Stating the obvious: Currently the NFL uses a 16 game regular with 4-5 exhibition games. Despite the quality of play during the preseason being far below regular season caliber, due in most part to guys playing O/D roles a large part of 3-4 games whom make small impact on O/D during the regular season, team still charge fans regular season ticket prices to increase their revenue.

Hypothesis: I would propose (I know this I not original) that the NFL play an 18 game regular season with 2-3 exhibition games.

The logic:

First and foremost is that fans would get more value for the exorbitant prices that they currently pay. With one more regular season home game, the quality of product for the price is undeniably better. Furthermore, coaches would be more likely to play their starters longer in the 2-3 preseason games to get timing down under 'live bullet' types of conditions.

Other arguments include refuting that injuries would increase. We all know, being good fans, that players get injured in preseason just like they do in the regular season. I think there are logical reasons for this. Training camps usually include some significant 2-a-days. Players tend to get fatigued more during these times, and fatigued players are inherently more vulnerable to injury. One of the other reasons is that different players play at different speeds and levels of awareness as training camps grind on each year. Vets start to pay less attention and go through motions, while younger guys (and some of the very intense vets) are practicing at top speed - the younger guys to impress coaches. Players going balls-to-the-wall on the same filed as vets who are coasting a little or not paying as close attention as they should place both types of players in an inherently dangerous position for injury also.

The argument for two-a-days is obviously one of conditioning (and some machismo). However, with most players in significant offseason training regiments & participating in mini-camps, conditioning (and learning offenses) becomes less & less of a factor. Reducing or eliminating the need for two-a-days would be welcomed by many if not most of the players as less wear & tear on their bodies, keeping them fresher before the regular season starts.

An argument could be made that players will want higher pay while there is no additional revenue associated. I believe that argument can be refuted by the fact that training camps will be less fatigue intensive and that TV revenues would increase significantly enough with 2 more regular season games rather than regionally televised preseason games to cover a modicum - not large - of increase in the salary cap. Both these factors are significant incentive for players (and agents).


Coaches will argue that the additional 2 preseason games give them a chance to review lesser players under fire. However, if camps are run with greater intensity because of their shorter length, coaches should be able to evaluate talent fine during the course of regular work in practice, as well as during the aforementioned mini-camps and the intensity of film breakdown now going on at all levels of coaching.

Another argument for lengthening the regular season as that the true better teams will have more opportunity to separate themselves from the mediocre middle-of-the-pack teams. Every statistician knows that you get more accurate results if you increase the sample pool while not changing any other factors.

Another factor, which may seem insignificant but really may not be, is that Fantasy Football seasons get longer. There are a significant number of FF players now in the country, and FF owners are obviously more interested in seeing a longer season for the greater enjoyment of their games by the ability to lengthen FF seasons. That mean more TV ads are seen by the advertiser’s target audiences, which increases the ability of networks to charge higher prices for ads, which enhances TV revenue.

So, in summary, the fans get a better deal by increasing the quality of product both in quality of play and in lengthening of the season, owners, players, & networks benefit from increased revenue, there may be a good chance of decreased risk of injury and players being fresher longer in the season, and the overall length of the season from the start of training camp to Super Bowl doesn't change one day.

Rebuttals?

I was actually talking about this very issue with a couple of my buddies the other day.

I think it's a good idea -- the benefits outweigh the costs.

My only "rebuttal" would be that you're underestimating the injury factor. I understand your logic, but I don't think it's realistic to believe that there's "a good chance of decreased risk of injury".

It's pretty much a given that players are more likely to get injured in a real game than in practice, or even a pre-season game. The intensity picks up on both sides of the ball and guys are looking to punish their opponents. I've heard many players describe how utterly beat down they feel on Mondays during the season.

Sure, there are still injuries during the preseason, but at least the chances are better that the injured player isn't a starter.

Okay fine, if no one else rebuts I will just to offer fair and balanced opinions brow

Some potential downsides:

1. Season tickets cost even more to purchase.

2. The NFL already does little with developing players thanks to the salary cap. There is currently only about a month that they can see take a look at players with pads on in semi-realistic games. Shorten that any and the delta between the great players and nobodies becomes even greater as teams opt to hold on to known players rather than develop squads as much. If preseason is shortened any, it makes a greater chance that truly good players get overlooked because they had a sprained ankle for a week or whatever else small but poor timed injury. That waters down the product on the field from what it could be.

3. Lengthening the regular season increases the risk that players would be hurt before and during the playoffs which has a negative effect on the best teams winning. It makes having the magic "no-injury" season the primary quality of a championship, not having the best team. You actually would not get a better separation of the pack. Over time, more things clump to the middle, not the ends. That is the statistical truth (ie. a bell curve).

So lengthening the season would not make a better product. You would have lesser developed players, higher season ticket prices, less "who is the best" and more "who stayed the healthiest", more apparent mediocrity as teams congregate at the middle of the standings.

It would not cause better teams, better results or a better experience for the fans. It would have a negative effect on giving new guys a shot and cause even more retention of old players. The fans get a lesser deal since they pay more money and yet have a higher chance of seeing their team not be 100% healthy and a greater chance their team ends .500.

