PDA

View Full Version : 18 Game Season



Broncoholic3233
02-05-2011, 03:45 PM
Let's have our own poll, as of today (sure we have had one in the past), because there are so many other polls going around (espn, newspapers, etc..)

Would you like the 18 game season? If yes, please state why, as to those who answer no, feel free to say why, but it is a little more obvious.

:goz:

broncos1997
02-05-2011, 03:50 PM
i voted no, obviously because of the injury problem, but also because i like my extra two regular season games to get a sneak peak at rookies and bubble players.

actually, i would even go as far as to support an extra two preseason games (22 total weeks of football), where the bubble players would be primarily playing. although i doubt any of the owners or players would even consider that.

EddyMac87
02-05-2011, 03:52 PM
i voted a definite no

qbronco
02-05-2011, 03:56 PM
I'm obviously in the minority right now, but for the life of me I can't understand why true football fans would want to watch 2 preseason games more than they would want to watch 2 regular season games.

Could somebody please explain this to me?

rjent
02-05-2011, 03:57 PM
Absolutely no! Dumb idea, driven by money considerations only. I am totally against it! :paper:

EddyMac87
02-05-2011, 04:02 PM
I'm obviously in the minority right now, but for the life of me I can't understand why true football fans would want to watch 2 preseason games more than they would want to watch 2 regular season games.

Could somebody please explain this to me?


adding more games will shorten careers, diminish any stats and records, and ensure even more injuries.

when does it stop then? would you like 20 regular season games in a season? how bout 25? after all its more football!

There is obviously a point where you must feel would be too many games.. most fans feel that point is already here or even past.

qbronco
02-05-2011, 04:09 PM
adding more games will shorten careers, diminish any stats and records, and ensure even more injuries.

when does it stop then? would you like 20 regular season games in a season? how bout 25? after all its more football!

There is obviously a point where you must feel would be too many games.. most fans feel that point is already here or even past.

This is the same argument people had when the NFL only played 12 games. They already play 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games, which equals 20 total games. I am saying play 2 preseason games, and 18 regular season games which equals the same 20 games. Two bye weeks rather than 1 would be good for the players' health concerns. I am not advocating 20-25 games as you propose. I am proposing the 20 games they already play, make 18 of them count for something.

darklord
02-05-2011, 04:09 PM
I voted no because of possible injuries and am very content with the way it is

Hadez
02-05-2011, 04:41 PM
I thought this would be a no-brainer yes and fans would support it before the 2010 season.

Allot has been said by allot of posters and TV people to make me reconsider.

Still voting yes but here is what I think needs to happen.

- NFL roster expanded to 55 players and practice squads increased by 3 players.
- Money goes to players to account for this
- OTAs remain the same
- If anything needs to be changed for the health of the players is needs to be training camp. I do not know enough about it to make good suggestions but I do know way more injuries happen in TC then in OTAs.
- The Injured Reserved system needs to be reworked to allow players to be put on IR for 4-8 weeks then come back. Being put on the IR should not ALWAYS end a player's season. There should only be a few spots allow for this, like maybe 2-3 spots.

themadfanatic
02-05-2011, 04:43 PM
I'm obviously in the minority right now, but for the life of me I can't understand why true football fans would want to watch 2 preseason games more than they would want to watch 2 regular season games.

Could somebody please explain this to me?

I'm with you

legend
02-05-2011, 04:50 PM
I'm a definite yes as it gives a struggling team more time to turn their season around. Introduce a transfer system like the English Premier League and have a guarantee in the CBA plays no more than 16 games a year unless a player waives their right to do so and chooses to play more (with compensation).

I'm from Australia where in Rugby League we have a 26 week season with two byes so each team plays 24 matches per season and are paid considerably less than an NFL player. Our highest paid player would earn less than 1 million per season.

Twizlers
02-05-2011, 04:51 PM
Wow, can't believe there is still around ~33% of the fanbase wanting 2 more games. Think about the quality of the game. Also think of the players, and none of them want to play 2 more games on the season, not to mention rookies who may get stuffed on somebody's practice squad and out of the league in 2 years because they never had the opportunity to shine in that 3rd/4th preseason game (Syd'quan Thompson).

