An 18 Game Regular Season?

[River_Dog]

The NFL played a 12-game regular season schedule for 14 years, from 1947 through 1960. They played a 14-game schedule for 16 years, from 1961-1977. They played a 16-game schedule for 43 years, from 1978-2020 when the league went to a 17-game schedule in 2021.

Now, after just three seasons under the new 17-game format, Roger Goodell is proposing that the league go to an 18-game schedule. When will it end? Why not cut to the chase and eliminate all the preseason games and go to a 20-game schedule as that's where it seems to be heading.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/roge ... -and-more/

I could understand going to a 17-game schedule. Having an odd number of scheduled games makes it possible to require each team with 9 home games to donate one to the international series or a neutral venue in an out of market domestic city, like Salt Lake City or Birmingham. And I'm all in on the international series as I am excited to see our Hawks play overseas again someday. But I don't see the need or the demand for extending the season yet again.

[Old but Slow]

Will they cut back the number of Pre-season games? I hope not, as that is when the young players get more snaps in live play, and the coaches have more opportunities to find the hidden gems in the udfa group.

[c_hawkbob]

17 was always a stepping stone to 18. I think that's where it'll stay.

[River_Dog]

Will they cut back the number of Pre-season games? I hope not, as that is when the young players get more snaps in live play, and the coaches have more opportunities to find the hidden gems in the udfa group.

Yes, that's part of the deal.

There's also talk of adding a 2nd bye week, which would extend the season yet again unless they eliminate the bye before the Super Bowl, which seems unlikely. It will also include a roster expansion, something necessary to get the support of the player's union.

IMO although it might take a few years, I can see the league eliminating all the preseason games and replacing them with intrasquad scrimmages, going to a 20-game schedule, a 16-team playoff system, and a season that stretches into the last week of February just before the start of baseball. I can also foresee some sort of permanent presence in Europe.

[NorthHawk]

ObS is right about the pre season games being necessary for players on the edge. It might even weaken the product because a lot of players have ended up with good careers based on playing well in the 3rd or 4th pre season game.
They also often become valuable depth for teams and with an 18 game schedule, that's going to be more important than ever.
I would hope that they expand both the roster and the Practice Squads with more players protected on those groups because the product on the field could have a problem as injuries mount and careers are shortened.

[River_Dog]

ObS is right about the pre season games being necessary for players on the edge. It might even weaken the product because a lot of players have ended up with good careers based on playing well in the 3rd or 4th pre season game.
They also often become valuable depth for teams and with an 18 game schedule, that's going to be more important than ever.
I would hope that they expand both the roster and the Practice Squads with more players protected on those groups because the product on the field could have a problem as injuries mount and careers are shortened.

Expanded rosters will be a prerequisite in order to get the players union support. I agree about the necessity of live game action prior to the start of the regular season, but the object for the owners is to make money, not to produce a quality product.

The other question will be in which direction will they expand the season, further into February or back to Labor Day. The NFL has had an unwritten rule with MLB not to compete with them for what is one of the biggest weekends of the season for baseball as they head down their pennant stretch, so my guess is that they'll bump the Super Bowl back to the 3rd or 4th Sunday in February.

[NorthHawk]

I think in the long run, the extra 2 games will shorten careers.
Not only because of the extra games but because some players won't be in playing shape like in the past where their bodies were accustomed to the physicality of the game by the end of preseason.
I think it might lessen the product, too because of all of the injuries and less experienced players forced into duty.
I think of it like it's adding another couple of teams through expansion where there are fewer real good players on each team. Imagine how good the football would be if we had 10 less teams.

[River_Dog]

I think in the long run, the extra 2 games will shorten careers.
Not only because of the extra games but because some players won't be in playing shape like in the past where their bodies were accustomed to the physicality of the game by the end of preseason.
I think it might lessen the product, too because of all of the injuries and less experienced players forced into duty.
I think of it like it's adding another couple of teams through expansion where there are fewer real good players on each team. Imagine how good the football would be if we had 10 less teams.

I think that there's a danger of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Football has been experiencing a decline in popularity in this country. Multiple surveys of Gen Z men and women have shown a reduced level of interest not only in football, but sports in general. Participation in high school and middle school is way down. Parents are expressing more concern about the safety of the sport and holding their children out. And with CFP's NIL to pay players, the transfer portal, and conference realignment, there's going to be a number of colleges whose fan base is going to be left out in the cold. At some point, that's going to manifest itself in a smaller market for the NFL.

