PDA

View Full Version : McNair Interview


CloakNNNdagger
03-28-2009, 10:36 AM
HOUSTON TEXANS (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=5198)

Brooke Bentley: It was proposed that the league expand the season to 17 or 18 regular-season games. What are your thoughts on that proposal?

Bob McNair: I think that it has merit and that we will end up expanding the regular season. We play a 20-game season now and four of those are preseason games. We use those games for preparation, which is very important because you get to see the young players. But the players are in such good condition now when they report to training camp that itís not like it was 20 or 30 years ago when players would come into training camp and use that as an opportunity to get into shape. They already are in shape and they are ready to play, so the question is: How many of these (preseason) games do we need?

Weíre trying to look at ways to increase the value for our fans. By increasing the number of regular-season games and reducing the number or preseason games, we think that would add some value. There is one misconception. Some people think that the players donít get paid for the preseason games. Thatís not true. They get paid the same for the preseason as the regular season, so they are paid for 20 games. They donít start getting their checks until the regular season starts. You are cutting up their total compensation into 17 checks instead of 20; thatís the way it works, but they are getting paid the full amount.

Others think that the reason we have four preseason games is that the local franchise gets to keep all the revenue from preseason games, so the owners donít want to cut that back. Thatís not true; we share in the revenue. The only difference is with national television versus local television. Local television which airs preseason games, that revenue goes to the local club and itís not shared nationally with the other clubs. Now, it goes into the salary cap, so the players get their share. And with the regular season, of course, all those are on national television. So there are a few misconceptions, but I think the owners are in favor of expanding the regular-season games and I think weíll see that happen.

What it would do for us: Number one, we want to do more international play, and that would give us another game to be used for that purpose. Or you could use it for a game at a neutral site without taking any of the home games away. We would still have 10 home games for our fans and we would still have the eight regular-season games for our fans. So we wouldnít be taking anything away from our home fans if we did expand it.

Weíll have to look at roster sizes, because probably there would be more injuries if we had more regular-season games because our starters would be playing more. We might have to have two bye weeks instead of one. And the game will extend over into February, so it would go a little bit longer in the year. Those are all considerations and weíll have to figure out the best way to do that. I think probably you will see an expansion of the regular season.



Brooke Bentley: The NFL has toyed with the idea of going back to Mexico City, so there are a lot of interesting things on the horizon.

Bob McNair: The thing about it is, for us to play a regular-season game there, then our sponsors and season ticket holders are losing out on a game or they have to go to Mexico City or wherever it is. But if we had an extra regular-season game, we could accommodate that without taking anything away from our sponsors or our fans.

************************************************** ******

Sorry if I have a very difficult time swallowing the concept that any of the proposed changes are for "increasing the value for our fans." All of these potential changes will be for the significant benefit of the owners' pocket.............or, I assure you, they won't happen.

Vinny
03-28-2009, 11:12 AM
Texans president Jamey Rootes answered a few questions in the SA paper too...

With the economy crumbling, was it wise to raise ticket prices?

We took a slight price increase (a 3.7 percent hike in the average ticket price), but the process we went through in doing it was very thoughtful. People look at a price increase and assume you did it across the board. We didn't. We looked section by section at the demand for those seats as demonstrated by the value they generate in the secondary ticket market. We were charging “X” in certain sections, and people were spending two and three and four times that amount in the secondary ticket market. Clearly there's a huge demand for those seats and they're sold out perpetually, so we thought we could go ahead and charge a slightly higher price. There are other places we really felt strongly that this is where the folks facing the most pressure from these challenging economic times sit. So there were thousands and thousands of seats we held flat.

San Antonio has long been a Dallas Cowboys' hotbed. Have the Texans given up on penetrating this market?

We certainly have not. No question, it's been challenging. In our market, we've sold out every game we've played. But outside of Houston, fans judge you on what they're seeing and hearing in the national media. Unfortunately, we haven't burned our way onto national TV yet. When we do, we believe it'll be a much more conducive environment to build a large and sustainable base of regional support. If we win, you're going to see the light switch very quickly go (on).

Are the Texans on board with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's plan to expand the regular season from 16 games to 17 or 18?

You can see the value for the fans and the league to carefully evaluate it because the regular season is so incredibly compelling. I applaud initiative and innovation. That's what makes this country great. Nothing stays the same forever, and the league has to always be thinking of what our fans want and how we can deliver. If making a change like this creates value for our fans, let's look carefully at making it happen.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/QA_with_Texans_president_Jamey_Rootes.html

infantrycak
03-28-2009, 11:20 AM
The Texans will penetrate the Austin, San Antonio, etc. markets when they throw up 3-4 years of being better than the Cowboys. Until then...

