The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

18 game schedule is how they make it works.

--More revenue coming in for everyone to split up. More games=more money across the board
--Union will be happy because they will inist on expanding the 53 man roster to 55 or 56 or so with more games now being played. Which means almost 100 more members paying union dues. Adding to their pot

It's a win-win for everyone.

That's the most obvious solution, yes, but it has a LOT of problems... including the fact that playing time of top players wouldn't decrease (baring injury) unless there are a lot of meaningless games, which would lead to lower ratings (and thus a smaller future pot).

It's an interesting discussion, one I'm sure we'll revisit this off season... maybe even in its own thread ;)

Lower ratings? Are you insane! The TV ratings would be as big if not bigger.  Meaningless games? How would there be more meaningless games? That makes zero sense. You are losing 2 preseason (meaningless games). And adding 2 regular season (MEANINGFUL) games!

Meaningless games aren't just preseason.  Patriots-Dolphins game this year was meaningless. 

With the longer season it is possible you might have move of the 12 play off spots locked up sooner. 

Do you actually read what people post or do you just get off on writing that pathetic diatribe?

There were TWO parts to my comment. They were connected. Please read.

If top players were to get less playing time through an increase in roster spots, this would come only by way of an increase in meaningless games. Such meaningless games would result in lower ratings (than games with meaning). I did not speak as to the likelihood of an increase in meaningless games to begin with, although it would certainly seem possible to devise a structure that created that possibility.

Am I insane? I don't think so, but I'm getting more convinced by the day that your sole intent here is to ratchet up the rhetoric, insult as many people as you can, and be as arrogant while doing it as at all possible.

The final week of every season you will have those games. Whether its a 14 game season, 16, or 18 game season. Final weeks some teams will have things clinched. Can't avoid that

Considering ESPN just paid the NFL $2 billion a season extension for like the next 10 years, I don't think Ratings are an issue.   ::)

You can roll your eyes all you want (although it speaks volumes of your contributions), but if you don't think the NFL ALWAYS considers ratings an issue, YOU are insane.

Of course its considered. But its a non issue

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP803819da98b34032b1a5d96604eb35e4.html

And last week ESPN gave the NFL $2 billion a year for 10 years for a MNF contract extension.
 ($20 billion)

Don't really think Ratings are an issue for the NFL!

How about they stop fucking up the game and leave the schedule alone?

they are making it better! Expanded rosters. More games. Season ticket holders pay for less preseason games and get meaningful REGULAR season games at the same price.

They are improving the game

I'm all for ditching the preseason games, but more regular season games means more season ending injuries, and a watered down schedule.  Every game matters so much right now and I like that.

how do you "water down a schedule"?

Seriously, I'm just curious how that happens? I have never heard of such a thing.

^^^You must not get into baseball discussions then. Seriously compare the NFL's 16 game every game is so important situation with the 162 game schedule in baseball (sorry enthusiasts but football games weigh heavier during the course of a season) and tell me how more games doesn't water down a schedule.

Their could be an interesting caveat to an 18 game schedule.  You could also change the scheduling system so that every team in the AFC would play every other team in the AFC and do the same for the NFC.  Each team could play the other 3 teams in their division 2 games a year and play the other 12 teams in the conference once each.  This would eliminate AFC/NFC matchups but since the AFC and NFC don't meet in the playoffs until the SuperBowl, everyone within a conference would play the exact same schedule except for within their own division.  Strength of schedule would no longer really be an issue for determining playoff spots.

I doubt the NFL would do it because of losing the AFC/NFC matchups, but it's an interesting possibility.

Ratings are great right now, no question. But you are delusional if you don't think the NFL considers the effect of actions upon ratings. Future ratings matter. A lot. ESPN didn't just buy all games for all eternity. They bought one game a week for 10 years. Even if they ALL rights were covered 10 years ahead, ratings would still matter. A LOT.

From what I read what the league is leaning towards is adding two more conf games based on record.

Would still have the 6 division games, the one entire AFC div, and one entire NFC div.  Now we have the 1s play each other as do the 2s, 3s and 4s.  What would be added would be the 1's & 2's would play all the 1's and 2's and 3's & 4' would play all the 3's and 4's.

For example this would add Bengals and Texans to the schedule for the Dolphins next year. 

Increases the gap between finishing 2 and 3, that's for sure.

In the end, though, teams change so much from year-to-year that when you meet them is almost as important as who you meet.

Yeah...but on the plus side it means that there is a very good chance all of last year's playoff games would have repeat next year.  (other than SB and not if one division sends three teams). 

For example it would add these exciting match ups to next years schedule:

Jets-Colts
Patriots -Ravens
Colt-Ravens
Saints-Eagles
Saints-Seahawks
Packers-Eagles

Would add a bunch of less exciting matchups as well such as Panthers - 49rs in the new 3&4 mix, but the adds of 1&2 would add some great games. 

You're not suggesting the NFL would purposely try to create these matchups just for ratings are you?  They wouldn't do that....would they?  ;)

So going from 16 to 18 games is like 162?!

Sorry that makes no sense

With all of the gambling on football and the Fantasy Football being a billion dollar business, the ratings will stay strong!

NFL is doing fine. Your notion that switching 2 preaseason games and making them regular season games would hurt ratings is foolish.

Fair question.  What I mean by watering down games is that games become less important. 

