T1B

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8162 ... -17th-game" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since most starters and veterans play sparingly the first few preseason games, the move would likely not have an impact on a team's ability to prepare for the regular season.

Bullsheet.

Ask the coaches around the league what they think about cutting the pre-season down one game.
They think it is already too short.


This is a money grab, plain and simple.

And it's setting the stage for the 17th game to be played on foreign soil.

16 games is already too many.
It should have never been raised from 14.
Fuck, why not play 20 games, assholes?
More $$$$

The players get beaten down and the injury risk rises with each extra game.


Get fucked, NFL.

I know the 4th game is about evaluating the 3rd stringers and practice squad guys, but that shit is important. We need to keep it like it is. Everything is perfect right now. The only thing I would address is overtime.

poptart wrote:Ask the coaches around the league what they think about cutting the pre-season down one game.

They think it is already too short.

Too short? You think most coaches think the NFL should move to 5+ pre-season games? Link???????????????

Name one coach who’s ever said that.

I can think of no good reason not to cut a game off the preseason schedule, especially if it means adding another game that counts to the regular season.

If you don't like this possible change go watch soccer. What's wrong with 1 more regular season game in the NFL especially if it reduces the amount of preseason games.

R-Jack gets it.

17 games is just TOO damn many.
Hey, 16 games is too many.

How many do they play in college these days, 12 or 13?
You can argue that that is too many for a college kid.

So they jump to the NFL and they have to play 4 or 5 MORE, not counting possible playoff games?

Get the fuck out of town.

This is sickening, man.

Total money grab.

Ask yourself if there is any reason at all, strictly from a competetive balance point of view, to add a 17th game.

I'll help you out, mr fan - there is NOT.

There is just no reason for it.

And it fuggs up the schedule by giving some teams 8 home games and other teams 9.

Oh ... so they'll 'fix' that a couple years down the road by adding an 18th game. lol


Lap it up, fans.

poptart wrote:Total money grab.

No one is debating that. It's so fucking obvious, it's not even worth pointing out. I just want to see a link where the proposed answer by NFL coaches has been to increase the # of pre-season games, 'tard.

Answer to what?

There is no question. lol


I was around when there were 6 pre-season games.
Coaches bitched when it was cut to 4.
"We need time to evaluate players and we need time to get the team ready to play," is what they said then.
I don't have a link to show you, I'm just telling you how it was.

If you think coaches want pre-season cut to 3 games you're just fucking high, guy.

Coaches and players will, without a doubt, piss and moan if one of the pre-season games is turned into a regular season game.

Wait and see.

Quit yer bitching.

SERIOUSLY.

poptart wrote:Answer to what?

There is no question. lol

The question was, 'tard…. show me any coach's answer to the hot button topic of the NFL pre-season being too short. Just one. All's I am asking for is one! Name me one coach not from the Curly Lambeau era who's lamented that the pre-season is too short. Proof, asshat. LINK, motherfucker. Provide one. I could give two shits what coaches said 60 years ago. The game has changed. Players come into camp better prepared and in better shape. Technology has improved. The evaluation process and coaching has improved. You're full of shit and I am calling you on it. Comprende? I bet you watch the games in black and white wearing a leather helmet just to get in touch with "how it used to be." Life has passed you by, you useless old fuck. Your takes, much like Korean piss you call beer, are very stale.

The pre-season being too short is not a hot button topic of the NFL, jerker.
You just decided to disagree with a take and childishly demand that a magic ... link ... be provided to back up the take you don't agree with.

No link needed, try common sense.

When you have rookies, young guys and new guys coming to a new system or getting accustomed to a system, the pre-season is vital.
There is competition going on throughout the roster.
Coaches want adequate time to see that play out.
It's also vital for veterans to get their timing down, especially on offense.
There happens to be a WHOLE lot of important happenings going on during pre-season, especially if you're a coach.

Coaches have an ENDLESS amount of things that they would like to be able to work on, and players that they want to be able to learn about.

There is no dicking around at an NFL pre-season practice.
Every minute counts and every minute is put to use.
It's how it is, asshat.
If there was plenty of dick-around time, FULL weeks that could be casually cut off, that wouldn't be the case.

There is NEVER enough time if you're a coach.