SheTexan
03-28-2009, 11:46 AM
What a joke!! Do they think we, the FANS, are that stup*d??! The ONLY reason to add games is to expand their International interest, not to bring another game to the home site. You bet your ass we'll have to PAY for those other tickets, but, never get to see the game, except on TV, unless you're wealthy enough to travel the globe!!

infantrycak
03-28-2009, 11:55 AM
What a joke!! Do they think we, the FANS, are that stup*d??! The ONLY reason to add games is to expand their International interest, not to bring another game to the home site. You bet your ass we'll have to PAY for those other tickets, but, never get to see the game, except on TV, unless you're wealthy enough to travel the globe!!

A) The proposal is to decrease the pre-season games you are already paying for. If I have to pay for the same 10 games I'd rather 9 of them count instead of 8.

B) No season ticket holder has been forced to pay for international games. I think the owners no darn well they can't coerce KC fans to travel to Mexico City to watch a game they were forced to buy a ticket for.

Vinny
03-28-2009, 01:58 PM
I've been pushing (well, more like hoping or at least blathering on mb's) for the eighteen game season with the two game pre-season for many a moon now. It's no extra length to the season and the league spends the same money on transportation, equipment and fixed expenses to run a stadium as a regular season game. The customer gets less for the money and the players have to worry more about not getting injured than they are about getting into game shape. These guys are ready to go after camp....so are the fans. I hope the league gets on the program and gives us the same twenty game schedule with eighteen of them meaningful games (yay 9 meaningful home games).

Ckw
03-28-2009, 02:20 PM
I've been pushing (well, more like hoping or at least blathering on mb's) for the eighteen game season with the two game pre-season for many a moon now. It's no extra length to the season and the league spends the same money on transportation, equipment and fixed expenses to run a stadium as a regular season game. The customer gets less for the money and the players have to worry more about not getting injured than they are about getting into game shape. These guys are ready to go after camp....so are the fans. I hope the league gets on the program and gives us the same twenty game schedule with eighteen of them meaningful games (yay 9 meaningful home games).

Great idea. 18 games would be perfect.

CloakNNNdagger
03-28-2009, 02:35 PM
Great idea. 18 games would be perfect.

If that occurs, they'll need an extended roster...........and who do y'all think will end up picking up the bill?

Kaiser Toro
03-28-2009, 02:38 PM
If that occurs, they'll need an extended roster...........and who do y'all think will end up picking up the bill?

The cost would be nominal in my opinion.

steelbtexan
03-28-2009, 02:47 PM
I think this is an article explaning why Uncle Bob screwed the common fan & how he intends to keep on screwing the common fan in the future.

Think about how bad Uncle Bob would put it to the fans if we had a decent team.

CloakNNNdagger
03-28-2009, 03:08 PM
The cost would be nominal in my opinion.

I'm curious, now that Europe NFL is defunct, how "new talent" from a lessened pool, will be assessed in a shorter period of time...... with the proposed lenthening of the season, I suspect the roster will need to be significantly expanded, otherwise, I believe that the risk of lessening the product is real.

Kaiser Toro
03-28-2009, 03:13 PM
I'm curious, now that Europe NFL is defunct, how "new talent" from a lessened pool, will be assessed in a shorter period of time...... with the proposed lenthening of the season, I suspect the roster will need to be significantly expanded, otherwise, I believe that the risk of lessening the product is real.

They have "reserves" with the Practice Squad and the team already plays 16+4, which is 20.

CloakNNNdagger
03-28-2009, 03:16 PM
They have "reserves" with the Practice Squad and the team already plays 16+4, which is 20.

But the starters seldom play a significant role in the 1st 4.

Ckw
03-28-2009, 03:21 PM
But the starters seldom play a significant role in the 1st 4.

I really doubt 2 extra games would have a significant impact on roster needs. If more injuries occur, the teams have the 8 player? practice squad. That said, you ignore the fact that starters actually already play a greater role in the 2nd two preseason games.

CloakNNNdagger
03-28-2009, 03:37 PM
I really doubt 2 extra games would have a significant impact on roster needs. If more injuries occur, the teams have the 8 player? practice squad. That said, you ignore the fact that starters actually already play a greater role in the 2nd two preseason games.