With only 16 games in a season, winning or losing a particular game means a lot.  With 18 games, each one will be a little less important.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, man.

My whole ratings comment was part of a larger argument about playing time and the effect more games would have on "good" players (i.e. none). Like some childish Internet troll, you picked out one out-of-context item (and one presented in parenthesis even) and started to go nuts.

Well, go ahead. I'm done, save to say that I never compared anything to preseason games. That's just stupid. Again, it all comes back to the primary part of the argument I made, that the only way good players would experience less playing time would be for there to be more meaningless games and THAT would result in lower ratings (compared to FEWER meaningless games, not compared to the current schedule, not compared to preseason, etc)... with the implied argument that the NFL would never allow that (because they DO care about ratings, whether you believe so or not).

2 more games makes games a little less important? I don't see. I don't get that logic. It's 2 games people! 2 games.

With all the tiebreakers and all the teams fighting for playoff spots, every game is still important and adding 2 games won't change that

And ratings are at an all time high. If you don't expand now you never will. And adding 2 games doesn't make games meaningless. That is a huge leap to make. It's 2 games. 8 quarters for crying out loud.   Who said the NFL doesnt' care aboug ratings, ratingsa re at an all time high right now! But you are saying adding 2 games means in time ratings will go down. That is a flawed and foolish thing to say because you have no basis to back it up at all. Since the owners are pushing for an 18 game schedule, they must have crunched some numbers and seen the financial benefit. Which right there washes your entire argument away!!

2 games, when talking about only 16, is a 1/8th increase.  That's pretty significant.  The same amount over a season of baseball would be more than 20 games.

I'm not up in arms against this decision.  If the choice is 4 preseason games vs 2 more regular season games, I suppose I'll take it.  I'd rather they just ditch 2 preseason games and leave it like it is....but I understand the motivation.

Ummm...no.  Like fyo said (and I completely agree with him), perhaps you should look into pursuing some further reading comprehension skills courses because his argument is not "flawed and foolish" with "no basis to back it up at all" and washed right away if you actually think about it for a second before you type--which I don't even know why I'm wasting my breath (excuse me, finger dexterity,  :D) because people try to say this to you time and time again, and apparently it's of no avail. 

Anyways, look at this season, for instance--what game freakin' meant anything in the grand scheme of things, out of 16 of them, to the playoff picture, besides that St. Louis--Seattle game to close the season on Sunday Night?  Not that many at all.  As a matter of fact, aside from Jacksonville's game against Houston (which they lost anyways) and Indy's game against Tennessee, the AFC was completely set--completely, aside from some reseeding possibly.  But the teams that had their byes, already had their byes and such so you're looking at 2 games out of 8 that had any significance to the playoff picture in the AFC.  Meanwhile, in the NFC, aside from the Rams--Seahawks game, I'll give you that the Bucs beating the Saints as well as the Giants beating the 'Skins kept things kinda interesting for the Packers against the Bears.  But even then, that's still only 4 games out of 8 that meant anything, and the Buccaneers had to go and *upset* the Saints in the Superdome for one of those 4 games to really mean anything. 

Granted, that's one year, but we can go back to last season, for example, where our arch-nemesis, the *beloved Jets, happened to sneak their damn way into the playoffs because not just one, but two teams decided to lay down for them in route.  Hell, if our own team hadn't sucked so much down the stretch against the Browns, Bills, and Lions, and it had been between us and the Jets with no effect on the Patriots playoff standings in that game on January 2nd--who knows, we might've seen something similar happen in Foxboro, in our favor this time!  It's a moot point because of the suckiness of our chosen franchise, but still, it's something to consider. 

So, if the season was extended by 2 more games (as Dave said, extending the season by 1/8th), that would provide for even more games "early on" for the strong to pull away from the weak--resulting in possibly multiple weeks of teams not having to worry about jockeying for playoff positions because they already established them week(s) before the season finale, and thus resulting in "watered down" play in general those last few weeks, in most games...not exactly what you want to see as your season is winding down and gearing up for the playoffs!  I'm sorry, but in my mind and obviously in others', I can certainly see how that would hurt ratings. 

I honestly don't care if they scrape 2 of the 4 or 5 preseason games, but I don't think they need to add two more regular season games to the schedule--and I LOVE the NFL!  However, it's not that far-fetched of a concept to understand why it might be a bad idea.

Get all of your little childish insults out of the way? Feel like a tough guy now. Too bad your argument is still weak and you are sticking up for an even weaker stance made by someone else!

The final week of any season has some pointless games in ALL sports. That's just how sports is.

That's no reason to not add 2 games. It's a silly stance to take. The final week of the NBA season has meaningless games. As does in MLB, and the NHL, and NFL. It's just how sports is. Teams are gonna lock up spots and some teams will be out of it come the final week. Whether its week 16 or 18 in the NFL it doesn't matter, that won't change.

And this year in the NFL, the Packers-Bears game had playoff impact. The Giants-Skins game did. Indy-Tenn game did as did Jax-Houston. St.Louis-Seattle had impact. Pitt-Browns and Ravens-Cincy as Pitt and Balt were fighting for AFC North title and  a 1st round bye.

There are 7 games in the final week of the season that were meaningful in whether a team made the playoffs or won a division!!! Damn near half the games in the final week had huge implications on teams the following week.

