View Full Version : Preston is dead-on right
Losac
08-23-2006, 08:56 AM
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-sp.preston23aug23,0,7579471.column?track=mostviewedlink
Basically saying what most fans have been saying for years. 4 preseason games are way too much and it should be only 2 with an 18 game regular season. I have to agree with the fat man here. The games are way too boring once the starters leave, and the risk of injuries is ridiculous for the amount of money these guys make to be hurt in a meaningless game. Remember when Vick was hurt in that preseason game against us? It completely ruined the Falcons' season. I think they finished 5-11.
What do you all think about an 18 game regular season with only 2 preseason games? I wouldn't even mind if they still started the regular season in mid-September and just extend the regular season into January. You could have the Super Bowl in mid-February. At least it would bring some excitement into that horrible sports time between the SB and March Madness.
Bez513
08-23-2006, 09:02 AM
I go back and forth on 2-3 games. I'm no sure 2 games is enough but 3 should be tops. 18 game season? That may be pushing it.
RavenScallywag
08-23-2006, 09:04 AM
2 games isn't enough to give a young UDFA or draft pick a chance to win a roster spot or a starting job. 3 should do it.
Kaven
08-23-2006, 09:10 AM
Don't charge me regular season prices, that I have to buy, for much less than regular season play.
Losac
08-23-2006, 09:24 AM
I go back and forth on 2-3 games. I'm no sure 2 games is enough but 3 should be tops. 18 game season? That may be pushing it.
I think it would have to be 2. According to the article, the league bases all of its budgets and revenues on a 20-game season, so if you had 3 you would have a 17 game regular season. This would create an uneven balance between home and away games for both preseason and regular season.
StingerNLG
08-23-2006, 09:26 AM
The other end of that arguement is this though. If preseason was over and the Vikings game was the start of the regular season, then these teams that have lost players due to injury won't have them back for the start of the season. What if Jamal was being shut down for 2 more weeks and it's not pre-season?
Losac
08-23-2006, 09:32 AM
The other end of that arguement is this though. If preseason was over and the Vikings game was the start of the regular season, then these teams that have lost players due to injury won't have them back for the start of the season. What if Jamal was being shut down for 2 more weeks and it's not pre-season?
He probably would have never seen the field in preseason then. Didn't he say it was something that was nagging at him all along in TC but he wanted to get his reps in for the first 2 games?
bassgtrst
08-23-2006, 09:45 AM
If you go with an 18 game season the 2 Super Bowl teams wont have any starters left.
Everything is fine the way it is. This kind of talk always comes up this time of year. Mostly because fans are sick of preseason and just want the season to start.
Bez513
08-23-2006, 09:52 AM
If you go with an 18 game season the 2 Super Bowl teams wont have any starters left.
Everything is fine the way it is. This kind of talk always comes up this time of year. Mostly because fans are sick of preseason and just want the season to start.
I don't mind the 4 games per say....I just hate getting charge full-game price for preseason games. It wasn't like that in the old days.
UKRavenStockers
08-23-2006, 10:00 AM
I don't agree with extending the regular season for the same reason that I don't want anymore expansion, the current formula works perfectly with regards the divisional structure and how schedules are worked out, I like being able to know who my team is playing next year simply as I can now. Plus adding more regular season games gives more opportunity for players to get injured and diminishes the value of each game with those two extra to make up the pace.
I think taking one game off of pre-season may be a way forward, but the teams and the NFL will never go for it because in spite of how low some attendances may be for some teams in pre-season, they still bring in lots of money and it's money teams wouldn't want to give up.
There is no solution everone can agree on I don't think and it's just the same discussion we have every pre-season around this time when the initial excitement of the pre-season starting has worn off and people realising that there is still over a fortnight to go before the season proper starts. By the team pre-season's over this topic is forgotten by most and if some don't, there's the season proper gone on and the decision makers can just sweep it under the rug. This discussion will just go on ad infinitum unless the NFL do the unthinkable and for some reason decide to add a 33rd team to the NFL completely blowing the balance they currently have.
I don't mind the 4 games per say....I just hate getting charge full-game price for preseason games. It wasn't like that in the old days.