The argument that injuries happen in the preseason is mis-stated. Those veterans not in need of winning a job are FAR LESS likely to be injured in the summer since they are not playing nearly as much nor as intense. The young guys looking for a job are rightfully playing hard for a job.

More is not always better. The only truly "more" with more games is that revenue for teams would increase, at least until their action waters down their product on the field and ends up actually hurting themselves.

Basketball has like 80 games and baseball 160 or so. Football has only 16. The NFL is easily the most popular of all pro sports in the viewership per event, the money spent towards it by fanbases and the fantasy aspect of it is multiples larger than any other sport.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

I'd be for the middle path - cut the preseason to 3 games MAX and keep 16 games.

Of course, I think baseball should cut back to 140 games and basketball/hockey would be better served with 60 games (and retraction and fewer teams in the playoffs), but I'm just crazy that way.

At this point the only change they should make at all is to move the SB to a Saturday Night event, as long as they're waiting 2 weeks after the Conference Championships. 13 days, game on a weekend night. Can you say National Holiday Feel?

I think that the only way to sell this is to go back to having 2 bye weeks for each team. Have a bye week in each half of the season.

Isn't the salary cap closely tied to tv revenue?

They tried that in 1993. Ther were weeks with no good choice of games to broadcast due to the numer of teams having bye weeks. So they reverted to 1 bye week in 1994.

There are 4 more teams since then, so going back to that would be less of a problem on that front, but they are still relucent to try the 2 bye weeks again.

Yep; I think it's pretty near directly tied in to tv revenue.

as a Hawks Season tix holder I can tell you that this is el correcto..... and is standard throughout the NFL.

I'm not sure if my body could handle 2 more regular season games with all the BBQ and beer I cram in it every year.

One definite downside is that the Dolphins would likely remain the only undefeated team in the regular season forever. What a nauseating thought.

i'm ok with the preseason, 16 games. who wouldn't mind two more weeks of football? i would like it, hell, i'd like 52 weeks loco

what i would like to see is no byes in the playoffs like all the other sports. the division winners already have home field advantage, and 2 teams have home advantage through out providing they win. i'm all for them adding 2 more teams into the playoffs. everybody plays every playoff week. just my 2 cents.

I also think adding a second bye week (if the NFL goes to an 18 game schedule) is a good idea.

Giving the players an extra week of rest is a good way to counterbalance the increased risk of injury due to the two extra games.

As well, the problem the NFL had the last time they tried two bye weeks (some weeks with no good games) can be resolved fairly simply. Here's one way to do it:

1. Every team plays on Weeks 1, 2, 19 and 20.

2. During Weeks 3-18, one four-team division is off each week--each division taking a total of two weeks off on a rotating basis.

With only four teams on bye each week, there will be plenty of quality games during Weeks 3-18. cool_thu

With three additional weeks in the regular season (two for extra games and one for the extra bye week), starting the regular season the weekend before Labor Day (instead of the weekend after) and adding an extra week at the end of the season seems like a good way to adjust the way things are done now.

Best part of all of this--the fantasy football season will last three weeks longer than it does now. cool_thu

This isn't really accurate. The "Bell Curve" isn't a graph dealing with a time variable. It's more of a "descriptive model" dealing with a given population.

I think you could argue that the more games you play, the more teams would have records near .500, as in baseball. That's probably true, but that doesn't mean the teams themselves would be "mediocre".

In fact, the only "statistical truth" that matters in this argument is that a bigger sample yeilds a better representation of reality. In other words, the more games every team plays, the more we can be sure that the best team finishes first. Therefore, there would be fewer "fraud" teams making the playoffs (sorry, Vikings fans wink ).

This could be somewhat illustrated by looking at last year. After starting 9-0, look at how the Chiefs finished the year and got their asses handed to them in January. Had there been another couple of games, the Chiefs' final record probably would have been more indicative of how "good" they really were. At the least, they probably would have lost home field advantage to Indy or Tennessee, which could have changed the outcome of the AFC race.

Also, there is merit to the point about not having enough time to study younger players, but it's not like there are a TON of position battles still going on in the preseason. Some teams know who's playing all 22 starting positions before preseason even starts, some might have 5 or 6 "competitions", and many get the depth chart shaken up BECAUSE of preseason game injuries.

I do agree with most of what DMD said, but I still believe the benefits outweigh the costs. I guess it's just hard to convince me that more football isn't a good thing. cool_thu

I agree with the above, and would also like to state that stats would be even harder to grade against each other. Jamal just had a 2000 yard season, but 2000 yards could be easily done with 18 games. Does this make Jamal worse? Does it make the other guy better?

And, of course, overuse is also a factor.

I DO like the second bye week idea. It gives players a much needed rest, and it extends the season without extending games.

The biggest opponent of this possible expansion of the schedules are the owners. Currently the owners have to share revenue for every regular season game, however all Preseason game revenues go directly into each specific team's pool (with a share going to their opponent in the game). The owners receive local tv deals for these preseason games, plus parking, concessions, full price tix sales, etc, etc, etc; and they don't have to give the NFL a penny. If it was up to the owners, they'd have 18 preseason games and 2 regular season games, then playoffs.

Good point...I had forgotten about that after the big discussion last year.

That by itself might be the biggest reason the schedule won't change.

It's bad enough watching 4-5 preseason games on tv, just think about the poor saps that pay to do that!