The whole notion that adding 2 games will hurt ratings and make games meaningless is silly beyond belief. It's downright laughable actually.

Are you using this to support your point?  The fact that there are meaningful games in the NFL now at season's end (and very rarely are there in the other sports) helps point to why a short schedule leads to more meaningful games.  The longer the schedules get, the farther apart teams will be in terms of record, statistically speaking.  That is FACT.  You might think that 2 games isn't a difference maker, but the rest of us do.  We don't need to be told that we're silly for thinking it.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them laughably foolish, you know.

How is that a fact?That isn't a fact at all. In 2 weeks those teams could just as easily be bunched together as they were in Week 16. Or more teams could catch up and be bunched in as well. You have no facts to back anything up!

And don't get on your high horse about being called silly and foolish. You people dish it out at a much faster rate than I do. So pipe down there junior!!

Sigh...

Really trying to restrain myself here...

Mike, please read what I wrote. I never claimed what you seem to think. Not that it's necessarily an indefensible position, but it isn't what I wrote.

Let me try, once more, to calmly rephrase my initial argument:

Playing time of top players won't decrease (baring injury) unless there are a lot of meaningless games, which would lead to lower ratings.

Actually, that's exactly what I wrote with the sole changes being added emphases and a change of tense. Note the first highlighted word, "unless". What follows is a hypothetical construct which (I claim) must be fulfilled in order for the effect initially stated to occur.

In other words, what I claimed was that in order for top players to receive less playing time, there would have to be a lot of meaningless games (the unstated, but obvious, argument being that coaches wouldn't pull top players from meaningful games). I also claimed that "a lot of meaningless games" would directly cause lower ratings, which would also seem rather obvious.

If you have anything to add, anything I need to clarify, on this issue, feel free to post in your usual bombastic style and I'll do my best to calmly explain what I mean and argue any points that are raised.

Yes.  It is mathematical fact, statistically speaking.

A shorter sample size leaves more room for anomaly.  In a 10 game season, a .500 team and a .600 team will be separated by about 1 game.  An anomaly win can mean the difference in that 1 game.  Over a 100 game season, those same two teams will average to be 10 games apart, making an anomaly win much less likely to matter.  As a season is smaller, each win, is statistically, more important.

This is not up for debate.  There is no disagreement.  It is not my opinion.  It is cold, hard, verifiable fact.

If the season is extended two things will occur:

1. There will be more meaningful games. 

2. There will be more meaningless games. 

Right now there are 256 regular season games played each season.  Most of them such as the Patriots-Dolphins week 3 match up were meaningful.  Some of them such as the week 17 Patriots-Dolphins matchup was meaningless. 

Extending the season to 18 games will add 32 extra games.  Some of those additional game will be meaningful, some won't.  A bigger part of the question is how many of the extra games will be meaningful, how many won't.

A few random points:

1. Meaningless games from the perspective of the cliched fan base doesn't seem to harm interest.  E.g. I don't know of any Patriots fans who decided to not watch the final game or attend because it was meaningless.  OTOH, meaningless games from the perspective of the fan base that is out of if it does diminish interest. 

2. Even the most meaningless regular season game seems to draw more interest than any pre-season game.  And worse case (from a fan perspective) that is what we are doing.   Replacing two meaningless pre-season games with two meaningless late season games. 

3. While Dave is absolutely correct and MikeO is blowing air out of his backside regarding it making each game less important, I don't think that is a bad thing.  It will only be a small drop, it is not like we are jumping to a baseball season.  And having a larger number of games will increase the likelihood of good teams making the playoffs instead of lucky teams.  As it is right now a good team that has two or three bad bounces can miss the playoffs while a bad team with two or three lucky bounces can make it.  Increasing the number of games will decrease the luck factor. 

I'm all for the 18 game schedule... I hate preseason football, so anything that replaces two of those games with real games is good by me.


If we could interrogate some of the numbers, I'm sure we could get a confession out of them. #7 looks ready to crack at any time.


The Autumn wind is a Raider...

;)

I am for an 18 game season.  I wish they would play 6 division games, and 1 game against each of the other teams in the division.  18 game schedule would be good because it would make the tiebreakers much less important, which i think is a good thing.

You mean 6 in the division, and then all of the other teams in the conference?  I thought about that, but you would lose interconference play, which people (and I) like. 

If you're going to expand the number of games, I think that 19 is a sweet spot.

6 in your division.
4 from a rotating AFC division. (every 3 years)
4 from a rotating NFC division. (every 4 years)
5 - 1 each from each remaining division (#1 plays #1, #2 plays #2, etc.)

The rub is that you'd have an odd number of home/away games, so that would have to rotate each year.

18 could work as follows:

6 in your division.  (same as now)
4 from other conf every four years (same)
4 from a div in your conf every three years (same)
4 from your conf based on record 1's and 2's play all other 1's and 2's; same for 3's and 4's  (expanded by 2)

Increases the number of conf games but keeps the interconf games. 

^ Yeah, that works.  Is that the proposed plan?

From what I read that is what the league is leaning towards but not a set plan. 

Its only a fact in your head. Games being more important and games being meaningless are 2 different things!!!

You people act like by adding 2 games, TV ratings will drop over time, top stars will play less,. and games won't mean as much. That notion is so silly its laughable on every level. It's 2 games! 2 games!