I'm not going to search the interweb for a link to back up that reality.

Pulling your head out of your ass would be a good place for you to start your own search.

Pop
Of course this is about money, the article you linked up makes no bones as to the reason Goodell proposed it. My question is why do you care? The NFL and NFLPA are money making machines who bicker about how many zero's each side sees in their bank account at the end of a fiscal year. For every fan that loses their seat to rising prices, there is another rapid fan ready to take his place. The league is a fucking gold-mine and it will continue to be one with owners and the union attempting to find new ways to generate revenue streams. It's what corporations do. Tell me you knew.

Your ONLY concern should be whether your Raiduh's are able to introduce Russell to Jenny Craig in time for the season. Let's face it, as a fan, when your team is winning and competing every week, do you really give a shit about the tv ratings or gate receipts or jersey sales that are made each week by your team? DO YOU EVER CARE? I sure as hell don't and you'll never find me the least bit interested in that realm of the team's operations unless I am working for them.

The league wants teams to play 1 more game that means something as opposed to 1 less game that has zero meaning? Count me in. It gives me 1 more week to make my fantasy league playoffs.

The reason I care is because it's bad for the league.
And once again the NFL wants to take steps to do something BAD for the league for the lone purpose of cashing in.
Sorry, that makes me ill.

I've alread articulated some of the reasons why it's bad.

- 17 games = home/away imbalance, very stupid, NO reason for it from a competition point of view
- cut preseason = cutting away preparation time = diminished product
- just too many games = players at risk or injured

There is no reason for a 17th game, jim.

If 16 was somehow BAD, or not working out, yeah, add a 17th.

poptart wrote:The reason I care is because it's bad for the league.
And once again the NFL wants to take steps to do something BAD for the league for the lone purpose of cashing in.
Sorry, that makes me ill.

I've alread articulated some of the reasons why it's bad.

- 17 games = home/away imbalance, very stupid, NO reason for it from a competition point of view
- cut preseason = cutting away preparation time = diminished product
- just too many games = players at risk or injured

There is no reason for a 17th game, jim.

If 16 was somehow BAD, or not working out, yeah, add a 17th.

I'll address your points from last to first

too many games- The NFL has a near perfect product, whether it be 17 or 16 or even 18 games. Why? Because it's 1 game a week with each week having playoff implications at the end of the season. Can the rest of the major sports say the same? Not really. They (other majors) saturate their fans with far too many games which results in a shitty product with players taking nights off knowing their 10 game lead won't suffer from a 0-4 night.

In the NFL, you have a bad game and your team loses- you very well could have fucked up home field advantage or possibly a wild-card game.

injuries- Guess what? Injuries happen whether there's a game or not. Players get hurt in non-contact camps (see Corell Buckhalter) as well as mini-camps.

And to your point about preperation, teams have PLENTY of time to prepare. Between the voluntary camps, mandatory camps, and the mini-camps before the season not to mention the amount of film work coaches do ('sup Bill), preparation is not an issue. At issue is reps and since most starters play, at most 2 preseason games (when all quarters are tallied) cutting down to 3 games isn't going to change much. Will it make it harder for rookies? Sure but that means they'll be pressured to not hold out.

17 games- who cares about the imbalance. There are some teams that don't play well at home to begin with. The Giants won their last 10 road games last year. Need I remind you what they did? What you'll see is schedules getting harder for teams who do well the prior year. Are you opposed to seeing the Patriots, Colts or Cowboys with 1 more road game? I'm not.

poptart wrote:I've alread articulated some of the reasons why it's bad.

- 17 games = home/away imbalance, very stupid, NO reason for it from a competition point of view

There's no imbalance if the 17th game is always at a neutral site. Which is the way the NFL is going with this. Also, a second bye week allows for more player rest and recuperation.

- cut preseason = cutting away preparation time = diminished product

That may have applied in the days before OTAs. Not so much anymore. Before training camp even starts, most rookies will have had nearly 2 full weeks of practice under their belts. Besides, players training regimens are such that they don't need 5 weeks of training and 4 preseason games to play themselves into game shape.

- just too many games = players at risk or injured

And they're not at risk in preseason games? Give me a break.

There is no reason for a 17th game, jim.

