Colts President Bill Polian Says 18 Game Season "done Deal"

[FlaccoFlicker]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5623441
and tweeted by Adam Schefter
League owners and the commissioner have expressed support for an expanded regular-season schedule, but have not said a decision has been made.


So we may have a longer season coming what do you guys think?

[T-ray]

I think its terrible... will reduce player's careers by a few years, will break old records, will leave players fatigued/hurting before playoffs begin. Not something I feel like should be done, but they probably went through the same things when the 14 games became 16.

[theFRANCHISE]

I hate the idea. 16 games is perfect. Though the idea is to eliminate two preseason games and add more value, that's still two sloppy games you'll see from the starters and two more meaningful games of punishment. Guys are already banged up from a 16-game stretch, and that's not including the playoffs. The first month of football is already sloppy enough from most teams, no need to extend that sloppiness.

[FlaccoFlicker]

you think maybe they should leave the playoffs at the same amount of teams as they do now or increase that also? It's not finalized but if given enough support it isn't far off

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='FlaccoFlicker' timestamp='1285632474' post='490176']
you think maybe they should leave the playoffs at the same amount of teams as they do now or increase that also? It's not finalized but if given enough support it isn't far off
[/quote]
If they increase the number of playoff teams from 12 to a likely 16 (from 6 per conference to 8), that means half the league will make the postseason, which would make that goal too easily attainable and less meaningful.

[FlaccoFlicker]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' timestamp='1285632620' post='490182']
If they increase the number of playoff teams from 12 to a likely 16 (from 6 per conference to 8), that means half the league will make the postseason, which would make that goal too easily attainable and less meaningful.
[/quote]
true the NBA already does that lol
I agree this may be to rough on alot of players.It could be killer and hopefully they wouldnt throw a bye in week 4 and would wait til week 6 or something

[berad]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' timestamp='1285632439' post='490174']
I hate the idea. 16 games is perfect. Though the idea is to eliminate two preseason games and add more value, that's still two sloppy games you'll see from the starters and two more meaningful games of punishment. Guys are already banged up from a 16-game stretch, and that's not including the playoffs. The first month of football is already sloppy enough from most teams, no need to extend that sloppiness.
[/quote]

Agreed.

In addition, I haven't heard a single player who has been a proponent of the extend season. We've heard tons of strong opinions [i]against[/i] it from players. The only people, seemingly, in favor are some of the money-grubbing owners and executives. People who know and understand the game are against it, so am I.

[FlaccoFlicker]

[quote name='berad' timestamp='1285632999' post='490185']
Agreed.

In addition, I haven't heard a single player who has been a proponent of the extend season. We've heard tons of strong opinions [i]against[/i] it from players. The only people, seemingly, in favor are some of the money-grubbing owners and executives. People who know and understand the game are against it, so am I.
[/quote]
and with the looming lockout the owners agreeing on this possibly may not be a good idea

[Clutch Ravens]

Horrible, horrible idea drawn up by a few money-grubbing owners. Polian could not have decided to let his opinions be known at a worse time considering the current CBA discussions.

I wish Polian would keep his mouth shut and that owners would leave football to the people that know the sport.

[hawkprey]

So right now we play 6 division games, 1 full other division in the AFC and one in the NFC, and the other two teams in the conference that ranked equal to us in their division. Now can someone tell me who else we'd be playing with 2 more games? Are they random teams or do we have to change the divisions around?

[Malkavian Raven]

[size="2"][font="Century Gothic"]Quit worrying about lining your pocket and worry more about player safety. They are not machines, they're human beings! The only way I would consider approving an 18-game season is if Roger Goodell & Bill Polian put on a helmet & pads and play at the starting QB positions on every Monday Night game. If they can last the whole season, then I'll consider it.[/font][/size]

[FlaccoFlicker]

[quote name='Malkavian Raven' timestamp='1285634001' post='490200']
[size="2"][font="Century Gothic"]Quit worrying about lining your pocket and worry more about player safety. They are not machines, they're human beings! The only way I would consider approving an 18-game season is if Roger Goodell puts on a helmet & pads and plays at the starting QB position on every Monday Night game. If he can last the whole season, then I'll consider it.[/font][/size]
[/quote]
very good point about safety there.Guys are having enough trouble playing 16 and 19-20 if suberbowl bound.I think its a bad idea but I don't make enough money to be heard!

[theFRANCHISE]

The biggest arguments I've heard in favor of the added two games is that fans are already paying full-price for preseason games, so this is more bang for their buck; and meaningful games allegedly mean more meaningful effort from the players.

