Who's in favor of an 18 game schedule?

[zulater]

If a mod wants to move this all I ask is to wait a day or two as I think this is an important question and I think it deserves maximum exposure at least initially.

Anyway I know nearly all the players are against an 18 game season. I'm somewhat confident that Dan Rooney has serious questions about it. So now I'm asking you the fan, what do you think? I'm particuarly interested in hearing what any season ticket holders have to say on the subject, being as Goodell is supposedly acting in your best interest, or so he want us to believe.

I'm strongly against it. Players careers are already short enough. Can you imagine the toll this will extract on running backs, who's shelf life is already right there with produce. Plus when you see the evidence piling up showing how an NFL career shortens a man's life considerably, nearly 25 years from an average man's life expectency, then how the hell can anyone in good conscience support such a move?

I'd love to hear the argument to support it if someone wants to present it.

Anyway, weigh in and vote if you would please.

[Chidi29]

I'm not jumping for joy over the idea, but I'm content with the idea.

The schedule has always been extended. The league used to play 10 games. Then 12. Then 14. Then the current 16 game schedule. How can we conclusively say that adding another two games is going to have a more negative impact than adding two games in the past has? That's the way I look at it at least. And from a ticket owners standpoint, I don't have tickets, I'm sure they're excited. More bang for your buck.

I will miss four preseason games though. Do like watching the "no-names" get their chance to shine.

[zulater]

So how did you vote chidi?

[Chidi29]

I don't know if there's an answer up there I'd agree with. I am fairly sure of my answer, not really on the fence. But again, I'm not demanding we play 18 games. I don't have much of a preference either way.

I just won't be upset if that's what ultimately ends up happening.

One other note on the issue. If the players are so gung-ho about keeping it at 16 games, saying that they can't survive an 18 game schedule, we better not see them give in and agree to it. Would be total hypocrisy on their part.

[T&B fan]

NO

16 games is just right , like having a glass of tea to much sugar and its too sweet to drink , even if its sounds good to add just one more spoon full ..

[salamander]

No. It's fine as it is.

[SteelerSal]

I remember the same deal when it went to a 16 game season...It don't bother me none, but that might just be me being selfish wanting more football since I have no interest in any other sport.
As for your runningback career lifespan theory...held water 5 years ago but today only a handful of backs carry the load themselves while most teams use 2 or more backs a game.
With it being such a violent sport, I don't think that there is much of a difference between 16 to 18 games in terms of a toll on the body and if I'm wrong....I guess teams will have to shuttle more bench bodies in and out of games to save their starters strength for the whole season.

[Count Steeler]

Players are only posturing against this so they can be in a position to ask for more money. It is probably inevitable that we will see an 18 game schedule. Should mean expanded rosters and it may change the game. More offensive as defenses try to preserve themselves for the playoffs.

Should make Goodell happy, but fans that are opposed to change will be upset.

[zulater]

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/29/Sports/A_huge_problem.shtml

A 1994 study of 7,000 former players by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found linemen had a 52 percent greater risk of dying from heart disease than the general population. While U.S. life expectancy is 77.6 years, recent studies suggest the average for NFL players is 55, 52 for linemen.

Maybe the length of the schedule isn't relevant to this? But somehow I don't see how lengthening the schedule will be a move in the right direction either?

[86WARD]

No. EPIC FAIL.

[Chidi29]

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/29/Sports/A_huge_problem.shtml

A 1994 study of 7,000 former players by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found linemen had a 52 percent greater risk of dying from heart disease than the general population. While U.S. life expectancy is 77.6 years, recent studies suggest the average for NFL players is 55, 52 for linemen.

Maybe the length of the schedule isn't relevant to this? But somehow I don't see how lengthening the schedule will be a move in the right direction either?

Again though, I think you'd have to show that these two games that have been added are more dangerous than the two games added in the past.

[vader29]

I voted no. 16 games are enough.

[Count Steeler]

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/29/Sports/A_huge_problem.shtml

A 1994 study of 7,000 former players by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found linemen had a 52 percent greater risk of dying from heart disease than the general population. While U.S. life expectancy is 77.6 years, recent studies suggest the average for NFL players is 55, 52 for linemen.

Maybe the length of the schedule isn't relevant to this? But somehow I don't see how lengthening the schedule will be a move in the right direction either?