When the league jumped from 14 to 16 games not that long ago (and cut back from 6 preseason games), people like you guys were saying the same thing you are saying now. And over time how did that work out? Yeah, exactly what I thought. DEAD WRONG!!!

Mike as usually your are the one that is dead wrong!

It is a mathematical fact that extending the season will create more meaningless games at the end of the season.  IIRC when we had 14 game seasons it was much less common for divisional winners to be determined prior to the last game of the season and almost unheard of for the wildcard to be locked up. 

Also it is a mathematical fact that more games means that that each one is less important.

And while I am as strong supporter of extending the season to 18 games or even 20.  You're hyperbola, lack of basic reading comprehension and overall bullheadedness does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion.   

it's not a fact at all. Really it isn't. You people say this "mathematical fact" and throw the term around so much you have actually started to believe. You can believe that theory or have that opinion, but its not a FACT! And there is no hard evidence to back it up! Because you don't know how many teams will be alive heading into those new final 2 weeks of the season or how many teams will be fighting for how many spots. For it to be a "FACT" you would have to know that. And you dont' know that! So to say there would be more meaningless games is a guess. Not a FACT!!

Call me all the names you want, throw in your cheap shot jabs.....but fact is you have no proof to back up your very weak stance. And you can call me all the names ya want and come off like 3 years olds if it makes ya feel better....but it still doesn't make ya correct in this debate!!

How dare you guys saddle MikeO with mathematical facts like that. If he already believes in something, then it is empirical truth and brooks no debate. If he doesn't believe in it, then it can't possibly be real...

Common sense tells you that the more games you play the less each one matters individually. That is simple math. I don't understand how you can keep arguing against that.

Actually I do, you keep throwing other things out there to create a haze. Just look at the simple math and forget the rest of your arguments. 1/16 is a greater number than 1/18. That is all you need to understand.

They are called statistical model.  It is we know for a fact that the more games there are in the season the more games at the end of the season will be meaningless.

By way of example lets take the simplest of leagues.  It has two teams.  Team A and Team B.  Also assume ties can't occur.

It has a one game season.  Number of meaningless game 0.  The one game will always be meaningful.

This gets boring so they extend the season to three games.  The first two games are always meaningful.  But there is a 50% chance the last game is meaningless.  If the same team wins both games.  

Wanting more TV revenue they expand the season to 5 games, now the first three games are always meaningful, there is a 25% chance that the game 4 will be be meaningless and  62.5% chance the final game will be meaningless.  

So we jumped from 0% for the last game being meaningless to 50% to 62.5%.  

Guess what happens if we jump the season to 7 games.  Yup that's right the chances of meaningless games goes up.  However, it should also be noted that the number of meaningful games went up.

In a 1 game season on average we only had on meaningful game and 0 meaningless.

In a 3 game season on average we had 2.5 meaningful games and .5 meaningless.

In a 5 game season on average we have 4.125 meaningful games and .875 meaningless games.

that doesn't make games meaningless. For a game to be meaningless it means the outcome doesn't matter. There is no way to judge that the outcome of those 2 extra games won't matter. That's why it isn't a "FACT".

And as hoodie just noted " the chances of meaningless games goes up". Yes, "CHANCES" hardly a FACT that they will!

It is a statistical fact that the expected number of meaningless games will rise. 

FACT, not an opinion, but a FACT. 

Just like it is a fact that there will be more days with a temperature over 60 degrees in Miami in 2011 than in NYC. Unless you want to say that is just an opinion and I base it on just chances.   

Holy crap, I think my brain just died.

No from reading your posts for months now, that happened a long time ago  ;)

I'm not the one having problems understanding simple mathematics or continually misattributing claims.

Anyway...

Increasing the number of regular season games has two distinct, but similar, effects on the meaningfulness of games that have been somewhat conflated in the discussion above.

#1: The more games a team plays, the less each individual game counts toward the total. At 16 games, each game is extremely important (but not as important as it would be if there were fewer games in a season). When approaching MLB / NBA levels, each game barely counts. The risk here is that fans start to feel that an individual game isn't as important. An increase of 2 games isn't likely to skew that much, IMHO. That's just a guess, of course, but I really don't see this making much of a difference. The biggest problem is probably that division games are less important, since there would (most likely) be more games outside the division. Still, not a huge deal, IMHO.

#2: This is the kicker and the one the league really needs to pay attention to. With more games in a season, there are going to be more seasons where more games toward the end are going to be meaningless. Like the above, this effect is obvious. The only thing that can be done to reduce this effect is to fiddle with the scheduling, moving more "important" games to later in the season. The league has already done this by making all week 17 games divisional games. Well, it's certainly possible to move more divisional games toward the end. It might seem strange to have ALL the divisional games in the second half of the season, but it would certainly decrease the risk of meaningless games. There's also the game between teams that finished at the same place in the rankings (#1 playing #1 etc). This game would PROBABLY be a tough game for the top teams and would have a greater chance of significantly impacting wild cards (with the same argument that divisional games are more important than other games -- not only do you win, but your competitor loses).

Mike, do you have any issues with the points above? Let's try to resolve that part before moving on to ratings and viewers -- two other distinct, if related, topics that seem to cause confusion and/or disagreement.