People need to stop for a second and take a look at the big picture.

samparnell
02-05-2011, 04:52 PM
... a member of the NFLPA, I would agree to an eighteen game season only with the following conditions:

1. An open week between preseason and the start of regular season;
2. Each team has three open weeks during the regular season;
3. An open week between the end of regular season and start of playoffs;
4. An open week before AFC/NFC Championship Games;
5. NFL Owners must establish a trust fund to provide pension and medical care for all players who suffer career ending injuries after the sixteenth game.

I think that puts the Super Bowl around April 1st, so the game could be anywhere, and over just in time for the draft! :D

simplistickhaos
02-05-2011, 04:55 PM
Wow, can't believe there is still around ~33% of the fanbase wanting 2 more games. Think about the quality of the game. Also think of the players, and none of them want to play 2 more games on the season, not to mention rookies who may get stuffed on somebody's practice squad and out of the league in 2 years because they never had the opportunity to shine in that 3rd/4th preseason game (Syd'quan Thompson).

People need to stop for a second and take a look at the big picture.

My thoughts exactly. Another good example is Tony Romo. He shined in pre season (I know he probably would have gotten his shot eventually, but how long would of that taken).

qbronco
02-05-2011, 04:56 PM
Wow, can't believe there is still around ~33% of the fanbase wanting 2 more games. Think about the quality of the game. Also think of the players, and none of them want to play 2 more games on the season, not to mention rookies who may get stuffed on somebody's practice squad and out of the league in 2 years because they never had the opportunity to shine in that 3rd/4th preseason game (Syd'quan Thompson).

People need to stop for a second and take a look at the big picture.

No disrespect intended. But this logic would dicatate they play 4-6 preseason games and 10-12 "Quality" games. That way the rookies would have an opportunity to shine, the veterans would have to play in 2 less games, and the 10-12 games on the schedule would be "Quality" games.

I don't think the fanbase wants two more additional games. I believe the fanbase wants 2 more "Quality" games which actually count for something.

themadfanatic
02-05-2011, 05:00 PM
I don't think the quality will diminish at all ppl said that same thing when they went to 14 then to 16 I think it improves the quality by getting rid of 2 meaningless games. And as far as injurys the cfl already switched to 18 and they don't have significantly more injurys and if hockey can have 82 regular season games and rugby 24 with no pads the nfl can play 18 I'm all for it the more football the better

darth-hideous
02-05-2011, 05:01 PM
I voted yes; because my understanding is that the league is considering just eliminating two pre-season games.Then adding them to the regular schedule, if that is the case, i'd be o.k. with that. Pre-season has kind of lost it's original intent, and these guys are, for the most part, showing up in condition to play at the beginning of pre-season anyway.

samparnell
02-05-2011, 05:03 PM
I don't think the quality will diminish at all ppl said that same thing when they went to 14 then to 16 I think it improves the quality by getting rid of 2 meaningless games. And as far as injurys the cfl already switched to 18 and they don't have significantly more injurys and if hockey can have 82 regular season games and rugby 24 with no pads the nfl can play 18 I'm all for it the more football the better

... two games could be added to the schedule every twenty to thirty years or so ad infinitum. :rolleyes:

Is there no place in your thinking for a number of games which is too many for a human being to play? :confused:

Twizlers
02-05-2011, 05:05 PM
No disrespect intended. But this logic would dicatate they play 4-6 preseason games and 10-12 "Quality" games. That way the rookies would have an opportunity to shine, the veterans would have to play in 2 less games, and the 10-12 games on the schedule would be "Quality" games.

I don't think the fanbase wants two more additional games. I believe the fanbase wants 2 more "Quality" games which actually count for something.
Yeah except the quality, as you put it, is going down the drain every meaningful game extra you add into that. More injuries, less stamina, etc. I mean look at the SB, there are a ton of injured players on the teams and you can bet on a few more with added games.

I personally don't mind seeing those preseason games. Yeah they aren't meaningful, but everyone looks forward to watching what the rookies could be capable of. Say you have one rookie QB that you drafted in the first round. Do you believe his 2 preseason game experience is enough to throw him to the wolves in the regular season? Even if you wait 2 years, he would only have 4 games of NFL experience under his belt. And I doubt those 4 games will be against quality defenses, as teams won't dare risk playing their starters for more then a drive or 2 each game, since they would have to last an additional 2 games in the season.

