# Do you support an 18 game NFL schedule? **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-an-18-game-nfl-schedule/574666 "2011-03-14T16:20:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-an-18-game-nfl-schedule/574666/21 "2011-03-15T15:00:06Z")
My previous post on the topic, which I still feel is compelling: > [@NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement Thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-thread/570575/43): > > **tl;dr version:** If the NFL goes to an 18-game regular season, the magnitude of the downside (injuries) is quite uncertain, whereas the upsides (more football games to watch, more league revenue, less chance of a lockout) are palpable. > I’m absolutely in favor of playing an 18-game regular season and axing two preseason games. (Well, not \*absolutely \*in favor – more like 90%.) > > 1. Preseason games are just death. They’re boring to watch, they’re less than vital to overall preparedness, and they’re a freaking scam: the players have to play (and risk injury) for free, while the season-ticket holders are forced to pay full price for two make-believe games every year. > > By going to an 18-game schedule, we replace the boring, colossal ripoff that is preseason football with actual NFL games, which are awesome. This is the best reason to support the move, but there’s more. > 2) 18 games is a larger sample size than 16 games. While talk of “parity” is usually overstated, there is nonetheless a rather larger amount of it now than in decades past, and having teams bunched more tightly together in terms of quality makes it harder to determine which teams are actually the best ones. With two extra games, the mediocre team with the weak schedule that’s catching a lot of lucky breaks is less likely to wind up in the playoffs – there’s just more time for their luck to run out. (In fact, the variance in schedule difficulty would itself be reduced, which is good.) Likewise, the sneakily-excellent team that underperforms in the Win column because of bad luck (or maybe a clump of missed games due to injury) will have more time to turn it around and claim their rightful place in the postseason. > > With an 18-game schedule, the playoffs will be better and more competitive than they are now. > 3) Injury concerns are real, but IMO overstated. First, as someone mentioned upthread, teams will adapt: they’ll use more rotation to keep players fresh, be a little less aggressive in pushing starters to play hurt, etc. Second, there are already plenty of injuries that occur in the two preseason games to be replaced. Granted, there are proportionately fewer injuries to \*starters \*in those games, but to the extent that one’s objection is based on _player safety_ (as opposed to quality of the product), the point is largely moot: players get hurt all the damn time in preseason. Actually, the thing that’s really hurting the chances for an 18-game season isn’t injuries: it’s timing. Two or three years ago, in this type of situation (need more revenue to settle labor dispute), going to 18 games would have been a slam dunk. Likewise, a few years from now, when the anxiety over concussions has (presumably) died down somewhat, this will be an easier sell. > > But, yes, bottom line is that injuries would be a \*somewhat \*larger factor with 18 regular season games. No matter how many games are scheduled, there’s an inherent tradeoff: do you want more football (greater revenue, more games to enjoy), or fewer injuries? I simply don’t see 16 games (plus 4 in the preseason) as some sort of ideal number or sweet-spot, which is pretty much a requirement if if you don’t want to add games and you don’t want to go back to 14 or less. We don’t know for sure what an 18-game regular season would be like, and I think it’s presumptuous to dismiss it as reckless (or otherwise unenjoyable). Just try it for a year! If you’re not completely satisfied, simply return the unused portion and revert to 16 games in 2012 (or the next time the CBA has to be negotiated). It’s not impossible to go back if it doesn’t work out. For instance, the league could make more money by adding a second bye week, but after trying it in 1993 and getting negative feedback, they ditched the idea. If 18 games proves to be as bad as some people fear, there’s no reason the league couldn’t backtrack. > 4) 18 games is probably necessary to avoid a lockout. Granted, this is sort of a meta-concern, but still: it’s the only option available to increase gross revenue, and having more money floating around is probably the only way the two sides can get close enough to compromise. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-an-18-game-nfl-schedule/574666/22 "2011-03-15T15:04:12Z")