Oh, and could I just ask one thing? Who is "you people"? You keep writing that and I honestly don't know who "you people" refers to. It kinda makes you sound like some paranoid guy who thinks everyone is conspiring against him.

No matter how meaningless the extra two games are, they'll still mean more to me than a couple of August preseason games. It will also increase the length of the fantasy football season, which is ten times groovy on my calculator.


We* definitely don't want MikeO to feel that way...




*(We = the people who are conspiring against him.)

I'm not even counting the preseason games, they're so irrelevant. The way I look at it, it's strictly a move from 16 to 18 games. If it has the effect of changing the number of preseason games, so what? ;)

You would quickly get to an area of diminishing returns.  

I am all for the last three games of the season being divisional only games.  

Under out current system...having all week 17 games be division decreases the likelihood of meaningless games not only in week 17 but also week 16, week 15 etc.

If we change that so all week 16 and week 17 games are division only it decreases further decreases the likelihood of meaningless games in week 16, week 15 etc.  But does absolutely nothing to further decrease the likelihood of a meaningless game in week 17 vs. the week 17 divisional games strategy.  

We could have a plan of having all of the last 6 games be divisional.  The net effect of that is a team with a 1-7 would in theory still have a chance at winning the division and hence decrease the number of week 12 meaningless games.  But seriously if your team has a 1-7 record and a mathematical chance at winning the division do you really think as a practical manner it will keep the fans of that team interested until the record falls to 1-8?

However one further plus side of having more divisional games late in the season is it increases the likelihood that a team that is playing good football in December of making the playoffs.  By having lots of late division games it decreases the likelihood of backing into the playoffs, having gone 8-0 in Sept & Oct and then 2-6 or 3-5  in Nov and Dec.  And I am all for not only increasing the number of meaningful games but for also having the teams that are playing the best, being in the playoffs.  

Huge effect. 

One as someone who does not live in my home team's market it is very difficult for me to see preseason games on TV.  And they aren't all that interesting anyway. 

Two, more importantly for STH, they are forced to by the two home preseason games at the full face value for a game that is meaningless and is very difficult to resell for even a fraction of the face value.  This would reduce that to one.  Giving them more value for their money. 

So why do you care if you can watch them?

Yeah, it sucks that season ticket holders have to pay for them, but that's 90% fake anyway. Let's say you unbundled the preseason games... anyone think the cost of a season ticket would decrease?

So now I would get to watch 18 games I care about and miss 2 games I don't care about instead of watching 16 game I care about and missing 4 I don't care about.


Doesn't have to decrease, just has to increase by less than about 12% for a net increase in value.

Lets say tickets are $100 each.  Season of tickets cost $1000.  8 regular season games plus 2 preseason games.  But the effective price is $125 each (1000/8) plus 2 useless pieces of paper. 

If you take away one of the home pre-season games it now because $111 per game and one useless piece of paper.

Even if you have a 5% price increase the effective cost is $117 per game.   

You misunderstand me. Irrespective of any change in number of regular season games, if preseason games were forcibly uncoupled from the season ticket package, do you think the price would decrease? I.e. you'd be paying for 8 games instead of 8 games + 2 preseason games. I'd argue you'd be paying the same damned thing.

Just to add... IMHO, the only reason the preseason games are even affected by this is that the league needs those weeks. The rest is just spin from the league... the players don't care. Playing time for vets isn't going to be vastly affected, so it'll mostly be 2nd, 3rd, 4th stringers and those guys actually NEED to playing time.

But they aren't uncoupled.  The chances of them becoming uncoupled as pretty close to nil.  

But lets assume the extremely unlikely were to occur a state legislature passes a law making the practice of bundling pre-season games with regular season games illegal then yes I would expect the price of regular season tickets to jump dramatically.  Maybe not the full 25% increase, but close to it.  

Actually I think it would be a sound business decision for a team, even absent a demand.  

Here is what I would do if I bought a team.  Take the $100  game ticket.  Increase the face value by 20% to $120.  Decrease the face value of the preseason tickets to $40.  Give the STH to option of purchasing the preseason tickets at a half off face value - $20 each.  Net - net: for STH that want preseason games they pay the exact same $1000.  For those who don't want them  they save $40.  So I would expect zero complaints from existing STH, most of whom would consider the new system fairer than the old one.

Now I take all the $40 tickets that I didn't sell to STH for $20 each and sell them either as individual tickets at $40 making me more money than the current system.  But the bulk I sell at $20 thru my group ticket sales office that is also running a 50% off program  on pre-season group tickets to high school football teams, pee wee football leagues, scout troops etc.  Getting people who could not otherwise afford to go to a regular season game into my stadium for a pre-season game and building and enhancing my fan base with the next generation.  

It is going to be affected immensely. Instead of the limited role they have, they will now be playing more snaps (preseason game versus a regular season game). That is why the union is not really in favor of an 18 game schedule at this point. Too much still needs to be discussed from their end (salaries, pensions, etc.).

Yeah...that is actually the primary reason against.  One thing I would like to see them do to offset his a bit would be keep the 44 game day roster as is, but increase the 53 man roster to 65 or 70 and do away with the practice squad.  This would make it a lot easier for a team to keep a guy injured week 2 that should be ready to return in 2 months on the roster instead of sending him to IR. 

