PDA

View Full Version : Is Preseason Too Long?


maddogmrb
08-27-2009, 10:48 PM
Every year there is more and more talk about reducing the # of preseason games and adding to the regular season. Although, I undertand the economics of doing so, personally I think it would be a mistake. I think it would cheapen the product on the field for the first few games of the season. Just look at the Texans! Were they ready to start the season last year against the Steelers? Uh that would be a NO! Based on what we've seen so far this preseason, do the Texans have all their pieces in place and are operating like a fine-tuned machine? Uh that would be a NO! Do we expect them to by the Jets game? I'm sure some do, but I'm skeptical. I believe they will still be trying to find themselves defensively and will need EVERY snap this preseason to get even reasonably close to finding themselves. Actually, I believe the Texans could use another preseason game. It's obvious they also don't have every piece jelling in the offense, too. Especially in the line and at RB. I don't necessarily agree with this concept of playing the starters very little in preseason because of injury risk. Unless you are the Patriots or the Colts, teams need snap time playing together to jell and by holding the starters out most of preseason, they won't be jellin' by the first game. Your thoughts?

Wolf6151
08-27-2009, 11:01 PM
I think that the NFL could make training camp prior to preseason games about 3 weeks longer, subtract 1 preseason game, and add 1 regular season game. This would allow coaches longer to evaluate talent, players would be happy with fewer preseason games to lessen the risk of injury, and fans would be happy with another regular season game. I'd also like to see the NFL expand the roster size to about 56-57 players allowing for more rotation of players thus lessening injuries and allowing clubs to hold onto some more valuable backups and the extra regular season game would offset the additional players salaries.

steelbtexan
08-28-2009, 11:06 AM
I think that the NFL could make training camp prior to preseason games about 3 weeks longer, subtract 1 preseason game, and add 1 regular season game. This would allow coaches longer to evaluate talent, players would be happy with fewer preseason games to lessen the risk of injury, and fans would be happy with another regular season game. I'd also like to see the NFL expand the roster size to about 56-57 players allowing for more rotation of players thus lessening injuries and allowing clubs to hold onto some more valuable backups and the extra regular season game would offset the additional players salaries.

Agreed

But this year I'm glad the preseason is as long as it is. It gives Reeves,Myers and Cushing a chance to get healthy for the regular season.

Ultimately I wold like to see 2 preseason games and 18 regular season games.

They would have to expand the rosters but an 18 game reglar season is do able.

Wolf6151
08-28-2009, 11:29 AM
Agreed

But this year I'm glad the preseason is as long as it is. It gives Reeves,Myers and Cushing a chance to get healthy for the regular season.

Ultimately I wold like to see 2 preseason games and 18 regular season games.

They would have to expand the rosters but an 18 game reglar season is do able.


Playing NFL commisioner for a day my ultimate scenario would be to have 19 regular season games, I like an odd number of games you either have a winning or losing season period. I'd only have 3 preseason games. I'd expand rosters to 60 players, for more rotation of players due to the expanded season and lessening player injury. I'd also add another bye week for each team and start training camp 3 weeks earlier prior to preseason games. All of this would make the season 4 weeks longer, thrilling fans, expanding rosters and adding another bye week would cut down on player fatigue and injury making them happier, the longer preseason prior to preseason games would allow coaches more time to get players ready and evaluate talent, and owners would like it due to much greater revenue income to pay for those extra players. Everyone would be happy.

steelbtexan
08-28-2009, 11:50 AM
Playing NFL commisioner for a day my ultimate scenario would be to have 19 regular season games, I like an odd number of games you either have a winning or losing season period. I'd only have 3 preseason games. I'd expand rosters to 60 players, for more rotation of players due to the expanded season and lessening player injury. I'd also add another bye week for each team and start training camp 3 weeks earlier prior to preseason games. All of this would make the season 4 weeks longer, thrilling fans, expanding rosters and adding another bye week would cut down on player fatigue and injury making them happier, the longer preseason prior to preseason games would allow coaches more time to get players ready and evaluate talent, and owners would like it due to much greater revenue income to pay for those extra players. Everyone would be happy.

Sounds like a great plan to me and we get an extra month of football.