In some ways, I can see some parallels with boxing. It used to be that every little po-dunk town of 5k had their own boxing club. My cousin belonged to the Dayton (WA) boxing club, held the record for the quickest knock out at the state's Golden Gloves tournament. It used to be an interscholastic sport, and even when TV was in its infancy in the 50's, they had live boxing matches on in Prime Time 4 nights a week. Heavyweight championship matches was must-see TV through the early 70's.

I don't see professional football being marginalized in my lifetime, but it could look a whole lot different 30 or 40 years from now.

[Oly]

I think in the long run, the extra 2 games will shorten careers. [...] I think it might lessen the product, too because of all of the injuries and less experienced players forced into duty. I think of it like it's adding another couple of teams through expansion where there are fewer real good players on each team.

I think that there's a danger of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. [...] Participation in high school and middle school is way down. Parents are expressing more concern about the safety of the sport and holding their children out. [...] I don't see professional football being marginalized in my lifetime, but it could look a whole lot different 30 or 40 years from now.

Two great observations. More games = larger rosters = more players at the same time that the talent pool is starting to dry up. Not saying it's dry, just that RD is right about declining numbers. So more players from a smaller pool is going to massively decrease the quality of the product.

No wonder the NFL is trying to expand football's footprint. They might be hoping that if German kids grow up playing they'll help offset the shrinking American base. The problem is that without the culture of football or quality of youth programs, they won't be as good. Just look at US soccer. We've had a national team for, what, more than a century, but because it's never been in our blood we've never produced a truly world class player. Even now, our best players are either fringe players on really good teams or are good players on fringe teams. It's improving, certainly, and as a pretty faithful MLS watcher I can say that after many decades US soccer is no longer an international embarrassment. It's not good by English/French/Italian/German standards, but it's ok. And as it continues to improve while the quality of football decreases, and more kids are playing fútbol than football because of concussion concerns, you wonder how long until the NFL starts to wane. In my lifetime, probably.

[River_Dog]

Two great observations. More games = larger rosters = more players at the same time that the talent pool is starting to dry up. Not saying it's dry, just that RD is right about declining numbers. So more players from a smaller pool is going to massively decrease the quality of the product.

No wonder the NFL is trying to expand football's footprint. They might be hoping that if German kids grow up playing they'll help offset the shrinking American base. The problem is that without the culture of football or quality of youth programs, they won't be as good. Just look at US soccer. We've had a national team for, what, more than a century, but because it's never been in our blood we've never produced a truly world class player. Even now, our best players are either fringe players on really good teams or are good players on fringe teams. It's improving, certainly, and as a pretty faithful MLS watcher I can say that after many decades US soccer is no longer an international embarrassment. It's not good by English/French/Italian/German standards, but it's ok. And as it continues to improve while the quality of football decreases, and more kids are playing fútbol than football because of concussion concerns, you wonder how long until the NFL starts to wane. In my lifetime, probably.

I don't think American football is gong to take hold in Europe or anywhere else outside of North America. It's not only too dangerous, it's too expensive, with equipment and insurance expenses making it cost prohibitive. I also don't think that Europe will be a good, long term market. The reason Germany and other international markets are so gung-ho at the moment is because it's a novelty, something unique. It's one thing to attract huge audiences for one or two games a year, quite another when you have several teams each playing 8-9 home games. This is evidenced by the fact that NFL Europe a few years back was a miserable failure. IMO the league would be better off just sticking with their current international series strategy, like a traveling circus.

As far as safety concerns goes, I have a story to tell you guys about a teammate of mine getting killed in a football game when I was in high school. I was the one who substituted for him when he went down. Perhaps I'll start a thread about it someday if anyone is interested. Ever since the Damar Hamlin scare, I've thought often about my experience as a junior in high school.

[Aseahawkfan]

Part of the reason Americans love football is it's a violent, dangerous sport of men dominating territory. It's part of American physical culture. A modified rugby with armor. I don't see it catching on elsewhere either for the reasons mentioned. It's expensive and places that love this type of physicality already have rugby, which is also a brutal sport.

We all know how brutal the game is which is why 18 games seems kind of crazy when most teams can barely survive 16 without losing some key people for at least a few games. 17 is pushing it, especially with these Thursday games.

Hard to believe a league claiming they care about player safety when expanding games and these Thursday games are all about money.

[NorthHawk]

Just look at US soccer. We've had a national team for, what, more than a century, but because it's never been in our blood we've never produced a truly world class player. Even now, our best players are either fringe players on really good teams or are good players on fringe teams. It's improving, certainly, and as a pretty faithful MLS watcher I can say that after many decades US soccer is no longer an international embarrassment. It's not good by English/French/Italian/German standards, but it's ok.