If 16 was somehow BAD, or not working out, yeah, add a 17th.

It's about making the product better. As far as I am concerned, any idea that delivers an extra week of meaningful NFL games my TV is a good fucking idea.

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:I've alread articulated some of the reasons why it's bad.

- 17 games = home/away imbalance, very stupid, NO reason for it from a competition point of view

There's no imbalance if the 17th game is always at a neutral site. Which is the way the NFL is going with this. Also, a second bye week allows for more player rest and recuperation.

I am opposed to them force-feeding the game to the rest of the world. They don't want it- at least not on a regular basis. Let them have soccer and we'll keep the NFL here, where it belongs.

Rack jim.

The NFL is probably jealous that baseball and expecially basketball can tap into other markets without much effort.

Football...not so much.

I think that is why the NFL is the most popular sport in the states among the big 3 because there is really no foreign influence. I don't have any figures to back this up, but I'd venture to say that more than 95% of the NFL players are born on US soil unlike the NBA and MLB.

MLB has now had an explosion of Japanese players burst onto the scene. Now, there is a Japanese player on every team. A far cry from the days of only Hideo Nomo and Hideki Irabu.
Add that market to an already popular Cuban, Puerto Rico, Central America, and Mexican market and MLB is doing great.

And we all know how great the NBA is doing.

If you think about it, football is a difficult game to understand unless you've played it before or watched it for a couple of years. The penalty flags, the downs, change of posession, challenges, and all that shit is very complex when you compare it to the other two sports.

Baseball is rather simple. You hit the ball and run the bases, or you pitch the ball and try to get the guy out. Its got some complex things that may confuse the casual fan, but other than that, its a simple game to follow and play.

Basketball is VERY easy to follow. You just dribble and put the ball in the basket.

Soccer is just as easy as the NBA and that is why both those sports have tapped into a worldwide market for the most part.

Its going to take YEARS and YEARS for the NFL to gain interest in other markets because people have to understand it before they are interested.

mvscal wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:I am opposed to them force-feeding the game to the rest of the world.

It doesn't have to be to the rest of the world. There are plenty of places in the US that don't have a football team that might enjoy being able to attend a game every now and again given a suitable venue.

Think Nebraska or Oklahoma for instance. Plenty of football fans there with no pro team.

I'm not opposed to a venue such as that but the NFL's been thinking bigger. London last year, Mexico in 2005.. China most likely next. NFL Europe didn't work, owners lost money so what's the next best thing? Each team playing 1 game outside the US with a bye week to follow. From a market stand-point, getting 2 games in London, Germany, Spain, Mexico etc.. won't be a problem. The infrastructure is there. Just limit the amount of visits and you make money. LOTS of it.

From my standpoint, I don't want my team travelling to another country so the NFL can try and reach a global market.

A Cowboys-Texans game in San Antonio every few years would be a massive draw.

Those are the types of marketing ploys the NFL is looking for.

How can we pack the fuck out of a neutral site stadium and sell a ton of shit.

But on the whole, I'm with BSmack. Anything that extends the amount of time in any given year that I get to plant my ass in front of a TV and watch quality NFL, I'm for it.

There is no way JJ let's the Cowboys play any games in TX that aren't in the new stadium (once it' built). He' pouring a shit load of cash into that thing and the last thing he want's is to lose concession and parking revenue to San Antonio.

jiminphilly wrote:There is no way JJ let's the Cowboys play any games in TX that aren't in the new stadium (once it' built). He' pouring a shit load of cash into that thing and the last thing he want's is to lose concession and parking revenue to San Antonio.

It's an example. And if JJ can figure a way to stuff more cash in his pocket, he sure as fuck would.

8 home games + 50% of the gate, 50% concession, 50% parking on a 17th game > 8 home games.

simple math. 17 > 16

I'd be surprised if it wasn't his idea.

Rumps makes a very valid point about the NFL (rules-wise) being difficult for foreigners to ... get.

The league is hell-bent on taking the game overseas, so that's how it's gonna eventually play out, no doubt about it.
Too much money to be made for it not to happen.

But as was stated in this thread, a better option (if you somehow NEED to take the game to other markets) would be to take it places right here in the states that don't currently get to see NFL ball.

left brain poptart wrote:Get fucked, NFL.

right brain poptart wrote:The reason I care is because it's bad for the league.

