Washington Post: An 18 Game Schedule

by Brandon on Sep 1, 2010 12:51 AM CDT in Green Bay Packers Analysis

In my latest article for the Washington Post.com, I focused on what it would mean to fans of Green Bay Packers if there was an extra home game. Could they make a third season ticket package to clear a bunch of names off the season ticket waiting list? They'd have to take at least one game away from the Green package holders. But in the end I hope it doesn't happen:

If they had two more regular season games, then they would have to practice all week, and have two extra weeks of game preparation and film study. Most players wouldn't complain about it publicly, but it's certain to take an extra toll on them physically and mentally. Knowing what two extra regular season games would mean for the players, and knowing they are unlikely to receive raises solely for these two extra regular season games, I wouldn't complain at all if the players squashed the idea of an 18 game schedule.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The current NFL schedule and playoff system

is as close to perfection as you can get in professional sports.

Play each team in your division twice (6), one complete division in your conference (4), one complete division in the other conference (4), and one game against the other two divisions in your conference that finished in the same position you did last season (2 – for an extra push for competitive balance).

It is a beautiful system. We bellyache and cry about preseason football being boring or pointless or whatever…but it’s funny that you never hear anyone crying about how “Baseball Spring Training sucks!”

Preseason is not regular season, holding it to that standard is just plain dumb. Those games are important for roster evaluation and player progression – there is no “minor leagues” to fall back on. Those games are necessary for development, and the 16-game regular season is beautiful.

I really hope greed doesn’t ruin it.

by Archibaldcrane on Sep 1, 2010 3:10 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs

Keep in mind, most NFL owners treat preseason like regular season though. They charge the same price (and sometimes force ticket buyers to buy them to get the premier games) for tickets, food, etc. They announce the game the same, its on TV, etc.

Baseball is TOTALLY different. The games are played in totally different stadiums. The prices are HUGELY discounted. The games are rarely broadcast. The media isn’t clamouring over the games. They really can’t be compared at all. I agree they are needed for evaluation…but if the coaches had a huge problem with cutting preseason games I think they would be in the owners ears, yet most of the owners are on board.

You say 16 game schedule is beautiful, but it wasn’t always 16 and at the time people probably felt the same way. 16 isn’t a magic number, its just change and people are uncomfortable with change. If they were leaving the preseason games and just adding two regular season games, that would be extreme greed…but I do believe that part of this is giving fans what they want. The people paying for tickets are being forced to pay full prices for half the product and that just isn’t right so something needs to be done!

by TrevorR on Sep 1, 2010 7:26 AM CDT up reply actions

My vote would be to stay at 16

But my vote counts for absolutely nothing. I’m just not interested in a Super Bowl that is being played in late Feb or early March. I don’t see how they could add another two games to the season and keep it at just one bye for the year. They would need two byes and then the season is 20 weeks long. Add in 4 weeks of playoffs (not including the extra week between the Conference Championship Games and the Super Bowl) and that’s a total of 24-25 weeks with games. That’s 6 months. Seems excessive.

I agree that preseason is a rip-off for the fans but there are other ways to address that besides just adding it into the regular season, imo.

Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb

by verno329 on Sep 1, 2010 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions

hmm…yeah 6 months is a little long, but at the same time the NFL is currently one of the shortest seasons of all our sports. I can be swayed both ways but I just don’t get the argument that there will be more division blow outs and more meaningless games. I just like the idea of more football…in the words of Seinfeld. “This is very good (current configuration)…and that would be good too (extra games)…the idea is to combine this and that, but this cannot be disturbed!” Sorry one of my fav Seinfeld episodes where Jerry and Elaine try to come up with rules to have sex without commitment!

by TrevorR on Sep 1, 2010 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Actually

You say 16 game schedule is beautiful, but it wasn’t always 16 and at the time people probably felt the same way.

people did not feel the same way.
There was much legitimate complaining about, among other things, unbalanced schedules.
And sometimes, team literally were not traveling to certain other cities for decades!
These were not the only problems; just the first that sprang to mind.
The current scheduling formula, while still not completely perfect, fixed many of the old sources of complaints, beginning with the fact that, now, all four teams in any given division play 14 common opponents.

-
The glass is way more than half-full.

by NorthStarr on Sep 2, 2010 2:53 AM CDT up reply actions

Actually it didn't fix that until the 2000s

Remember they didn’t have the current scheduling formula until like 2002 because the divisions were unbalanced so while NOW it works out nice, that wasn’t the case in 1978. The only time since the merger that the league has been completely “balanced” has been from 1995-1998 (with 6 divisions of 5 teams each) and since 2002 (with 8 divisions of 4 teams each).

The change in 1978 didn’t fix any of what you were talking about. It allowed teams in the AFC to be more likely to face teams in the NFC but two non-division teams in the NFC could still go decades without seeing each other.For example, between 1970 (when the leagues merged) and 2002 (when the current schedule was introduced) the Denver Broncos and the Miami Dolphins played only 6 times; including a stretch (1976-1997) where they met only once in 22 seasons.2 Under the current system, they are guaranteed to meet at least every third year. For example, between 1970 (when the leagues merged) and 2002 (when the current schedule was introduced) the Denver Broncos and the Miami Dolphins had a stretch (1976-1997) where they met only once in 22 seasons.

by TrevorR on Sep 2, 2010 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions

Now, what you're saying is correct.

The current scheduling system didn’t come into play until the NFL expanded to 32 teams in 2002.
Since then, we have had 32 (2 to the 5th power) teams playing a 16 (2 to the 4th power) games.
There is a symetry there that makes the current scheduling system work.
So, the 16 game schedule, alone, didn’t fix the old problems and give us what we have today.

The bottom line point is that the current system, which does work so well, wouldn’t if either factor was changed; so, it couldn’t have been implemented with a 14-game schedule, and couldn’t be used with an 18-game slate.

-
The glass is way more than half-full.

by NorthStarr on Sep 2, 2010 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Nay

I’m a fan, not a player but I still wince thinking of the starting veterans playing two more games a year and what that means for their long term health, especially if they’re not justly compensated. Football is meant to be played in the Fall not August, I already don’t enjoy sunny warm september games as much, but even if you added the games onto the end of the season then it’s way too cold and inclimate. Of course this is all about the owners wanting more money, this isn’t coming from a fan movement clamoring for more football so forget what Goodell says, this isn’t about the fans. When you have every player whose spoken out about this coming AGAINST two more games that means a lot, cause these guys love football with a passion. The season, with the current lack of parity will become more diluted and you will see teams resting more starters at the end of the year is one thing and another is that each game becomes that much less valuable. They could address the issue of coaches resting starters by awarding draft picks or something so that could help end that problem. 16 games is the Goldilocks soup, just right, so don’t break it in order to “fix it.” But looks like it’ll probably happen anyway so might as well enjoy it and not worry : I

by ericforeman04 on Sep 1, 2010 12:08 PM CDT reply actions

ALL the players are going to come out against it…that doesn’t mean the ARE, they need that for leverage though. If players start coming out and saying they are for it, the owners will use it against them in discussions.

by TrevorR on Sep 1, 2010 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions