September 28th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^

Best of luck keeping teams healthy, considering it is almost impossible to play 16 meaningful games without injuries to a large number of players.  Seems like a needless money-grab to me.


September 28th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^

I would think this is something the players would resist pretty strongly. I think it would take some contact restructuring to supportive. I would thing there would have to be some discussion in the next cba discussions.


September 28th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^

Imagine what injuries will be like....dont forget this means less conditioning in the offseason as the product gets watered down two ways (more injuries and less player preparation)....I really hope this doesnt happen.


September 28th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^

I'm sure the Lions have it in them to go 0-18, so for us Detroit fans it would just be two more games of business as usual.  

Honestly I've been watching less and less of the NFL as my access to CFB has expanded (ESPN3, more games on the Fox networks, etc) so I wouldn't care either way.  I just started watching the NFL playoffs after I lost my ability to get a CFB fix.  Saturday is for football, Sunday is for doing all the household chores and the "To Do List" women seem ever so adept at assembling.  


September 28th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^

Injuries be damned - maybe that means that in a blowout people will actually start to consider putting in their backups instead of leaving in the starters much longer than they should.  From a fan perspective I think it's great for 1 main reason - these teams have been charging full price for pre-season games for God knows how long only to have the starters play, what, 2 maybe 3 series? That's a complete embarassment that they would charge half price let alone full price for what they call a pre-season game.  Anything that makes less pre-season games and more games that matter is good in my book. (Seeing as how they wouldn't cut back on pre-season voluntarily this is the only other way to cut back on those pre-season "games.")


September 28th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^

I actually like watching the preseason games for the chance to see the developmental players getting a chance to show their skills.  I love watching the role players and back ups progress from year to year.  I know I am in the minority but I will miss any preseason game that is removed.

The increase chance of injuries is also a major concern.  I am also hesitant about the added games because it will change the major records for players and teams (like rushing yards a season or tackles a season).  the 16 game schedule is nice because it can easily be divided into quarters(4 game blocks) and I am sure it is easier to schedule.  Just my thoughts.

MI Expat NY

September 28th, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^

This is a terrible idea.  First, as noted above, this means more injuries to contributors, which means less compelling games.  Second, this means the last weeks of the season will have even more games where teams have clinched all they can which isn't good for nfl fans.  Finally, and most importantly, this makes it even more unlikely that there will be an undefeated super bowl champion and those obnoxious '72 dolphins will be able to continue their schtick.


September 28th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^

They just do it at the beginning of the year instead of the end and people still go to the games and pay full price.  Also, I have no idea why they would increase the min salaries - the min salaries are already higher than any of us are going to make in our lifetimes so it's not like anyone would pass up sitting the bench in the NFL to go make, at best, 1/6th as much sitting at a desk.  I know it's a ton of work and there's a lot of pain and muscle aches and all that but I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many people who would pass up the league minimum of 310k because they are worried about getting injured (and we're talking starters so their avg salary is probably closer to 1M/yr if not more).


September 28th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

the reason the league min. is so high is b/c the avg. career is so short. I have to work another 23 yrs. and 1 month until I can retire and get benefits. NFL players lucky enough to make it the 4-5 years required to earn retirment benefits (really crappy ones at that)  have to financially plan properly and hope that they have a skill that will get them back into the regular workforce when their playing days are over.


September 28th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^

This is stupid. Imagine how it will be at the end of the season when some teams have playoff spots wrapped up. They wont want to risk two more games to injure their star players and we will see a lot of 2nd stringers in these games. For many other reasons I think this idea sucks and I think the NFL is on a path of really hurting itself and alienating its fanbase (see: the numerous ridiculous rules that alter games that really shouldn't have any bearing and yes I am a bitter Lions fan but irregardless I hate a lot of the dumbass rules the NFL has that is all). I don't think they will have a Nascar type noesdive but popularity will lessen as a result IMO.


edit: beat me to it


September 28th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^

Can't wait until the year when a team loses nine games in the regular season but through the glory of a playoff is named the champions and no one questions their validity because, after all, their nine loses are TOTALLY wiped out by their being hot for four weeks.


September 28th, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^

What about the NFLPA? I imagine they have some very strong opinions on this matter, not to mention a final say.  They aren't mentioned anywhere in the article. It mentions the objections of individual players, but basically treats them like voices in the wind with no real say, which is obviously not the case. Unless the union is on board, which I very much doubt would have occurred totally behind closed doors, there's no way this is a done deal.


September 28th, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^

horrible idea. The season is already going into February. The extra two games is just going to increase the number of the injuries. I would be surprised if the NFLPA agrees to an 18 game season. 

The NFL should focus their efforts into avoiding a lockout right now. 

Did anyone watch Fox NFL pregame last Sunday when Howie Long went off about the 18 game season? 


September 28th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^

It's a soap opera full of scripted drama: "How will Ochocinco celebrate?", "Can Eli beat his big bro?", "Who is Tony Romo dating?", and so on...

If "Guiding Light" and "General Hospital" are your thing, then knock yourself out. But never forget that football is a college sport.


September 28th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^

This is so stupid.  Why they think they need to have 18 regular season games to cut two preseason is so absurd.  Start training camp two weeks later, play two preseason games when the last two would have been played, then play 16 games.  Its not like the money from taking away two preseason games and not adding any games is going to send teams into bankruptcy.

Sgt. Wolverine

September 28th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^

One of the things I like about football is the low number of games -- it makes each one more of a significant event.  Hey NFL: the 16-game schedule is already pushing it; don't screw it up by adding more.


September 28th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^

expand the season by having more bye weeks? Give every team 2 more bye weeks. The players get more time to recover, Networks get 2 more weeks worth of games and the NFL gets that additional revenue. It also doesn't cost anyone a thing and may bring some goodwill from the NFLPA.


September 28th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

I read earlier in the summer that rosters would be expanded and salaries would essentially increase proportionally to the number of games.  Didn't read anything about minimum salary being increased.