Steriods? Excessive work outs? Excessive weight? Nutrition regiment? Let's face it, many of these players put a lot on the line in order to grab the golden ring that is the NFL.

[SteelerSal]

Steriods? Excessive work outs? Excessive weight? Nutrition regiment? Let's face it, many of these players put a lot on the line in order to grab the golden ring that is the NFL.

This! +1

The risks are no longer a secret and these are grown men who choose to risk injury to make the big bucks.
I knew the risks of inhaling concrete dust and the toll my body would take by pouring and finishing over hunreds of thousands of yards of concrete over a 25 year span and I refuse to complain about the bad back, knees and arthritis I have now because of it...

I knew what it would do and no one forced me to do it. Same for these young, well paid adult football players.

[X-Terminator]

No. Keep it the way it is. Not only does it put the players more at risk for injury, it also hinders the ability of coaches to evaluate talent in TC/preseason in game situations with only 2 preseason games available.

As for the study zulater posted, I find those stats particularly alarming considering the average career for an NFL player is about 4 years. It's also alarming considering hockey players probably live longer, yet their bodies take a hell of a lot more punishment than NFL players do.

[st33lersguy]

No, another case of Goodell messing with something that was perfectly fine

[zulater]

Steriods? Excessive work outs? Excessive weight? Nutrition regiment? Let's face it, many of these players put a lot on the line in order to grab the golden ring that is the NFL.

The study was published in 94, most of the players that were dying at the time would have played in the 60's. Steriods weren't that prevalant back then. It wont surprise me if the average player's lifespan is going down even further with the years.

Just taking ibroprofen has proven to be hazardous to your liver and kidneys, so imagine what sort of pain killers these guys are taking to sustain their careers. Think about Walter Peyton dying of liver failure in his 30's, here's a guy who never missed a game. Think there might be a connection?

It's a brutal way to make a living. Adding games to the schedule doesn't seem to be a good idea to me. But it's probably just piss in the ocean anyway.

[zulater]

Judging by early returns of the vote here, I think it's fair to say that Goodell hasn't done a good job selling this to the general public.

[steelerdude15]

No, absolutely not.

[Chidi29]

Judging by early returns of the vote here, I think it's fair to say that Goodell hasn't done a good job selling this to the general public.

Goodell has said that they could have put in the 18 game regular season whenever they wanted. That they don't need the players permission to do so. But they decided to talk to them instead.

And again, if this is such a bad thing for the players, they better not agree to it under any circumstances.

[zulater]

Goodell has said that they could have put in the 18 game regular season whenever they wanted. That they don't need the players permission to do so. But they decided to talk to them instead.

And again, if this is such a bad thing for the players, they better not agree to it under any circumstances.

Yeah and if they had the players could have walked out en masse and who could have blamed them.

And I hope the players don't agree to it. But if they do, it wont be because they're sold on the merits of the idea, or that they think it will improve the product. If they agree to it, it will simply be because they've been beat down by the owners and just want to get back to work.

[Psycho Ward 86]

Fuck that

[Chidi29]

Yeah and if they had the players could have walked out en masse and who could have blamed them.

And I hope the players don't agree to it. But if they do, it wont be because they're sold on the merits of the idea, or that they think it will improve the product. If they agree to it, it will simply be because they've been beat down by the owners and just want to get back to work.

I can't buy that. It's one thing if they only slightly disagreed with it or would answer "Not sure,leaning no" in your poll, but they've been adament about this being extremely negative for the players.

[crcsnail]

i would say no to it but i think it will probably happen. but here is a thought, why couldnt they make the rosters slightly bigger ? perhaps by using say, 3 more veterans and 3 more rookies or allowing more of the players ie running backs who are more prone to injury. btw i do realise that all players can pick up injurys. as we saw with our O line.

[zulater]

Some pertinent excerts from Ron Cook's Sunday column in the PPG

But there likely is more to the apparent depression that led Duerson to take his life. According to family members, he believed he had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease that has been linked to depression, dementia, early death and -- yes -- suicide in nearly 20 deceased NFL players, including former Steelers Mike Webster, Terry Long and Justin Strzelczyk. The New York Times reported Duerson had trouble "remembering names and putting words together" and complained of short-term memory loss, blurred vision and pain on the left side of his brain. Family members said he wanted his brain donated to research so he could help future generations of football players.

It could be several months before the Boston University study determines if Duerson had the brain disease.

In the meantime, it's fair to wonder how many other former NFL players are in the position Duerson was. Maybe they aren't to the point of suicide, but they're struggling to get through each day, dealing with their own sense of hopelessness. I'm guessing the number is much higher than Goodell and the NFL want to believe.


But it's believed the owners' plan to go to 18 games from the current 16 and reduce the exhibition games from four to two also is a major issue. The owners say they are doing it for the fans, who are tired of paying full ticket prices for meaningless preseason games. The players say the owners are making another grab for more revenue. The players say the extra games will lead to more injuries in the short term and major health problems in the long term and say the owners are hypocritical for talking about trying to make the game safer.

From a selfish standpoint, I would love to see 18 real games. There's nothing more tedious than watching four exhibition games. But the players are right. They will pay a big price physically and their careers will be shortened with the two extra games. I hope they hold their ground.

Not that I expect that, though.

The owners are more powerful and better equipped to deal with a long work stoppage. Ultimately, they will get the better part of the new agreement.

Some players have said they will agree to the 18 games as long as they are properly compensated. They surely don't want the extra injuries, but -- you know what? -- they'll deal with 'em if the price is right. Of course, they will.

The players generally justify the risks of their game one of three ways: 1. Nothing bad will happen to me; 2. I'm not going to worry about what I'll be like when I'm 60; and 3. What happens to me is God's will. Players such as Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward have said they need to see more proof of the connection between head injuries and long-term health problems. Steelers linebacker James Harrison has said the financial benefits of an NFL career are worth the risk of anything that might happen to him later in life. "I'll go through hell so my kids don't have to," he said famously at the Super Bowl early this month.Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11058/1128354-87.stm#ixzz1FFjRWVm8

[GoSlash27]

It's not the 18 game schedule that I hate, it's the 2 game preseason. Not enough time to properly evaluate your talent.

[SteelerSal]

The players generally justify the risks of their game one of three ways: 1. Nothing bad will happen to me; 2. I'm not going to worry about what I'll be like when I'm 60; and 3. What happens to me is God's will. Players such as Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward have said they need to see more proof of the connection between head injuries and long-term health problems. Steelers linebacker James Harrison has said the financial benefits of an NFL career are worth the risk of anything that might happen to him later in life. "I'll go through hell so my kids don't have to," he said famously at the Super Bowl early this month.

This here pretty much backs what carnoj and I posted. Like I wrote before, these are grown men that know the dangers of playing this sport and they still choose to do it.
These players all went to college and most earned a degree in something other than football. If they were really worried about their health, they can quit and get another job in a field that they went to school for other than a football field......my guess is that the mighty dollar will keep them right where they are for the time being until football (an NFL team) no longer wants them around anymore.

[zulater]

This here pretty much backs what carnoj and I posted. Like I wrote before, these are grown men that know the dangers of playing this sport and they still choose to do it.
These players all went to college and most earned a degree in something other than football. If they were really worried about their health, they can quit and get another job in a field that they went to school for other than a football field......my guess is that the mighty dollar will keep them right where they are for the time being until football (an NFL team) no longer wants them around anymore.

Actually that's not even close to true Sal. Estimations' vary, but 46% seems to be the most quoted percentage I'm getting, and I've seen as low as 30% estimated by others.

http://askville.amazon.com/percentage-NFL-players-graduated-college/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=189890


In an article entitled "NFL's Player Development Program helps players prepare for life after ..." by Chris Price, published on 8/30/2004 in New Orleans CityBusiness,
Dan Masonson, the NFL's corporate communications manager at that time, was quoted as saying that more than 8,200 players have participated in the NFL's continuing education programs, with average of 200 players each year, and more than 175 players have earned their degrees through the program from 1998 through 2004.

"Currently, 46 percent of NFL players have a college degree, he said."

A January 2003 Football Digest article by Kenyon Rasheed that may be found at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCL/is_5_32/ai_94767634 offers some historical information. Rasheed was a running back for the New York Giants and New York Jets from 1993 to 1997. During that time, he says "the NFL player program division (which helps place players into internships and return to college for degrees) made it mandatory for players to have college degrees to be considered for internships. This eliminated about 70% of the players. " So, if Rasheed's estimate is accurate, during 1993-1997 the figure was roughly 30%.

