NFL About to Jump the Shark?

[Mac the Knife]

So the NFLPA has finally responded to the owner's suggestion to expand the regular season to 18 games, countering with a fairly detailed proposal that, if implemented in full, will likely result in a very different NFL season than we're all accustomed to... and perhaps one which we as fans won't like.

Rather than to simply maintain the existing basic schedule format, changing the final two preseason games to regular season ones but otherwise maintaining the status quo schedule-wise, the players have countered with two key changes that will significantly extend the overall length of seasons: first, that no team training/preseason activities begin before June 15 in any year (currently they're ramping up in March, by way of example), and second, that a second 'bye' week be instituted, extending the regular season from 16 games over 17 weeks to 18 games over 20.

These changes will have several impacts:

1. A severely shortened preseason regimen, likely resulting in both a lower quality of play and increased injury to players thanks to less team-structured conditioning/training time (exactly the opposite of what the players are claiming as their chief concern).
   
2. A dilution in the value of NFL broadcasting products (e.g., NFL RedZone and satellite packages), as the 288 regular season games would be spread out over 20 regular season weeks (giving fans on average of one less game per week).
   
3. A regular season that wouldn't conclude until late January (using the 2011 season as an example, the regular season wouldn't end until January 22, the date currently set for the conference championship games).
   
4. A postseason that likely would be expanded as well, through addition of a 7th playoff qualifier from each conference (proposed by Kansas City nearly a decade ago).
   
5. A postseason that wouldn't conclude until late February or early March - using 2011 as an example, Super Bowl XLV wouldn't be played under the player's proposal until February 26.
   

While I'm very much in favor of an 18-game regular season, I personally think taking this approach will do exactly what fans feared would be the case - "cheapening" the NFL as a product, making it less attractive. To me, the smart approach would have been to use this as an opportunity to move the start of the regular season back to mid- (or better yet) early August, bringing the Super Bowl back to mid-January at the same time.

I also think the second 'bye' week is ridiculous, as the players have also asked for an expansion of team rosters to 60 players. So you're going to expand rosters ostensibly to counter the injury factor, then you're going to add another week off as well? I realize player safety is a concern to consider here, but c'mon; you can't have it both ways. Players, you want the roster size expanded? Fine. We'll go from 53 to 65 - but dump any 'bye' weeks and go back to old-school football: 18 regular season games over 18 weeks, and one week between the conference title games and the Super Bowl. Wrap the entire season up in a nice 24 week package.

Sorry to be doing a Tank-like rant here, but does anyone else think this is ridiculous?

[/get off my lawn]

[CS85]

I personally am not at all for 18 games. If anything just add one more game and drop a preseason game. We don't need more playoff teams, we don't need the season going into March.

Maybe people felt the same way when they went to 16 games. If there were fewer preseason games in the first place maybe this would never have come up.

[Lights Out]

I personally think the season is fine the way it is... not too few or too many games, long enough offseason to build suspense. The league should be spending this time fixing the awful state of its officiating, which has been downright embarrassing since Super Bowl XL.

[BBTV]

I'm pretty much with you Mac as to the potential negative effects of the new schedule proposal, except that I don't want to see 18 games or an expansion of rosters under any proposal.

Totally selfish reasons - being a football fan (and in my case a stadium employee) really affects your life for those 4 or 5 months that your team is playing. You arrange your weekends around being able to see the games, you stay up on Monday or Sunday late nights to see them destructify the Redskins, and you have to deal with going out and fighting the crowds to see the playoff games in a party atmosphere (yes, I know that none of these things are mandatory, but like I said it's just my selfish reasons.) I like that this disruption of life's routine only lasts as long as it does, and wouldn't want it to go any longer - especially not into March, and certainly not starting during shore season in August.

[Mac the Knife]

I'm pretty much with you Mac as to the potential negative effects of the new schedule proposal, except that I don't want to see 18 games or an expansion of rosters under any proposal.

The only reasons I don't have a problem with expanding the regular season are two-fold:

1. Because they're going to play the games anyway, if not as regular season contests than "preseason" games, so why not give fans value for their ticket price and make the games meaningful?
   
2. It'd be the final means by which the NFL adopted innovations taken by the old USFL, which as most here know holds a special place in my heart.
   

Expand rosters? Sure, go ahead and do that as well. Think about it: except for the 'skill' positions, NFL players are by and large faceless entities. Unless they talk about their favorite team or they're a fantasy geek, most fans can't name more than 10 players on another NFL team's roster. Is expanding player rosters to 60-65 guys going to matter much when most of those slots will be taken up by offensive linemen named Marvin Somethingorother? Nah... probably not. It's never made a really significant impact before following roster expansions, and it won't in this case either.

[TBGKon]

The only reasons I don't have a problem with expanding the regular season are two-fold:

1. Because they're going to play the games anyway, if not as regular season contests than "preseason" games, so why not give fans value for their ticket price and make the games meaningful?
   