Every way you look at it it's a bad idea. The only benefit is the fans get to watch 2 more meaningful game instead of 2 "unmeaningful" games. Well as a fan, I don't think I'll die if I have to watch 4 preseason games again, but the quality of the game WILL start to die and ultimately that is what makes watching football fun.

qbronco
02-05-2011, 05:12 PM
Yeah except the quality, as you put it, is going down the drain every meaningful game extra you add into that. More injuries, less stamina, etc. I mean look at the SB, there are a ton of injured players on the teams and you can bet on a few more with added games.

I personally don't mind seeing those preseason games. Yeah they aren't meaningful, but everyone looks forward to watching what the rookies could be capable of. Say you have one rookie QB that you drafted in the first round. Do you believe his 2 preseason game experience is enough to throw him to the wolves in the regular season? Even if you wait 2 years, he would only have 4 games of NFL experience under his belt. And I doubt those 4 games will be against quality defenses, as teams won't dare risk playing their starters for more then a drive or 2 each game, since they would have to last an additional 2 games in the season.

Every way you look at it it's a bad idea. The only benefit is the fans get to watch 2 more meaningful game instead of 2 "unmeaningful" games. Well as a fan, I don't think I'll die if I have to watch 4 preseason games again, but the quality of the game WILL start to die and ultimately that is what makes watching football fun.

These men are professionals. Do you honestly intend to insult them by saying the quality of the game will suffer if they have to play two more games which count in the standings?

Tell this to season ticket holders who pay the same price for preseason games as regular season games. Often times, they can't even give away tickets to preseason games.

As far as evaluating players isn't that what the OTA's and training camp are for?

themadfanatic
02-05-2011, 05:12 PM
... two games could be added to the schedule every twenty to thirty years or so ad infinitum. :rolleyes:

Is there no place in your thinking for a number of games which is too many for a human being to play? :confused:

I don't know 18 for now 20 years from now 20 lol but I really don't think adding 2 games will ruin anything except evaluating stats will b very different well probably have more 2000 yard rushers and 5000 yard passers

broncoFan!
02-05-2011, 08:27 PM
Let's have our own poll, as of today (sure we have had one in the past), because there are so many other polls going around (espn, newspapers, etc..)

Would you like the 18 game season? If yes, please state why, as to those who answer no, feel free to say why, but it is a little more obvious.

:goz:

No. These guys take enough of a beating every single day of the season and practice their butts off. Preseason is also a good time to get the rookies to prepare and if the rooks don't get enough playtime then the coaches won't know how to set their depth charts as well also.

on2
02-05-2011, 08:37 PM
Ain't broke, don't fix.

msusc
02-05-2011, 08:43 PM
No for two reasons. First of all it would end up being more like 20 games because the starters will need to play in both preseason games basically the whole game so the team can get a feeling of playing together. The other reason is i like the playoffs and the superbowl to be the best football of the year. I don't want players warn down from playing like 23 weeks of football by the time they reach the superbowl.

BroncosFanInPA
02-05-2011, 08:44 PM
The nfl is entertainment for fans so why not give the fans more, you know fans that without support from there would be no nfl anyway & these guys make $$$ millions $$$ of dollars, so i don't want to here about injuries.

yaz96
02-05-2011, 08:54 PM
Absolutely no! Dumb idea, driven by money considerations only. I am totally against it! :paper:

How so??

They get the same ticket prices either way.

Please defend your point.

JaysusCutler
02-05-2011, 09:00 PM
Not a chance. I'm not a casual fan.

Frankenpost
02-05-2011, 09:04 PM
Listen gang... Who hear doesnt watch all 4 pre-season games? I watch em, they kinda suck because as much as i'm happy to watch Bronco football after a long off season i worry that someone will get hurt in a meaning less game.:sad:

I mean 4 preseason and 16 regular games is 20 games.

2 preseason and 18 regular games is 20 games.

