NFL owners are eager to increase the regular season from 16 to 18 games

[CrossBones]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5497448

This is going to change everything.

Looks like nobody on the player side is ready to rubber stamp this one.

I'm kind of torn on this issue. Hard to feel sorry for the multi million dollar players and equally hard to feel sorry for the billionaire owners. The fans seem somewhere in the middle.

First the big issue from the players perspective is the higher risk of injury. In the end though I think it will be about money. But to me it's hard to convince a guy making $10-15 million a year that this is a good thing for his career. Players really don't want to get beat up any more than they are already.

From the fans point of view it would eliminate a couple of things: 1) half of the boring exhibition football will go away and 2) season ticket holders wouldn't have to pay full price for the garbage that is exhibition football. Both fair points.

Appears to me this will be another major sticking point in the upcoming CBA negotiations. We're almost assured to be looking at a lockout and possibly no football in 2011 which really sucks. There are just so many issues that are going to be difficult to agree on. The owners want a rookie scale. The players want the money saved to be redistributed to them in it's entirety. The players say the owners are greedy. The owners say the players are greedy. Both sides are probably right.

So what are your thoughts on an 18 game regular season?

[poptart]

As we all know, $$MONEY$$ will be the big stick in the discussions.

18 games = more revenue

It'll most likely happen.


16 games is already too many, imo.

It's too many for the players, and more games makes each game less significant.

If they shorten the preseason to make way for a longer regular season, you'll hear bitchin' about that from the coaches.

Maybe preseason is a boring tease, but to coaches, it's an important time.


18 games is a bad idea.

[CrossBones]

What happens at the end of seasons when playoff teams have spots locked up? More "exhibition" games like we see every so often in the 16 game season?

Then the complaining will really begin. Poptart right though -- in the end it's about money and this will be a reality one way or the other. Catch22.

[Freezetag168]

If they do something like that, there's gotta be a significant change to the 53 roster limit. That way, there can be a fresher rotation of personnel to keep injuries to a minimum.

Owners won't go for it, but can you imagine an 11-player special teams group in addition to offense/defense? It would change the entire dynamics of the game.

Switch from 53-man roster to 58; 3 inactives. (why is that there?) 55 actives per game. Not sure if the owners would go for that since it's 5 additional salaries added on.

[wyoraiders]

Although less preseason football intrigues me, I side with the players on this one...the injury factor is too much to ignore.

Besides, I don't like it just from the historical records perspective...for example, now it will be even harder to compare a Chris Johnson to Barry Sanders to Jim Brown. The aura of reaching 5,000 yards passing and 2,000 yards rushing in a season will dissapear. Is the record book going to have 3 categories now?

The move to 16 from 14 made sense on a lot of levels, but this one just reeks of greed.

[Raider Nation]

The rosters will likely go from 53 to 58 or 60 players. The added revenue will be a significant bargaining chip in the negotiation of the new CBA because now, instead of the owners asking the players to take a 10 -- 12% cut, they'll likely ask them to take a more reasonable cut of about 5%. Throw some things in there with respect to a rookie wage scale (and do so by outlining how the veteran NFL players will reap the rewards), shortening of training camp, and outline a plan for ownership to partner with the Players' Association to revamp the retired benefits system and you've got 85% of the isssues hammered out.

I should mediate this shit for the NFL. I'll be reasonable too, I'll do it for $10 million or a percentage chunk of league revenue for 5 years.

[Raider Outlaw]

Increasing the schedule from 14 to 16 has been bad for the overall product. A change to 18 games is further in the wrong direction.

Just like the other leagues have irreperably destroyed their leagues by over-expansion and waaaay too many games, the NFL would be going t a place of no return. Leaving your audience wanting more is an important nuance of entertaining people.

There already aren't enough players to go around for 32 teams, now you're adding 2 extra games, which will meet with the NFLPA asking to add more scrubs to the bottom of rosters.. I want to see the best players play each other, not watch whoever is fortunate to still be healthy after an overly long season play each other.