My dad was a Colts season ticket holder and it was that way in the 70s.
If they cut the pre-season ticket cost they will just raise the regular season tickets.
highwater
08-23-2006, 10:19 AM
I didn't read Preston's column but it's probably the same column that sportswriters put out there every year at this time. I prefer a 16 game schedule to an 18 game season -- 18 games would result in more injuries to starters than what we have now.
There's no doubt that the fans get raped with the regular season prices for the preseason games, but extending the regular season is not the answer to that problem.
4 games is fine, anyway. The starters end up playing about 6 quarters of action ro prepare, which leaves 10 for backups to get some time in and bubble players to show their stuff.
If you cut back on the pre-season games either the starters will get less preparation, the backups will or the bubble players will get less time to show their skills. If we are concerned about injuries to starters play them less. I think most coaches give their starters the minimum but what they feel is necessary time to get ready.
The ticket price is actually a good thing for season ticket holders. If they cut pre-season ticket prices your regular season tickets would go up to compensate and you would pay the same amount. The bad side is your pre-season tickets are now worth less if you wish to sell them or donate them to charity. Frankly, I would love to pay 5 times what I do for pre-season games, then a dollar a game for regular season. Then I could donate my pre-season tickets to charity and write off a big amount on my taxes.
AZRAVEN
08-23-2006, 10:32 AM
With all of the mini camps, OTA's, and training camp I really don't see the need for preseason games at all. I would be interested to know how many rookies/UDFA's etc actually make a squad based on preseason play. That would seem to be the only purpose for preseason, you know the high draft picks will make the team simply based on draft order and salary so it's just the low round picks and UDFA's that might benefit. I wouldn't want to see the season extended to 18 games.
StingerNLG
08-23-2006, 10:39 AM
He probably would have never seen the field in preseason then. Didn't he say it was something that was nagging at him all along in TC but he wanted to get his reps in for the first 2 games?
That's where the grey area comes in. Remember how Jamal was without pre-season last year (and nagging injuries to boot)? You still need to get out there and work with the offense. Especially now that you have a change at the Quarterback position. That's even more of a reason to get out there and play at least some pre-season.
The risk for injury is there no matter what. Cleveland lost their starting center before they could even get off the second snap in the first training camp day. Without 4 pre-season games, Carson Palmer's first real action after blowing out his knee would be a real game situation. Same with Dante Culpepper.
There's good arguements on both sides. But I tend to agree that this is coming up because we're starving for Ravens Football, and especially this year we're chomping at the bit for Tampa Bay. It's totally understandable.
None of the OTAs and camp create real game speed against opponents. The starters need that to tune up, the backups need it for confidence and experience and the bubble players need it to show their stuff.
A guy like Hymes practiced poorly and that kept him from playing time, but the only reason he was on the team is because of what he did in live game situations.
jonboy79
08-23-2006, 10:53 AM
I think it would have to be 2. According to the article, the league bases all of its budgets and revenues on a 20-game season, so if you had 3 you would have a 17 game regular season.
Apparently you forgot about the bye week. Pre season extends 5 weeks as well,so really that's 22 weeeks, add three more weeks of conference playoffs, a week of and the Superbowl, and you have 26 weeks of games for revenue, not 20.
But you are only counting TV and you are not figuring that in the bye week TV viewing for a city is down somewhat. You are also ignoring the revenue from the game attendance and concessions, parking, etc. The first game of pre-season really doesn't count for much in terms of revenue, their is very little earned that week so comparing it to other weeks is inaccurate.
BTW, check out the Moore/TLT thread for why we need 4 weeks of pre-season, this will be a chance for one of them to make the team.
Losac
08-23-2006, 10:58 AM
Apparently you forgot about the bye week. Pre season extends 5 weeks as well,so really that's 22 weeeks, add three more weeks of conference playoffs, a week of and the Superbowl, and you have 26 weeks of games for revenue, not 20.
Teams still only play 16 games though (in 17 weeks). A team on a bye is not generating revenue as Greg said, other than maybe watching other teams on TV.