Who cares...As long as we get Our fotball. :D

Rastamen
02-05-2011, 09:06 PM
I don't know 18 for now 20 years from now 20 lol but I really don't think adding 2 games will ruin anything except evaluating stats will b very different well probably have more 2000 yard rushers and 5000 yard passers

And you turn the NFL closer to a circus atmosphere that it has already become! Already one can argue with the rule changes to increase scoring to satisfy the fans, the WR's now put up great receiving stats b/c corner backs can no longer touch them after 5 yards. You add on to how the QB's are protected in the pocket and outside the pocket, and you can see the integrity and competitive spirit of of the game is now on a slippery slope, when you compare how the game was played in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. I'd be more incline to going back to a 14 game season for the sake of the short and long term health of the players while keeping the 4 preseason games.

The owners while sitting in their climate controlled luxury boxes with their families and VIP buddies are only looking at the $$$$ figures while caring little about the health of the players who participate in the most violent short lived sport in America by adding an additional 2 games. We already see the stories of the players who played the game in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's who are now broken, crippled warriors b/c they gave they're all to game we fans love so much.

The owners and the fans advocating for an 18 game regular season need to put the integrity of the game and the short-term and long term health of the players first! And just say no! Its the players who have made the game what it is today, and its why the fans watch the games. Lets not view the players of the NFL as pieces of expendable meat and view them as human beings and not force them to play 2 additional games that will have short term and long term health ramifications on their lives.

Broncoboy6
02-05-2011, 09:09 PM
I'm obviously in the minority right now, but for the life of me I can't understand why true football fans would want to watch 2 preseason games more than they would want to watch 2 regular season games.

Could somebody please explain this to me?


This is the same argument people had when the NFL only played 12 games. They already play 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games, which equals 20 total games. I am saying play 2 preseason games, and 18 regular season games which equals the same 20 games. Two bye weeks rather than 1 would be good for the players' health concerns. I am not advocating 20-25 games as you propose. I am proposing the 20 games they already play, make 18 of them count for something.

You took the words right out of my mouth. If i remember right, Key injuries have been in pre-season, For example Knowshon got hurt in his rookie year playing the 49ers when a lineman jumped on him when he was on the ground. This past year Houston Texans RB Ben Tate got injured in Pre-season. He was a highly-touted RB who in my opinion would have gave Arian Foster a run for his money. I say, Cut down to 2 Pre-season games and bolter up rosters and have 2-3 bye's.

Rastamen
02-05-2011, 09:17 PM
The nfl is entertainment for fans so why not give the fans more, you know fans that without support from there would be no nfl anyway & these guys make $$$ millions $$$ of dollars, so i don't want to here about injuries.

Meh! You mean the owners make millions and billions for life and can do so for 40-60 years whether they win or sniff the SB or rarely make the playoffs. Owners don't risk loosing they're franchise if they don't' win. However, if a player gets injured, those so called millions of dollars will end abruptly because their salaries or contracts are not guaranteed for life. I don't watch the NFL to see an owner sitting in his luxury box, I watch the NFL to see the players perform and would like to see the top pro bowl and HOF players have sustained 10-16 year careers playing at a high level; while not seeing they're careers or season ended due to playing the 17th and 18th games.

Rastamen
02-05-2011, 09:27 PM
No. These guys take enough of a beating every single day of the season and practice their butts off. Preseason is also a good time to get the rookies to prepare and if the rooks don't get enough playtime then the coaches won't know how to set their depth charts as well also.

Agreed! The preason is there to evaluate the draft picks. The starters already use the off-season and OTA's to stay in shape and ready themselves for the upcoming season.

Broncoboy6
02-05-2011, 09:33 PM
Agreed! The preason is there to evaluate the draft picks. The starters already use the off-season and OTA's to stay in shape and ready themselves for the upcoming season.

I see your points, But, Wasn't that the argument againts Tebow that he was playing againts second & thrid stringers and can't really evaulate him until he plays againts full time starters?.

Safety
02-06-2011, 01:44 AM
I voted yes. players are just as likely to get hurt in the pre-season as they are in the regular season, injuries are just part of the game. Look at all the players who have gotten hurt in the off season (Robert Edwards RB for New England several years ago who trashed his knee in a sand scrimmage game in Hawaii). Look at Kellen Winslow Jr, who messed himself up good on a motorcycle. Look at Big Ben on his motorcycle accident.