Having known quite a few starters over the years, I humbly disagree.........They have more than once related how much toll even 1 extra all-out game takes on their bodies and performance, especially when there is extension into the post season. Besides that, most practice squaders have not impressed me as being of the quality or preparation to be immediate impact fill ins

TimeKiller
03-28-2009, 03:41 PM
What would you expand it to? 57? That wouldn't be so bad.

dalemurphy
03-28-2009, 03:42 PM
A few things needed for this to work, IMO:

1. 2 Bye weeks.

2. Practice Squad included in protected roster pool + more active players available on gameday: Some of the talent decificit can be made up simply by creating more cohesiveness on rosters. The way to do that is for teams to be able to protect a larger pool of their players.

3. As Goodell suggested, some sort of developmental league.

4. Delay any expansion.

5. Collectively bargain fewer mandatory off-season activities in order to make up for a slightly extended season. I would imagine training camp would start about the same time and simply extend later in the preseason in order to makeup for the lack of preseason games... more scimmaging would be essential

Kaiser Toro
03-28-2009, 03:43 PM
Having known quite a few starters over the years, I humbly disagree.........They have more than once related how much toll even 1 extra all-out game takes on their bodies and performance, especially when there is extension into the post season. Besides that, most practice squaders have not impressed me as being of the quality or preparation to be immediate impact fill ins

All I know is that the level of play is putrid in the pre-season, and if those games were to mean something then the level of play will get better.

The value of the strength and conditioning coaches and physical therapy staff should go up.

ChampionTexan
03-28-2009, 04:01 PM
Having known quite a few starters over the years, I humbly disagree.........They have more than once related how much toll even 1 extra all-out game takes on their bodies and performance, especially when there is extension into the post season. Besides that, most practice squaders have not impressed me as being of the quality or preparation to be immediate impact fill ins

I think one of the things they should do is expand the gameday active roster from 45 to 53. I realize some of the deactivations are injured players who wouldn't be available anyway, but at least some of them are non-injury related, and it's never made any sense to me that you were paying an able-bodied player who was capable of making your 53-man roster to sit on the sidelines and do nothing on Sundays.

In terms of having to expand the 53 man rosters, there's arguments on both sides. Because of TV, I imagine the total revenue will go up - even though ticket sales will be likely not see a significant change. More money means more available for salaries (particularly if the CBA they ultimately agree to includes a floor and a ceiling similar to what we're dealing with this year). More players on the roster just means more bodies to divide the pool among, so I could see the players approving the increase without a corresponding increase in roster size. If the players see an adequate financial reason to do this, they'll get past the additional wear and tear.

I could also see them creating an "in-season" IR again where if you're injured in the 3rd game, but will only miss 5 or 6 games, they can put you on IR, free up your roster spot, and then put you back on the active roster when you're healthy enough to play. Perhaps they put a minimum of 4 games on it, so it's not manipulated, but if someone goes out with an 8 week injury on opening day, there's currently not a real good solution on how a team deals with that injury.

Lucky
03-28-2009, 04:21 PM
I really doubt 2 extra games would have a significant impact on roster needs.
I think you would see around 10% additional injuries which would require 10% more roster space.

I think one of the things they should do is expand the gameday active roster from 45 to 53.
This should be done, now. It's ridiculous to not dress all players available. There should be some advantage to having a better conditioned and less injury prone team. I also like your idea of a modified IR system.

CloakNNNdagger
03-28-2009, 04:23 PM
All I know is that the level of play is putrid in the pre-season, and if those games were to mean something then the level of play will get better.


I agree whole-heartedly, but we certainly wouldn't want to be saying that about the latter part of the season, if the needs for "compensations" are not anticipated. Dalemurphy, Timekiller and ChampionTexan have offered up some decent suggestions for such compensation.


The value of the strength and conditioning coaches and physical therapy staff should go up.

That's for darn sure.

welsh texan
03-28-2009, 06:09 PM
Number one, I wholeheartedly disagree with those of you who dislike the international series, its a real shame to me that we are unlikely to ever see the Texans at Wembley, because I sure as hell can't afford to get over to Reliant in the forseeable future.

From what I've heard, the coaches feel that they don't need the extra preseason games any more because they've learned how to get more done in camp.

The NFL is thinking about having a supplemental player pool unaffiliated to any team with training facilities, so they keep in shape and learn as players and are there to be picked up by any team in need.

Another point, surely over time the players would evolve and adapt to an 18 game season even if they found it tough at first.