Also, to everyone suggesting adding a second bye week as an alternative: you do realize that they tried that already, right? And that it was a dismal failure, derided by fans and networks alike? ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-an-18-game-nfl-schedule/574666/23 "2011-03-15T15:49:45Z")
If the fans want 18 games, which NFL surveys demonstrate, give them 16. Leave them wanting more… a major NFL key to success. . ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-an-18-game-nfl-schedule/574666/24 "2011-03-15T16:46:13Z")
> [@Paintcharge](#): > > If they want another week of revenue, add a second bye week. I’d rather they didn’t, but I’d rather have that than no football. I voted yes, and then saw this, which works for me. My own suggestion is to bar teams from dressing any given player for more than 17 games. **Varlosz** , why didn’t people like the secod bye week? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-an-18-game-nfl-schedule/574666/25 "2011-03-15T17:32:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > **Varlosz** , why didn’t people like the secod bye week? It just diluted the schedule too much. Currently, while there aren’t super-marquee matchups every single week, there are still enough interesting games (enough games overall) that the league and the networks can mix and match and put out a good product every Sunday. With two bye weeks, there were just too many weeks with shitty slates. And it just felt … wrong, I don’t know. The season didn’t have a pleasing flow to it, or something. Bill Simmons talks about it [here](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnfl2010/byeweek&sportCat=nfl): > [@Bill Simmons](#): > > **Q: What happened when they expanded to two bye weeks in 1993?** > > A: One word: disaster. CBS and NBC freaked out because their ratings plummeted thanks to a continually depleted Sunday slate; teams complained that they couldn’t maintain momentum when they weren’t playing enough games in a row; everyone hated losing the week off between the conference title games and the Super Bowl; and most importantly, fantasy owners couldn’t figure out who to bench/waive/pick up since we didn’t have the Internet yet. . . > > . . . The real problem: With only 28 teams and a top-heavy league, that left eight or nine Sunday afternoon games per bye week … and only two or three of those games were good. We didn’t have DirecTV’s season package back then, or the Red Zone Channel, so if you were stuck with a crappy local game (or even worse, a crappy local team that wiped out the quality national game you could have been watching), your whole day was ruined. Trust me, my Patriots overachieved that season by going 5-11. (Double bye weeks) + (no DirecTV) X (crummy local team) = bitter. And that’s why double bye weeks went the way of New Coke, “Cop Rock,” Planet Hollywood, Rick Mirer and “The Pat Sajak Show.” > > **Q: Was there a tipping point during that 1993 season when everyone threw their hands up and said “The double byes must go immediately”?** > > A: Actually, there was! How did you know? The NFC East and AFC West received byes in Week 8, which meant that four of the league’s best eight teams (Dallas, Kansas City, the Giants and Raiders) were shelved, and also, CBS (who had NFC rights) lost local bumps in Dallas, Philly, Washington and New York. Of the eight Sunday afternoon games, our “marquee” AFC matchup was Buffalo (which finished 12-4) at the Jets (8-8); for the NFC, it was San Francisco (10-6) at Phoenix (7-9). A ratings calamity. > > (Important note: Now that we have 32 teams, DirecTV and perpetual parity, the quality of those Sunday games wouldn’t be nearly as problematic. I’d rather see them bring back double bye weeks then stretch the season to an 18-game orgy of concussions. But that’s just me.) I’m skeptical that having 32 teams instead of 28 would significantly change things (though having 32 teams and an 18-game schedule probably would, so if two bye weeks is a condition of 18-games, that’s fine with me). Could well be wrong, though. [This article](http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/extend-the-nfl-season-18-weeks-not-18-games/) argues that it makes a big difference, but that chart at the bottom does a rather good job of reaffirming my apprehensiveness: instead of five weeks with 4 teams off and two weeks with 6 teams off, you get TEN weeks with four teams off and FOUR with six teams off. That seems like a lot of dilution to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-support-an-18-game-nfl-schedule/574666.md?page=1)