In addition, what you brought up about teams mailing it in for the last month will definitely be true. If a team is 13-2, and have their division locked up, that's an additional 3meaningless games that are worse than pre-season games because the resting team will just be going through the motions. At least with the pre-season the scrubs are trying to make the team, so we're seeing guys go all out on both sides. The end of most seasons will become a farce because their is such a huge gap between the good and bad teams in this league right now....I mean how many teams were 5-11 or worse last year? We were 5-11 and got the 8th ppick, lol. The last month of the season will routinely be a huge farce.

Leave it to people with a good thing to go and fuck it up. The ideas to expand past the U.S are dumb too unless that Jetsons' technology becomes available sometime soon. That being said, it'll probably happen because although it's bad for the quality of the football we watch, their trump card is that gambling drives the spike in interest to football more so than the other major sports.

[Sleet]

I'm against the move as well. The owners are over-reaching. I wonder if this is just a CBA ploy.

The idea of 18 real games, and 2 pre-season games, to me, is crazy. The starters will be essentially playing 19+ games, as you know HC will still play them in pre-season for at least a half on one game and likely into the 3rd quarter in the other.

Personally, I wouldn't mind 17 games, with 3 pre-season games. That will shorten preseason by one (a good thing), lengthen the season by one (more TV revenue), and lessen the impact on the players. Is there something wrong with an odd number of games?

[Raider Outlaw]

They're not even proposing to cut the pre-season. Their plan would be to play 22 games (18 regular, 4 pre-season) plus the playoffs. Therefore, the Super Bowl teams would play at least 25 games. It's just going to lead to a watered down product that the other sports currently specialize in.

I'm against the move as well. The owners are over-reaching. I wonder if this is just a CBA ploy.

The idea of 18 real games, and 2 pre-season games, to me, is crazy. The starters will be essentially playing 19+ games, as you know HC will still play them in pre-season for at least a half on one game and likely into the 3rd quarter in the other.

Personally, I wouldn't mind 17 games, with 3 pre-season games. That will shorten preseason by one (a good thing), lengthen the season by one (more TV revenue), and lessen the impact on the players. Is there something wrong with an odd number of games?

[Raider Nation]

The NFL press release from yesterday did indicate that they've "listed to the fans loud & clear" when it comes to too many preseason games. So while they haven't specifically said they'd reduce the preseason to 2 games, it sure does sound like that's going to be the blueprint.

Many comments yesterday from current players also referred to a reduction in preseason games from 4 to 2 and some were against it because of the implications it would have in roster evaluation and thereby decreasing the chances of roster longshots towards making the team.

[Raider Outlaw]

They're going to kill the golden goose. Cut the pre-season and charge for watching scrimmages or some shit. More regular season games will just water down the product.

[RaiderRobert]

My 2 cents...

Cutting preseason to 2 games? Bad idea. I really think teams, even the good ones, need more than 2 games to get back into the swing of things, effectively analyze their players to be able to make roster cuts, and generally be fully ready for the season opener. I don't want to see season opener games where teams aren't ready to put forth their best efforts. 4 games is too much, I agree. Make it 3.

Extending the season out to 18 games? Bad idea. The Players do NOT want it, neither do we. The end of season will suck ass for sure. This also starts turning the NFL into more of a business than a sport. I do NOT want to go down that road. It will happen eventually, and the NFL will be ruined. I hope I don't live to see that day.

Increasing the rosters to include more scrubs? Bad idea. Nobody wants to see Stuart Schweigert back on a roster. The NFL should be "elite" players. But you go to 18 games, you must include more players. Imagine the additional injuries that may come in an additional 2 games. BAD idea. As much as I love football. I do NOT want to see 2 more weeks.

I don't see ANY good reason to extend the season beyond 16 games. Other than the money. And unfortunately, Cash is King.

[Rupert]

I'm fine with an 18 game season, even though it's one really odd number. Did they look at the scheduling issues that creates? No? Didn't think so.

As long as everyone has to deal with the same issues, it's all good.

