No 18 game season for now

[Sect309Fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp10/columns/story?columnist=paolantonio_sal&id=5499900

For the fans, the new format would mean two fewer preseason games and two more regular-season games: a win-win.




For the broadcast and cable networks, more meaningful NFL games would mean more programming, more advertising and sponsorship dollars and a greater ability to use games to promote other programs.




For the owners, it would be a windfall. Let's do the math. The NFL is an $8 billion business. Adding two regular-season games means you potentially grow the revenue pie by about 12.5 percent, or about $1 billion.




Clearly, additional regular-season games means the NFL would have to expand the current 53-man roster. That means more players, which means more jobs. That will make the union happy.





But the reason the owners voted out of the current labor agreement is that they want the players to take a pay cut. Many owners are up to their bottom line in stadium debt.


Still, many players are asking: How do you ask your employees to take a pay cut while asking them to work more so you can make more money?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

First, I am glad there was no vote. The players are clearly against it, and I keep hearing a lot of fans that realize it is bad for the game as well.

Here are some of my arguments to the article above:

1. The ticket holders that don't go to preseason games may not go to regular season games in the middle of January either. TV fans will be happier, but I am not sold on ticket holders.

2. TV networks lose money directly on the NFL. They have that programming because it brings in viewers to their other shows, where they can make money. I wonder if the networks really want to pony up even more money that hurts their bottom line.

3. Let's do the math. Adding two games does NOT add 12.5% revenue. Stadiums sell out most preseason games, so that revenue isn't changing much at all. Merchandise revenue isn't changing. It comes down to TV money. But then you have to pay the players for two more games, and possibly even add more players to the roster. Revenue will go up, but it is a whole lot less than a billion dollars.

4. Owners really aren't looking to cut players pay. They want to take an extra billion off the top of the revenue stream. All that does is affect the cap, not current contracts. I do wonder if the owners can take that billion, raise player's salaries by 12.5%, and still have meet their revenue streams.

[TitansJonne]

I am for it, imo i think it makes december and janary more exciting. we finished 8-8 last season, two more wins and who knows? maybe 10-8 gets you in. I do think the players will need to be paid more however. It's more of a extra imo. If it passes then im happy, if not, who cares.

[Yvette]

I do wonder if the owners can take that billion, raise player's salaries by 12.5%, and still have meet their revenue streams. Now that seems like a win win to me. Let me know if you figure it out :lol

In related news:

Forbes reports that the Tennessee Titans were one of 20 NFL franchises that lost value in the past year. Whereas the Titans reached the $1 billion level a year ago, they’re now worth $994 million (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_Tennessee-Titans_308897.html), according to the magazine’s researchers. The team’s revenues rose slightly in 2009 to $242 million but profits fell slightly.

http://business.nashvillepost.com/2010/08/26/titans-value-dips/

[Sect309Fan]

Time to buy the Titans now that they are discounted a few million. :thumbsup

[Yvette]

I'll do that as soon as I win the lottery :lol

[Parddy]

A 16 game season is already a grueling haul for an NFL player. 18 real high impact games would lower the quality of the product in December..... High schools and college play what 9? 10? 12 games at the most? 18 is ridiculus at this level.....IMO

[MusicCityMullet]

they were saying on the radio if it does take place, key positions might have a strong 3rd and perhaps 4th position roster-wise because of the threat of injury and fatigue....specifically QB

[titansikou]

My main concern with this is the players' health. Before anyone agrees to this, I'd like to see a medical audit of some sort done (not using NFL doctors). I like the idea of an 18 game season though.

[Titanette]

I am against an 18 game season. I think it is crazy. Cut down the amount of pre-season games and leave regular season alone. I think 18 weeks is alot to ask of players and their bodies, the ripple effect wuold be even shorter carreer years for these players.

[TitansJonne]

One thing is for sure, they better get those new helmets to lower concussion rates fast.

[don28]

Frankly, 16 games may be too much. I don't think anything was wrong with the 14-game season, even though the schedule went to 16 games when I was just 10 years old.

[slkHORN]

i don't like idea of an 18 game season, every time you add games they become a little less meaningful. And the risk of injury is a no-brainer for me. 16 games is already pretty exhausting, you're talking about guys taking collisions similar to low impact car crashes, over and over again. and you want to add two more weeks of that? I don't like it. If you can't take care of business in 16 weeks, it's not likely you'll do it in 18.

