concern for starters like the Oline, DBs, and QB. However, it's possible an expanded roster allows teams more flexibility to rotate out more positions like DB. The only other way I can see offsetting the wear and tear is by adding a second bye week during the season. Thus the season would be more or less broken into 3 periods of 6 games and then the playoffs. I think the IR policy needs to be revisited as well because with a longer season it makes it more likely a player can recover from a significant injury in time to contribute later that season.

 

in the 14 game past, the regular season usually ended within the first or second week of december. with a 16 game schedule which includes, a bye week, we are now ending regular season play around the 1st week of january. with an 18 game schedule and the extra bye week you suggest we are now extending the regular season nearly into february.

 

that means post season playoffs will just about fill february up (with the wildcard game which i believe was included in the 16 game season). this leaves the superbowl very close to happening in march.

 

this extended period of time leaves little window if/when players have offseason surgery or concussions to recover from before they start camp and prepare again for the coming regular season. this plus the normal wear and tear on the bodies, especially joint wear, of added regular/post season games leaves little time for the body to heal.

 

the quality of play on the field is surely going to suffer both from an injury standpoint and if, as you suggest, an extension of the number of players on each roster. right now because of league expansion we are extended to the point that many players starting in the nfl today would not have even quality wise been backups thirty years ago. this is ESPECIALLY true of the skill positions such as qb which even before league expansion of the 70', 80's etc. (not EVEN mentioning the addition of the AFC in the 1960's) was a drastically low pool base for average + players.

 

next: if you raise the rosters by 7 players to 60 as you suggest this subtracts 224 players from the market, which already is low to nonexistent in quality ball players, to fill your roster needs from other teams cuts as it stands today with a 53 man roster.

 

the reality of the matter is there is just so much physical talent to go around. the only area nfl teams are drawing talent from has NOT expanded since the modern era of football came into being and probably long before that. this is one reason teams are drawing a lot of players out of 2nd and 3rd tier schools in the draft.

 

 

[Lucky Luciano]

i forgot to mention the weather. by extending the season into february you now have the worst weather of the year for cold weather teams to contend with. this not only effects nfl play but fan attendance.

 

it could also mean a very large play disadvantage for teams competing in colder climates.

[Pixote]

You are assuming the season would end three weeks later than what is now considered normal.

 

Actually I think it would start 3 weeks earlier, or at least 2 since we would play less preseason games, so weather should be no problem.

 

3 Weeks shorter vacation time for these guys will not kill them.

 

Half the time when they go for off-season surgery they wait a month after the season (why I do not know) and wind up unable to participate fully in OTAs (maybe that is why, LOL).

 

i forgot to mention the weather. by extending the season into february you now have the worst weather of the year for cold weather teams to contend with. this not only effects nfl play but fan attendance.

 

it could also mean a very large play disadvantage for teams competing in colder climates.

[AZ54]

The season would start about the same time as it does today because we eliminate two (or three in the case of the Hall of Fame game) preseason games. If we add in another bye week then of course we advance things a week earlier. I don't think one week less of offseason changes things in a significant way. The points are valid about injury and recovery but keep in mind if they expand the rosters and make changes to the IR and PUP rules it will be possible for teams to keep players as they rehab during the beginning of the season.

[Lucky Luciano]

You are assuming the season would end three weeks later than what is now considered normal.

 

Actually I think it would start 3 weeks earlier, or at least 2 since we would play less preseason games, so weather should be no problem.

 

3 Weeks shorter vacation time for these guys will not kill them.

 

Half the time when they go for off-season surgery they wait a month after the season (why I do not know) and wind up unable to participate fully in OTAs (maybe that is why, LOL).

 

wow, can you imagine full gear, full contact real games starting in the middle (or earlier) of august and all your starters suited up for 4 quarters in the hottest month of the summer?

 

also it could be why they wait a month a lot of times to have surgery is to let their bodies heal as much as possible and let the swelling go down before invasive surgery?

 

in august wouldn't the nfl now be competing with major league baseball for fans, attendance and television rights?

[Pixote]

I do not think starting 2 weeks earlier is going to "turn up the heat". It is plenty hot in September also, just depends on how lucky or unlucky you are as far as the weather. I have seen it in the 90's in September in Chicago also, and a cool front in the 70's in August. The players have survived games played in hot weather since the start of the NFL. Many teams have Domes, not just for the cold, but the heat as well.

 

Earlier someone was arguing you can not play later in the year because it would be too cold, now it is going to be too hot if we start 2 weeks early?

 

How many times have we heard of a player who we did not even know was injured, played pretty much the entire year, went into the off-season, all of a sudden announces he was dealing with a minor injury all year, decide to have surgery in March or April, then miss the majority of camp.

 

We had two players miss a good bit of camp with minor knee surgeries that were not preformed until (I believe) April?

 

And as far as competing with Baseball, the Cubs play their last game this year in October for Pete's sake, the World Series will be closing in on November. We have been competing with the MLB forever.

[Bears4Ever_34]

The whole freakin team looks pathetic. I don't see 6 wins this season. They are just god awful at everything. Martz's offense will not work with a shitty offensive line and especially when your still retarded enough to leave Hester in as the #1 and not DA.. It's going to be a long year.

[Lucky Luciano]

I do not think starting 2 weeks earlier is going to "turn up the heat". It is plenty hot in September also, just depends on how lucky or unlucky you are as far as the weather. I have seen it in the 90's in September in Chicago also, and a cool front in the 70's in August. The players have survived games played in hot weather since the start of the NFL. Many teams have Domes, not just for the cold, but the heat as well.

 

Earlier someone was arguing you can not play later in the year because it would be too cold, now it is going to be too hot if we start 2 weeks early?

 

How many times have we heard of a player who we did not even know was injured, played pretty much the entire year, went into the off-season, all of a sudden announces he was dealing with a minor injury all year, decide to have surgery in March or April, then miss the majority of camp.

 

We had two players miss a good bit of camp with minor knee surgeries that were not preformed until (I believe) April?

 

And as far as competing with Baseball, the Cubs play their last game this year in October for Pete's sake, the World Series will be closing in on November. We have been competing with the MLB forever.

 

let's have a 30 game season. that should work out for everyone.

[Pixote]

Nothing like a little **** to end a conversation. Have it your way, maybe we play 40 games with 4 bye weeks, 100 man rosters, a Billion dollar salary cap, and a 2 week break between the SB and the start of the next season. This way we will not even need OTA's or Training Camps.

 

There, see, I can get as **** as you.

[Lucky Luciano]

Nothing like a little **** to end a conversation. Have it your way, maybe we play 40 games with 4 bye weeks, 100 man rosters, a Billion dollar salary cap, and a 2 week break between the SB and the start of the next season. This way we will not even need OTA's or Training Camps.

 

There, see, I can get as **** as you.

 

look pixote, i figure you didn't want to have a "conversation" about it when you tell me that the weather starting in the 2nd week of august is basically no different than the weather in september and expect me to believe it.

 

i do realize there are exceptions to everything including the weather as i actually saw snowflakes in july once and 70 degree weather in january (it was also me that gave the reasons why extending the season into february or possibly march also was not a good idea). but in a normal, general sense these unusual weather patterns are aberrations.

 

i think you are generally off on your injury statements and there is no real body of evidence to suggest most players are waiting to get operated on just to get out of training camp. could they be waiting to see if physical rehab might work in some instances before using surgery lead to you month later statements? or as i stated swelling and other bodily injuries may not be favorable conditions for doctors to operate in? ask one.

 

i also believe you are off base, pun intended, when you state that there would be no attendance or television rights conflicts with MLB starting the season in the 2nd week of august. do you remember how the NFL and MLB adjust air time for the world series to help each in ratings and attendance?

 

plus... even the CUBS usually aren't mathematically out of the race by that time. so now MLB is going to adjust it's games away from half it's weekend revenues at the prime time for pennant race battles for the NFL?

 

if you want 18 games a season that is fine. i just personally hope the nfl doesn't listen to you and people of the same mind. i gave some of my reasons why 18 games is a bad idea for the quality of play and the health of the nfl as a whole and think differently.

[balta1701-A]

if you want 18 games a season that is fine. i just personally hope the nfl doesn't listen to you and people of the same mind. i gave some of my reasons why 18 games is a bad idea for the quality of play and the health of the nfl as a whole and think differently.

Really, it comes down to this question. Let's say everything you worry about happens. There's more injuries, more hot weather, people's careers are shorter.

 

In response to this, will you:

1. Watch fewer games?

2. Go to fewer games?

3. Buy less merchandise?

4. Watch less other NFL coverage?

 

Alternatively, will you instead:

1. Watch all 18 games instead of 16 games

2. Go to at least the same number of games

3. Buy the same amount of Bears gear

4. Watch the same amount of other NFL coverage

 

If you're going to wind up watching those extra 2 games, and most teams are going to wind up selling out those extra 2 games...and the season ticket holders are already paying for those 2 games anyway...then even if the quality of the game does go down...the NFL comes out ahead.

[Lucky Luciano]

Really, it comes down to this question. Let's say everything you worry about happens. There's more injuries, more hot weather, people's careers are shorter.

 

In response to this, will you:

1. Watch fewer games?

2. Go to fewer games?

3. Buy less merchandise?

4. Watch less other NFL coverage?

 

1, that is a possibility. when it comes to the point that the quality of the game is about the same as watching nfl europe or canadian football (no disrespect intended to those leagues or it's fans. they were/are what they were/are) then what is the point? at this space in time the game is already teetering on the brink of the abyss compared to what quality of play was performed 20-30 years ago. the lack of player and coaching talent due to expansions and the changing of the rules by outside football sources to engage the attention span of imbeciles to watch games that score as many points as basketball is destroying the game. when college football is a rougher sport physically than the nfl there are serious problems that need to be reviewed.

 

one of the biggest problems/dangers is that the new generation of nfl viewers will have no comparrisons of quality play to hold up to scrutiny and thus in a short period of time this newer generation will not even know they are seeing a second or even third rate product anymore. that is what is really sad.

 

2. if i could get tickets to go to a game in the weather of 2-3 weeks ago for free, i wouldn't go. watching people have heat strokes just doesn't do it for me.

 

3. i already buy less merchandise. but if it comes to buying into the quality of NFLE teams i'm done buying it altogether.

 

4. absolutely

 

If you're going to wind up watching those extra 2 games, and most teams are going to wind up selling out those extra 2 games...and the season ticket holders are already paying for those 2 games anyway...then even if the quality of the game does go down...the NFL comes out ahead.

 

no. i believe you are dead wrong. the nfl does NOT come out ahead, it just comes out richer.

[balta1701-A]

no. i believe you are dead wrong. the nfl does NOT come out ahead, it just comes out richer.

In this world, those are one and the same. We long ago made that choice as a society.

[Lucky Luciano]

In this world, those are one and the same. We long ago made that choice as a society.

 

well then welcome to the world of rollerball.

 

houston, houston, houston, houston......