[SteelerSal]

Well then it looks like the other estimated 54% that went to college should of been smart enough to get their degree. :)

Look, I hate to see a player get hurt or even the chance of their life expectancy be cut short (Webster) but they know the risks and choose to play the game...kinda like a police officer, firefighter or even me traveling 100 miles round trip everyday to go to work is at risk.

No sympathy from me with these six, seven and eight figure a year players complaining if their employer (the NFL) wants to add more games. They don't like it, get the classifieds and start circling new jobs to apply for.

[Butch]

From a selfish standpoint hells yes!!! but with some changes.

You have to expand the rosters, could be used for special teams players or however the teams see fit. I would not like to see the pre-season shortened as was pointed out not enough time to find the diamonds in the rough of course if you extend the roster maybe the 1 or 2 less games is fine. Owners should not be able to charge full price for pre-seaosn games but I won't hold my breath that this changes. I also wouldn't have any objection to adding another bye week as long as it's not the Steelers on Oct. 10th!!!

To add to what Sal was saying...if they didn't get their degree then they sure as hell make enough to go back and get that degree. Totally agree that they know what they are signing up for and I don't wanna hear the bitchin'!!!

In the end no matter which way it goes you damn well know the fans are the ones who will be left with the short end of the stick.

[steeldevil]

I voted no, 16 games is perfect.

But, if the only way we will see football in August is with 18 games I'm all for it. I prefer 16 games, but I just want football. And if adding 2 regseason games and erasing 2 preseason games is the only way football will happen, then I guess I will take it.

[Dino 6 Rings]

I've said it before, they should just Add 2 playoff teams to the current system, this way only "good franchises" are rewarded with the extra revenue of an extra game.

This way, the lions and cardinals don't get to sell 1 more set of tickets for a game, when really, they aren't as "all in" as say the Steelers, Eagles, Patriots, Packers and what not.

So what you do, is you have 8 teams get in from each Conference, get rid of the bye week all together.

Then, everyone has to win 3 games to get to the Super Bowl, and your late season games mean more when it comes to seeding.

This year would have been like this:
AFC
Jags at Pats
Chargers at Steelers
Jets at Colts
Ravens at Chiefs.

NFC
Bucs at Falcons
Giants at Bears
Packers at Eagles
Saints at Seahawks

So you add the two teams, you then have to play 8 games in One Weekend. So you can have Two on Friday night, then 3 on each day on Saturday and Sunday, from 1pm Eastern KO, 4pm KO and a 8pm KO for each day. Something like that. Still get all the TV Revenue you could ever want. Heck, you could even do the Two Monday night games thing, and then just have the winners slotted to play the following Sunday or something.

Its better than just adding two games to the Regular Season, increasing Injury potentional and only "good teams" get the extra games. So 4 more teams this year, Jags, Bucs, Chargers and Giants would have had TV Dollars and eyes on their team. Sure its not the same as selling out a home stadium, but its better than just blindly adding 2 games to a 16 game schedule. And besides, the bye week is crap these days, how many teams get "cold" because of it.

[43Hitman]

No, absolutely not.

[Psycho Ward 86]

Looks like most of us hate it...I'm curious as to what fans on other boards think...

[zulater]

Looks like most of us hate it...I'm curious as to what fans on other boards think...

Yeah, maybe it's an anti Goodell thing with Steelers fans? But i don't think so. By and large I just think that most NFL fans think you're foolish to tamper with a proven commodity.

[LLT]

Looks like most of us hate it...I'm curious as to what fans on other boards think...

In a nation wide Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll...only 27% of those polled strongly favor or somewhat favor adding two regular-season games and dropping two preseason games.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6086002

[SteelerFanInStl]

No. It's a dumb idea that shows that the NFL is only interested in how much money they can make.

[tube517]

Just another excuse to raise the fees for the Sunday Ticket. F Goodhell.

[T&B fan]

In a nation wide Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll...only 27% of those polled strongly favor or somewhat favor adding two regular-season games and dropping two preseason games.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6086002

But, But, But, Goodell said the fans asked for more games ?????????? could he be lying ??????

[Psycho Ward 86]

But, But, But, Goodell said the fans asked for more games ?????????? could he be lying ??????

Lmao, my thoughts exactly. Another good question: Why does it seem like Goodell never has a press conference to go to? Too afraid to answer the burning questions? Bitch...

[86WARD]

Goodell says the fans want it...they don't. What he fails to see is that the fans don't want the extra games. They don't want to pay full price for two useless (to the fans) preseason games...