[TitansGiantsBears]

The closest thing for comparison would be the USFL which employed an 18 game regular season back in the day. I don't have hard numbers but I don't specifically remember injuries being a problem, at least not any more so than the 16 game NFL schedule.

[Mason Maniac]

I'm against it. By the time the 16th game rolls around I'm pretty well sick of the regular season and just wanna get to playoffs. I think you need the pre-season games to look at what you've got (we've got tough choices to make at RB, for one)

[amy]

If the money makers want an 18 game season, they will get it, no matter what the fans or the players want.

[Sect309Fan]

If the money makers want an 18 game season, they will get it, no matter what the fans or the players want.

True. Though diluting your product usually isn't the best way to make more money. And that is exactly what an 18 game season does.

[Titan723]

I am against it. I am barely able to drive down for 8 regular season games. I would not be able to do 10. However, I do think they need to do something about the ticket cost for preseason games. If they can jack the price up for playoff games, they should lower it for meaningless games.

[Yvette]

If they can jack the price up for playoff games, they should lower it for meaningless games.
Love it! I bet they'd jack up regular season before lowering pre, saying they listen to the fans :lol

[Sect309Fan]

TMQ chimes in...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100831_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl

In other scheduling news, Roger Goodell now says the owners want an 18-game regular season slate beginning in 2012 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5497448), while eliminating two preseason games. TMQ hates preseason games, and those old enough to remember when the NFL had six "exhibition" dates before a 14-game regular season really hate preseason contests. Two preseason games is plenty: This change makes sense. But 18 regular-season games? No thanks.



Sixteen games is plenty for players' bodies and for spectator interest. Add more, and each individual game will mean less. That's diluting the product -- like pouring water into a bottle of scotch then claiming the taste, and the price, should still be the same. The effect will be worst for losing teams. In the current format, by the time there are six games remaining, it's hard to care about clubs that are eliminated: In 2009, late-season Rams and Lions games were excruciating. Imagine if this point were reached with eight games remaining! Plus an 18-game season would mean either starting the NFL regular season before Labor Day or holding the Super Bowl after Valentine's Day.



Regularly, Tuesday Morning Quarterback warns that there is no law of nature that says the NFL must remain so popular. If an 18-game schedule gluts the market with meaningless games, people will start to tune pro football out.



Already glamour teams such as the Giants and Jets, not just the Jaguars, are having trouble selling tickets, and the latest Forbes ranking suggests the value of NFL franchises is undergoing its first decline (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html). The owners' instinct is to add more games and grab for more dollars -- but pro football doesn't exactly lack for money as is. There is also a posturing aspect, as regards the current labor talks: The owners are in effect saying to the NFLPA, "If you want more money, play more games."



But this misses the larger picture. Economic theory says that when demand is declining -- what's happening right now in pro football -- the response should be to cut prices. The NFL should stick with 16 regular-season games, a formula that works, while reducing preseason games to two. That represents a price cut of 10 percent for season-ticket holders, who, in this situation, would pay for nine home games rather than the current 10. (NFL teams require season-ticket holders to purchase all home games, and preseason games are priced the same as regular-season contests.)





Eliminating two of the four preseason games, and thereby reducing an NFL season-ticket package from 10 games to nine, ought to restore the supply-demand equilibrium. Dropping meaningless exhibition games also would communicate the message that the owners respect their customers: Fans clearly hate having to pay for preseason games.



In turn, with fewer preseason games, injuries should decline, improving the quality of the product in the meaningful games, the ones that count in the standings. Trying to glut the market with 18 games would, by contrast, decrease the value of the NFL, while increasing injuries because starters will play more. At the end of an 18-game season, more well-known players are likely to be out for the postseason with injuries. That, too, will dilute the product. Goodell told "Outside the Lines" that the genesis of the 18-game schedule was that fans hate preseason games. So reduce the number of preseason games!



Sure, owners want to maximize revenue. But they're all already wealthy -- they should be content to be wealthy and selling a successful product. Why must owners demand more from the goose that lays the golden eggs? NFL owners can't really be stupid enough to ruin the NFL, can they? Don't answer that!

[BoroTitan]

I'm against it. By the time the 16th game rolls around I'm pretty well sick of the regular season and just wanna get to playoffs. I think you need the pre-season games to look at what you've got (we've got tough choices to make at RB, for one)

My thoughts exactly. Preseason is a great tool to see where the young talent is at. Injuries are a part of football, sometimes it happens in the 4 game preseason, but it'll also happen in a 2 game preseason. To me it is essential to have preseason for seeing where you are depth wise