More isn't always better
Too much of anything isn't good for you. Too many girlfriends can get a guy killed. Too many twinkees can make a guy fat. Too many beers can make a guy drunk AND fat. So how many NFL regular season games is too much?
Utilizing a basketball analogy, the NFL is putting on a full court press on adding two more regular season games every year. We don't know if that means an extra bye week (sorry fantasy football fanatics) will be added to help the players out with two additional weeks of games that count. So, an extra bye week and two more 'real' NFL contests suggests such a season would have started a few weeks ago. Full on football before the leaves begin to turn or all the kids get back to school and folks stop watering the lawn in hopes of less yard work to end the summer.
Setting traditional time lines aside, there are some substantive hurdles to consider before we all jump feet first into the idea that more is better. The NFL has previously made amazing progress compared to the other major sports for a variety of reasons, but a big one to me has always been the importance of each and every game. For better or worse, I'm old enough to recall the 14-game NFL season and the excitement Sundays brought to the house as every win was a big deal. Not as much per contest emphasis in other sports where the calendar throws 82 to 161 contests at fans. Winning is always king in every sport, yet football's fewer games put a premium on maximum effort. A better example exists with collegiate football where a single loss can devastate championship dreams.
Among the pros and cons being tossed about in the sports universe, are injuries, quality of play, and costs for the average fan. Injuries is a wash. Players get hurt on their way to practice, they get hurt in non-contact drills, freakish off field incidents and pre-season games. Players always get hurt and adding two more collision filled contests are not going to dramatically increase the odds of anything horrible happening. Quality of play is a fair question. If the Indianapolis Colts have the division won with a month to play, aren't we going to see exhibition type games from them anyway? The organization has already shown a complete lack of desire to go undefeated, with a presumed focus on the post-season. In a weaker division, will teams care if they drop a few early contests? With more time to make up ground, there are opportunities to witness more games that don't matter to either team.
Two more regular season contests will equate to higher costs for season tickets. This is exactly why NFL owners are considering the additional games. More TV bucks, more ticket money and two more weekends dominating sports talk radio. My guess is Las Vegas is on board with this idea as are the folks who run those off shore betting operations with budgets bigger than Delaware.
Are two more games too much? What about 20 contests per season and no exhibition games? Heck, let us just play year round, with 52-games, half of them indoors on arena sized fields! It may sound like crazy talk, but greed does not appear to have an out of bounds marker in this seemingly endless pile of cash generated by the NFL. If the league is willing to mow my lawn those two extra weeks, I may get more excited. As it is, it sounds expensive, and I'm not sure I will get my time or money's worth with two games that may or may not mean a lot more than a pre-season affair.
Utilizing a basketball analogy, the NFL is putting on a full court press on adding two more regular season games every year. We don't know if that means an extra bye week (sorry fantasy football fanatics) will be added to help the players out with two additional weeks of games that count. So, an extra bye week and two more 'real' NFL contests suggests such a season would have started a few weeks ago. Full on football before the leaves begin to turn or all the kids get back to school and folks stop watering the lawn in hopes of less yard work to end the summer.
Setting traditional time lines aside, there are some substantive hurdles to consider before we all jump feet first into the idea that more is better. The NFL has previously made amazing progress compared to the other major sports for a variety of reasons, but a big one to me has always been the importance of each and every game. For better or worse, I'm old enough to recall the 14-game NFL season and the excitement Sundays brought to the house as every win was a big deal. Not as much per contest emphasis in other sports where the calendar throws 82 to 161 contests at fans. Winning is always king in every sport, yet football's fewer games put a premium on maximum effort. A better example exists with collegiate football where a single loss can devastate championship dreams.
Among the pros and cons being tossed about in the sports universe, are injuries, quality of play, and costs for the average fan. Injuries is a wash. Players get hurt on their way to practice, they get hurt in non-contact drills, freakish off field incidents and pre-season games. Players always get hurt and adding two more collision filled contests are not going to dramatically increase the odds of anything horrible happening. Quality of play is a fair question. If the Indianapolis Colts have the division won with a month to play, aren't we going to see exhibition type games from them anyway? The organization has already shown a complete lack of desire to go undefeated, with a presumed focus on the post-season. In a weaker division, will teams care if they drop a few early contests? With more time to make up ground, there are opportunities to witness more games that don't matter to either team.
Two more regular season contests will equate to higher costs for season tickets. This is exactly why NFL owners are considering the additional games. More TV bucks, more ticket money and two more weekends dominating sports talk radio. My guess is Las Vegas is on board with this idea as are the folks who run those off shore betting operations with budgets bigger than Delaware.
Are two more games too much? What about 20 contests per season and no exhibition games? Heck, let us just play year round, with 52-games, half of them indoors on arena sized fields! It may sound like crazy talk, but greed does not appear to have an out of bounds marker in this seemingly endless pile of cash generated by the NFL. If the league is willing to mow my lawn those two extra weeks, I may get more excited. As it is, it sounds expensive, and I'm not sure I will get my time or money's worth with two games that may or may not mean a lot more than a pre-season affair.
I like your slant on things here, and more is not always necessarily better... You bring up a lot of different angles, but I always admired your ability to think in broad terms, while bringing to light some unique and thought-provoking perspectives. Well,done, Don!
ReplyDelete