18 games?

[awalt]

Per KFFL:
The NFL Network reports Sports Illustrated's Peter King said during an interview that the NFL will expand to 17 or 18 games in 2011.

I also heard this on PTI on ESPN tonight.

I used to like the idea, but what is being contemplated here is NOT changing the preseason to less games, and playing the Super Bowl to mid-February. I think this is going to make cold games in northern cities pretty bad, and maybe even give a totally unfair advantage there. Can you imagine from a fan perspective or team playing in Pitt in a playoff game on Feb 1, or Buffalo, or NE, or ....? How many brutal games will there be on Jan 8, Jan 15, etc.? I have been to some of the coldest Ravens games for playoffs, the Monday Night season ending game against the Vikings, and it will be a LOT colder than that.

They said on TV the reason they won't change the preseason schedule is that August TV before Labor Day stinks (NFL has had some bad opening weekends in years they started before Labor Day), and February is a huge ratings month that will help the next TV contract.

I just don't see how this can happen and be good. Union will have to approve as well. We'll see.

[Beerracuda]

I agree with you. I've always wanted them to expand to 18 games, but only for the sacrifice of 2 preseason games. 4 preseason games is pointless, IMO. And it's much nicer to go to games in August than it is in January.

However, 2 more games is still a plus, regardless of the time of year. So, I'll take what I can get.

I've always thought it was kinda silly that the most populous sport in the US has the shortest season. Meanwhile, the other 3 major sports seem to never end.

[RAVENOUS52]

That's two less preseason games you'll have to try to cut your losses on.

Brilliant!!

[highwater]

My dream scenario would be for them to cut the preseason to two games, but keep the regular season at 16 games. That way they could cut in half the garbage games that we have to pay for that no one cares about, but keep the regualar season as it is, so that the Super Bowl could actually be played in January.

[Mista T]

It's got to be a negotiating ploy towards the new CBA. Playing regular season games into mid-January would be absolutely asinine.:thumbdown:

[RavensDomination]

My dream scenario would be for them to cut the preseason to two games, but keep the regular season at 16 games. That way they could cut in half the garbage games that we have to pay for that no one cares about, but keep the regualar season as it is, so that the Super Bowl could actually be played in January.

I agree, this would be best. The way guys get injured now playing 18 games would kill them, imagine if you make the playoffs and don't have a bye in the first week, you'll have played like 21 games before the Super Bowl. That's ridiculous. To me the Ravens defense slowed down during the playoffs, and with the injuries it was nothing short of a miracle that we beat the Titans. Imagine if we had played two more games before the playoffs started.

[Brtnder81]

I think if they do expand the regular season schedule to 18 games they will have to expand the rosters because the players will be exausted towards the end of the season and thus more prone to injuries. I wouldnt mind the regular season ending in mid january. I would rather sit out in 20-30 degree weather in jan - feb to watch a game as apposed to 80+ in aug - sept.

[Beerracuda]

Well, if they do expand to 18 games, they will probably have to give each team a 2nd bye week.

[highwater]

Well, if they do expand to 18 games, they will probably have to give each team a 2nd bye week.

Which is another reason why I'd hate it -- from a practical point of view, two bye weeks in an 18 game season makes sense, but as a fan I would hate it.

[awalt]

I've always thought it was kinda silly that the most populous sport in the US has the shortest season. Meanwhile, the other 3 major sports seem to never end.

I think the NFL is the most popular in part BECAUSE its season does not drag out as long as the others - every game matters. Not so sure that would be the same if they went to an 18 game season. More injuries, harder to be "up" for every game means the best records wouldn't be as good anymore - it's the reason .600 is a great baseball record but a mediocre NFL record.

College hoops is a great sport because it's a shorter season too. Face it, we all have short attention spans these days :crazy:

Rosters would be bigger, and of course this would likely entail a 15% increase in season tickets. Money money money.

[The Fanatic]

There's alot that would need to go into this in order to change the current format.
TV stuff, CBA, rosters, etc.
Players' contracts would have to be increased to compensate for playing more games, etc.