Ckw
03-28-2009, 06:11 PM
A few things needed for this to work, IMO:

1. 2 Bye weeks.

2. Practice Squad included in protected roster pool + more active players available on gameday: Some of the talent decificit can be made up simply by creating more cohesiveness on rosters. The way to do that is for teams to be able to protect a larger pool of their players.

3. As Goodell suggested, some sort of developmental league.

4. Delay any expansion.

5. Collectively bargain fewer mandatory off-season activities in order to make up for a slightly extended season. I would imagine training camp would start about the same time and simply extend later in the preseason in order to makeup for the lack of preseason games... more scimmaging would be essential

Great ideas. Rep.

I think you would see around 10% additional injuries which would require 10% more roster space.

You're probably right. I guess the prospect of two extra games just seems to exciting though. A longer NFL season? Hell yes!

This should be done, now. It's ridiculous to not dress all players available. There should be some advantage to having a better conditioned and less injury prone team. I also like your idea of a modified IR system.

I agree. What would be wrong with having a roster of 60 or so?


From what I've heard, the coaches feel that they don't need the extra preseason games any more because they've learned how to get more done in camp.

Good point. Nowadays, players are conditioning year round, so training camp gets to be more about learning the plays and building a cohesive unit instead of conditioning.

Another point, surely over time the players would evolve and adapt to an 18 game season even if they found it tough at first.

You are probably right, and this also is due to the year round conditioning.

CloakNNNdagger
03-28-2009, 06:53 PM
Anything's possible (from the book LEATHERHEADS Of the North (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/70852)):


In the new book. Leatherheads of the North, author Chuck Frederick tells the story of one of the early teams in the National Football League, the 1926-27 Duluth Eskimos. The Eskimos and their star player, Ernie Nevers, barnstormed their way across the country, playing 29 games during the 1926 season, with 28 of those games being played on the road.

The NFL was a fairly new league at the time. It was born in 1920 and was originally known as the American Professional Football League. Football great Jim Thorpe was its first president. The name was changed to the National Football League in 1922.

After playing their opening game in Duluth on September 19, 1926 against the NFL Kansas City Cowboys, the Eskimos hit the road. They played a total of 29games over the course of 117 days and did not return home to Duluth until February 5, 1927. They traveled the country from Portland, Maine to San Francisco and sometimes played games just a few days apart.

Many times during the grueling season, the Eskimos were forced to play with only 13 active players on their roster because of injuries. They had started out the season with 18 players and the league limit at the time was 22. Team owner Haugsrud and head coach Dewey Scanlon would often don uniforms and participate in pre-game warm ups just to make it look like they had more players on the team.

pbat488
03-28-2009, 07:16 PM
From what I've heard, the coaches feel that they don't need the extra preseason games any more because they've learned how to get more done in camp.

Yeah, they just do illegal OTA blocking activities.. :shocked


Another point, surely over time the players would evolve and adapt to an 18 game season even if they found it tough at first.

Not good news for rookies in regards to the 'rookie wall'..

El Tejano
03-28-2009, 10:01 PM
Trying to see the good in all this. Vinny has done a good job of that. Wondering if more games might allow for one or two more teams in wild cards.

ObsiWan
03-29-2009, 02:59 AM
Two things if they do this - and I still ain't sold on it:

1. any games played overseas or in Mexico ought to be an optional part of a season ticket pkg. Why should I be forced to pay for a game outside the U.S.ofA. that I have no way in hell to attend?? I wonder how many Saints fans got to go to their "home game" over in London? Did the NFL give those seats away or pocket the money from that double dipping? Its one thing when the team's in town and we fans elect not to show because they suck or we don't care for preseason games - that decision is on us fans. Its quite another thing to require the fanbase to purchase something the owners know most of the fans can't use. That's just greedy.

2. Any season-long records established should carry and asterisk. I can see 2 or 3 2,000-yd rushers or 5,000-yd passers every year. If not more. It was bad enough when we went to 16 games. Now 18!? Ugh. I remember when being a 1,000-yd rusher meant something. Now some guys have that by the last bye week. But that probably speaks as much to a 32 team, diluted talent base as it does to more games.

Don't underestimate the value of those two preseason games as it pertains to getting your team sharp and ready to play the ones that count. I dunno. Yeah, you'll get yer extra quantity but much less quality... at least in those late August/early Sept. games.

And I agree with those that say the rosters must be expanded for this to work. I'd say 60 on the roster and 50 on the dressout squad. But if those greedy owners add more than 2 or 3 additional players (if that) to the either roster I'll be amazed. We'll see....