But if I were a player making $4 mil this season, you can bet your ass I'd want $4.5 mil or more for an 18 game season. My level of risk goes up, and I'm going to want to be compensated for taking that risk.

[Raider Outlaw]

Not to mention that their big compromise would be to cut the off-season up, too. Therefore, you'd have less pre-season games, less off-season time, but more games. Sounds like a recipe for shit to me.

I do agree about that 4th pre-season game. Coaches know everythign well before then, and I never watch those games because all the training camp answers have been sorted out by then.
[QUOTE=RaiderRobert;173873]My 2 cents...

Cutting preseason to 2 games? Bad idea. I really think teams, even the good ones, need more than 2 games to get back into the swing of things, effectively analyze their players to be able to make roster cuts, and generally be fully ready for the season opener. I don't want to see season opener games where teams aren't ready to put forth their best efforts. 4 games is too much, I agree. Make it 3.

[Madturk]

I find the thought of two extra games very fatiguing.:D

[East Bay Grease]

I'm not a big fan of 18 games, more out of a sense that season records matter, and it's already a drag that you have many records that fell not because players performed better but because they played a longer season.

But the argument that it would lead to a more boring end to the season (more divisions decided sooner) is just mathematically wrong: the fact that there are additional games means the chances of meaningless games actually DEcreases. Sure, there will continue to be a couple of teams that lock things up, but the number of variables are increasing, therefore so are the possible outcomes.

Take it to the opposite extreme for illustration's sake:

If you have a 4-team league, in two 2-team divisions playing a 3-game season (essentially two 3-game division series followed by a championship), you'd have a 50/50 chance that the 3rd game would be meaningless. (That is, there's a 50/50 chance that the second game is won by the same team as the first, rendering the 3rd game moot)

However, if you have a 4-team league, in two 2-team divisions playing a 4-game season (essentially two 4-game division series followed by a championship), you'd have only a 25/75 chance that the 4th game would be meaningless. (That is, only if one team won the first 3 games)

As you increase the number of games and the number of teams (and the number of other variables, like tie-breakers, byes, home-field advantage, etc.), the chances of meaningless games keeps getting smaller.

Of course, that's just the math, the real issue here is parity. If you have a team or two that are superbly (or for that matter pathetically) managed, that consistently run away from (or stumble to the back of) the pack, that team's games are going to be meaningless at the end, no matter how many games are played.

So really, THAT's the issue, and in that respect, the NFL is pretty good (the past few years in Oakland aside). The draft, weighted scheduling, the waiver wire, and the salary cap all combine to mean that teams don't stay on the bottom or the top by much, or for long.

[East Bay Grease]

From the money POV (the only one, unfortunately that really matters):

...if I were a player making $4 mil this season, you can bet your ass I'd want $4.5 mil or more for an 18 game season.
Rupert hit the nail on the head with the proportional (12.5%) increase for playing 12.5% more games. And the owners would be nuts not to agree to that.

Because every bit of their game-related revenue will increase that same amount: 12.5% more in TV rights fees, 12.5% more in gate receipts, 12.5% more in concessions, 12.5% more in parking, 12.5% more in in-stadium merchandise sales, etc.

Meanwhile, all the fixed expenses of running the year-round business (team facilities, staff salaries, promotion, scouting, on and on...) don't increase by one dime! The only additional expenses involved in getting that 12.5% bump in revenue are player salaries and game transportation/lodging. (And if the 2 games are instead of preseason games instead of in addition, it's only player salaries that go up, since the transportation/lodging would have been needed anyway.)

No wonder the owners want it.

[RaiderJF]

From the money POV (the only one, unfortunately that really matters):


Rupert hit the nail on the head with the proportional (12.5%) increase for playing 12.5% more games. And the owners would be nuts not to agree to that.

Because every bit of their game-related revenue will increase that same amount: 12.5% more in TV rights fees, 12.5% more in gate receipts, 12.5% more in concessions, 12.5% more in parking, 12.5% more in in-stadium merchandise sales, etc.

