Commissioner Goodell wants the NFL season to be 17 or 18 games

I agree that the preseason should be shorter, but I don't think I totally agree with extending the regular season past 16 games. What do you guys think?

7 months ago J2daZ 38 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I like 4 preseason, 16 regular

Its fine the way it is. Four may seem like a huge amount of meaningless games, but it gets rookies more time to develop, and other players chances to make rosters or practice squads.

The regular season should not go past 16 games. The preseason should not be shortened. However, preseason games should not cost the same as regular season games.

by Andrew Davidson on Mar 25, 2009 1:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I also like 16 regular games but really don’t like 4 preseason games. I can understand the revenue problem but worried an 18 game season maybe too long of a season. Possibly I could see a 17th game, the international game isn’t a bad idea but do the logistics exist for the NFL stage 16 of those games a year.

I think the NFL getting more creative with their preseason games might be a good route to go. Maybe one preseason game is a 7-7 scrimmage. It eliminates most of the threat of injury but fans get to see their team’s top QB’s, WR and RB’s toss it around for afternoon.

by bignerd on Mar 25, 2009 2:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

if he wants more meaningful games

He should shorten the regular season, so all games mean more

But realistically, he can cut the preseason by one game, but 16 games is fine as is. With the idea of moving the Draft to February that will be a lot of clutter in February.

Check my 49ers blogs at Mining the Gold Rush and San Francisco 49ers Examiner

by PHUT! on Mar 25, 2009 2:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

Alaska is a state, dammit! Can I get a Niner game on TV up here?

by kinglouie33 on Mar 25, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do It

Eighteen regular season games and East coast teams never have to travel West of Cleveland. That’s the perfect solution.

NOT! 8-)

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Mar 25, 2009 2:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd be all up...

… for extending to 17 games, but only if the preseason gets shortened by one game. I think three games of preseason accomplishes just as much as four, and throwing an extra regular season game in won’t hurt.

The only thing I’m against is extending the end of the actual season (playoffs and all) any further than it already is.

by sfgfan on Mar 25, 2009 2:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

by J2daZ on Mar 25, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

17 games

so does each team play one game per year at a neutral site? you can’t have 9 home, 8 away, or vice versa, so how would 17 games work?

by Andrew Davidson on Mar 25, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm true

how would that work?

by 49ersAllTheWay on Mar 25, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

All neutral site games

And most don’t even have to be outside the Western Hemisphere: LA (at least 4 each season) , Hawaii (at least 2 each season), Las Vegas, Mexico City, Rio, BA, Toronto, Montreal. Fill in ther rest with European cities, maybe even Dubai, Nairobi, Tel Aviv or Johannesburg in future years.

by Odquest on Mar 25, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about Fresno in August?

That would be a challenge to both teams. Everyone would leave the game pissed off.

Alaska is a state, dammit! Can I get a Niner game on TV up here?

by kinglouie33 on Mar 25, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Neutral site games

Like odquest says the extra week of games would mean they take place at neutral venues. However, they are all likely to take place outside the US – Canada,Mexico,Brazil,Australia,Japan,S Africa,Dubai and Europe.
The reason I say this is that when I watched the London game last year they interviewed the chairman of nfluk who was instrumental in bringing these games here to start with, and he said that negotiations to this effect have been taking place over the last year or so with Roger Goodell and that the NFL are eager to do this because they want to expand the game worldwide.

by Ninerfromacrossthepond on Mar 25, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LA

LA is building a stadium so I’ve got to think that Goodell would throw a bunch of neutral games their way to atleast test the waters for moving a franchise there.

Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.

by methodrampage on Mar 27, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alternate...

… the years you play at home with that extra game. Revenue arguments may come into play, but I’m sure those could be worked out with some changes to the revenue sharing aspect of a team’s income.

by sfgfan on Mar 25, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

what about

teams play one game per year at a neutral site, at a stadium from the opposite AFC division.

For example, Seattle vs. St. Louis at Arrowhead Stadium. Revenue is then split three ways (Seattle, St. Louis and KC in this case). I think it would be neat.

by Andrew Davidson on Mar 25, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

From a fans prespective

Why, using this example, would a Chiefs fan want to go to a Seattle vs. St. Louis game when the Chiefs would be playing a game elsewhere that same day?

I can’t see too many fans traveling across the country from Seattle or St. Louis to go attend either.

by good as gold on Mar 25, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can definitely see...

… the draw later in the season, if you’re a Lions fan and the Patriots and Chargers are battling for the last first round bye spot.

by sfgfan on Mar 26, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Possible

But I still couldn’t see myself skip a Niner game to watch two other teams in person that I could just watch on TV like usual.

by good as gold on Mar 26, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very true.