A little off topic but I doubt soccer really catches on big time because of all the fake theatrics of players trying to get a penalty called.
I've looked in on the current COPA series and in 2 separate times when I did so there was a player writhing on the ground like someone knifed him. A yellow card was produced and he got up and ran away to his position like nothing happened.
And just yesterday I was in a restaurant that had the game on and there was a player who was barely touched on his right foot and he fell to the ground grasping his left knee.
That's completely opposite of how we handle our injuries with our attitudes of just rub some dirt on it and get back out there. I'm also of the generation where Jack Youngblood played with a broken leg and in Hockey before AIDS came along
we would see players getting stitched up on the bench without anesthetic so they wouldn't miss a shift.
This playing to the Refs to get an advantage is completely different of how we look at playing games and fairness. It's just a different mindset and soccer will eventually catch hold but I can't see it being a major league in NA until they clean up all of the Maggie Simpson routines we see especially in big games.

[River_Dog]

A little off topic but I doubt soccer really catches on big time because of all the fake theatrics of players trying to get a penalty called.
I've looked in on the current COPA series and in 2 separate times when I did so there was a player writhing on the ground like someone knifed him. A yellow card was produced and he got up and ran away to his position like nothing happened.
And just yesterday I was in a restaurant that had the game on and there was a player who was barely touched on his right foot and he fell to the ground grasping his left knee.
That's completely opposite of how we handle our injuries with our attitudes of just rub some dirt on it and get back out there. I'm also of the generation where Jack Youngblood played with a broken leg and in Hockey before AIDS came along
we would see players getting stitched up on the bench without anesthetic so they wouldn't miss a shift.
This playing to the Refs to get an advantage is completely different of how we look at playing games and fairness. It's just a different mindset and soccer will eventually catch hold but I can't see it being a major league in NA until they clean up all of the Maggie Simpson routines we see especially in big games.

Yeah, flopping in soccer is a big turnoff for me, too. Basketball does that to some degree, and occasionally you see football players flopping as well, but not like they do in soccer.

They've tried to get soccer started in NA for decades, going back to the NASL, North American Soccer League. The game is boring, not enough scoring, and as ASF noted, there's a ghoulish, gladiator instinct amongst us that football appeals to that's not present in soccer.

Your comments about players being baby-ed reminds me of how they handle baseball pitchers nowadays. It used to be that a starting pitcher was expected to complete a game without any help from their bullpen. In 1968, the season the Bob Gipson set an ERA record of 1.12, he threw 26 complete games. The current generations have become pussified. JMHO.

[NorthHawk]

I think baseball with pitchers has become specialized and it's maybe in a big part because of analytics so managers see most pitchers do their best work for 5 innings or whatever the number is then automatically pull them. The game has done it for years with relievers pitching against different hitters depending on whether the batter was a righty or lefty. But now they've taken it to a different level with limiting innings pitched.
Maybe it's because there is so much money at stake and when a team is paying out $25 Million per year or more they want to ensure that pitcher is available for the playoffs. Maybe it's a school of thought that they can get a pitcher to throw at 100% effort for 5 or 6 innings that's the best way to set the team up for a win. I don't know the answers but like you said they aren't expected to pitch complete games very often any more.

[River_Dog]

I think baseball with pitchers has become specialized and it's maybe in a big part because of analytics so managers see most pitchers do their best work for 5 innings or whatever the number is then automatically pull them. The game has done it for years with relievers pitching against different hitters depending on whether the batter was a righty or lefty. But now they've taken it to a different level with limiting innings pitched.
Maybe it's because there is so much money at stake and when a team is paying out $25 Million per year or more they want to ensure that pitcher is available for the playoffs. Maybe it's a school of thought that they can get a pitcher to throw at 100% effort for 5 or 6 innings that's the best way to set the team up for a win. I don't know the answers but like you said they aren't expected to pitch complete games very often any more.

Oh, I'm sure that there's a rational explanation for it and that my claim that players are pampered is more of an emotional response than it is one based in logic. As a matter of fact, just the other day, Logan Gilbert of the Mariners was pitching a shutout and was ahead 9-0 going into the 9th when he was taken out against his will. Gilbert's pitch count was still below 100. Sometimes a manager has to take into consideration his player's emotions, like wanting to finish a game, vs. what might be in their long-term best interest. IMO in that situation, they should have left him in.

The problem is that specialization is taking a lot of character out of the game. Individual records are important to us fans, especially baseball fans, and the way they treat pitchers means that nearly all pitching records will stand forever. It's a similar situation with free agency in all sports. It used to be that players were with their teams almost forever. What's good for the players, ie free agency, isn't always good for us fans and the sport in general.