Meanwhile, all the fixed expenses of running the year-round business (team facilities, staff salaries, promotion, scouting, on and on...) don't increase by one dime! The only additional expenses involved in getting that 12.5% bump in revenue are player salaries and game transportation/lodging. (And if the 2 games are instead of preseason games instead of in addition, it's only player salaries that go up, since the transportation/lodging would have been needed anyway.)

No wonder the owners want it.

Actually, not true... most teams are already getting regular season revenues from the preseason games since they are charging regular season prices and requiring season ticket holders to buy the preseason game tickets as part of the season ticket package. Yes, they would get some marginal increase in concessions, parking, etc since many of the folks holding the preseason game tickets don't even end up going to the games, but it wouldn't add up to anything approaching A 12% overall increase. There should be an increase in the TV package, but who knows where that will go as that is done by way of a negotiation and not a per week cost basis.

[Raidervinny]

Actually, not true... most teams are already getting regular season revenues from the preseason games since they are charging regular season prices and requiring season ticket holders to buy the preseason game tickets as part of the season ticket package. Yes, they would get some marginal increase in concessions, parking, etc since many of the folks holding the preseason game tickets don't even end up going to the games, but it wouldn't add up to anything approaching A 12% overall increase. There should be an increase in the TV package, but who knows where that will go as that is done by way of a negotiation and not a per week cost basis.

Beat me to the punch JF...I was going to post the same thing. I'm not sure there would even be much of a TV revenue increase as the networks already broadcast the HOF game and 4 pre-season Monday Night Football games. They might be able to squeeze in another couple of Thu and Sat games but it probably wouldn't make that much difference in what the TV contract would be worth.

[Raidervinny]

I'm not a big fan of 18 games, more out of a sense that season records matter, and it's already a drag that you have many records that fell not because players performed better but because they played a longer season.

But the argument that it would lead to a more boring end to the season (more divisions decided sooner) is just mathematically wrong: the fact that there are additional games means the chances of meaningless games actually DEcreases. Sure, there will continue to be a couple of teams that lock things up, but the number of variables are increasing, therefore so are the possible outcomes.

Take it to the opposite extreme for illustration's sake:

If you have a 4-team league, in two 2-team divisions playing a 3-game season (essentially two 3-game division series followed by a championship), you'd have a 50/50 chance that the 3rd game would be meaningless. (That is, there's a 50/50 chance that the second game is won by the same team as the first, rendering the 3rd game moot)

However, if you have a 4-team league, in two 2-team divisions playing a 4-game season (essentially two 4-game division series followed by a championship), you'd have only a 25/75 chance that the 4th game would be meaningless. (That is, only if one team won the first 3 games)

As you increase the number of games and the number of teams (and the number of other variables, like tie-breakers, byes, home-field advantage, etc.), the chances of meaningless games keeps getting smaller.

Of course, that's just the math, the real issue here is parity. If you have a team or two that are superbly (or for that matter pathetically) managed, that consistently run away from (or stumble to the back of) the pack, that team's games are going to be meaningless at the end, no matter how many games are played.

So really, THAT's the issue, and in that respect, the NFL is pretty good (the past few years in Oakland aside). The draft, weighted scheduling, the waiver wire, and the salary cap all combine to mean that teams don't stay on the bottom or the top by much, or for long.

I totally agree...I think you would see more meaningful games late in the season as those teams that are only a game or so behind in divisional or wild card standing would have an even greater shot at catching a team above them.

Also, I don't see the 18 game schedule being as big an issue with regards to injury risks either. Really, we are only talking about a difference of between 3-5 extra quarters of football that the starters would be playing when you factor in the time that that they play in all 4 pre-season games.

[Rupert]

Actually, not true... most teams are already getting regular season revenues from the preseason games since they are charging regular season prices and requiring season ticket holders to buy the preseason game tickets as part of the season ticket package. Yes, they would get some marginal increase in concessions, parking, etc since many of the folks holding the preseason game tickets don't even end up going to the games, but it wouldn't add up to anything approaching A 12% overall increase. There should be an increase in the TV package, but who knows where that will go as that is done by way of a negotiation and not a per week cost basis.