However, this does not address the increased likelihood of teams that clinch early playoff berths, benching their starters late in the season to keep them healthy for the playoffs. Furthermore, that's two fewer games for young, on-the-bubble players to prove their worth to the coaches. To expound further on that last point, that's two fewer games for rookies to get acclimated to the speed of the NFL before playing in a real game. And in reiterating earlier points, this does nothing to curb the sloppy play seen in the beginning of the season, nor would this alleviate the spate of injuries that teams suffer over the course of a season.

[Malkavian Raven]

[quote name='FlaccoFlicker' timestamp='1285634111' post='490202']
very good point about safety there.Guys are having enough trouble playing 16 and 19-20 if suberbowl bound.I think its a bad idea but I don't make enough money to be heard!
[/quote]

[font="Century Gothic"]I edited my original post to include Polian as well.

If you ask me, honestly, all this is about is making up for lost wages. Ever since Goodell was made Commish, it's been a steady decline. Granted, the economy had a part in it but Goodell didn't help matters.

Now, their bottom line is hurting and this is the adhesive strip that's going to stop the bleeding. Sorry to say, not even a "Tom Brady Brand Band-Aid" can stop a gaping shotgun wound.[/font]

[FlaccoFlicker]

if they pass this any chance against a holdout most likely is history.2011 without football.....wow fall and winter will be real boring

[MagicianCamille]

I'm conflicted regarding the 18-game season. On one hand, I don't believe the quality of the games would diminish, and I really do find preseason games boring. My reasoning for the former is that in the 16-game season every game is very important, and the amount of games in a season has changed (increased) a few times since the foundation of the NFL. I can't see the jump from 16 to 18 being THE catalyst which causes regular season games to suddenly feel meaningless. On the other, the players simply don't want a 16-game season, and they're the ones risking their health, both now, and once they're done playing the game.

However, when it comes to the injury issue (also seeing our favorite players playing less and seeing more "scrubs") I think people forget a couple of things. The first being, with an expanded schedule we would see an expanded roster, and more depth at each position. This would actually allow teams to be more conservative when it comes to handling injuries. Coaches and players would feel less inclined to rush a recovery, after all, there's more guys that can step in, and step up. So while more games and more players would lead to more injuries (which is an obvious truth), we might see less aggravated injuries, and thus less long-term injuries. That might be optimism, but I'm sure it's a point that's been considered in the behind closed doors debate.

Secondly, with that expanded roster we would see more rotation going on. With more offensive linemen we might see linemen playing for less time on a game-by-game basis. With more wide receivers we'd see the same, as well as more opportunities for someone to break out and become a star. Sometimes it only takes one great performance to transform into an excellent player (see Miles Austin, average for a couple years and suddenly at a Pro Bowl level). There is also the opportunity to carry more injured guys on our roster rather than putting them on PUP or IR (which comes with the stipulation of them not being able to play regardless of health for a set amount of time).

So I don't think an 18-game season is the end of the NFL, or the beginning of the end, or anything remotely close. It would be a change, and would come with both benefits and problems. What will determine the success of the change if it happens is how the league adapts and responds to those added problems. If they can do so in a way where everyone is happy, an 18-game season could be the best thing that's ever happened. If they can't, well we can always go back to 16 games. I'd say it's worth a shot though.

Oh, and the amount of teams which make the playoffs should only be adjusted to complement the amount of teams in a league, and not the length of a season. As we are not gaining any additional teams, there's no need to suddenly have 16 playoff teams. That would be quite lame IMO.

[Malkavian Raven]

[quote name='FlaccoFlicker' timestamp='1285634765' post='490215']
if they pass this any chance against a holdout most likely is history.2011 without football.....wow fall and winter will be real boring
[/quote]

[font="Century Gothic"]I should wash your mouth out with soap for saying such a thing, but I won't...

Another item not mentioned is, what would this do to the determination of college students playing? No NFL to go to afterward, might as well be high school ball.
[/font]

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='MagicianCamille' timestamp='1285634782' post='490216']
However, when it comes to the injury issue (also seeing our favorite players playing less and seeing more "scrubs") I think people forget a couple of things. The first being, with an expanded schedule we would see an expanded roster, and more depth at each position. This would actually allow teams to be more conservative when it comes to handling injuries. Coaches and players would feel less inclined to rush a recovery, after all, there's more guys that can step in, and step up. So while more games and more players would lead to more injuries (which is an obvious truth), we might see less aggravated injuries, and thus less long-term injuries. That might be optimism, but I'm sure it's a point that's been considered in the behind closed doors debate.
[/quote]
I had forgotten about the likelihood of an expanded roster as an amenity to the expanded schedule, but I'm torn about whether it'd be a good thing or a bad thing. On one hand, the constant rotation of players would give more guys a chance to step up, as you noted. On the other hand, that doesn't do anything for the current starters, who may or may not be managed wisely by their respective coaches and would still have the same increased risk of injury, as you also noted.