Bez513
08-23-2006, 11:08 AM
My dad was a Colts season ticket holder and it was that way in the 70s.
If they cut the pre-season ticket cost they will just raise the regular season tickets.
My parents where also Colt ticket holders but I recall them saying either they were not charged or they had the option to buy.
Merlin
08-23-2006, 11:25 AM
I agree that 2 preseason games are not enough to make decisions on rosters. So why not delink the 2 decisions.
Have 2 preasons games, 18 regular season games
Have a larger roster for the first 1-2 games (e.g., 63).
flraven
08-23-2006, 11:33 AM
My parents where also Colt ticket holders but I recall them saying either they were not charged or they had the option to buy.
If I recall correctly, Irsay was either the first or second owner to start charging full price for season tickets. Not sure when though.
AZRAVEN
08-23-2006, 12:13 PM
I don't think an expanded roster for the first couple games would work, Merlin, because once the games "count" I think most coaches would be reluctant to play anyone but their established starters. Unless, of course, they had injury issues or something like that.
Gabrosin
08-23-2006, 12:15 PM
Here's a question. Why is it better that a player gets hurt in the first regular season game rather than the third preseason game? Adding two games to the regular season means two more games where you basically have to play your starters. If teams were so worried about injury in the preseason, they could start the second units and never let the first team see the field.
WxKevin
08-23-2006, 12:44 PM
Talking about the what ifs is fine but the reality is that the 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games schedule is not going to change. As was noted, monetarily everything is based on 20 full priced games a year. There is no way the owners nor the players association would take a paycut by going from 20 total games to 18 total games. In addition, there is most likely no way the players association is going to allow the increase from 16 to 18 regular season games. The NFL is way too physical for teams to play 18 games then the postseason games as well.
As much as I hate paying full-price for preseason games I have accepted it as a necessary evil.
Mista T
08-23-2006, 01:08 PM
18 games, 2 exhibitions, and a paid scrimmage where scores are kept will produce more revenue from networks. TV ratings would be higher for the two additional real games than exhibitions, plus adding some formaility to the scrimmages. Schedule all August games in California or at night or in domes.
My parents where also Colt ticket holders but I recall them saying either they were not charged or they had the option to buy.
Bez: your parents are remembering the way it was in the 60s. I recall the controversy when mandatory exhibitions were included in Colts season tix. I believe it was early 70s.
:mrt:
Bez513
08-23-2006, 01:14 PM
Bez: your parents are remembering the way it was in the 60s. I recall the controversy when mandatory exhibitions were included in Colts season tix. I believe it was early 70s.
:mrt:
They are pretty old people....;)
skimmy
08-23-2006, 02:17 PM
If you go with an 18 game season the 2 Super Bowl teams wont have any starters left.
There will probably be some injuries but overall the two healthiest teams would have a pretty good shot at being in the superbowl. The USFL had 18 game seasons, so it has at least been done before.
My love for the idea of 18 game seasons grows even more when this subject is brought up every year. I would be concerned about how the schedule works out (division games could mean even less?), but I love the idea of more regular season football. The NFL might consider expanding the schedule to help encourage owners to expand into LA instead of moving a team... maybe even expand by two teams?
PurpleRulz
08-23-2006, 09:00 PM
1. Clinton Portis ought to stop whining. What is the difference in a player getting injured the first game of preseason, the first day at Training camp, or the first game of the season? None.
2. I think that games 2 and 3 should feature the guys trying to make the team. In those game, I'd rest the vets and just play the young players trying to make the team.
gooselovechild
08-24-2006, 02:30 PM
If you go with an 18 game season the 2 Super Bowl teams wont have any starters left.
Any WildCard team in the Super Bowl is well beyond 18 games with their starters on the field, so I don't think injuries are really that big an issue.
The real issue is what players are paid. They don't get paid for preseason games, and if the season was extended to 18 games, they would want increased compensation. It's extremely unlikely that they would allow their salaries to be spread out over 18 games, they would probably want the 1/16 pro-rated game checks tacked on to the additional games, thus increasing their overall compensation by a full 12.5%.
Without that, you'll never see them sign off on an extended regular season.