I don't like it at all.
Bottom line is that Joe fan (us) are the ones that are going to pay for the change.
Adding two more games would increase my ticket cost per year by a substantial amount.
If they want to change it, fine.
But don't add games, just reduce the preseason, and incease the regular season.
Even doing that would cause financial demand on the fans do to the need to increase player salarys to compensate.

[UKRavenStockers]

If it goes to 17 games over 18 games then say hello to every team playing a game at a neutral venue each season.

[HoustonRaven]

If it goes to 17 games over 18 games then say hello to every team playing a game at a neutral venue each season.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

And all this talk about the average Joe fan getting screwed has me confused. I am all for an expanded season -- anything that shortens the time between the end of one season and the beginning of another is fine with me.

And lets be frank for a second. Pro football is a luxury, not a right. If the demand for the product increases, then the price will go up and it will expand to other areas of the country / world. That's capitalism at its best, folks.

I would love a road trip to see a game across the pond once and a while.

[italianjoker]

i am all for this. eliminate 2 preseason games and add in 2 regular season games. it just makes sense.

[awalt]

Yes, now they are saying they will eliminate 2 exhibitions. GREAT. Although I still wonder about the season starting in Mid-August...

I wonder if they will start the exhibitions in mid-Agust now, start the season after Labor Day still, and end the season in mid-January with the Super Bowl in mid Feb? I bet they might due to ratings issues August vs. February...

[HoustonRaven]

9 home games now? Will this start next year?

Not a bad move for the league. That's more money for them in TV revenue, increased concessions and the like.

[Losac]

NFL is doing great as the most popular sport in the US. But it will be ruined by greed.

Goodell is an ass.

[the_scarecrow3]

They said that they were going to stick to the same 20 game schedule, so if it's 17 games it'll be 3 pre-season games and it's it's 18, it'll be 2. I think 18 games would be pretty sweet. The concern with having a 17 week schedule, or any odd numbered game schedule is that you'd have half the teams having more home game than others - which is an obvious advantage, and you couldn't have a team finishing at .500. If they went with a 17 game schedule, they've already discussed hosting some neutral site games to even things out. They're also talking about possibly expanding the 53 man roster to 55 or 57 to allow some cushion for possible injuries resulting from a longer and more strenuous season.

I don't think you would necessarily need two bye weeks, but they should push the bye weeks back a bit. Right now, I think by weeks start in week 3 or 4. If they pushed them back to start no early than week 6, it would allow more of a balanced schedule for the majority of teams. I still can't believe how the Ravens got shafted last year with the bye week and whatnot.

[italianjoker]

Yes, now they are saying they will eliminate 2 exhibitions. GREAT. Although I still wonder about the season starting in Mid-August...

I wonder if they will start the exhibitions in mid-Agust now, start the season after Labor Day still, and end the season in mid-January with the Super Bowl in mid Feb? I bet they might due to ratings issues August vs. February...

pretty sure it was said that the bolded scenario was what they were leaning towards.

Losac, Godell is an ass.

scarecrow, i do not see how they can go to 17 games, they have to do 18. 9 home and 9 away. otherwise someone gets ripped off and has a more difficult schedule being away from home 9 times and home 8 with a 17 game schedule. just my opinion though.

[Ravenswarrior19]

A 17 week season sounds crazy to me because of the home/away balance, and I don't think neutral site games are a viable option.

The NFL has been hosting 1 neutral site game per year lately. They would suddenly have to organize 16 neutral site games a year, every year. Are there 16 cities are a capable, and wanting of an NFL game? Is the league prepared to schedule, organize, promote, and sell out a stadium for 16 games a year?? Sounds like a major albatross to me. Home games in most NFL cities sell themselves. No odd numbered schedules!

[Jeremiah W]

I like it. it means at least 2 most likley 3 more weeks of football games. They should have to expand the rosters a little, at least the P squad should double. Other than that I like everything about it. The injury factor is huge now, maybe making the season a little longer balances it out a little more.

[UKRavenStockers]

The 17 game schedule wouldn't need 16 different cites to host games. London would likely get as many as 4 games I suspect. Germany would probably get a similar number of games spread around the old NFL Europe cities (they loved it there and the NFL has a lot of healing work to do in Germany). Then you've got 8 to spread around other places with games potentially in Mexico, Canada etc. Not saying it will happen, but it's not that much of a logistical nightmare if the NFL is serious about expanding their international identity and are encouraged by the reception (attendance and $$$$) of the games in London the last two years.

[italianjoker]

The 17 game schedule wouldn't need 16 different cites to host games. London would likely get as many as 4 games I suspect. Germany would probably get a similar number of games spread around the old NFL Europe cities (they loved it there and the NFL has a lot of healing work to do in Germany). Then you've got 8 to spread around other places with games potentially in Mexico, Canada etc. Not saying it will happen, but it's not that much of a logistical nightmare if the NFL is serious about expanding their international identity and are encouraged by the reception (attendance and $$$$) of the games in London the last two years.

while i support NFL Europe and all of our friends across the pond, i do not feel any team should have to play a regular season game outside of the USA. it is way too much to ask of them to have to travel that far for a game with that large of a time change. the long season is already enough on them to not have to deal with such large timezone and travel changes. just my opinion.

Jeremiah, you bring up a good point on the roster changes. adding extra bodies would be a good move if extra games are in place. injuries already add up during this season added depth would be great to keep up the level of play and contention.

[52decleetzu]

I hate the idea,if it aint broke dont fix it.

[Losac]

I hate the idea,if it aint broke dont fix it.

:word

You're right. Problem is, Goodell has been intent on "fixing" it since he took over. These asinine yearly games in London, all the pussification rules so you can't even touch the quarterback, and now messing with the number of games and offseason schedule.

[52decleetzu]

:word

You're right. Problem is, Goodell has been intent on "fixing" it since he took over. These asinine yearly games in London, all the pussification rules so you can't even touch the quarterback, and now messing with the number of games and offseason schedule.

It just throws everything out of wack,and just wait until late in the year when a star goes down for the playoffs because of the extra wear and tear.

All the records,throw them out. Every single one of them.

Just makes no sense,other than to make more money when they are making it hand over fist as it is.

[UKRavenStockers]

while i support NFL Europe and all of our friends across the pond, i do not feel any team should have to play a regular season game outside of the USA. it is way too much to ask of them to have to travel that far for a game with that large of a time change. the long season is already enough on them to not have to deal with such large timezone and travel changes. just my opinion.

Jeremiah, you bring up a good point on the roster changes. adding extra bodies would be a good move if extra games are in place. injuries already add up during this season added depth would be great to keep up the level of play and contention.

Hey I agree with you IJ, I think it's a pretty awful idea in it's current inception taking away a home game from teams and fans. That said I'm not going to complain whilst there here if it improves the popularity of the UK and helps the NFL get a permanent foothold here, it's made inroads before but has never had staying power to sustain its popularity, hopefully the International Series can give the NFL a permanent identity as a niche sport in the UK. That said I'll not be heading to London again this year, far rather put the cost towards saving to get back to Baltimore in 2010.

[Beerracuda]

And on top of everything else, if they do expand the schedule, can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of the 2 weeks between the Conference Championships and the Super Bowl????

PLEASE?????

[HoustonRaven]

And on top of everything else, if they do expand the schedule, can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of the 2 weeks between the Conference Championships and the Super Bowl????

PLEASE?????

I agree with you, but it will never happen.

Players, owners and the league have a vested interest in making that game the best game possible. That means healthy, fresh players and that one week is crucial.

[Jeremiah W]

And on top of everything else, if they do expand the schedule, can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of the 2 weeks between the Conference Championships and the Super Bowl????

PLEASE?????

One plan is to play the Pro bowl that week. i am for that, maybe the game becomes a little more interesting if it does not have to follow the headliner of the season.

[ravensnhokies]

While I am generally opposed to going to a 17 or 18 games/season (injuries #1), I definitely like paying for 9 games out of 10 that actually mean something. Paying full price for those preseason 'games' is the biggest joke in the NFL today. One preseason game is fine, b/c the excitement of going back to the stadium and realizing its football season again outweighs the 'fabulous' level of play on the field. That 2nd game is unwatchable especially if its that 4th preseason game. Sure it was fun watching Nate Bolling getting his 6th career preseason sack or the now legendary Anderson to Hymes OT TD pass, but I'll take Flacco to Mason for a 1st down late in the 4Q instead anyday.