NFL considering adding two more games.

Behad · 09-06-2003, 10:43 AM

Cutting Preseason in Half Also Under Review

NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue is considering authorizing the league to study the feasibility of adding two games to the current 16-game schedule and reducing the number of preseason games, the Washington Post reported in its Saturday editions.

The proposal would be made at a league meeting in Chicago in late October, with the 2005 season the earliest target for change.

The league has drawn criticism this summer for the length of its preseason after injuries to some key players, including quarterbacks Mike Vick of the Atlanta Falcons and Chad Pennington of the New York Jets.

But during an interview in his Washington office, Tagliabue said the proposal would be considered by the owners for competitive reasons and not in response to the loss of key players.

"We need to focus on whether or not two games are sufficient to get a team ready for the season," Tagliabue said. "Some of these clubs are concluding that for many players, including the top players, the second and third preseason games are critical while the first and fourth games are merely complementary."

Starting players generally get most of their work in the first half of the second and third preseason games, with younger players trying to make the club playing in the first and fourth games.

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, said he was aware of the possible proposal. "The game has changed so much a player does not need four games to get ready for the regular season. You're not going to get any complaints from the players if they shorten the preseason," he said.

The NFL has had a 16-game regular season for 25 years, with teams playing four and five preseason games. Also, each team has one week off during the season.

"There have been tremendous changes in our football operations over the past 25 years," Tagliabue said. "Everything today is at an incredibly high level, with great team practice facilities, great medical care and tremendous athletes preparing to play at least 11 months a year in most cases."

The economics of adding games to the regular season would have to be worked out. The players, under the current labor agreement, receive 64 percent of revenues, including the preseason gate. Upshaw said players are paid over 17 weeks of the regular season, by the game, and earn additional preseason pay. Additional regular-season work would have to be negotiated, Upshaw said. The NFL estimates the preseason generates $350 million in revenues.

New York Giants general manager Ernie Accorsi is opposed to any change in the schedule.

"You have to have contact," he said. "Look at how many injuries happen in practice. It's football. You cannot approach football trying to avoid injuries. Playing 18 games scares me. Year in and year out we have more teams in contention for playoff spots. What would two more games do to that?"

Isn't having more teams in contention a good thing?

ChucklesG · 09-06-2003, 11:13 AM

Theoretically, it would mean the better teams would be in the playoffs. A larger sample size yields more accurate results, in this case, the best football teams.

I'd be scared of that scenario too if I worked for the Giants, since they suck.

A-Train · 09-08-2003, 11:08 AM

God I hope not. Then it would make a 1,000 yard rushing season, quite possibly the most overrated accomplishment in sports, even less meaningful...

DaDakota · 09-08-2003, 11:17 AM

I hope they do it....who wants to watch 4 preseason games?

DD

MadMax · 09-08-2003, 11:20 AM

as a season ticket holder, i would welcome this! i hate paying for 2 preseason games...games i could not care less about, ultimately. but you can't buy a package without buying those preseason games...

ima_drummer2k · 09-08-2003, 11:25 AM

I would love to have 2 more regular season games. More football is always a very good thing.

The only thing I worry about is what it would to to the NFL record book. You would see all the long standing season records go up in smoke, and with them a lot of tradition.

TheFreak · 09-08-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Behad

Isn't having more teams in contention a good thing?

No. I hate how every team in the NFL is 9-7.

4chuckie · 09-08-2003, 11:41 AM

For the fans it's a very good thing. Paying full-price to watch NFL players play 1 quarter absolutely sucks.

NFL Players - I'm sure most will hate this. Having to play an extra 2 games

Owners - Why would they do this? They make tons of money off from pre-season games. They get full price from the season ticket holders and pay out a fraction of their usual player expenses (mostly unsigned players making a fraction of the cost of regular players)

TV Networks - Well of course they want more weeks of real football.

What you may finally see is the players and owners in the same corner against the fans and networks.