DBCooper
08-28-2009, 11:58 AM
yes

JDizzle
08-28-2009, 12:06 PM
I think that the NFL could make training camp prior to preseason games about 3 weeks longer, subtract 1 preseason game, and add 1 regular season game. This would allow coaches longer to evaluate talent, players would be happy with fewer preseason games to lessen the risk of injury, and fans would be happy with another regular season game. I'd also like to see the NFL expand the roster size to about 56-57 players allowing for more rotation of players thus lessening injuries and allowing clubs to hold onto some more valuable backups and the extra regular season game would offset the additional players salaries.

The problem with having an odd number of games means all teams won't have an even number of home and away games. There's the possibility of having neutral field games for each team but I'd rather tack on 2 extra real games and have only 2 preseason games.

swtbound07
08-28-2009, 12:12 PM
I don't want to add games. It demeans the record books.

barrett
08-28-2009, 12:19 PM
It's been over 30 years. I don't think it's too soon or too late. I love how slow the league is to change. I think the time is just right.

nunusguy
08-28-2009, 12:22 PM
2 preseason games would be just about right IMO.

barrett
08-28-2009, 12:25 PM
I agree. Maybe they could do more scrimmages to get some of those guys at the bottom of the roster more opportunities.

Thorn
08-28-2009, 12:35 PM
I've lost track of my post where I said this earlier, but what I said was shorten the preseason to three games, and add one to the regular season with two bye weeks.

Malloy
08-28-2009, 12:41 PM
Less preseason, more season... the more the merrier (and larger rosters).

(Didn't we have this discussion last year also? :) )

HOU-TEX
08-28-2009, 01:06 PM
I do think preseason is probably a game or 2 too long. However, we are a team that has desperately needed the longer preseason. Injuries and poor play that would've rolled into the regular season.....I'll pass.

I wouldn't mind if it were cut down to 3 and possibly added like a rivalry game to the regular season.

dalemurphy
08-28-2009, 01:34 PM
No... it's the Offseason that is too long! I'll take an 8 game preseason if it means training camp can start in June and the crappy preseason games start in July.

Vinny
08-29-2009, 12:58 PM
I don't want to add games. It demeans the record books.It's too late for that, besides football is less about stats than baseball is. When I was a kid we had less games than played now, and the rules on the field have changed so much that a 58% passer rating isn't "good" anymore. Football is an evolutionary creature, baseball is a static measurement. Also, in football you don't have to tell 'em that 'there is no crying in football'. It's assumed.

As to the thread topic, is the preseason too long? in a word....yes.

Lucky
08-29-2009, 01:24 PM
As to the thread topic, is the preseason too long? in a word....yes.
I think the length season, and the preseason, are just fine. The starters need the preseason to get their timing down. Granted, the starters generally sit out the entire 4th preseason game. But, that is an important time to develop the backups and make roster decisions.

Regarding the regular season, the rosters were only 40 deep back when the NFL played a 14 game schedule. Over the years, the league has understood that the rosters needed to be increased for the longer 16 game schedule. I believe they would find the same necessity if the regular season were to be extended, now.

The question I have is, are there enough NFL quality football players available to meet the increased demand? With 32 teams, the talent level is already thin. I doubt there are 32 quality QBs in the league, right now. If the schedule were extended by 2 additional games (games that the starters would play throughout), I fear the championship would be determined more by attrition and serendipity than ability. From the opening week to the Super Bowl, the NFL season is now 22 weeks long (as opposed to 18 weeks back in 1977). Right now, I think it's just right.

Speedy
08-29-2009, 01:25 PM
With the way players are staying in shape year round, with all the mini-camps, OTA's and what have you throughout the off-season, I think a month of training camp and pre-season games is way too much.

Players can be ready to go in a couple of weeks. Drop 2 pre-season games and go with an 18 game schedule with a couple of bye weeks. Expand the rosters if you want as well.

And I'm not want that wants to see a lot of change in the NFL. But the pre-season is ridiculously, and I think, unnecessarily long.

Showtime100
08-29-2009, 01:27 PM
With the way players are staying in shape year round, with all the mini-camps, OTA's and what have you throughout the off-season, I think a month of training camp and pre-season games is way too much.

Players can be ready to go in a couple of weeks. Drop 2 pre-season games and go with an 18 game schedule with a couple of bye weeks. Expand the rosters if you want as well.

And I'm not want that wants to see a lot of change in the NFL. But the pre-season is ridiculously, and I think, unnecessarily long.