Sorry, call me old skool, but I ain't sold on this at all.

CloakNNNdagger
03-29-2009, 10:45 AM
Two things if they do this - and I still ain't sold on it:

1. any games played overseas or in Mexico ought to be an optional part of a season ticket pkg. Why should I be forced to pay for a game outside the U.S.ofA. that I have no way in hell to attend?? I wonder how many Saints fans got to go to their "home game" over in London? Did the NFL give those seats away or pocket the money from that double dipping? Its one thing when the team's in town and we fans elect not to show because they suck or we don't care for preseason games - that decision is on us fans. Its quite another thing to require the fanbase to purchase something the owners know most of the fans can't use. That's just greedy.

2. Any season-long records established should carry and asterisk. I can see 2 or 3 2,000-yd rushers or 5,000-yd passers every year. If not more. It was bad enough when we went to 16 games. Now 18!? Ugh. I remember when being a 1,000-yd rusher meant something. Now some guys have that by the last bye week. But that probably speaks as much to a 32 team, diluted talent base as it does to more games.

Don't underestimate the value of those two preseason games as it pertains to getting your team sharp and ready to play the ones that count. I dunno. Yeah, you'll get yer extra quantity but much less quality... at least in those late August/early Sept. games.

And I agree with those that say the rosters must be expanded for this to work. I'd say 60 on the roster and 50 on the dressout squad. But if those greedy owners add more than 2 or 3 additional players (if that) to the either roster I'll be amazed. We'll see....

Sorry, call me old skool, but I ain't sold on this at all.


Extra intrasquad play experience and preparation, no matter how many more sessions are added, is far inferior to the preseason intraleague play, which certainly falls short of the full-out competition of the regular season. The level of play that we can expect to see at the beginning of the season, with this proposed new system will show its effects, unless there are significant changes applied to other aspects of the system. As an aside, fans should have never been required to pay full ticket prices for preseason games........that should have always been optional and heavily discounted.

...........and you don't have to be old skool to figure this out.........

PhilpW
03-29-2009, 12:08 PM
As an aside, fans should have never been required to pay full ticket prices for preseason games..........

This is the part that ownership, media, players, etc. don't care to understand. Joe Fan is paying top dollar for a product in August that simply isn't worth the price. Keep the same format, but reduce the price of tickets to what amounts to scrimages and try-outs.

infantrycak
03-29-2009, 12:37 PM
As an aside, fans should have never been required to pay full ticket prices for preseason games........that should have always been optional and heavily discounted.

...........and you don't have to be old skool to figure this out.........

This is the part that ownership, media, players, etc. don't care to understand. Joe Fan is paying top dollar for a product in August that simply isn't worth the price. Keep the same format, but reduce the price of tickets to what amounts to scrimages and try-outs.

Ummm, freedom of contract. They made an offer of a deal on season tickets and that was part of the offer. You bought it. I don't like it either, but it is what it is. Now if they were smart business folks they would throw a completely illusory bone to the fans and make pre-season tickets 25% (pick a number) of regular season games and spread the remainder over the other 8 games. They look better, fans feel better and yet everything is the same.

ChampionTexan
03-29-2009, 01:03 PM
Ummm, freedom of contract. They made an offer of a deal on season tickets and that was part of the offer. You bought it. I don't like it either, but it is what it is. Now if they were smart business folks they would throw a completely illusory bone to the fans and make pre-season tickets 25% (pick a number) of regular season games and spread the remainder over the other 8 games. They look better, fans feel better and yet everything is the same.

Or expand the regular season by two games, contract the pre-season by two games, and thereby reduce by 50% what's being paid for exhibition football.

This results in the exact same pre-season expenditure as your admittedly arbitrary 25% charge, and there is at least a component of it that's no longer illusory - how large the non-illusory component is remains subject to debate.

awtysst
03-29-2009, 01:09 PM
Number one, I wholeheartedly disagree with those of you who dislike the international series, its a real shame to me that we are unlikely to ever see the Texans at Wembley, because I sure as hell can't afford to get over to Reliant in the forseeable future.


I think one problem some fans have with international games are that they count for the regular season. Lets use the example of Manchester United coming to the U.S. to play a game. When they come to the US, they do not play a premiership game against Liverpool in LA(for example). They play a friendly against a US team or have a friendly against another international squad. The Manny U fans are not deprived of a home game because in essence it is an exhibition.