You're kidding right?

Ever see the attendance at a pre-season game? No comparison to regular season. None. I don't care what the tickets cost. Teams could lower the ticket cost in hopes of bringing in more fans, but the reason they don't is that fans don't attend because the games don't have any meaning, not because of ticket prices. Teams raised the ticket prices because they require season ticket holders to purchase them as well, so they might as well bank the guaranteed revenues.

Marginal increase in parking and concessions? If by marginal you mean around 100%, then that's quite a margin.

Television advertising? Don't tell me the local affiliate can command the type of advertising revenues a nationally broadcast game can. And don't try to tell me that an ESPN broadcast of a pre-season game draws anything near the rating (and thereby advertising revenues) a regular season game does.

Selling a larger regular season to the networks? Dude that's simple! Those suckers are losing money every time they try to script some sort of show. Reality programming nets the largest revenues since the networks have to shell out the least money for it. Don't you think the networks were happy to get an expanded schedule of games including Saturdays and Thursdays? They were ecstatic at the possibility. Advertiser revenues are high for the NFL, and 32 more meaningful games will draw a lot of revenue, especially with Sunday Ticket.

The NFL will negotiate based upon what alternate programming brings from advertiser revenues, and you can bet your ass that the NFL means more than a 100% increase over the shows that air otherwise.

[Sleet]

I'm not a big fan of 18 games, more out of a sense that season records matter, and it's already a drag that you have many records that fell not because players performed better but because they played a longer season.

But the argument that it would lead to a more boring end to the season (more divisions decided sooner) is just mathematically wrong: the fact that there are additional games means the chances of meaningless games actually DEcreases. Sure, there will continue to be a couple of teams that lock things up, but the number of variables are increasing, therefore so are the possible outcomes.

Take it to the opposite extreme for illustration's sake:

If you have a 4-team league, in two 2-team divisions playing a 3-game season (essentially two 3-game division series followed by a championship), you'd have a 50/50 chance that the 3rd game would be meaningless. (That is, there's a 50/50 chance that the second game is won by the same team as the first, rendering the 3rd game moot)

However, if you have a 4-team league, in two 2-team divisions playing a 4-game season (essentially two 4-game division series followed by a championship), you'd have only a 25/75 chance that the 4th game would be meaningless. (That is, only if one team won the first 3 games)

As you increase the number of games and the number of teams (and the number of other variables, like tie-breakers, byes, home-field advantage, etc.), the chances of meaningless games keeps getting smaller.

Of course, that's just the math, the real issue here is parity. If you have a team or two that are superbly (or for that matter pathetically) managed, that consistently run away from (or stumble to the back of) the pack, that team's games are going to be meaningless at the end, no matter how many games are played.

So really, THAT's the issue, and in that respect, the NFL is pretty good (the past few years in Oakland aside). The draft, weighted scheduling, the waiver wire, and the salary cap all combine to mean that teams don't stay on the bottom or the top by much, or for long.

Yes, and no. There will be still be few teams that are eliminated, early, and they will have even more incentive to play scrubs, sooner.

Personally, I think it is a conspircy to protect Shula's undefeated season.

Add one game, subtract one pre-season game, call it a win.

[CrossBones]

Right now the players are crying about the possibility of more injuries in a longer season. But in the end it'll be fine when they get more money. They're hypocrites just like the owners. Although when you're making $15 million/year is there really an incentive to beat yourself up for another 12%? How much money does one guy need? The guys on the lower end of the pay scale I can see the money meaning a lot more. They're gonna get fucked up no matter what though so more money is a good thing the way I see it.

Rupert I think everything you said in that last post is true. All about money.