2. It'd be the final means by which the NFL adopted innovations taken by the old USFL, which as most here know holds a special place in my heart.

Expand rosters? Sure, go ahead and do that as well. Think about it: except for the 'skill' positions, NFL players are by and large faceless entities. Unless they talk about their favorite team or they're a fantasy geek, most fans can't name more than 10 players on another NFL team's roster. Is expanding player rosters to 60-65 guys going to matter much when most of those slots will be taken up by offensive linemen named Marvin Somethingorother? Nah... probably not. It's never made a really significant impact before following roster expansions, and it won't in this case either.

Could you elaborate on Bullet #2?

I have to admit an 18-game schedule is fine, and like stated above is already being done to an extent, now 2 games would count.

I think the mistake here is stretching the season much past where it is now. Just ditch the preseason, add 2 regular season games, and start the season the second weekend or third weekend of August.

Using this theory in the 2010 season Week 1 would have been August 15th and Week 20 would be January 2nd (which is when Week 17 is in reality). Two by weeks would be included for each team, and no playoff changes are necessary.

[Seadragon76]

You want 18 games?

Simple: Drop two preseason games and keep the regular season at 16 games.

There's no sense in expanding the season when teams are dealing with injuries all season long. Adding two games means more possibility to see more injuries or maybe worst.

[epper]

I really don't see what the big deal is. The CFL plays 18-game seasons and there isn't the mass hysteria that every is spouting about the NFL.

To me, the more football, the better. Minus adding to the playoffs, which are currently the most perfect postseason in sports.

[tBBP]

(NFL) football stopped being (NFL) football once the 5-yard bump rule and the Tom Brady skirt rule came into effect. After the next rule change outlawing defenders from knocking ballcarriers to the ground with anything other than their hands, it'll be all the way over. (Okay...the second sentence was sarcasm.) And...from what I've seen, the CFL officials don't sit back and guess in their heads what constitutes "completing the process", either.

I just find it funny that now, with the awareness of head trauma and the crackdown on helmet-to-helmet contact being pushed down the pike that owners are still pushing this 18-game thing. Not hard to see why from the owners' perspective...not many fans care for pre-season games, and more games = more revenue (tickets, gates, concessions, pro shops, what have you). From the players' perspective, the key thing is injuries. More games = more chances to get injured, cracked in the head, shred a knee, rip a tendon. Sure, all that can happen during the course of the current regular season (as the Indianapolis Colts damn sho' know by now), but to me, it makes no sense to increase the amount of chances for that to happen--especially given the controversy of players' pension and post-football health benefits.

All that said, somewhere in the precursor to the 2010 NFL Season thread, I laid out my little brainchild of an ideal NFL season...following is a quick rehash of that:

- Chop off two games. Eighteen games total--three preseason, fifteen regular season. Three preseason games--two for tune-up, one as a final test run (or to evaluate that last round of cuts). Play the regular season in thirds--two bye weeks, presumably in weeks six and seven and weeks eleven and twelve (or thirteen). Fifteen games + two bye weeks still = seventeen weeks, the length of the current season, and it gives players a little more rest. While we're at it, how about moving up the start of the regular season to the first weekend in September, to bring the SB (and possibly Pro Bowl) back into the month of January?

- Keep the postseason as is. I don't mind wild-card weekend...don't suspect many do. In fact, over the past several years, many wild-card teams have ridden a hot wave right into the big show (the '06 Steelers being the best example I can think of).

- Kill the spot-of-foul penalty for defensive pass interference. If Braylon Edwards and Terrell Owens, and Patrick Crayton (or any Falcons receiver pre-Matt Ryan) have proven anything, it's that deep balls are not guaranteed to be caught, so why automatically award field position to the offense then? Makes no sense to me. Make it a fifteen-yard penalty at most (and if absolutely necessary, automatic first down) and keep the game moving that way. (While on that topic, if the no-contact rule has to be in play, make it a 10-yard rule instead of five.)

- I'm not going to address the skirt rule; I think we all believe it's pretty well ridiculous. (Well, except maybe a small little pocket of Patriots and Colts fans.)

- On the subject of instant replay (this one has irked me from the word "go")...everyone watching games on TV can see every available camera angle in the span of about thirty seconds. Institute a sixty-second clock for the replay officials...that is CLEARLY visible to all fans in the stands. If whoever's up underneath that canopy cannot find clear, indisputable evidence to overturn a call on the field within sixty seconds, the play stands as called, keep it moving. This will kill the needless waiting around and way-too-long interruptions too often caused by replay officials trying to dissect every single damn detail of the play and it'll keep the game moving along, which I'm sure most fans would agree would be a good thing.

Those are just my quick-hitters on what I as a fan would like to see. (Well that and a rookie cap--but that's another discussion for another day.) Feel free to go along with them or tear them to shreds, whichever you like.

