What do you think of a 17-game season?

[podsox]

Anything that gets rid of the preseason I’m in on

 

[Cedrique]

Better than 16, not as good as 18. How about 20?

 

[LionsWhyMe]

No preseason... how would they do the Roster? Make a 53 man Roster before the Season starts or make cuts along the way to make up the 53 man Roster?

 

[droider]

2 preseason and 18 regular with 2 bye weeks, very easy

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I say leave it alone, or....

Take away two preseason games, and add 3 regular season games, which equates to one additional game of football.

Lets take my AFC North for example for schedule:

You play your division twice (6 games). One AFC division in full every 3rd year (4 games). One NFC division in full every 4th year (4 games). 1 game against the other 5 divisions with the team equal to your placement the year before (5 games).

6 + 4 + 4 + 5 = 19 games

Would lead to better match ups in the other 5 individual division games. If you can't project this type of addition to the schedule, then leave it at 16 games and how it is.

Agree with leave it.

 

[Manster7588]

I say leave it alone, or....

Take away two preseason games, and add 3 regular season games, which equates to one additional game of football.

Lets take my AFC North for example for schedule:

You play your division twice (6 games). One AFC division in full every 3rd year (4 games). One NFC division in full every 4th year (4 games). 1 game against the other 5 divisions with the team equal to your placement the year before (5 games).

6 + 4 + 4 + 5 = 19 games

Would lead to better match ups in the other 5 individual division games. If you can't project this type of addition to the schedule, then leave it at 16 games and how it is.

Leave it alone, but if games are added FUCK NO to odd number of regular season games.

 

[Debbie Does]

You have to increase pay by 1/17, or the upcoming strike will be even longer.

You need to expand roster sizes because more guys will get hurt.

Oops, there aren't enough NFL-quality players now. Where are you going to get more?

Late in the season more good teams will rest starters so they don't get hurt, and more bad teams will still not be worth watching.

 

[broncosmitty]

You need to expand roster sizes because more guys will get hurt.

Oops, there aren't enough NFL-quality players now. Where are you going to get more?

Late in the season more good teams will rest starters so they don't get hurt, and more bad teams will still not be worth watching.

Never have understood the NFL's desire to keep rosters so small.

 

[Debbie Does]

Never have understood the NFL's desire to keep rosters so small.

League minimum is $480,000. That's a lot for adding another benchwarmer. Veterans cost even more.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Not sure how you work that. 16 sets up perfectly with having eight divisions of four teams, adding an extra just sounds like a nightmare.

Ed Zachary. It is not balanced.

 

[broncosmitty]

League minimum is $480,000. That's a lot for adding another benchwarmer. Veterans cost even more.

Sure, no doubt they don't want to pay guys.

But even on a 53 man roster, only 46 can play. The other 7 still get paid. Don't get it.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Never have understood the NFL's desire to keep rosters so small.

The 53...I'm sure that was some bean counter's idea initially to make a profit.

Why they don't allow all 53 to be eligible? That's the $64,000 question.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Sure, no doubt they don't want to pay guys.

But even on a 53 man roster, only 46 can play. The other 7 still get paid. Don't get it.

so if they extend it to 63 players on the team with 46 dress for game day. Then 63 will get paid.
Either owners owe a ton more money every week (or year however you want to look at it)
or
the elites wouldnt be able to have as huge of a contract as they have.

Owners arent wanting to pay more out of pocket & elites as much as they might lobby for others getting paid, arent willing to give up their money for it to happen (excluding Tom Brady)

 

[broncosmitty]

so if they extend it to 63 players on the team with 46 dress for game day. Then 63 will get paid.
Either owners owe a ton more money every week (or year however you want to look at it)
or
the elites wouldnt be able to have as huge of a contract as they have.

Owners arent wanting to pay more out of pocket & elites as much as they might lobby for others getting paid, arent willing to give up their money for it to happen (excluding Tom Brady)

Why are there 7 healthy scratches though?

HS teams play more than 46 guys a game. It'd be a better product with more depth imo.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Why are there 7 healthy scratches though?

HS teams play more than 46 guys a game. It'd be a better product with more depth imo.

well if you followed football
it was always 45 (now 46) they extended the roster to 53 for practice & injuries en such. no reason to have more game time players. The extra players is for the season so they didnt have to drop players & add them as often. Honestly if they decided to extend the roster, further i would still be in favor on only 46 dressing.

On a side note. Did you really compare the NFL to a high school team?

 

[broncosmitty]

well if you followed football
it was always 45 (now 46) they extended the roster to 53 for practice & injuries en such. no reason to have more game time players. The extra players is for the season so they didnt have to drop players & add them as often. Honestly if they decided to extend the roster, further i would still be in favor on only 46 dressing.

On a side note. Did you really compare the NFL to a high school team?

They DO need more players.

Every week so far I've seen a team leave a guy on the field who clearly is worthless at that point, because they have nobody else to use.

I've seen Dlinemen as kickers and punters as kickers in the past. It diminishes the product imo.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

They DO need more players.

Every week so far I've seen a team leave a guy on the field who clearly is worthless at that point, because they have nobody else to use.

I've seen Dlinemen as kickers and punters as kickers in the past. It diminishes the product imo.

problem is. Lets say we extend active to 48.
Teams wont put an extra kicker or punter. They would add 2 of something else they have plenty of. (DL OL or whatever)
So unless they said it is mandaotry to add a back up kicker (or whatever spot) extending the activs is pointless.
Now if they did, then the next question is why make it mandatory. Let the teams put who they want. Which takes us full circle.
46 actives is fine in my book. part of being a good HC is bring the right guys to the game.

 

[Nosferatu]

Contract four teams, play two pre-season games and move the regular season schedule back to 14 games, more isn't better.

 

[Gatorchip]

Better than 16, not as good as 18. How about 20?

I agree. For us fans, more is better.

And while we are at it, cut ticket prices and reduce commercials.

Maybe even throw in some free team gear.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

I agree. For us fans, more is better.

And while we are at it, cut ticket prices and reduce commercials.

Maybe even throw in some free team gear.

as long as salary cap keeps going up, ticket prices will be going up.