While I certainly feel bad you cannot see an official Texans game in Wembley, I can certainly understand why season ticket holders would be pissed if it happened.

Now, if we had a preseason game or a scrimmage at Wembley Stadium and did not charge our season ticket holders, that might be a reasonable solution.

ChampionTexan
03-29-2009, 01:20 PM
I think one problem some fans have with international games are that they count for the regular season. Lets use the example of Manchester United coming to the U.S. to play a game. When they come to the US, they do not play a premiership game against Liverpool in LA(for example). They play a friendly against a US team or have a friendly against another international squad. The Manny U fans are not deprived of a home game because in essence it is an exhibition.

While I certainly feel bad you cannot see an official Texans game in Wembley, I can certainly understand why season ticket holders would be pissed if it happened.

Now, if we had a preseason game or a scrimmage at Wembley Stadium and did not charge our season ticket holders, that might be a reasonable solution.

I believe at least one of the reasons the NFL stopped doing the "American Bowl" pre-season games was because the international audiences didn't want to see a watered down version of the game. They didn't want to go see the Colts or the Patriots, and see Peyton Manning, or Tom Brady play one series, and then change into street clothes. Can't blame them for that.

If an International game was scheduled as part of an 18 game season, and therefore, there were still 8 home games, would you be able to get on board with that?

CloakNNNdagger
03-29-2009, 01:34 PM
Ummm, freedom of contract. They made an offer of a deal on season tickets and that was part of the offer. You bought it. I don't like it either, but it is what it is. Now if they were smart business folks they would throw a completely illusory bone to the fans and make pre-season tickets 25% (pick a number) of regular season games and spread the remainder over the other 8 games. They look better, fans feel better and yet everything is the same.

I'd be willing to wager that when we see an expansion of regular season games, with or without contraction of the number of preseason games, season ticket holders will see an immediate significant upcharge...........at the same to trying to spin it in the name of creating "greater VALUE for the fan"
.......of course, as always, leaving out "at the COST to the fan."

ObsiWan
03-29-2009, 02:02 PM
I believe at least one of the reasons the NFL stopped doing the "American Bowl" pre-season games was because the international audiences didn't want to see a watered down version of the game. They didn't want to go see the Colts or the Patriots, and see Peyton Manning, or Tom Brady play one series, and then change into street clothes. Can't blame them for that.

If an International game was scheduled as part of an 18 game season, and therefore, there were still 8 home games, would you be able to get on board with that?

If the season was 18 games long, wouldn't there be 9 home & 9 away games?
Are you proposing 8 hm / 8 away / 2 neutral site games? And those two neutral site games be played in places like Mexico City, London, and Tokyo for the international biz and Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Milwaukee, and Los Angeles, Orlando, Detroit :D, etc for the domestic-non-NFL mkts...?

Malloy
03-29-2009, 02:03 PM
25 regular season games, 80 roster spots.

More football, everyone wins :)

[edit] and one of the 25 games being international, or domestic in no-team cities.

ChampionTexan
03-29-2009, 02:11 PM
If the season was 18 games long, wouldn't there be 9 home & 9 away games?
Are you proposing 8 hm / 8 away / 2 neutral site games? And those two neutral site games be played in places like Mexico City, London, and Tokyo for the international biz and Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Milwaukee, and Los Angeles, Orlando, Detroit :D, etc for the domestic-non-NFL mkts...?

No, I'm saying that if the season were expanded to 18 games, at worst, there would still be 8 true "home" games for the fans to see. I'm guessing that not every team would play even one international game every year, much less two. And yes, that would mean that one of the 9 "Home" games would actually be at a neutral field, and I'm okay with that. It's happening right now with the game they play in London. It would even out over time (time meaning several seasons), as there would also be years where you had 9 true home games, 8 road games, and one neutral site game.

The point is - 16 games, 17 games, 18 games, no international games, one international game, 53 man rosters, 60 man rosters - whatever they do, everyone's going to be playing under the same set of rules, so nobody gets screwed, and nobody gets an advantage.

ObsiWan
03-29-2009, 02:32 PM
No, I'm saying that if the season were expanded to 18 games, at worst, there would still be 8 true "home" games for the fans to see. I'm guessing that not every team would play even one international game every year, much less two. And yes, that would mean that one of the 9 "Home" games would actually be at a neutral field, and I'm okay with that. It's happening right now with the game they play in London. It would even out over time (time meaning several seasons), as there would also be years where you had 9 true home games, 8 road games, and one neutral site game.