[East Bay Grease]

Actually, not true... most teams are already getting regular season revenues from the preseason games since they are charging regular season prices and requiring season ticket holders to buy the preseason game tickets as part of the season ticket package. Yes, they would get some marginal increase in concessions, parking, etc since many of the folks holding the preseason game tickets don't even end up going to the games, but it wouldn't add up to anything approaching A 12% overall increase. There should be an increase in the TV package, but who knows where that will go as that is done by way of a negotiation and not a per week cost basis.

Beat me to the punch JF...I was going to post the same thing. I'm not sure there would even be much of a TV revenue increase as the networks already broadcast the HOF game and 4 pre-season Monday Night Football games. They might be able to squeeze in another couple of Thu and Sat games but it probably wouldn't make that much difference in what the TV contract would be worth.

Couple of things:

My scenario was simply based on adding 2 games to the regular season, not necessarily taking 2 away from the preseason, which, you're right, do generate SOME revenue.

But the gate (ticket) receipts at a home game (or a cut of it, for the visiting team), is a piddling amount next to the portion of every team's revenue generated by their EQUAL shares of national television rights fees. That's why you don't really have "haves and have-nots" in football the way you do in other sports, particularly baseball. Green Bay is as likely to go to the Superbowl as anyone else, despite their tiny, tiny, market. No need for a "Luxury Tax" to balance the playing field.

Why are the TV revenues so huge? Well first off, someone (maybe Art Modell and Pete Rozelle?) had the foresight to make the league one national TV entity, instead of letting the teams sell rights individually. Then there are the demographic/market forces at work:

• Advertisers (beer, auto, finance, fast food, etc.) want to reach men 18-34, many of whom don't watch much prime time TV.

• Regular season NFL football does an incredibly targeted job of that, right down to the region.

• Networks can charge a lot for that airtime--certainly exponentially more than any other programming that runs during daylight on a Sunday! (Buy an ad on Sermon of the Week anyone?)

• Therefore--until the advertisers don't want that audience, and start passing on the opportunity to buy that ad time, the networks will pay the NFL top dollar for as much of that programming "inventory" as they can get.

• Rights fees increases have varied marginally (that is to say they are always rising, just sometimes rising less than other times), but basically the NFL can sell as much programming as the care to offer, for pretty much whatever they ask--the price is paid by the advertisers.

Simple as that.

[Raider Outlaw]

What you said. Until some other program is able to get a 48 share, which the Super Bowl routinely approaches, the NFL has the networks in a vice grip. In turn, the advertisers will continue to line up to pay the networks for that prime time audience to sell their products to the covetted 18-34 male demographic.

Those multi-billion dollar TV contracts that everybody shares in equally is why it only matters to Al Davis and Wayne Weaver's personal bottom line when they get blacked out 75% of the time but have no problem spending as much money as the next team for draft picks, free agents, and coaches. In addition, it's why the issue has risen between the owners and players. It started off as a dispute between the owners with the super stadiums vs. the owners who don't, which quickly turned into them instead attempting to roll back the player revenues instead of sharing that extra revenue from their stadiums with their other owners like they've successfully done with the TV revenues. Jerry Jones doesn't want to share what he gets extra from the Palace with Mike Brown in Cincinnati, so they'll just try to reduce the player take from 59% to 41% in the next CBA....good luck with all that. Hope you're ready for a work stoppage.


Couple of things:

My scenario was simply based on adding 2 games to the regular season, not necessarily taking 2 away from the preseason, which, you're right, do generate SOME revenue.

But the gate (ticket) receipts at a home game (or a cut of it, for the visiting team), is a piddling amount next to the portion of every team's revenue generated by their EQUAL shares of national television rights fees. That's why you don't really have "haves and have-nots" in football the way you do in other sports, particularly baseball. Green Bay is as likely to go to the Superbowl as anyone else, despite their tiny, tiny, market. No need for a "Luxury Tax" to balance the playing field.

Why are the TV revenues so huge? Well first off, someone (maybe Art Modell and Pete Rozelle?) had the foresight to make the league one national TV entity, instead of letting the teams sell rights individually. Then there are the demographic/market forces at work:

• Advertisers (beer, auto, finance, fast food, etc.) want to reach men 18-34, many of whom don't watch much prime time TV.

