20 Game NFL Season?

5:55 pm EST January 9th, 2009 | Sports | 13 Comments

That would be awesome. From an interview with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

Q: What’s an ideal number of preseason games? 2, 3, 4? And if you trim two games, do you then add two to the regular season?

We feel that the best quality of football is a 20-game season – and we have that now with four games in the preseason, and 16 in the regular season. But, we also think you don’t need four preseason games any longer. I hear this from football people and fans, and both agree that the quality of play in the preseason is not up to NFL standards. The proposal we’re talking about is modifying things to make two of those preseason games into regular season games. We’ve heard very positive feedback from fans about that.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

13 Responses to “20 Game NFL Season?”

  1. Mylegacy says:
    January 9, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    The CFL did that in Canada. It works well up here in the land of snow and Universal Health Care.

    Interestingly, we often see veteran teams start really well and fade and rookie loaded teams go the other way round. Makes for great fun.

    If you haven’t watched much CFL football – give it a try, you’ll like it!

  2. james says:
    January 9, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    Pretty impressive that TBL managed to get an interview with the commissioner. More surprising was that Goodell actually answered a couple of the questions.

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    January 9, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    If you haven’t watched much CFL football – give it a try, you’ll like it!
    I barely even like college ball, the CFL might drive me mad.

  4. SpiderJ says:
    January 9, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    I dunno. I certainly like more football, but consider the tradeoff: more games per season likely means shorter careers, by season, for the players. I’m not sure the extra games per season are worth it to me.

  5. Oliver Willis says:
    January 9, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    Somehow I don’t think two extra games will kill them.

  6. SpiderJ says:
    January 9, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    Then you’re more of a gambling man than I am, Willis. Have you seen the IR lists this year?

  7. Jaim says:
    January 10, 2009 at 1:01 am

    What SpiderJ sez. I’m all for getting rid of the pre-season, but only to ensure more quality play (i.e., less injuries) in the regular season.

    18 games might be OK if the pre-season was done away with. 20 seems like way too much to me.

    But it would guarantee that Donovan McNabb would never make the playoffs again.

  8. jon says:
    January 10, 2009 at 8:29 am

    The injury problem will always be there, but let the teams have more players and that’s offset enough. I’d rather get rid of the preseason games altogether than keep things as they are, but adding games makes sense financially as well as the hope that it could make those ridiculous contract holdouts go away before the “real” games.

  9. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    January 10, 2009 at 9:40 am

    “I barely even like college ball, the CFL might drive me mad.”

    CFL is a better game because they field is bigger, which means you have to go for bigger plays. More Blitzkrieg less trench warfare.

  10. James E. Powell says:
    January 10, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Injuries would be a factor if two more regular season games were played. The number of season-ending or career-ending injuries may stay more or less the same, but the total effect of all the minor and nagging injuries, the wear & tear type of injuries, would likely drive teams to be deeper at the skill positions. I am thinking QB and RB, for sure.

  11. Parthenon says:
    January 10, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    I like the trench warfare. Defensive struggles are more fun, IMO.

    Twenty is too many. Read Mike Strahan’s morning routine once – insane, cat can’t even stand up without help. I realize he may be an extreme case, but still – 25% longer, 25% more injuries. Or maybe more – it could increase disproportionate to the extra time.

  12. Quaker in a Basement says:
    January 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Canadian football? Bah!

    Australian football! Now that’s a man’s game!

  13. SFC B says:
    January 11, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    While increasing the number of games played will increase the number of injuries, I doubt it would do anything to the rate at which injuries occur. A player playing in a Week 19 game would be just as likely to get injured as a player playing in the second round of the playoffs. And with the extra weeks being played, players injured earlier in the season might have the chance to come back and play at the end of the longer season.

    I think one of the benefits of this schedule might be that it allows for some balancing of the schedules. As it stands now, whichever division gets to play the weakest division of the opposing conference (such as the teams which got to feast on the AFC and NFC West this year). Expanding the season allows for games against a second non-conference division and possibly mitigating the luck element of getting to play against the Seattles and San Frans.

    One of the more interesting issues w/ this though might be how theNFLPA handles it. Do the standard NFL contracts include provisions for the possible expansion of the regular season? All those players made their choices to sign for what they did on the theory of being required to play 16 games. Will they be compensated if they’re suddenly playing 12-25% more games? How did the NFL handle the issue the last time it expanded its season?

    More football can’t be a bad thing though.