The point is - 16 games, 17 games, 18 games, no international games, one international game, 53 man rosters, 60 man rosters - whatever they do, everyone's going to be playing under the same set of rules, so nobody gets screwed, and nobody gets an advantage.

That London game was a one-a-year thing. Now you're talking a once-a-WEEK thing. Does the NFL really think the Londoners will come out to see Detroit play Buffalo when its their turn? ...or come out to see Seattle play Jacksonville?
When they do this Int'n'l thing once or twice a year its unique. Its sort of "an Event". Any more than that I dunno.... I think it loses its luster.

ChampionTexan
03-29-2009, 02:57 PM
That London game was a one-a-year thing. Now you're talking a once-a-WEEK thing. Does the NFL really think the Londoners will come out to see Detroit play Buffalo when its their turn? ...or come out to see Seattle play Jacksonville?
When they do this Int'n'l thing once or twice a year its unique. Its sort of "an Event". Any more than that I dunno.... I think it loses its luster.

I don't know if they'll do it, nor do I know when and how they'll do it - if they do it. All I know is the Goodell has expressed an interest in it. My comments were in response to others bringing up the possibility.

From the OP:
Bob McNair: The thing about it is, for us to play a regular-season game there, then our sponsors and season ticket holders are losing out on a game or they have to go to Mexico City or wherever it is. But if we had an extra regular-season game, we could accommodate that without taking anything away from our sponsors or our fans.

From the Commissioner:
Goodell said he shares the optimism expressed Sunday night by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that there are international locations that would be good homes to NFL teams. He said the league is considering playing more games abroad. "We are looking at the idea of playing multiple games in a season in a particular market," Goodell said.

LINK (http://blogs.usatoday.com/thehuddle/2009/03/nfl-meetings-wr.html)

TimeKiller
03-30-2009, 08:43 AM
If I was Bob I would just offer up the preseason game as "first come, first serve". Totally free you just have to be there. And if you went ahead and bought all the concessions and jerseys you can they wouldn't mind. Biggest preseason crowd ever.

Texans_Chick
03-30-2009, 09:17 AM
I like the current system. 16 games. No stupid international games to get guys off rhythm or potentially really hurt. (Nothing like a medical emergency that happens over the Atlantic).

I don't mind the preseason. I root for those last guys to make the roster--sometimes they end up doing crazy good things for a team. (See e.g. Terrell Davis). An 18 game season means some very raggidy ass games at the beginning of the season and praying for bubble wrap for your best players. I already have concerns with keeping Mario Williams healthy and playing hard for 16 games--keeping him together for 18 games? Eek.

The NFL is the best sport because there aren't a bizzilliondy meaningless games during the course of a long season like it is with NBA and MLB. Can you imagine how long the season would be if a key person on your team gets injured at the beginning of the season. Or if your team just is sucko. The 2005 season was painful enough without two more games.

Not to mention all the 16 game season records having to be thrown away.

Me no like.

CloakNNNdagger
03-30-2009, 09:36 AM
I like the current system. 16 games. No stupid international games to get guys off rhythm or potentially really hurt. (Nothing like a medical emergency that happens over the Atlantic).

I don't mind the preseason. I root for those last guys to make the roster--sometimes they end up doing crazy good things for a team. (See e.g. Terrell Davis). An 18 game season means some very raggidy ass games at the beginning of the season and praying for bubble wrap for your best players. I already have concerns with keeping Mario Williams healthy and playing hard for 16 games--keeping him together for 18 games? Eek.

The NFL is the best sport because there aren't a bizzilliondy meaningless games during the course of a long season like it is with NBA and MLB. Can you imagine how long the season would be if a key person on your team gets injured at the beginning of the season. Or if your team just is sucko. The 2005 season was painful enough without two more games.


Not to mention all the 16 game season records having to be thrown away.

Me no like.


Deconditioning created by JET LAG across the ocean will predictably translate into compromised performance/product, not only for the proposed international game, but also for the next scheduled domestic game [following the return trip]............ and a run of player injuries.

HoustonFrog
03-30-2009, 09:41 AM
I like the current system. 16 games. No stupid international games to get guys off rhythm or potentially really hurt. (Nothing like a medical emergency that happens over the Atlantic).

I don't mind the preseason. I root for those last guys to make the roster--sometimes they end up doing crazy good things for a team. (See e.g. Terrell Davis). An 18 game season means some very raggidy ass games at the beginning of the season and praying for bubble wrap for your best players. I already have concerns with keeping Mario Williams healthy and playing hard for 16 games--keeping him together for 18 games? Eek.