4 pres-season games are pointless. Trade 2 pre-season games for 2 regular season games, and let's play ball.

BroncosFanInPA
02-06-2011, 09:17 AM
Meh! You mean the owners make millions and billions for life and can do so for 40-60 years whether they win or sniff the SB or rarely make the playoffs. Owners don't risk loosing they're franchise if they don't' win. However, if a player gets injured, those so called millions of dollars will end abruptly because their salaries or contracts are not guaranteed for life. I don't watch the NFL to see an owner sitting in his luxury box, I watch the NFL to see the players perform and would like to see the top pro bowl and HOF players have sustained 10-16 year careers playing at a high level; while not seeing they're careers or season ended due to playing the 17th and 18th games.

First off the owners have every right to make the money they do because... well they "own" a nfl franchise there are only 32 of them in the world, it's no different than any major corporation in america the owners make the money & the people that work for them make far less it's just the facts of life.

As far as injuries go, & saying that the extra games increase the chances, well that may be true but look no further than our broncos losing dumerville for the whole season before the season even started & i know there are many others around the league gone for the year. So as you can see injuries can & do occur at any given point & time, not just the end of the season.

malmi
02-06-2011, 09:44 AM
I have a dude, is 18 games or 18 weeks (17 games and 1 bye)?

The Executioner
02-06-2011, 09:54 AM
Those guys gets paid in millions and millions and millions of dollars so yeah, 18 games actually isn't enough. It's time to get their moneys worth. Injuries? It comes with the money, so stop complaining.

Mount-n-Groan
02-06-2011, 10:16 AM
No.

But I still like the compromise solution:

17 regular, 3 preseason, slight increase in roster size, and possibly another bye week.

If they're serious about exporting the game then this is the ideal solution. Each team still gets its 8 home and 8 away, but every team plays one game abroad in Canada, London, Japan, Mexico, wherever... That way no one has to forfeit one of their home games and the decided advantage that goes along with it. I'm not sure if they're ready for 16 games abroad yet, but when they are...

:logo:

Anikai
02-06-2011, 02:04 PM
They make millions to play, we pay millions to watch in their colors. Absolutely.

Salty
02-07-2011, 10:12 AM
Definitely yes.

Several reasons really. Being a season ticket holder, it'd be nice to actually watch an actual game (not a practice game) that I pay full price for. One of the biggest fan disservice that the league dishes out. Any of you all want to buy some of my preseason games for face value? Didn't think so. ;)

Players are actually, y'know -playing- during the preseason. In earlier preseason games, the playing time could be a few series; later, it might be 2-3 quarters. The players are not having to play 2 more games. More than likely, just a few more quarters.

Risk of preseason injury is the same as actual season injury. The risk does not magically increase because the game is given "actual season" status.


I'm down with expanding the roster size a bit to accommodate some more player rotation. I'm down with seeing the league include some sort of retired player injury coverage.

KWHIT97
02-07-2011, 10:22 AM
It is perfect the way it is. Coaches need all 4 preseason games imo to evaluate thier talent, it is good for the young, bubble players to really get the chance to show what they've got. If the preseason were only 2 games do you think a guy like Terrell Davis would have gotten a fair shake at the starting RB job?

Players have a hard enough time staying healthy for 16 games, the extra 2 games would just be a watered down mess.

Salaries would be all screwed up, players would want thier's restructured!

I could go on, but I will close by saying this is the lamest idea ever, and there is zero chance of the players going for it. Goodell and his band of lynchmen are just trying to line thier greedy pockets even more.

sbxxxiichamps
02-07-2011, 12:26 PM
I voted no.

the 16 game schedule as it is now is grueling for the players. Many don't even last that long. To add two more games would be absurd. The NFL is a violent impact sport and safety needs to be a top issue.

Also, what about the tradition? would the 2000 yd mark be as special for the players anymore? 50 passing TD's a year?-no problem....If it isn't broken then don't fix it.

Having said that if an 18 game schedule is approved for those overly greedy owners then at the very least they need to implement a second bye week for teams to help with injury recovery and safety.

Hopefully, they keep the season length as it is.