Make up your mind already.

Outside of divorced/abused wimmen, I've never seen someone hate something they love sooo much.

Get some therapy or something, but quit trying to play devils advocate/hater and jilted lover/fan simultaeneously.

I worry about you sometimes stuck over there in S. Korea. There might be something wrong with the water.

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:- just too many games = players at risk or injured

And they're not at risk in preseason games? Give me a break.

There is risk anytime you step on the field, of course, but the pre-season risk of injury is NOT as high as it is in a 17th game.
Vet players don't even PLAY for a good portion of the pre-season, and the more REGULAR season games you add to the load for these guys the more likely they are going to be maxed the fuck out and get hurt because of it.

Your take is a joke.

jim wrote:injuries- Guess what? Injuries happen whether there's a game or not. Players get hurt in non-contact camps (see Corell Buckhalter) as well as mini-camps.

This take is a joke too.

Yep, an injury can happen anytime.

You proved NOTHING.

Hey, I might somehow fall down and crack my melon open mowing the lawn, so I may as well ride my Harley with no helmet.

- Ben


But THIS take takes the prize ...

jim wrote:17 games- who cares about the imbalance. There are some teams that don't play well at home to begin with. The Giants won their last 10 road games last year. Need I remind you what they did? What you'll see is schedules getting harder for teams who do well the prior year. Are you opposed to seeing the Patriots, Colts or Cowboys with 1 more road game? I'm not.

Go ahead and ask any team in the league if they want to play 8 home games and 9 road games, or visa versa.

Of course it can work out that a team performs better on the road in a given year, but to suggest that teams might actually WANT to play a schedule with more road games than home games make you a high caliber tool.

And yes, Bri, the league wants to eventually make the 17th game an 'international' or neutral site game, but until that time, they have willingly created a competetive imbalance.

No fucking excuse for it.
Fucking disgrace.


There is no valid argument for a 17th game from anybody here except from the point of view that you think it's a good thing for ... mr fan.

Short-sighted.

It's NOT even better for mr fan, that is what is so laughable.
Each game that gets tacked on makes all other games lose a little bit more of their value.

20 pro football games to win a Super Bowl is too damn many.


But as I said, yep, lap it up.

Wagon, I love pro football.
Hate the NFL.
South Korea -- somewhere in between.

Hope this clears it up.


Hey fans, if 17 games is great then 20 will be even better, no?

Taking the 2009 calendar as an example, we could cut the pre-season to 2 games and kick the reg. season off on August 23rd.
Hell, that 's only a 'few' days earlier than when we sometimes now start -- early Sept.
And hot weather??
Hey, we get hot weather in early Sept. too, babies.

And the 22 week schedule (2 byes per team) finishes up on January 17th.
Don't cry about the cold weather games -- we currently play cold weather games in many locations throughout December.
Sack up.

Super Bowl -- mid Feb.

It'll be groovin'.


Down a couple/few paper cup brews, chow down a couple/few biggie mustard pretzels thangs, think it over, and let me know.




Your friend,

poptart

poptart wrote:There is risk anytime you step on the field, of course, but the pre-season risk of injury is NOT as high as it is in a 17th game.
Vet players don't even PLAY for a good portion of the pre-season, and the more REGULAR season games you add to the load for these guys the more likely they are going to be maxed the fuck out and get hurt because of it.

Your take is a joke.

Oh, so you're OK with players risking injury as long as they are scrubs playing in games nobody gives a fuck about. Games that season ticket holders are jammed full price for.

And yes, Bri, the league wants to eventually make the 17th game an 'international' or neutral site game, but until that time, they have willingly created a competetive imbalance.

Right now they have done exactly nothing. The 17th game will have to be negotiated with the players union. Which, given the current labor situation is going to take some time. But common sense says that neutral site games are the only way this change will eventually fly.

Bri wrote:Oh, so you're OK with players risking injury as long as they are scrubs playing in games nobody gives a fuck about. Games that season ticket holders are jammed full price for.

What is all this?
You have no point to make so you may as well not babble on any further.

'Scrubs' in pre-season games play relatively little in the real games.
If they get hurt in pre-season, so be it.
It happens.
Pre-season is their time to play.