Couldn't agree more. :kingkong:

Vinny
08-29-2009, 01:34 PM
I think the length season, and the preseason, are just fine. The starters need the preseason to get their timing down. Granted, the starters generally sit out the entire 4th preseason game. But, that is an important time to develop the backups and make roster decisions.

Regarding the regular season, the rosters were only 40 deep back when the NFL played a 14 game schedule. Over the years, the league has understood that the rosters needed to be increased for the longer 16 game schedule. I believe they would find the same necessity if the regular season were to be extended, now.

The question I have is, are there enough NFL quality football players available to meet the increased demand? With 32 teams, the talent level is already thin. I doubt there are 32 quality QBs in the league, right now. If the schedule were extended by 2 additional games (games that the starters would play throughout), I fear the championship would be determined more by attrition and serendipity than ability. From the opening week to the Super Bowl, the NFL season is now 22 weeks long (as opposed to 18 weeks back in 1977). Right now, I think it's just right.
College teams don't have a preseason. They have a few scrimmages and when they play out of conference, but the records count for the overall team record. You can argue that they don't count for their conferences but the games count and they do mean something. If you don't want to attrit the league don't let them play a month of practice games where inevitably, every year, each team loses someone important. A few scrimmages, a couple of preseason games, and let the games begin. This isn't the same league from years gone by when you had all your guys coming back from a 3 month vacation of beer drinking for a long camp to get in shape, and 6 - count 'em, six preseason games. Guys stay in shape year around and most of the offense is already installed in camp instead of working on getting guys into shape.

Lucky
08-29-2009, 02:00 PM
College teams don't have a preseason. They have a few scrimmages...
College teams go live in camp. The only live action most NFL teams see is during preseason games. The lack of preparation, combined with the increased number of injuries, will create a watered down NFL season. I don't think those two additional "real" games are worth it.

Showtime100
08-29-2009, 02:10 PM
College teams go live in camp. The only live action most NFL teams see is during preseason games. The lack of preparation, combined with the increased number of injuries, will create a watered down NFL season. I don't think those two additional "real" games are worth it.

All due respect, Lucky, but players, coaches, owners, fans, disagree, IMO. I think the present preseason is outdated given what is expected of players today since there is millions paid as opposed to what was the norm when the four-game structure was devised. Players generally show up physically fit with the only prep needed being between the ears. (crap, maybe 4 games is better..lol)

Lucky
08-29-2009, 02:23 PM
All due respect, Lucky, but players, coaches, owners, fans, disagree, IMO. I think the present preseason is outdated given what is expected of players today since there is millions paid as opposed to what was the norm when the four-game structure was devised.
I'm not sure how the "millions are paid" is relavent? Do you think players will willingly accept additional "real" games without a proportional increase in their salary? The owners already charge full admission for the preseason, so all they can do is raise prices to meet the additional costs. And they will want a little $omething-$omething for the broadcast rights, as well. There are costs, both real and hidden, in producing additional games. And it will be the fans who will foot the bill.

Showtime100
08-29-2009, 02:36 PM
I'm not sure how the "millions are paid" is relavent? Do you think players will willingly accept additional "real" games without a proportional increase in their salary? The owners already charge full admission for the preseason, so all they can do is raise prices to meet the additional costs. And they will want a little $omething-$omething for the broadcast rights, as well. There are costs, both real and hidden, in producing additional games. And it will be the fans who will foot the bill.

Cool. Millions do see the pockets of players. (see various strippers anywhere near a Titan) I'm talking about football, you are talking monetary. Four worthless games are unnecessary in this day and age unless you are talking Longhorn football.

Lucky
08-29-2009, 02:51 PM
I'm talking about football, you are talking monetary. Four worthless games are unnecessary in this day and age...
I thought it was you that brought up the $$$ aspect???

Is the goal is to eliminate the "worthless games"? The Texans would have never had the opportunity to play a game in December over the past 7 seasons, under this criteria. What has value and what does not is debatable. I'm arguing for making the product on the field to be the best it can be.

infantrycak
08-29-2009, 02:55 PM
I'm not sure how the "millions are paid" is relavent? Do you think players will willingly accept additional "real" games without a proportional increase in their salary? The owners already charge full admission for the preseason, so all they can do is raise prices to meet the additional costs. And they will want a little $omething-$omething for the broadcast rights, as well. There are costs, both real and hidden, in producing additional games. And it will be the fans who will foot the bill.