MadMax · 09-08-2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4chuckie
For the fans it's a very good thing. Paying full-price to watch NFL players play 1 quarter absolutely sucks.

NFL Players - I'm sure most will hate this. Having to play an extra 2 games

Owners - Why would they do this? They make tons of money off from pre-season games. They get full price from the season ticket holders and pay out a fraction of their usual player expenses (mostly unsigned players making a fraction of the cost of regular players)

i'm not sure how the players will feel about this...

but the owners have every reason in the world to do it...losing Mike Vick in meaningless games sucks. losing him in a regular season game, when it counts, is somehow easier to swallow. but when you're paying these guys the money you are...and counting on them to put fans on the seats...then playing them in 4 meaningless exhibitions is not a good risk.

i'm also assuming the preseason games are a deterrant to SOME would-be season ticket holders...that may be a faulty assumption.

Dubious · 09-08-2003, 11:57 AM

If they add two games they would have to renegotiate every contract in the league.

4chuckie · 09-08-2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMax
i'm not sure how the players will feel about this...

but the owners have every reason in the world to do it...losing Mike Vick in meaningless games sucks. losing him in a regular season game, when it counts, is somehow easier to swallow. but when you're paying these guys the money you are...and counting on them to put fans on the seats...then playing them in 4 meaningless exhibitions is not a good risk.

i'm also assuming the preseason games are a deterrant to SOME would-be season ticket holders...that may be a faulty assumption.

MadMax-
They were discussing on one of the ESPN rountable shows and they basically said the owners pay our $3.5M in salary/regular season game and only $750K in pre-season game. The salary structure is such that players make all their money in the regular season (for example if you had a $1M contract you wouldn't get $50K/game over 4 pre-season and 16 regualr season but you would get $60K/regular season game $10K/pre-season game.

So the owners make a ton of money off these 4 pre-season season games (assuming they can even be at 50% capacity via season tickets) and just think of the places liek Greenbay where all teh seats are season tickets.

As for players getting hurt, don't you think there is more of a chance of a starter geting hurt if you asked him to play 2 more games, rahter than the normal 1-2 quarters/game in the pre-season. Maybe in theory it is better to have players hurt inthe regular season than in pre-season, but what happens at the end of the year (18 game schedule) when the Cowboys are 4-12 and playing the Bills who are 13-3 and have clenched their division and are trying to keep home field yet they get Bledsoe knocked out with a concussion? In the end an injury is an injury.

As for season ticket sales, I don't know. I have my season tickets for the NHL and yse I hate payign for 4-5 pre-season games every year but it's part of the price. But you may be right, I dunno on that one.

MadMax · 09-08-2003, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4chuckie
MadMax-
They were discussing on one of the ESPN rountable shows and they basically said the owners pay our $3.5M in salary/regular season game and only $750K in pre-season game. The salary structure is such that players make all their money in the regular season (for example if you had a $1M contract you wouldn't get $50K/game over 4 pre-season and 16 regualr season but you would get $60K/regular season game $10K/pre-season game.

So the owners make a ton of money off these 4 pre-season season games (assuming they can even be at 50% capacity via season tickets) and just think of the places liek Greenbay where all teh seats are season tickets.

As for players getting hurt, don't you think there is more of a chance of a starter geting hurt if you asked him to play 2 more games, rahter than the normal 1-2 quarters/game in the pre-season. Maybe in theory it is better to have players hurt inthe regular season than in pre-season, but what happens at the end of the year (18 game schedule) when the Cowboys are 4-12 and playing the Bills who are 13-3 and have clenched their division and are trying to keep home field yet they get Bledsoe knocked out with a concussion? In the end an injury is an injury.

As for season ticket sales, I don't know. I have my season tickets for the NHL and yse I hate payign for 4-5 pre-season games every year but it's part of the price. But you may be right, I dunno on that one.

excellent points...i didn't know about the payroll issue, either. that's interesting.

i'm arguing only because i'd like to see it done...and i'm trying to be optmistic!

The Voice of Reason · 05:44 PM

delete.

Im retarded