[TroysBarber]

I'm going to go against the majority here, and vote yes, but I'd still keep the 4 preseason games. I understand the player's concern about their long term health, but this issue can be easily addressed. Here's my proposal:

Each player (other than punter, kicker, and long snapper) must sit out 2 games each season. This way, nobody plays more games than 16 regular season games. This adds to the coaches' strategy by forcing them to decide when to sit key players. Since each player sits out 2 games, there will be no need for the bye week. Hold the Super Bowl 1 week after the conference games. This way the season can start the 1st week of Sept with the SB in the beginning of Feb, same as before.

Obviously, teams will need expanded rosters, which can easily be paid for by the revenues from the 2 extra games.

[Chidi29]

I'm going to go against the majority here, and vote yes, but I'd still keep the 4 preseason games. I understand the player's concern about their long term health, but this issue can be easily addressed. Here's my proposal:

Each player (other than punter, kicker, and long snapper) must sit out 2 games each season. This way, nobody plays more games than 16 regular season games. This adds to the coaches' strategy by forcing them to decide when to sit key players. Since each player sits out 2 games, there will be no need for the bye week. Hold the Super Bowl 1 week after the conference games. This way the season can start the 1st week of Sept with the SB in the beginning of Feb, same as before.

Obviously, teams will need expanded rosters, which can easily be paid for by the revenues from the 2 extra games.

Good luck convincing Colts' fans that Curtis Painter will be starting over Peyton Manning twice a year.

[Count Steeler]

I'm going to go against the majority here, and vote yes, but I'd still keep the 4 preseason games. I understand the player's concern about their long term health, but this issue can be easily addressed. Here's my proposal:

Each player (other than punter, kicker, and long snapper) must sit out 2 games each season. This way, nobody plays more games than 16 regular season games. This adds to the coaches' strategy by forcing them to decide when to sit key players. Since each player sits out 2 games, there will be no need for the bye week. Hold the Super Bowl 1 week after the conference games. This way the season can start the 1st week of Sept with the SB in the beginning of Feb, same as before.

Obviously, teams will need expanded rosters, which can easily be paid for by the revenues from the 2 extra games.

Can't buy that. I want to see the best possible players each and every week, unless injured.

[Hindes204]

Well then it looks like the other estimated 54% that went to college should of been smart enough to get their degree. :)

Look, I hate to see a player get hurt or even the chance of their life expectancy be cut short (Webster) but they know the risks and choose to play the game...kinda like a police officer, firefighter or even me traveling 100 miles round trip everyday to go to work is at risk.

No sympathy from me with these six, seven and eight figure a year players complaining if their employer (the NFL) wants to add more games. They don't like it, get the classifieds and start circling new jobs to apply for.


I have agreed with all of your posts thus far Sal. These are grown men, who have made a conscious decision to make football their career. They knew the risks going into it, and can quit at anytime if they feel their health is at risk. I also agree with Chidi, if these players are so adamant about this, and health is the main reason why, and they flip because they got offered more money to play 18 games, than their whole argument in the first place was bullshit. If it becomes 18 games, the only ones I will believe that were concerned about their health will be the ones that walk away from the game. I do not foresee many of them doing that.

[Steeldude]

How can we conclusively say that adding another two games is going to have a more negative impact than adding two games in the past has?

i think it's because the players of today are so much bigger, stronger and faster. it won't matter though i goodell gets his way. if it does go his way that it won't matter of they play an 82 game schedule. why? because no one will be allowed to tackle. next on his list is ball carriers lowering their head. at least that's what i have heard. i guess everyone must run upright or suffer a fine.

[Steeldude]

if they do go with 18 games then they should have 2 bye weeks. have it so every team has the same bye week. perhaps one following week 6 and the next one following week 12. of course the same bye weeks will never happen because they will lose money in TV revenue etc...

[Butch]

if they do go with 18 games then they should have 2 bye weeks. have it so every team has the same bye week. perhaps one following week 6 and the next one following week 12. of course the same bye weeks will never happen because they will lose money in TV revenue etc...

I would say AFC one week NFC another but yeah I could live with 2 bye weeks.

[The WH]

4 preseason games, bye week, Play 9 games, League wide buy week, Break, 9 more games. the only way I would move from 100% hating that idea to 99.9999 hating the idea.

How are they going to figure out the opponents for the other two games?