An 18 game NFL regular season?

bassrique · #1 05-26-2010, 01:17 AM

This would be achieved by changing two of the four preseason games to regular season.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...g-season-soon/

That's just too much punishment for the regular squads.

blendermassacre · #2 05-26-2010, 01:48 AM

that's a terrible idea. Having played football for 12 years of my life, it still hurts almost daily. 2 more games per season that mean something, is 2 more games that starters risk their health. I have a feeling that if they do this, pulling starters towards the end of the season will be mandatory, not a Colts luxury.

stinger12345 · #3 05-26-2010, 01:59 AM

That means teams in the Super Bowl would have played 20 or 21 games? Youch

Number27 · #4 05-26-2010, 02:56 AM

sure! more football FTW!

it'll just mean that teams will have to start looking more into talent in depth.

rekesbass · #5 05-26-2010, 06:32 AM

I'm just glad to see the superbowl is gonna be played in an outdoor stadium and cold climate,the way it should be.

mrpackerguy · #6 05-26-2010, 06:34 AM

A money grab. Don't like the idea.

rekesbass · #7 05-26-2010, 06:58 AM

well that also means the SB could come to GB or any other outdoor stadium..how cool would it be to have a SB in Green Bay or Chicago.maybe this will give all teams a chance to host a SB and put money into their local economy..I think this is a good idea....Halftime show should be interesting..

KJung · #8 05-26-2010, 07:00 AM

I guess the cool thing about that plan is that the Lions would have a chance to eventually set another record

Yerf Dog · #9 05-26-2010, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

I guess the cool thing about that plan is that the Lions would have a chance to eventually set another record

Gard · #10 05-26-2010, 07:54 AM

18 game "regular season"? Stupid idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rekesbass

I'm just glad to see the superbowl is gonna be played in an outdoor stadium and cold climate,the way it should be.

Sure, that's fair, as soon as we have a championship football game in August/September in an outdoor field in Miami.

The SB in NY/NJ is the STUPIDEST idea I've heard in a long time. Check what the weather was like at the Meadowlands on 7/7/2010....

Now, think about not only the game itself being influenced by conditions like this, but also the people having to get TO the game through blizzard-like conditions, then sit outside in that weather after paying $2000+ for tickets.

I'd be pissed, for sure.

Oh, and how easy is it to find lodging for a few tens of thousands of out-of-town fans then get them TO the game in a reasonable amount of time. In NY/NJ?

In Miami, most of the folks could WALK from their hotel to the field. In New Orleans, the same will be true. Both from a location and WEATHER factor, it's a walking distance situation.

I think this decision will bite the NFL right in it's @$$, and I will laugh at them when it does.

Seriously...what happens if there's a freakin' blizzard on the day before or day of the game? Cancel the Super Bowl????

Gard · #11 05-26-2010, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

I guess the cool thing about that plan is that the Lions would have a chance to eventually set another record

...ouch.

(...luckily for Lions fans, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, they seem to be moving in the right direction - FINALLY!)

jp58 · #12 05-26-2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gard

tl;dr blizzard superbowl in NY

I agree with all of that. There are too many nice new stadiums with all kinds of amenities to be putting people out in a blizzard.

No offense to any team up north, or in colder climates, but given the spectacle that the super bowl now represents, a nice climate or indoor stadium is a must.

As for the 18 game season, why water it down with more games?
I see nothing but bad from that many games.

MJ5150 · #13 05-26-2010, 08:00 AM

Goodell is driving our beloved sport further into the ground.

-Mike

Gard · #14 05-26-2010, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ5150

Goodell is driving our beloved sport further into the ground.

-Mike

On this one, Mike, we completely agree.

Goodell is one of the worst things to happen to the NFL, ever.

need4mospd · #15 05-26-2010, 08:27 AM

They're paid millions of dollars. If it's too hard for them to play a couple more games, then maybe they should take up bird watching and leave the sports to the real men.

need4mospd · #16 05-26-2010, 08:29 AM

My previous comments may or may not have included sarcasm, depending on how serious you feel about it.

Febs · #17 05-26-2010, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jp58

No offense to any team up north, or in colder climates, but given the spectacle that the super bowl now represents, a nice climate or indoor stadium is a must.

I would love to see the Super Bowl be more about football, and less about the spectacle. And one of the things that I think is great about football is that it gets played in all sorts of weather conditions, including the rain and snow.

Gard · #18 05-26-2010, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs

I would love to see the Super Bowl be more about football, and less about the spectacle. And one of the things that I think is great about football is that it gets played in all sorts of weather conditions, including the rain and snow.

I agree about the "spectacle" aspect, it's going too far for me.

That said, in a championship game situation, the weather shouldn't be a factor, in my opinion. I understand, and respect the homefield advantage issues during the regular season and the playoffs (getting that homefield advantage is a part of the deal - teams EARN it). No team earns an advantage like that in the Championship game, and again, if we can play in the snow, then we need to find a way to balance that by making it possible for a northern team to end up playing in sweltering heat just as often as a southern or dome team playing in a blizzard. Otherwise, it is just an advantage for teams that play in those conditions, and that's all it will ever potentially be.

And, splitting the games between the northern stadiums and southern ones equally is still not really "equal" because the non-dome, southern stadiums are always pleasant in January/February (average 55F temps, little rain in winter in FL for example), so there is no advantage to the teams used to sweltering, high temperature/high humidity conditions then.

Therefore, the games should always be played in a fully weather neutral location - one which the conditions can favor neither a cold-weather nor a warm-weather team, i.e. NOT NY/NJ, GB, Pittsburgh, et al.

No offense intended to these places, but it is not in the spirit of a real championship to have the outcome decided by non-team factors.

stratovani · #19 05-26-2010, 09:10 AM

SB in NY - yep.
2 more games in regular season - nope.

jp58 · #20 05-26-2010, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by need4mospd

They're paid millions of dollars. If it's too hard for them to play a couple more games, then maybe they should take up bird watching and leave the sports to the real men.

Its not about there being more games, its about being what is gained and lost.

-Gained-
More injury chances
More profit for owners

-Lost_
Meaning for games because there are more of them

Plus salary demands will likely be higher, after all, they are doing more work. Season ticket costs will go up, as will ticket prices to cover the difference created in costs to owners.

I don't see any good reason for doing this at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs

I would love to see the Super Bowl be more about football, and less about the spectacle. And one of the things that I think is great about football is that it gets played in all sorts of weather conditions, including the rain and snow.

Yes, but you have to look at the profit side of football as well, as unfortunate as that may be. Its the same reason conference play in college football is always expanding and the same reason bowl games will always be there.