I guess it would be more of a marketing ploy for “weaker” fanbases that have struggling teams.

by sfgfan on Mar 27, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Revenue

It’s all about money. We already force season ticket holders to buy the preseason games, why not give them something for it like an extra real game?

by Neon on Mar 25, 2009 3:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

the systems fine the way it is.

by arsnp on Mar 25, 2009 4:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

I think we are few though.

by Andrew Davidson on Mar 25, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Goodell is just being greedy

16 games is fine.

Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.

by methodrampage on Mar 27, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Extend it.

More entertainment for us.

by Brendan Scolari on Mar 25, 2009 7:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

17 would be fine

18 is too long.

17 would make it so that no team could play 500. Winning record, or losing record.

by coicoy on Mar 25, 2009 8:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Do you really think

one extra game makes the season too long?

by Brendan Scolari on Mar 25, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Technically it's two extra games

But if you’re going to argue that because 17 isn’t too long then 18 isn’t too long then I’d argue that because 18 isn’t too long that 19 wouldn’t be too long and then sfgfan would argue that because 19 games isn’t too long that 20 games wouldn’t be too long and by the time your dad, the crazy lady down the street with all the cats and Pres. Obama weighed in the regular season would be 48 games long, with 4 rounds of playoffs, causing opening day to be played a week after the Super Bowl thus eliminating the preseason.

Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.

by methodrampage on Mar 27, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

NFL Kickoff 2015...

… on the first Saturday in February!

by sfgfan on Mar 27, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's silly.

16 games I think is a good length for the season. Any more and I think you’d start ending up with a lot of the crappy teams being eliminated with a lot of season left. Maybe I’m wrong though. I just don’t see the point of it. Ok I do see the point, money. That’s why I don’t like it. I’m all for making changes to the game if it makes the game better. But I think making the season longer does nothing to make the game better, it just does a lot to make the owners richer.

Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis

by wjackalope on Mar 25, 2009 11:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That’s the argument I am still siding with. There is such a thing as having too long of a regular season. This proposal is all about money.

by bignerd on Mar 25, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Extend the season....lose the pre....

O.K. folks…..let’s make up our collective minds. I have heard for years that the pre-season, (which only lasts a paltry 4 games.) is TOO LONNNNNNNGGGG!!!!!!!! And that the paying public only gets to see the “Stars” for a few meaningless snaps. The rest of the game is a bunch of guys who won’t even make the team or will be so far down on the back-up list, they have to be Fed-Ex’ed overnight to be on the field when needed. By stripping 2 pre-season games and adding them to the regular season, is really the only way to squash the problem. Granted the real reason behind the move is financial, we all know that. But, I don’t understand why everyone is so up in arms about 2 REAL GAMES. Just think of what those 2 extra games could’ve meant to those teams who BARELY missed the playoffs last year. Mmmmmmmmmmm.

K.C.Edwards -AKA- "THE" DarkkStarr

by DarkkStarr1 on Mar 26, 2009 7:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

by Ninerfromacrossthepond on Mar 28, 2009 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

horrible idea

why not make the NFL a year round league. 48 week season? who could resist?

there can be too much of a good thing. This idea does just that.

Lott's Prayer: Almost as many words as the Lord's Prayer, but the Lord wouldn't recognize any of them.

by Nosetackle Supreme on Mar 26, 2009 11:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m pretty sure I just don’t like this idea because it’s not what I’m used to.

But I don’t like it.

GROUGTHINK ALERT
Chatterbalks dot com: Now with updates!

by groug on Mar 26, 2009 4:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Im on the fence on this one

i dont care either way 16, 17, 18. if we get more games then its more football. Its a win for me. More fantasy football as well :). and if it stays the same then its cool cuz nothing changes and im not mad at that either.

by 49ersAllTheWay on Mar 26, 2009 5:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No

For Goodness sake Goodell why must you be such a DICtator

http://www.49ersboard.blogspot.com

by supraman on Mar 27, 2009 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No, I like preseason.

Am I the only person who loves watching all the preseason games? Its fun to watch the rookies that you just drafted play a game thats close to real in a SF uniform, and its a valuable time to evaluate some key players!
Don’t you remember that Josh Morgan tore it up in the preseason? That set him up for being a great WR for the whole season! That would have been hard to attain had it not been for those valuable preseason games. I still like looking at the up and coming players even from other teams, like watching Jacob Hester in SD tear it up, knowing he would be a good player. I love all of it!
Am I the only one?

by Poundtherock on Mar 27, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Preseason

I understand the value of the preseason, but I do think four (or even five, in some cases, I think?) games is kind of long. I think reducing it by one game will spare quit a bit of excess risk to injury to players that will actually make rosters.

Morgan, if I’m not mistaken, tore it up in practice during training camp, too. Coaches really liked him going into the preseason, and I’m pretty sure he would have seen the field once Johnson and whomever got hurt just the same.

by sfgfan on Mar 27, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs