17’th game? Good or bad?

Colonel_Reb

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
I was reading in the Sporting News yesterday that the NFL is considering adding a 17'th game to the regular season, mainly for spreading the league to a worldwide audience by having games in foreign countries.

What prodded my post was reading in the Brian Leonard thread about the reduction of preseason games. In this proposal, Goodell wants to nix the 4'th preseason game so the 17'th game could be added.

What do you think?
 
all for it. but i think if they do go ahead this proposal, it's about time they had record-keeping changed. getting yardage or accumulating TDs with extra games is that much easier...
 
I'm not sure I like the idea. Fitting game prep and practice into a week wedged between a round trip airplane ride to Japan or Europe is likely to have a negative affect on those team's next games. If they do something like this, however, I agree with backrow - they need to start reflecting the differences in the games played per season in the record books. A 1,000 years rushing used to mean something. That's less than 65 yards a game now.
 
Double post. Edited by: White Shogun
 
Why start now, as far as the records? The season used to be 12 games. From 12 to 16 is a 33% increase. By contrast, baseball's season only increased about 5% when it went from 154 to 162 games and there was such an uproar about Roger Maris eclipsing Babe Ruth's 60 home runs. The criteria for determining an NFL record should have changed long ago.


But that being said, few old NFL marks are relevant anyway because of how the game has changed, from team oriented to individual statistics oriented. Even the popularity of fantasy football has had an effect, making players more selfish than ever in demanding they "get their share" whether or not it's in the best interests of the team as a game unfolds. The entire NFL, from owners to head coaches to players, is very aware of how many fans also "own" players on fantasy football teams and thatthey want the stars to get their stats each game.
 
Yeah, one more game isn't that big of a deal as far as records go. On the other hand, better late than never.
smiley2.gif


But I do see your point, Don. The records don't really mean that much anymore at all, except for promotion of the caste system.
 
Double post. Edited by: White Shogun
 
I see you are having the same posting problems as I have been, Shogun. There is definitely a slowdown in the loading speed of the pages too, at least for me.
 
Don Wassall said:
Why start now, as far as the records? The season used to be 12 games. From 12 to 16 is a 33% increase. By contrast, baseball's season only increased about 5% when it went from 154 to 162 games and there was such an uproar about Roger Maris eclipsing Babe Ruth's 60 home runs. The criteria for determining an NFL record should have changed long ago.


But that being said, few old NFL marks are relevant anyway because of how the game has changed, from team oriented to individual statistics oriented. Even the popularity of fantasy football has had an effect, making players more selfish than ever in demanding they "get their share" whether or not it's in the best interests of the team as a game unfolds. The entire NFL, from owners to head coaches to players, is very aware of how many fans also "own" players on fantasy football teams and that they want the stars to get their stats each game.


<!-- Message ''"" -->
Click to expand...
I think it's bad one more week that a qb, running back or other star can get injured. At least in the preseason after a few reps that starters are gone. Also stats will become more meaningless as the old traditional milestones will be further cheapened. I recall Rickey Waters 10K lifetime yards getting poohpoohed by Pasquerelli and Otis Anderson has never seriously been considered for the hall. Other victims of that will be My cousin Vinny and Bledsoe as they are both top ten qb's when it comes to yardage but have no real shot at the hall.Edited by: white is right
 
Cut out a pre-season game and I am all for it. I don't think the NFL needs 4 prep games under their current format. The pre-season, especially the early games are pretty much geared towards evaluating younger talent and getting these guys used to the game speed of the NFL,. Many of the older established stars rarely see much of the field at all in many cases. Many NFL veterans would like to see the pre-season cut down a game or two as it is. The NFL is not exactly like baseball where guys need that whole month to get into game shape with all the spring drills and the riggorous camp they have before pre-season. Use the first two games of the pre-season to evaluate your young talent or have your vets get aquainted with a new offense and then play the final pre-season game as the full on tune up. There is no real reason to get your vets in those first couple of games unless they really need the work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
American Freedom News
Back
Top