« How to Turn Off the Beep on Your Grundig Satellit 750 and Other Radios | Main | iPod Compatibility Problems Reported on the New JVC Kaboom »
A few days ago I heard Colin Cowherd argue that an 18-game NFL season would dilute the product. He explained that good teams will separate more from bad teams so that the good teams would have their seasons locked up well a month before the season ended.
The result? You'd have more meaningless games with second- and third-string players. It's like putting "pre-season" on the back-end.
I fear Cowherd is right and that greed will go too far in compromising a good product.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 |
Going from 16 to 18 games is a bit much, and cutting from 4 preseason games to 2 is also a bit much. If anything, I say go to a 17-game season - the odd number of games would allow each team to play 1 game at a neutral site (which the NFL already does to some extent now with several games in different countries). If the NFL really wants to expand its brand outside of the US, what better way to do it than to allow every team 1 international game? This would allow for 16 total games to be played at neutral sites (they don't all have to be international either, for instance they could play a game in Hawaii)
Posted by: brandon | August 31, 2010 at 12:08 PM
I would also add that Cowherd is dead wrong about teams pulling away earlier in the season with 18 games. Think about the current structure of the NFL - you have 8 divisions each with 4 teams. The 2 extra games added will NOT be inter-divisional games, but rather, teams playing 2 more games against teams OUTSIDE of their division. What does that mean? That means that it will be more likely than it is now that a team with a .500 record or sub-.500 record wins their division (8-10 record or 9-9 record). With one team stealing a playoff spot with a sub par record, the rest of the teams will have to get even more wins to make the playoffs. I think ultimately what will happen in an 18-game season is that you will have more teams at 8-10, 9-9, and 10-8 make the playoffs because they win their weak divisions while teams with 11-7 or even 12-6 records are excluded from the playoffs because they play in tough divisions or in a tougher conference (as its not clear to me whether or not the 2 extra games will include AFC vs. NFC games thereby increasing the likelihood of even more lopsided records in the NFC and AFC).
I think that the only way an 18-game season could work would be to merge the divisions together from 8 to 4 thus having 8 teams in each division. You then have 4 division winners and 8 wild card teams. This format would also guarantee a bye to each division winner. The only downside to this would be figuring out how to manage in-division games - teams would only be able to play each other once within their division alternating home games every other year.
Posted by: brandon | August 31, 2010 at 12:27 PM
I can remember when there was only 8 teams in the national and American baseball leagues, now the talent in the current configuration of teams is greatly watered down.
Posted by: Tom Welch | August 31, 2010 at 02:58 PM
The CFL plays 18 games. The old USFL did, too. So why can't the NFL?
Posted by: pilgrimway | August 31, 2010 at 04:19 PM
18 games = MORE $$$$$$.
Remember.....
It's ALWAYS about the $$$$$$$$$.
But I agree..leave the games as they are.
Posted by: Jerry | August 31, 2010 at 06:53 PM
I totally disagree with his premise. Back when there were 6 preseason games and 14 regular season games---the reason was that players weren't paid that much and many actually had offseason jobs. Coaches needed the extra time and games to get players in shape. Now, these guys are all millioniaires or at least paid huge wages (even minimum is a rich wage) and it's their job to stay in shape year-round. With Summer camp, scrimmages and even just two pre-season games, they could be ready for the regular season. With all of the tie breaker nonsense, I'd WELCOME teams pulling away and putting some distance between playoff and non-playoff teams. 18 regular season games would settle ridiculous tie breakers such as record in conference or point differencial---plus, I hate a month of pre-season games. Go to the 18 game schedule. Make more games actually mean something.
Posted by: Angelo | September 01, 2010 at 07:05 PM
One more thing---the idea that games toward the end of the season MIGHT BE meaningless is still a lot better than pre-season games that WE KNOW are meaningless. I'd rather have a couple "meaningless" regular season games at the end---a chance to rest starters for the playoffs---rather than a couple meaningless pre-season games when key players might be injured before the season even starts.
Posted by: Angelo | September 02, 2010 at 08:01 AM
I hope you're right, Angelo. I hate to see good teams go flat because they rested and lost momentum during the season's final meaningless games.
Posted by: Jeffrey McMahon | September 02, 2010 at 08:14 AM
Look at the last two Super Bowls---the Colts (over Arizona) and the Saints didn't seem to lose momentum by clinching early. Indy's coach was criticized for resting starters but it worked out for them that year.
Posted by: Angelo | September 02, 2010 at 05:53 PM