I don't think the networks pay as much for the pre-season games as they do for the regular season games so there might be extra revenue there to tap.

I don't like having this many pre-season games, but primarily because of the stupid way they are marketed at face value. Whatever number they have should be at half price (or some discount) and distribute the remainder over the regular season games to keep it revenue neutral. Fans don't feel like they are getting ripped off and the revenue remains the same.

One practical concern for a shorter pre-season is the extent of coaching movement in this era. A team with a whole new staff and system being implemented would be at a disadvantage with only two pre-season games.

The Pencil Neck
08-29-2009, 03:00 PM
Personally, I'm fine with the current setup. I don't want more regular season games. I don't want this turning into the NBA or the MLB where there are so many games that going on a 3-4 game losing streak is not a big deal.

And I don't want more post season games because I don't want too many teams squeaking in.

And I like the number of pre-season games because I like seeing the scrubs play. I like seeing the guys that are fighting for a spot. I like the fact that guys that don't practice well could get an opportunity to show that they're really gamers. If the purpose of the preseason is only to get the starters warmed up and ready, then you miss out on those bubble guys and it's harder as a fan to work up a good feel for those guys that you're hoping will get a chance and turn into a surprise star.

I like to think that even in that 4th game that "doesn't mean anything" that there are guys fighting to get onto the roster and that if someone really shows up in those games, that someone might give them a chance to get a paycheck.

distant_texans_fan
08-29-2009, 03:33 PM
+1 That us exactly what I'd like to see.

Agreed

But this year I'm glad the preseason is as long as it is. It gives Reeves,Myers and Cushing a chance to get healthy for the regular season.

Ultimately I wold like to see 2 preseason games and 18 regular season games.

They would have to expand the rosters but an 18 game reglar season is do able.

Dallas Texans
08-29-2009, 07:05 PM
Of course preseason is too long. You don't need 4 glorified scrimmages. 2 would suffice.

mussop
08-29-2009, 07:38 PM
Sorry if anyone has already said this but im too lazy to read his whole thread today.

Why not have 2 preseason games and 3 bye weeks during the regular season? Each team could play a division rival following a bye week. That would give players an extra week to rest and prepare for big rivalries and give the fans an extra week of hating the rivals. I dont see anything bad about that at all. If anything it would only intensify rivalries and that can only be good for the NFL.

GNTLEWOLF
08-29-2009, 07:50 PM
Personally, I'm fine with the current setup. I don't want more regular season games. I don't want this turning into the NBA or the MLB where there are so many games that going on a 3-4 game losing streak is not a big deal.

And I don't want more post season games because I don't want too many teams squeaking in.

And I like the number of pre-season games because I like seeing the scrubs play. I like seeing the guys that are fighting for a spot. I like the fact that guys that don't practice well could get an opportunity to show that they're really gamers. If the purpose of the preseason is only to get the starters warmed up and ready, then you miss out on those bubble guys and it's harder as a fan to work up a good feel for those guys that you're hoping will get a chance and turn into a surprise star.

I like to think that even in that 4th game that "doesn't mean anything" that there are guys fighting to get onto the roster and that if someone really shows up in those games, that someone might give them a chance to get a paycheck.

amen to the whole post. I too want to keep it just like it is..

steelbtexan
08-29-2009, 08:39 PM
The guys you're talking about are guys that woud make the expanded roster.

It would give guys jobs and create more competition for street FA's.

The OTA's could be eliminated and two regular season games added

DocBar
08-29-2009, 08:52 PM
Personally, I'm fine with the current setup. I don't want more regular season games. I don't want this turning into the NBA or the MLB where there are so many games that going on a 3-4 game losing streak is not a big deal.

And I don't want more post season games because I don't want too many teams squeaking in.

And I like the number of pre-season games because I like seeing the scrubs play. I like seeing the guys that are fighting for a spot. I like the fact that guys that don't practice well could get an opportunity to show that they're really gamers. If the purpose of the preseason is only to get the starters warmed up and ready, then you miss out on those bubble guys and it's harder as a fan to work up a good feel for those guys that you're hoping will get a chance and turn into a surprise star.

I like to think that even in that 4th game that "doesn't mean anything" that there are guys fighting to get onto the roster and that if someone really shows up in those games, that someone might give them a chance to get a paycheck. Good post. Must spread rep.

DutchTexan
08-30-2009, 01:34 PM
Shorter preseason and longer regular season would be great imho.