NFL: 18 game schedule Good or Bad?

Mr Janny

Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
Staff member
Bookie
Mar 27, 2006
40,829
28,324
113
Roger Goodell: NFL targets 2012 for 18-game season - ESPN


The Commish sounds like he's going to push for this. I'm on the fence. I love the NFL, and will watch any game, any time. So, that part of me is totally in favor of the 18 game schedule. More football is better, right?

But, at the same time, will it be good football? Some teams already pull their starters at the end of the year because they've locked up their playoff positions. With more games, there comes the chance for even wider gaps in the standings, and the possibility of some teams having 2-3 meaningless weeks at the end of the season. Do fans really want that?

There are good arguments both for and against this idea.
 
I hate it, the players get beat up as much as it is with a 16 game schedule. I wouldn't mind them sticking with the 16 game schedule and taking away 2 preseason games. There is no need for 4 of them if the starters barely even play in 2 anyway.
 
I hate it, the players get beat up as much as it is with a 16 game schedule. I wouldn't mind them sticking with the 16 game schedule and taking away 2 preseason games. There is no need for 4 of them if the starters barely even play in 2 anyway.

Ok, Devil's Advocate. They made this same argument back in 1978 when they went from 14 to 16 games and that turned out fine.
 
Ok, Devil's Advocate. They made this same argument back in 1978 when they went from 14 to 16 games and that turned out fine.

How far are they going to take it? 20 games? 24 games? There has to be a line drawn somewhere and for me, it's 16 games. Most of the players don't even want an 18 game schedule, I'd listen to them.
 
How far are they going to take it? 20 games? 24 games? There has to be a line drawn somewhere and for me, it's 16 games. Most of the players don't even want an 18 game schedule, I'd listen to them.

That's a good point. Where is the line? What's so special about 16? Why is that the magic number?

And as far as the players go, they want to get paid. The head of the players union has come out and said that he's not opposed to an 18 game schedule so long as they are properly compensated. If the pay is right, the players will go right along.
 
bad, how will the new or non starters earn a spot before the season and how will the coaches decide too without seeing them against opponents. Extra injuries suck at the end of the year for the playoffs too. Owners should just not gouge for preseasons and make it more of an event something to attract and appreciate fans.
 
I am so obsessed with football (to the point that at times it consumes my life,) so a part of me wants to see as much football played that is going to count as possible. However, if they stick to 16 games, I will not complain.
 
bad, how will the new or non starters earn a spot before the season and how will the coaches decide too without seeing them against opponents. Extra injuries suck at the end of the year for the playoffs too. Owners should just not gouge for preseasons and make it more of an event something to attract and appreciate fans.

I think you're selling training camp a little short. Yes, preseason games are a help in evaluating talent, but a lot is decided in training camp as well.

You can also make the argument that an 18 game schedule will provide an opportunity for more non starters to make a contribution since there will likely be an increase to the number of players than can be dressed for games. Currently teams can only dress 46 players of their 53 man roster. There is talk of removing that restriction to provide extra depth for the longer schedule. Also, an 18 game schedule will also likely include an increase in the number of practice squad spots allowed. As it stands, 8 players are allowed on the practice squad. It has been rumored that it may go up to 12 or more if an 18 game schedule is approved.
 
Last edited:
How far are they going to take it? 20 games? 24 games? There has to be a line drawn somewhere and for me, it's 16 games. Most of the players don't even want an 18 game schedule, I'd listen to them.

As has been mentioned earlier, I'm sure the players didn't want the schedule to be expanded from 12 to 14 and then to 16 games previously, and things turned out okay. As long as players are properly paid/compensated they're probably not going to care.

Personally I don't know how I feel about this. More football is always good, but it's already a very long season, such that the season stretches from September to December and the playoffs from December to February. Do we really need another two weeks added to this?
 
I think exchanging 2 preseason games for 2 regular season games is good, for the fans anyways, which is all I care about. Preseason games are useless to me, I can't be bothered to watch them most times, so dumping 2 and adding games that matter is ok by me.
 
I've always been against pre-season. Get rid of it entirely, make all the games count and still give teams the first 4 weeks of the regular season to whittle down their rosters. What's the point of playing a game if it doesn't count for anything?
 
Bad. 16 games beats up on guys. 18 is asking for a ton of injurys and non-importaint games at the end of the season out of teams that are not "playoff bound."
 
selfishly I'm totally against it.

For fantasy football we'll see running back by committees more than ever. also, my league is an 8 man league so as of now we play everyone exactly twice. Works out well.
 
First off, there should be NO preseason games. They only exist to gouge ticket-holders out of more money to watch what is essentially practice.

IF they go with more real games (18 or above) they have to go to a split season (or a ton more bye weeks).

The game's just too brutal to not have time to heal up.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron