NFL shooting for 18 game season

[Lt Pinkerton]

It would be awesome to have two more games to watch each year, but it seems like there would be quite a few ramifications. The record books would favor the new players greatly and even all of the awesome career records would be broken by people who don't really deserve to break them. If Peyton Manning plays for 15 seasons and throws 300 yards a game every season, he won't have as many yards as someone who throws 290 yards a game in an 18-game season.

It's not really worth it..

[DudeNamedJeremy]

i'm all for 2 more regular season games. i understand most of the points you guys are saying about players careers being shorter and such but really..is 2 games gonna make THAT big of a difference? hockey players beat each other up for a few hours practically every other day for 82 games.

[Zod]

I'd rather keep the 4 preseason games. Believe it or not those are critical in figuring out who to keep on the team. Cutting it to 2 won't leave much room for evaluation.

[pantherfan49]

i'm all for 2 more regular season games. i understand most of the points you guys are saying about players careers being shorter and such but really..is 2 games gonna make THAT big of a difference? hockey players beat each other up for a few hours practically every other day for 82 games.

Yes, 2 more games is going to make a difference and will inevitably shorten the careers of NFL players--- with that said, that may go a long ways towards keeping the NFL financially stable. It is the older players that many times get the huge contracts, so having to replace older players with younger, cheaper alternatives may help with the NFL labor situation.

[dixontosanders]

should it be "hanged" or "hung"?

I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, I just never know the right tense in these situations.

Hung

[dixontosanders]

Yes, 2 more games is going to make a difference and will inevitably shorten the careers of NFL players--- with that said, that may go a long ways towards keeping the NFL financially stable. It is the older players that many times get the huge contracts, so having to replace older players with younger, cheaper alternatives may help with the NFL labor situation.

That's a lot of question mark. Rugby Union and Rugby League players run around with no padding hitting each other for 90 minutes, average about 30-40 games a year, they don't have anything to provent them from spinal injuries and continue to play week in week out with no injuries and the NFL cry about their players getting injured, I wonder why that is.

[pantherfan49]

That's a lot of question mark. Rugby Union and Rugby League players run around with no padding hitting each other for 90 minutes, average about 30-40 games a year, they don't have anything to provent them from spinal injuries and continue to play week in week out with no injuries and the NFL cry about their players getting injured, I wonder why that is.

Spinal injuries aren't what do most players in. As we know, it is knee injuries that usually do the trick. Playing more games will increase the number of chances for knee injuries. Accordingly, an 18 game schedule will result in more injuries. I don't know that there is any reasonable argument against that.

[Sandy Claws]

no. 16 games is plenty. the rushing record will be broken easily, as will many others. no accomplishment will be sacred anymore.

You can't drive if you only look in the rear view mirror.

[Sandy Claws]

I would support it, but this is a very good point. Decade old records would be broken left and right.

The only thing you can compare now is late seventies to present when looking at yearly "records". They changed from a 12 game season to 14 in the early 60's. 14 to 16 in late 70's. More games = more on TV = bigger TV contracts = bigger cut for players (which they won't see individually since rosters will have to expand) and owners (who claim they need it for expansion of the product).

[The Question]

If it's worth anything even with hypothetically increasing player salary and adding roster spot, Chris Carter and Tim Hassleback were against it. They spoke of teams like the '09 Colts or Saints resting their players for up to 3-4 games instead of 1-2. That's a big con, at least for me. My first thought of course is more football hell yeah, but there are a lot of factors. That said, Clayton seemed pretty confident that it would go through.

[The Question]

I'd rather keep the 4 preseason games. Believe it or not those are critical in figuring out who to keep on the team. Cutting it to 2 won't leave much room for evaluation.

This was also a point they brought up, and that the problem with more games relates to a flaw in the other popular sports today. There are so many games that people pay money to go see (baseball or basketball games), and they don't really know if Lebron or Pujols or whomever is going to play 100%. Which reminded me of how perfect the NFL season really is. In February I've usually had my fill of football (Until about now), and every time I watch or attend a game I know that those guys out there are giving all or most of what they have. I say the cons you guys have listed and the ramifications it would have on player health, performance, records, evaluation time, etc far outweigh two extra games.

[j2sgam]

If anything add 1 more game at the sacrifice of 1 preseason game. No more 8-8, you will have a winning or a losing season. All the above points are valid, especially the one about Goodell just trying to get more monies, more recognition, more worldwide exposure all at the expense of the men playing the game...

[ChuckWag78]

Season ticket holders should all be in favor of this. You are already forced to pay full price for 4 meaningless games, at least now two of them would matter.

As for the Records being broken, this isn't baseball. There are no "Sacred" records in football. The closest one would have been 16-0.

There is a great article on espn.com about this. Here is the link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5395207

[beckersteen]

Not a fan. Too much preasure on the players. They have it rough to begin with and adding two more games will just add to the injuries. They would have to add another bye week. To try to get around that.

More meaningless games. While its only two more games that means some teams that have wrapped things up with rest starters for THREE weeks. Ugh. One of the reasons why the NFL is so great is that the season is 16 games. Every single game the players have to bring it because each game is important. Adding games waters down the intensity of each game.

I don't care about the record issue because fans of the different eras will understand the importance of those older records.