• Regular season NFL football does an incredibly targeted job of that, right down to the region.

• Networks can charge a lot for that airtime--certainly exponentially more than any other programming that runs during daylight on a Sunday! (Buy an ad on Sermon of the Week anyone?)

• Therefore--until the advertisers don't want that audience, and start passing on the opportunity to buy that ad time, the networks will pay the NFL top dollar for as much of that programming "inventory" as they can get.

• Rights fees increases have varied marginally (that is to say they are always rising, just sometimes rising less than other times), but basically the NFL can sell as much programming as the care to offer, for pretty much whatever they ask--the price is paid by the advertisers.

Simple as that.

[Birdwell]

RO's first post NAILED it.

Rep.

I love "fans" bitching about the exhibition games. They're not for the fans, they're for the coaches (and scouts) to evaluate their players (and other people's players) with an eye to getting the best 53 possible. Don't like exhibition games? Don't watch. That's why even calling them "preseason" games is just an NFL marketing ploy that too many have bought into. They aren't games in the competitive sense of other games. Scores don't matter, not nearly so much as what work got accomplished. That they are televised anyway is a sign of the huge appetite for this sport.

So, count me against reducing the number of exhibition games. The fourth game, which so many seem happy to let go, are the keys to the roster, because those last few spots are the guys who will be stepping in at key spots with just one more injury than you plan on. Good teams have people there who can play, most teams don't.

An 18 game season. Beyond the many already listed reasons why this is a bad idea, you can add tha there will be another bye week. That makes for a 20 week season. Then with the extra games, it will be more of a logjam just below the top teams, so expect expanded playoffs (again).

The one point on which I disagree is the level of talent at the bottom of the rosters. You'll find, when this eventually happens (and it will), that the bottom of the rosters will be filled by equal parts journeymen at the minumum; super solid 1st-2rd year players who are just a tick below pure NFL physical talent, but make up for it with football IQ, film study and execution; and guys who need time to develop but have the physical tools. Except, of course, for the Raiders, it'll be mostly the last group.

[CrossBones]

Don't like exhibition games? Don't watch.Tell that to the season ticket holders who are forced to purchase the exhibition games at full price. Garbage at full price.

[TheMadStork]

Tell that to the season ticket holders who are forced to purchase the exhibition games at full price. Garbage at full price.

"Greed is right. Greed is good. Greed works." - Roger Goo...oops, I mean, Gordon Gekko

[fatdog]

Instead of an extended NFL season, I would love to see a legitimate developmental league owned by the NFL here in the US.

[Sleet]

Don't want 18-2. Prefer 17-3.

18 games are being pushed b/c owners want to generate more revenue and bargaining chip in CBA, and prefer that to 14 playoff teams.

[RaiderRobert]

Instead of an extended NFL season, I would love to see a legitimate developmental league owned by the NFL here in the US.

GREAT FUCKING IDEA... I hadn't heard or thought of that. Use that to make the money they think they would by fucking up the current system in the NFL. A "LEGITIMATE" D-League makes great sense. I don't know how they were losing money with NFL Europe, but it needs to come back, AND have a similar system here in the US. With no NFL team in LA (until Al comes back next year) imagine how well a couple minor franchises would do in LA... They key is to make it sincere, and real. Don't let the clowns get ahold of it, and turn it into a circus...

[SoCalRaider]

Right now the players are crying about the possibility of more injuries in a longer season. But in the end it'll be fine when they get more money. They're hypocrites just like the owners. Although when you're making $15 million/year is there really an incentive to beat yourself up for another 12%? How much money does one guy need? The guys on the lower end of the pay scale I can see the money meaning a lot more. They're gonna get fucked up no matter what though so more money is a good thing the way I see it.