[Jimmy!]

If you want 18 games, turn the last two preseason games into regular season. The USFL did it with fewer teams and no byes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the NFL trying a two-bye season one year (early to mid 90's) and it failed miserably.

[HedleyLamarr]

I really don't see what the big deal is. The CFL plays 18-game seasons and there isn't the mass hysteria that every is spouting about the NFL.

To me, the more football, the better. Minus adding to the playoffs, which are currently the most perfect postseason in sports.

The CFL is nowhere near as physical as the NFL is.

[BaltimoreFan]

I'd be all for 18 games, if they started the season earlier. It would be cool to see meaningful football during summer. But at the same time I don't want the season to get extended any further either. It's bad enough that the Super Bowl is played in February now.

Another move I'd like to see is for them to move the Super Bowl to Saturday night. They already take a week off, so it really wouldn't matter. The big thing is that it would give the fans off the next day. But I'm sure there will be people complaining about ruining the tradition of "Super Bowl Sunday".

[tBBP]

I really don't see what the big deal is. The CFL plays 18-game seasons and there isn't the mass hysteria that every is spouting about the NFL.

To me, the more football, the better. Minus adding to the playoffs, which are currently the most perfect postseason in sports.

The CFL is nowhere near as physical as the NFL is.

That too.

[B-Rich]

Buc brings up a key point/question:

While we're at it, how about moving up the start of the regular season to the first weekend in September, to bring the SB (and possibly Pro Bowl) back into the month of January?

The answer is it's all about calendar timeand attendance. Prior to 1990, the NFL season began as it does now, the weekend AFTER Labor Day. When the bye week was introduced to the schedule, opening weekend was moved up to Labor Day weekend. However, they found that attendance (and I surmise, TV ratings) suffered because people were off doing other things that weekend-- going to the beach, on vacation, etc. By 1999, the season start was moved back to the first wekend AFTER Labor Day.

If the season expands to 18 games at the expense of the "last two" pre-season games, the NFL is liable to have the same attendance problems they had in the 1990s once again....

[njmeadowlanders]

Make the Super Bowl the day before President's Day. I'm an accountant so I'd never EVER even have a CHANCE of taking off that day because it's right smack in the middle of tax season, but for everyone else it should be a holiday.

Also, why not go for a compromise: 17 games. 8 home, 8 away, every team plays a neutral site game every year against a non-division opponent.

College stadium, London, Mexico City, Canada, whatever.

[BaltimoreFan]

Also, why not go for a compromise: 17 games. 8 home, 8 away, every team plays a neutral site game every year against a non-division opponent.

College stadium, London, Mexico City, Canada, whatever.

I was thinking about this during the London game this year. It would be cool to see a neutral site week. It would be a way to help expand the game's exposure throughout the world and also give "smaller" US markets that can't support a team a chance to see a pro game. People in Las Vegas, Birmingham, Los Angeles, etc. would get a rare opportunity to see the professionals play in their home town. It would be something cool that would set the NFL apart.

[BBTV]

I'm pretty much with you Mac as to the potential negative effects of the new schedule proposal, except that I don't want to see 18 games or an expansion of rosters under any proposal.

The only reasons I don't have a problem with expanding the regular season are two-fold:

1. Because they're going to play the games anyway, if not as regular season contests than "preseason" games, so why not give fans value for their ticket price and make the games meaningful?
2. It'd be the final means by which the NFL adopted innovations taken by the old USFL, which as most here know holds a special place in my heart.

Expand rosters? Sure, go ahead and do that as well. Think about it: except for the 'skill' positions, NFL players are by and large faceless entities. Unless they talk about their favorite team or they're a fantasy geek, most fans can't name more than 10 players on another NFL team's roster. Is expanding player rosters to 60-65 guys going to matter much when most of those slots will be taken up by offensive linemen named Marvin Somethingorother? Nah... probably not. It's never made a really significant impact before following roster expansions, and it won't in this case either.

I think there's already too much situational substitution and rotating of defensive linemen. It adds a little intrigue to the pre-game wen they announce who the "inactives" are. At the stadium, the other employees and I enjoy debating who will be activated and who will be left off based on who the opponent is and what the needs are. 65 men will harm that (unless you're not going to change the actual active roster, in which case I couldn't care less how many people are on the team.)

[TopCat]

Who gives a swear word about how the NFL season would be structured? The NFL is probably more popular than the other 3 major sports combined. People will still watch it and it wouldn't be a big deal.

Or, just forget about it and keep it the way it is. No one (important) is complaining about that.

[infrared41]

The NFL is probably more popular than the other 3 major sports combined. People will still watch it and it wouldn't be a big deal.

There's this thing called over saturation. Ask the NBA or NASCAR about it. More isn't always better.

[TopCat]

I'm just saying, how much could 3 more weeks of football really hurt? If anything, people will be complaining that their star fantasy running back has 2 bye weeks.