Hey.  Speak for yourself.  I am one of the co-conspirators and I do want him to feel that way.  Just for the record Sunstroke does not speak for the entire conspiracy and in fact we do not have an official spokesperson at the time, but I will be adding that to the agenda of the next meeting --elect official spokesperson.  (Lil'B don't forget to bring the donuts this time.)

MikeO is wrong.  However, he will never admit that.  He doesn't understand statistics.  It is not worth rehashing anymore.  You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.  Until he brushes up on a math book, this conversation is meaningless.

Holy crap, talk about jumping on a sentence and taking it out of context. I thought Mike had the monopoly on this ;)

It should be eminently clear from what I've written in this thread that going to an 18 week season would increase vet playing time (unless accompanied by a lot of meaningless games, right Mike?). However, the quote above was simply referring to playing time in PRESEASON games. That is, first string players would not see much of a change in playing time during the preseason even if the number of games were cut in half. Like now, they would see exactly as much as the coach felt was needed to "get them ready" and not one snap more.

Honestly, I didn't try to stretch anything out of context. Things have gone round and round on so much/so little that I honestly skipped most of it. My mistake.

Because you aren't looking at this issue from all angles. Season ticket holders win by going to 18 games. They will pay the same money. And lose 1 preseason game and gain 1 reagular season game. More bang for your buck as a fan!!

They are ONLY against it in the press. They want the 18 game season beacuse in return they will get rosters expanded from 53 to either 58 or 60. Add 5-7 guys on the active roster on 32 teams. That's close to 100 more NFL players. 100 more jobs. 100 more union members paying UNION DUES!!!!!  Union wins!

They are playing it out in the press beacuse if you have followed this, the Union CAN'T stop the league from going to 18 games. They can't. Owners can do it if they want, union has no say on this specific matter. So, the players (ie Union)  come out against it, so they now have a position to bargin with. And get something out of it. SO they can come off looking like they "won" too on this issue!

I am not wrong. I hold an opinion you don't agree with. But you can't agree to disagree and mvoe one. That doesn't make me wrong. And some of you guys need to read up  and look up the true meaning of the word "FACT" and then rejoin this conversation

No mike you do.  And also take an elementary stats class. 

This is what it has resorted to..."no mike you do"   ::)

At this point I think we can lock this thread!. What's next, "I know you are but what am I"  :D

^^^

MikeO, By continuing to debate me, it is clear that you don't understand.

I am stating a mathematical fact.  It is a FACT.  It is a basic statistical principle, proven time and again by men smarter than both you and me.

By disputing it, you are inherently wrong.

1+1=2 is not my opinion.  That's a fact, sir.

Now, whether or not that fact will make the league better or worse as a result, that is an opinion, that I'm happy to debate.  But I won't debate the fact itself.

That might carry weight in a normal unionized industry, but I'm not sure it's particularly relevant in the NFLPA. It's a VERY small union and the people with a say consist of mostly active players, plus the head and a couple more. There's no real incentive for any of them to "grow" the union. The active players will be looking to do whatever benefits them, while DeMaurice Smith will try to take a longer view -- but "grow" the union? I don't think he has any incentive to do so.

I really do think the players are VERY concerned with injuries. These things cost them money... BIG money. Especially from the BIG name players. If they're playing more games, they will want commensurately more money and then we're back to slices of pie an size of said pie.

That's not to say I think the players WON'T be willing to go to 18 games. I do think that's a very likely outcome, given the money in it and given that the players CERTAINLY won't be willing to take less (in absolute terms) pie than they've had previously. I am a bit curious as to what the TV contracts say about an 18-game season... as you noted, some of them cover the next decade of football.

Right now, what the players are arguing is "total time on the football field". They're saying that if the number of games goes up, offseason practices need to go WAY down. I'm not sure if this is a bargaining strategy or what, but it sounds fishy to me. Not that many injuries happen during the offseason and those that do seem to be just as likely to occur in non-contact, player-was-alone-and-pop situations. Since players will still need to be somewhat in shape (*cough*), they'll still be at risk of those. I do think there's a real risk that the product on the field would suffer.

Personally, I'd like to see a massive INCREASE in offseason practices as I'm convinced it would improve the product. And, while nothing is close to the NFL in football quality, it's still shocking how poor technique a lot of players have.

funny you mention offseason practices and an increase. The other thing the NFLPA is asking for  (and will probably get) aside from rosters expanding from 53 to 58-60. Is the end of OTA's and offseason programs. For the simple fact is if you are going to expand the season the players will want more "ME-TIME" and personal time in the offseason.

So I don't think you will see an increase in offseason practices. You will still have rookie mini-camps but thats about it

believe what you want. I have said my piece more than once. It's not as simple as 1=1=2. Seriously that is just insane.  You have so many variables and so many "possible" outcomes that to determine whether more games means more meaningless games is not a cold hard fact. You could have so many teams bunched up at 8-8 and 7-9 and 9-7 heading into those final 2 added on weeks that damn near every game  is meaningful in some way. That is a variable you cant predict and say such and such is a fact!
 
But whatever, I will agree to disagree and move on. Cause you ain't changing my mind and I won't change yours.

There is nothing to disagree with.  Again, it's not my opinion.  It is fact.  You can't disagree with a fact.  Saying that I can't change your mind is really a testament to your stubbornness, as I (and many other people in this thread) are pointing out that you are arguing with futility.  It is as simple as 1+1=2.  It is not insane.  It is math.  Look it up.