However, I am 100% opposed to the expanded schedule IF there are no expanded rosters whatsoever. And I'm talking a decently-sized expansion, maybe another 10 players to make a 63-man roster, as well as an extension from a 45-man gameday roster to maybe a 50-man gameday roster.

[MagicianCamille]

[quote]Furthermore, that's two fewer games for young, on-the-bubble players to prove their worth to the coaches.[/quote]

With an expanded roster less of these on-the-bubble players would get cut, and would continue to have opportunities to make a splash during the regular season, as they either rotate in and out or step in for an injured player.

[quote]To expound further on that last point, that's two fewer games for rookies to get acclimated to the speed of the NFL before playing in a real game.[/quote]

There'd still be the first two preseason games, and coaches could still rotate the rookies in during the regular season to get them acclimated. I don't think the whole four games is necessary if getting rookies acclimated is the goal. We just might see starters get less time during the first two preseason games.

[quote]And in reiterating earlier points, this does nothing to curb the sloppy play seen in the beginning of the season, nor would this alleviate the spate of injuries that teams suffer over the course of a season.[/quote]

I would argue that if it were inevitable that the first few games of the season are where teams play sloppily, then by adding additional games to the regular season we would see more non-sloppy games.

[quote]However, I am 100% opposed to the expanded schedule IF there are no expanded rosters whatsoever. And I'm talking a decently-sized expansion, maybe another 10 players to make a 63-man roster, as well as an extension from a 45-man gameday roster to maybe a 50-man gameday roster.[/quote]

I completely agree. That would be quite unreasonable.

(all responses to theFranchise)

[K-Dog]

I have yet to hear what I consider a decent reason to go to 18 games.

[flaccopoe]

This is just a stunt by inconsiderate NFL execs. Football is the most violent sport in America (besides combat sports.) The players' bodies can only take so much. For the sake of the players, this proposition should be shot down...

[JO_75]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Death of the NFL is 18 games....


RIP NFL 1922-2010.



And they said the World was going to end in 2012???

[George70]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' timestamp='1285632439' post='490174']
I hate the idea. 16 games is perfect. Though the idea is to eliminate two preseason games and add more value, that's still two sloppy games you'll see from the starters and two more meaningful games of punishment. Guys are already banged up from a 16-game stretch, and that's not including the playoffs. The first month of football is already sloppy enough from most teams, no need to extend that sloppiness.
[/quote]

I couldn't agree more, Franchise, the sixteen game season is enough for so many of us - especially the players - and to just add two more games onto the schedule is just wearing players down in an already hard-fought campaign.

For my money, I am against adding two games to the regular-season schedule, but as long as there's money to be made in extending the season - at the expense of possible player injury - someone will want to go for it.

[Jay D83]

I don't like it. Most people use the Labor Day holiday as the unofficial end of summer. MY end is that first Thurday night game. Many people are still on vacation at the end of August - not to mention the fact that it's still hot as HELL in August - I don't need my starters passing out on the field.

Also, if they were to expand the playoff teams, does that mean the #1 and #2 seeds from every division are in? If so, that's stupid. Lots of times the #2s don't even have a winning record!

[MKdave]

In addition to an expanded roster, I'd like an extra bye week aswell, so the regular season would be 20 weeks total. The NFL gets an extra week of coverage over the course of the year, the players get more rest which they'll obviously need if it goes to 18 games. For me, that would represent an 'enhanced' season moreso because it would limit player fatigue. Fresher players means better plays.

[BloodRaven]

Majority of players are against it, but money talks.

[757RavensFan]

I hope they plan on allowing more players on the active roster and another bye week.

[JonM229]

[quote]Colts president Bill Polian believes the debate over an 18-game NFL season is over, and an expanded schedule will soon become a reality.[/quote]

Another reason to hate the professional footbal team from Indianapolis

[thewarden86]

Dumb move IMO. I LOVED Howie Long's statement on it.

What's Polian care for anyway, he'll sit his players late in the season anyway.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='JonM229' timestamp='1285710696' post='490876']
Another reason to hate the professional [b]footbal[/b] team from Indianapolis
[/quote]

Last I checked, Football had two "L's" in it. Communist.