Players actually won't be getting more money in any sense. As is stands right now.... if the regular season were to stay at 16 games, the next round of TV contracts will be smaller (by virtue of the economic downturn mostly and in part due to the increasing trend towards the Internet)... TV contracts still play a larger role than ticket sales in the NFL's operating income. So a hit on the TV side will result in a substantial reduction in the money owners can spend on players (aka a reduced salary cap... assuming there is one)... Meaning players will be playing for less money per game and per season.

A lot of people want to point the finger at owners at trying to make more money by increasing the number of games played.... What they're really trying to do is keep the overall TV contracts the same as the last time around.... and one way to do this is to put more games on TV.... With the goal of allowing owners and players to keep the same income per season.... but take less money per game. For owners, they can take absorb less money per game and remain profitable... but for players.... the issue about less money per game becomes a big deal because there are 2 extra games.... In the end, the players will have to take it and deal with it.... because there's no rival league to run to.... The NFL has a monopoly on football.

What's interesting is you wonder why the owners wouldn't just increase the number of playoff teams.... thereby increasing the number of playoff games and TV games.... and also ensuring that a greater number of meaningful games can be played towards the end of the season.... Maybe this has to do with the fact that playoff TV revenue isn't as profitable for the networks as regular season TV revenue (because there are fewer playoff games per week than regular season games)? I dunno. But as this unfolds, I'm sure we'll begin to learn a lot more about where the real profitability lies in these TV deals......

[RaiderRobert]

Don't forget about the NFL itself. Each year, they are getting better and better with their own televising of the games. I wonder how long until The NFL is the only broadcaster of NFL games? Think they will make more money that way or less?

[SoCalRaider]

Don't forget about the NFL itself. Each year, they are getting better and better with their own televising of the games. I wonder how long until The NFL is the only broadcaster of NFL games? Think they will make more money that way or less?

I would guess less.... because the NFL network isn't offered by all cable networks (I happen to be in a market where it is not offered)... In that sense.... networks have the leverage to keep the price down. I think trying to broadcast games on this NFL network is a mistake if it can't be offered in all markets.... and I'm not convinced it is performing anywhere near to what the NFL had hoped.

[CrossBones]

SoCal...some good points there. So you're thinking the TV people want to give the NFL less when the contact renews? I suppose that could happen but not sure about it. It's a large chess game with big money at stake. Most of the owners didn't get to be multi billionaires by accident (some did)...so whatever they have been cooking up in the back room probably makes a lot of sense to get them more $$$ or or at a minimum stay even with the TV money. Yes, that's the big piece of the pie to be sure.

As of the players, I'm not sure they care how the pie is carved up as long as they get more money. Increasing the regular season games to 16 is a convenient way for them to complain about the risk of injury, their short careers, and how under paid they are.

If I'm a player I'd be lobbying hard for the rookie salary cap and the redistribution of the money to vet players and the pension/health care programs. That's where it makes the most sense. The extra two regular season games should be throw in's if they can get an extra $200 million disturbed as I mentioned. Let the rookies prove who they are before they get paid!

[SoCalRaider]

For sure the players aren't going to be happy about a longer regular season.... Imagine working 40 hours a week and getting paid $20/hr.... and then finding out you're going to be expected to work 50 hours a week and get paid $16/hr.... Nobody is going to be happy in that scenario.... even if it's the same amount of money per paycheck....



Here is an old article from the last TV deal with NBC, which was double the previous deal with ABC..... I believe the deal with CBS is through 2014.... but with the deal with NBC up in 2011.... and the timing of the 18 game proposal is intended to land a blockbuster deal once the NBC deal is up:
http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/157247/nfl-secure-massive-tv-deals



Also... here's another article that explains why the TV contracts will be smaller assuming there's a lockout (the current TV contracts are guaranteed... so if there's a lockout... the NFL owners still get paid)... So the NFL is looking for ways to avoid this hit (this is all based on the assumption that there will be a lockout next season).... I still think they take a hit, regardless of a lockout.....
http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/television-and-the-potential-nfl-lockout/

[CrossBones]

Actually I didn't know about all that. Pretty interesting stuff. Large business...

Thanks for the articles.