The price folks pay to attend the games has NOTHING to do with your bad take.
Like O.J.'s lawyers, toss a whole lot of bullsheet around and hope it confuses the issue.


My take is that 16 games is already too many.

Being a pro football player, and especially a starter is one TOUGH gig, you better believe.
You get the living shit kicked out of you.
By about week 10 they're ALL dinged.
Tacking an extra game on to things might sound like no biggie to mr fan as he chugs his beer down into his fat gut, and it surely doesn't sound like anything to the league office as they count their extra money, but it sure as hell IS a big deal to a player.

poptart wrote:My take is that 16 games is already too many.

And my take is that an extra week of meaningful football games is a fucking gift from the gods. To which your reply is some incoherent gibberish about the wear and tear of an extra game.

poptart wrote:My take is that 16 games is already too many.

Word. I long for the days of yesteryear when the NFL had a 12 game schedule and 8 pre-season games. War -- Sammy Baugh


<<Getting old sucks, eh? Hate change? Technology is 'scary.' No wonder you moved to Korea. Living there is like going back in time to 1950s America. Tell Biff Tannen and Doc Brown I said hello.>>

poptart wrote:as they count their extra money, but it sure as hell IS a big deal to a player.

With revenue sharing, doesn't that mean the players get a percentage of the revenue from that extra game ? So maybe the players would want to play an extra game so they can count their extra money.

I don't think painting today's players as victims is a sound tactic in this discussion.

Ucan't, change and technology are GREAT ... when they actually make something better.
Count me in.

Yourself, Bri, jim, whoever ...

If you want more games, what's wrong with the 20 game schedule I proposed near the end of pg 1.
Looks pretty sweet.

Problem(s) with it?

Rifey: Hey dare, tard… me gives you rowjob, yes?
Tard: Sorry pookie… Too much of a good thing is bad.
Rifey: Me want to gives you rowjob. Geeft fo you. Take, take.
Tard: I have had my fill this week, lovie. In fact, I have blown too many loads this week. I'd like to cut back.
Rifey: You no loves me no more. Gumpy old frart.
Tard: Rifey was run. 9:04 CST.

:rolleyes:

You like a 20 or 21 total game schedule (reg + pre) and I've offered you a 22 game schedule (only 1 or 2 more), which gives you *20* count' em *20* regular season tilts.

Why do you hate progress?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Rifey: Hey dare, tard… me gives you rowjob, yes?
Tard: Sorry pookie… Too much of a good thing is bad.
Rifey: Me want to gives you rowjob. Geeft fo you. Take, take.
Tard: I have had my fill this week, lovie. In fact, I have blown too many loads this week. I'd like to cut back.
Rifey: You no loves me no more. Gumpy old frart.
Tard: Rifey was run. 9:04 CST.

:rolleyes:

...not in!

RevLimiter wrote:

If TEH biggest boob in the history of ALL 'Rome' board thinks a take is $$MONEY$$, well, put me down for a couple grand betting that ... it ain't.

poptart wrote:Wagon, I love pro football.
Hate the NFL.
South Korea -- somewhere in between.

Hope this clears it up.

Nope - The NFL and pro football are one and the same. You speak from both sides of your mouth.

Nonsense.

Ever heard of the NFL Hall of Fame?
Or is it called the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

The NFL, in it's infinite wisdom, refused our very own illustrious Lamar Hunt enty into it's club.
Hunt and others began their own league.
That was NOT the NFL.

The great NFL later capitulated and let them join their club, sure.

There are, and have been, MANY pro football leagues through the years.
The NFL happens to be the best one, yes, but the NFL is NOT pro football.

Pops is absolutely right, Whitey.

poptart wrote:Ucan't, change and technology are GREAT ... when they actually make something better.
Count me in.

Yourself, Bri, jim, whoever ...

If you want more games, what's wrong with the 20 game schedule I proposed near the end of pg 1.
Looks pretty sweet.

Problem(s) with it?

I have no problem whatsoever with a 20 week schedule with 18 or 19 regular season games and 1-2 preseason games. For all I care, they can play a 22 game season with no preseason games and 3 bye weeks for a total of 25 weeks of regular season action. That ought to make your fucking head explode.