I am speaking statistically, only.  There are always possibilities that in one season, teams will bunch up.  But, over a long-enough timeline, statistically speaking, there will be more meaningless games near the end of the season.

Think of it like this: Statistically speaking, a coin flips at 50%.  You may get heads 8 out of 10, with only 10 flips (or 80%).  ....but over time, if you continue to flip, that number will get closer to 50%.

This is the same.  There are many variables, but over a long enough timeline, those variables will become negligible.

This thread makes my head hurt. I hated Stats but Dave is right, the more chances you add to something, it hurts less when you lose one.  Look at a final exam. Your professor gives you an exam with 16 questions.  Each one counts for 6.25 points. If that same professor adds two questions, it drops to 5.56 (rounded) points per question. If you miss one on the 18 question exam it hurts your score less.

That's what Dave is referring to - the weight of each game statistically counts for less because there are more of them 

One reason for DOLPHIN fans to want a longer season...1972.

It is harder to win 21 games in a row than to win 19 in a row. 

One thing to consider is if the league will want to use a change in scheduling to prepare for an expansion.

The problem with an expansion is that 32 is a brilliant number in this context. Having 33 or 34 teams... what a mess. But then there were 28 teams for a couple of decades, 30 for a while and even 31 teams for a couple of years... so maybe the league is willing to work with a complete mess...

Paraphrasing MikeO, although in a slightly different context, if you don't expand when popularity is at an all-time high, when do you expand?

33,34,&35 are not good numbers...but 36 gets you 2 conf with 3 divisions of 6 teams. 

But I don't see a real need to expand teams.  Yeah, LA wants a team but the jaguars, bills and vikings are all available. 

 

Minnesota is actually a pretty good market. They may struggle to sell out stadium tickets at times, but they have an iron grip on the TV ratings locally. (Unlike, say, the Miami Dolphins.)

What about Carolina? Is that really a good spot for a team in the long term? TV ratings have been trending up (before this season, anyway) and ticket sales have been solid, so they're probably not in line to move anytime soon. Just seems like an odd spot for a franchise.

Jacksonville is a given. The Jags need to move.

If the Bills go anywhere, it'll be to Canada. Won't happen, though, because they can get the eyeballs and merchandising sales with a token game up North each season.

What about London. Goodell seems hell bent on a team there. Terrible idea, IMHO.

I don't like expansion in general, because it waters things down, but if you were to go to 36, at least it would make for a desirable division structure.

I can see new teams for: Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Orlando, Nebraska, maybe Oregon  ....it could work.

I'd give it to Los Angeles, Portland, San Antonio, and Oklahoma City if I had to add four teams.  However, as it stands right now, I don't see the need to expand.  If the Bills and Jaguars are having money problems, they could move.  Jacksonville would probably move to LA or Orlando and Buffalo to Toronto. 

I think that moving teams should be an absolute last resort, unless they're moving somewhat close.  Jacksonville to Orlando, for example, wouldn't be THAT bad.  ...at least it'd be some of the same fanbase.

And though I know that San Antonio could probably support a team, I'd like to see some totally new areas.  Omaha would be a really interesting place to see pro ball crop up.

Since I'm an hour or so north of San Antonio, I would love to see them get a team.  That said, I wonder if most central Texans are already fans of either the Texans or Cowboys.  I believe there are markets that would be better served by getting a team.

I'm just curious why you think Charlotte is an odd city for an NFL franchise.

No way Jacksonville moves to Orlando. Already very close and we don't have a venue. A move in such a short distance wouldn't change their woes. The Orlando market is already saturated with Tampa & Miami fans. That is why very few people are traveling there to see games. I personally don't know any Jacksonville fans and we are only a couple hours drive away.

Build the stadium at the ESPN sports complex.  Run packages that bundle a magic kingdom admission with a game ticket.  Won't need to have much of a home fan base to sell out a game.  Particularly if you are in a division where most of the rest of the teams are northern.   

Funny thing you mentioned is the venue.  I don't know much about Orlando, but from what people tell me, the Citrus Bowl where they have the Capital One Bowl is old, decripit, and in a bad part of town.  I went to a convention for professors in the State University System of Florida recently at the Orange County Convention Center and couldn't help but notice this wide patch of land on International Drive/Universal Blvd.  Why not build a state of the art venue there?  With all the hotels, shops, and restaurants nearby, that would be an ideal place for Orlando to host a Super Bowl/Pro Bowl or even house their own team.

It has been a while since I went to the Convention center, but it would have to be very wide. I'm not sure there is a spot there big enough. You need more than a wide patch, you need acres of land to build a NFL stadium. The current stadium in Jacksonville sits on 10 acres. Did the spot look that big?

Scheduling wise the NFL wants to move the Super Bowl to the Sunday before presidents day.  Beacuse that Monday after is already a federal holiday which most of America has off. Because the day after the Super Bowl is the most missed day of work in the United States. And politicans won't make it a national holiday (it has been talked about though). So expect the NFL season to start in late-September and end with the Super Bowl the day before Presidents day the 3rd week in February.

And the NBA is gonna have to move their All-Star game which is held on that weekend most years. And David Stern has already looked into alternatives and has a rough plan in place.

Nothing like fixing something that isn't broken.

