18 game seaon... good ??? bad ???
Michael
I wound not mind 18 games, but woud it water the game down ??? I'd
have to imagine they would need to expand the roster to at least 60
guys. It would create new oppertunities for those unknown or
undeveloped guys with potential, no ???
I cant decide if this would be good or bad
Hammer
Good if they take away 2 of the pre-season games.
John C TX
Raises the prices, take away 2 pre-season and keep it at 16. I don't
want the Super Bowl to be won by the team hurt the least.
JKConey
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:abdf9188-aa16-4b7d...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
We all go into mourning when the last game is over, so at this point the
more the better.
--
Michael
you would hope that if it went to the 18 game season, coaches would be
smart enough to start rotating guys starting from game one. depth
would be more than just a luxury. you'd need it to win
John C TX
They will expand the roster on more good players will never get a
chance because good teams will hold onto them. BB won't have to IR
them anymore.
Ray O'Hara
================================================================================
except for the back-up QB every player on a team plays in every game.
Ian
> I don't like it.
> I know people don't like preseason, but it serves a purpose - - getting players prepared
> for the season, and weeding out the JAGs.
> If they cut a few preseason games, and add them as regular season games, there are gonna
> be many more injuries. At the beginning of the season, because players aren't ready. At
> the end of the season, because players are worn down.
> How many holdouts have we seen, that get injured when they return? Regular season games
> are intense... and just being in shape, doesn't mean they're in playing shape.
>
> Nah... I'll pass... but, I'm sure the NFL will do it.
With 32 teams, the current rotation and 16 week schedule has a certain
symmetry about it. Doesn't need changing for at least another 20
years.
The only thing I'd like to see more of is perhaps final 3 weeks of the
season all being divisional games.
--
Ian
Deadmeat
> I don't like it.
> I know people don't like preseason, but it serves a purpose - - getting players prepared
> for the season, and weeding out the JAGs.
> If they cut a few preseason games, and add them as regular season games, there are gonna
> be many more injuries. At the beginning of the season, because players aren't ready. At
> the end of the season, because players are worn down.
> How many holdouts have we seen, that get injured when they return? Regular season games
> are intense... and just being in shape, doesn't mean they're in playing shape.
>
> Nah... I'll pass... but, I'm sure the NFL will do it.
The same thing was said when they went from 12 to 14. Then again when
they went from 14 to 16. Injuries can happen at anytime, and as long as
both sides will make more money, you're right it will happen.
Sean
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is a foregone conclusion, but I am a purist, and I am dead-set
against it. There aren't enough quality players as it is on the 53 man
roster. Who really has quality depth? Super Bowl shouldn't be decided
by who won the war of attrition. Does this now mean players will get
an @ 12% raise fro the extra games? I am old school as it gets (for a
42 year-old, anyway). Too many teams as it is in NFL, MLB and NHL.
(Don't know or care about NBA). Talent pool is already diminished as
it is. They damn well better have 2 byes when they got to 18 games.
Sean
Deadmeat
I think the extra bye and expanded rosters will happen if/when the
change occurs. I don't disagree with your points, but if it means more
football, then I'm leaning towards it.
Harlan Lachman
buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> I'm against the grain on this one.
> I don't like it.
> I know people don't like preseason, but it serves a purpose - - getting
> players prepared
> for the season, and weeding out the JAGs.
> If they cut a few preseason games, and add them as regular season games,
> there are gonna
> be many more injuries. At the beginning of the season, because players
> aren't ready. At
> the end of the season, because players are worn down.
> How many holdouts have we seen, that get injured when they return? Regular
> season games
> are intense... and just being in shape, doesn't mean they're in playing
> shape.
>
> Nah... I'll pass... but, I'm sure the NFL will do it.
Yes on both your last points.
Too bad we are not dictators of the world.
h
John C TX
It will happen because of money but players will have shorter careers
& ultimately make less money.
papa.carl44
"Sean" <BOSS...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0a29a02a-c79b-4eb4...@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
It is a horrible idea....the season is too long now as it is. If they think
guys will not get through that actual season without a lot of "help" they
are nuts.
papa.carl44
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b7f96bb-3329-484e...@p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Go read "How Football Explains America" by Sal Palantonio....it makes so
much sense as that book explains....the greed of America is on full display
in the NFL...and ultimately it will bring down the league and the Nation.
John C TX
> It is a horrible idea....the season is too long now as it is. If they think
> guys will not get through that actual season without a lot of "help" they
> are nuts.
Some of this ALS research linking head injuries should be enough to
get them to rethink it but it won't.
papa.carl44
You are right...and that is really sad....very sad. The average age for a
lineman is not that long.
MZ
Even better symmetry can be accomplished with 18 games. I've had this
idea for a while:
2 games per every division rival (=6 games)
1 game against every other team in the conference (=12 games)
That way, all AFC teams play every other AFC team. Interconference
tiebreakers can come down to head to head results instead of this other
nonsense that they currently use.
The drawback, of course, is that you set it up like the old MLB. AFC
would only play NFC in the preseason and in the super bowl.
> The only thing I'd like to see more of is perhaps final 3 weeks of the
> season all being divisional games.
That would be cool.
MZ
All I know is that 4 preseason games is stupid. 2 or 3 would do the
trick. If teams need more than that, they can organize scrimmages and
joint practices. Can't let the entire NFL schedule be dictated by
concern over the final 5 or 10 spots on a roster.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:a7ednf0xne9bIB7R...@giganews.com...
I can buy into your idea Mark...if they increase the roster
significantly....and I do like AFC playing AFC and NFC playing NFC...old
school stuff, then find out who really is the best. :-)
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
I don't think most people realize how different this is from team to
team...Philadelphia did'n't even have a live scrimmage with another
team...others had more than a couple...they could take care of business with
two "preseason" games...or as they used to be called, exhibition games...I'd
still like to see an expanded roster with an 18 game season.
John C TX
wrote:
> "MZ" <m...@nospam.void> wrote in message
I am 100% in favor of shortening the exhibition schedule to two
especially if they expand the roster as the marginal errors will be
less likely to slip through the cracks. There is also talks of the
NFL sharing ownership in the new league. Teams could park players.