DishWater
02-07-2011, 12:31 PM
I'm with the players on this one...

broncolassiter
02-07-2011, 05:21 PM
I voted no, cause we need to keep pre-season as is. Also I think that 16 games is plenty enough to determine the best in each division. 18 games might be good for fans, but not good for players. Then even the fans could be a toss up, as it is more games to have to pay for. The Sunday ticket with direct tv would cost more money and it is to much as is. I just don't see any real positives for an 18 game season.

Owners might make more money and they already make billions! 18 games just won't benefit me at all, other than I would get to watch 2 more Bronco games (gee wiz). When were winning I would prefer to get straight to the play-offs instead of giving another team a chance to catch us. and when were losing, why would I want to watch 2 more loses?

Charlie Brown
02-08-2011, 12:29 PM
No, I do not want an 18 game season. Sixteen games are just fine.

Southstander
02-08-2011, 01:08 PM
I wish there was an I do not care option.

Broncoholic3233
02-08-2011, 01:19 PM
I wish there was an I do not care option.

Sorry to disappoint.

Most people take a strict stance in this topic it seems.

OrangeCrushinMi
02-08-2011, 01:24 PM
What I have loved about football my whole life, was with so few regular season games, it puts weight on how important each game is versus baseball or basketball. The more games you add, the less important each game is.

I also agree that if you subtract out those preseason games, guys like T.D. never get a chance. And there are stories like his all across the NFL.

marcus_miller
02-08-2011, 01:25 PM
Sorry to disappoint.

Most people take a strict stance in this topic it seems.

As a fan, I can see positives and negatives for either side of the argument. I voted no out of fear that, 18 game schedule will corrupt the game that we have all cherished so much. 18 games already have corrupted the game this year in preparation.

If an option in the middle existed, I would have most likely selected it.

Broncoholic3233
02-08-2011, 01:29 PM
As a fan, I can see positives and negatives for either side of the argument. I voted no out of fear that, 18 game schedule will corrupt the game that we have all cherished so much. 18 games already have corrupted the game this year in preparation.

If an option in the middle existed, I would have most likely selected it.

Yeah I get that. But doesn't seem like reality. Seems like it's one or the other.

marcus_miller
02-08-2011, 03:22 PM
Yeah I get that. But doesn't seem like reality. Seems like it's one or the other.

I guess your right, I learn more towards the NO side of the middle and actually did vote NO, so... It's just that, I do see some positives in 18 games.

91bronco
02-08-2011, 03:38 PM
Listen gang... Who hear doesnt watch all 4 pre-season games? I watch em, they kinda suck because as much as i'm happy to watch Bronco football after a long off season i worry that someone will get hurt in a meaning less game.:sad:

I mean 4 preseason and 16 regular games is 20 games.

2 preseason and 18 regular games is 20 games.

Who cares...As long as we get Our fotball. :D

I agree- it's not like they are adding two additional games- the total is still 20.

Starters play half the first quarter in the first game. The starters play past the 1st quarter in the second game. The starters play through the half and sometimes past in the 3rd game. The bubble players play the 4th game.

It seems to me the starter are playing one half to a whole game more.

I really don't understand why some are so against changing the classification of two of the games already being played.

Southstander
02-08-2011, 04:27 PM
Sorry to disappoint.

Most people take a strict stance in this topic it seems.

I guess I see it differently.

BroncoManiac_69
02-08-2011, 04:36 PM
With all the rookies entering the league each year and the trades that are involved, it would take more than 2 preseason games to determine who would fit on any team's roster. The 4 preseason games gives each coaching staff a better feel of who would work in their plan.

Free Agents are also given time to adapt to their new team assuming they aren't undrafted ones.

I think the players would demand more commas and zeros on their checks and a large amount of NFL fans already believe they are paid too much as it is.

On the other side of the coin, the injury debate can be argued that regardless of preseason or regular season, the potential of injury is still there and we all know teams lose players in preseason all the time.

18 game seasons could very well make the season more interesting in each division and give teams that much more of a chance to compete in their division.

I think the cons outweigh the pros so I voted no.

OFFTOPIC: I'd like to see 2 more teams from each conference get a shot at the playoffs and eliminate bye weeks. Homefield advantage rules should remain the way they are, but I've always felt it isn't quite fair that 4 teams get to sit out a week in the playoffs, rest and heal up, while the remaining teams battle it out.