The NFL is the best sport because there aren't a bizzilliondy meaningless games during the course of a long season like it is with NBA and MLB. Can you imagine how long the season would be if a key person on your team gets injured at the beginning of the season. Or if your team just is sucko. The 2005 season was painful enough without two more games.

Not to mention all the 16 game season records having to be thrown away.

Me no like.

Put me with you. I love football and more games sound great in theory...more football..but I think you are going to water down the product with more injuries. The current preseason is a joke but it is also a time where starters don't play at all except for a series here and there or a half. We have seen more and more backups ALREADY having to come in in a 16 game season. Players have already expressed concerns when they said they didn't care for the 2 possession overtime because it meant more time on the field while tired...equalling more injury time. Baseball's schedule is ridiculous. 82 games in hoop and then 7 game series which stretch into June is ridiculous. Right now some teams already have watered down talent. So why stretch it out where we have inferior talent because starters can't stay on the field.

badboy
03-30-2009, 12:37 PM
I have same concerns as Stephanie mentions. Look, the NFL is a cash cow & especiallfy the Texans as the surrounding area is rarely as effected by the economy as the rest of the nation. I like Mr. McNair and think he is a very good owner that is concerned about giving fans (those that go to games and those of us that do not) a great product and experience. He stepped up as did the tax payers with the stadium and giving him mucho dinero on parking and concessions. He has a solid base for advertising dollars. I can't find the article to link, but recently read one that NFL will end up keeping all 4 pre-season + the 1-2 extras. I also posted that this smelled like a way to put pressure on the players Union to negotiate back from the 60% that players get of revenue. There is more to this than seeing extra regular seasson games that count.

mussop
03-30-2009, 06:37 PM
The Texans will penetrate the Austin, San Antonio, etc. markets when they throw up 3-4 years of being better than the Cowboys. Until then...

Or we could just trade Schaub and draft Mark Sanchez.

dalemurphy
03-30-2009, 06:44 PM
I like the current system. 16 games. No stupid international games to get guys off rhythm or potentially really hurt. (Nothing like a medical emergency that happens over the Atlantic).

I don't mind the preseason. I root for those last guys to make the roster--sometimes they end up doing crazy good things for a team. (See e.g. Terrell Davis). An 18 game season means some very raggidy ass games at the beginning of the season and praying for bubble wrap for your best players. I already have concerns with keeping Mario Williams healthy and playing hard for 16 games--keeping him together for 18 games? Eek.

The NFL is the best sport because there aren't a bizzilliondy meaningless games during the course of a long season like it is with NBA and MLB. Can you imagine how long the season would be if a key person on your team gets injured at the beginning of the season. Or if your team just is sucko. The 2005 season was painful enough without two more games.

Not to mention all the 16 game season records having to be thrown away.

Me no like.


Nobody respects gluttony anymore! I love football! If someone offers me more, then I'm going to react like Pavlov's dog!

ObsiWan
03-30-2009, 06:59 PM
Nobody respects gluttony anymore! I love football! If someone offers me more, then I'm going to react like Pavlov's dog!

haven't you been paying attention to the stock mkt, Gluttony is sooooo ten minutes ago....
:D

Double Barrel
03-30-2009, 07:36 PM
Arguments against the expanded season are the same ones used when they went from a 14 to a 16 game season (except the international games, of course).

Football fans will roll with whatever changes they implement. I look forward to it.

Kaiser Toro
03-30-2009, 07:49 PM
Having two to four extra meaningful Sundays means that my stranglehold on the living room gets extended up to a month. I wholeheartedly endorse this move on manifest destiny alone. :devilpig:

threetoedpete
03-30-2009, 09:58 PM
Having known quite a few starters over the years, I humbly disagree.........They have more than once related how much toll even 1 extra all-out game takes on their bodies and performance, especially when there is extension into the post season. Besides that, most practice squaders have not impressed me as being of the quality or preparation to be immediate impact fill ins

That's the problem...the average life expectancy of an NFL Running back is about four years. Even with the new rule changes the money they will get from the extra games will not off set the cost of carrying the extra players.

This is a train wreck. If Goodell and the owners want it ...there will be no stopping it. Television doesn't want it. The players don't want it. The fans don't won't their ticket prices to go up. Just goofy to do this right be for a labor agreement renegotiation. Just naked greed.