It's broken. The whole thing is broken. For one you have two sides fighting over money, one way to keep everyone happy is bring more money to the pot so it can be divded up. Increase for everyone.  Both sides win. Plus the playoff system as it is doesn't work. 7-9 teams in the playoffs with home games while teams with 10 wins sit home. It's not right, it must be changed.

18 game season, more TV money, more overseas games, becoming a global sport, more jobs....everyone is happy and everyone wins!

More TV Money = More shit for both sides to gripe about, which leads to more strikes/lockouts.  The whole point of the labor unrest is the NFLPA wants access to the teams books and the owners won't give it to them.  Why?  Because they want to see where all the money's going.  Why? So they can carve it up better among themselves.  Why is this ridiculous?  Go to the CEO of your company or even your immediate supervisor at work and demand he/she open the books.  If they wait more than 10 seconds before laughing you out of the room, I'll be surprised.

More overseas games/global sport = They have soccer over there.  Watch the crowds of 100k + for a soccer game and then watch the 20,000 that show up for the NFL.  Get ready to lose a fortune on that for the next 10 years before it pays off if it ever does.  Your biggest money makers from a fan standpoint over there are people stationed at overseas military bases and their friends. 

If you want teams with losing records not to make the playoffs, either go back to a shorter season (the .500 playoff teams didn't start until we went to 16 games and 6 divisions, don't believe me, look it up) or go back to 8 playoff spots, not 12 or do something really retro and go back to 4 divisions instead of 8.

More jobs for who?  The only thing we're expanding is people overseas.  That does shit for anybody who lives here because (omg!) no matter how many home games you have, you still have the same vendors with the same contract.  So really they get a longer season to make more money.  Not hire new employees.  However, I'm not adverse to them making a profit so that's the only positive in any of this.

Just my opinion, but I disagree with a few things in your post...

"two sides fighting over money" does not equal "the playoff system is broken" as much as it equals "both sides are chock full of greedy bitches"

"keeping everyone happy" doesn't necessarily equal "fixing it" as much as it equals "keeping greedy bitches happy."

Supporting the "it's broken" argument by citing the 7-9 Seahawks example, a week after that 7-9 Seahawks team dethroned the defending SB champs seems a little sketchy.

Don't get me wrong...I'm pretty happy with a new 18 game schedule, and have been consistent in my support for the change, but I DON'T believe that the system was broken. I also don't think that a "once in the history of the NFL" fluke like the 'Hawks making the playoffs with a losing record would be adequate justification for making that dramatic a change.

1) more jobs for playres. Expanded season mean expanded rosters. Up to 100+ more NFL players. Plus more games equals more stadium employees working. How is that a bad thing?

2) 20,000 at NFL games overseas, better re-check those numbers. Pats-Tampa in 2009 had 84,000+. The Miami-Giants game sold otu in 90 minutes. The game in Mexico had over 100,000+.

You might not like the 18 game season and all the good it brings. But it will happen. And it does a lot of good and very little bad!

I never said one equals the other. I was stating 2 seperate points. How the NFL is broken. How things need to be fixed. Those are just 2 different examples of things that need to be fixed.

And if you DON'T fix the playoff format after a 7-9 team gets in and gets a home game, when do ya fix it? If nto now, then never

I don't think the playoff system is broken.  I think it works really well.  I'd like to remove the bye weeks, maybe, but other than that, I have no issue with Seattle being in the playoffs.

I will take the never.  It ain't broken. 

Bullshit.  Estadio Azteca sold out.  The Giants-Phins game sold out because they'd never seen it before.  The games Buffalo plays in Canada?  Half full.  How do you explain away the fact that they shut down NFL Europe because they lost so much money on it?

Buffalo sold off the home games. That isn't the NFL moving a game overseas. That is the Bills running their organization. That isn't NFL driven. Nobody told or forced Buffalo to do that. Don't confuse the 2.

NFL Europe shut down because the players sucked and it was minor league football.

Plus how do you explain TB-Pats having over 84,000+?! New Orelans vs San Diego had over 83,000+

London should be able to sell out a game a year, at least for the foreseeable future. For the Dolphins game in London, there were over half a million tickets requested in the first 72 hours (despite the system being down for over a third of the time) by close to 200,000 individuals. That was right after the SB for a game to be played almost 10 months later.

Even the pathetic 49ers-Broncos game this year played before more than 82,000 in a sold out stadium.

That doesn't mean I have any faith of those numbers translating into high demand for a "local" team.

As for NFL Europe? That was just a crappy league that the NFL did everything they could to sabotage. There was absolutely no attempt made to make a "connection" to the city the team played and and the players were basically assigned a team, seemingly at random, with little to no continuity to make local fans care.

It's worth noting that pretty much every major city in most European countries have at least one football team of their own (not soccer). So NFL Europe had to compete for fans with local teams with an actual persistent presence in the community and much greater player continuity.

Because I don't believe for a second either one of those attendance numbers.  Especially when I looked on TV and saw a half empty stadium.  That might be the number of tickets they sold.  But that doesn't mean people went to the game.  And your dismissal of NFL Europe doesn't hold either.  Even if it's minor league, if it's going todraw people if the sport is ready to catch on. 

Fyo's explaination I disagree with, but I can still see his argument.

Attendance numbers are always fudged, but you honestly think they alterered them by 60K people? Come on man.