Why every NFL fan should be just fine with an 18-game season
Apparently the idea of an 18-game NFL season isn't as popular as I thought, based on the reaction to slash196's recent FanPost. I wanted to take some time to lay out my opinions on 18 games and give some counterweight to a fairly hot topic.
As always, feel free to weigh in.
1. Records are for chumps.
Don't get me wrong; records are fun to talk about. But when we talk about records, we always talk about them being broken. We don't just look at records as accomplishments by an individual, we put the records in context: How long did the previous record stand? How long will it be before this record is broken? A statistic by itself is meaningless--it's only compared to other achievements that a record has any value.
Yes, an 18-game season looks like it would cheapen some records we thought were unassailable in the 16-game era. But football isn't baseball. Football fans are able to put our calculators down and watch the games with our eyes. We already know who the greatest players of the past are, and no amount of change in the present takes away from those men. We don't think less of Bart Starr just because Jeff George threw more touchdowns in his career.
It doesn't make sense to suddenly become precious about records 90 years into the history of the league. Why are we comfortable with going from 14 games to 16, but not from 16 to 18? I don't buy that 1978 was the moment when the "modern" NFL began. Hell, they were still using stickum for another three years, and loose helmets could actually be used as weapons until 1983. I don't think anyone under 35 considers either of those tactics particularly modern.
Would the preservationists want to stick an asterisk next to a guy's record just because he came into the NFL in the 18-game era? Because to my way of thinking, that's worse than "moving the goalposts" for the statistical milestones we're familiar with. If any receiver, future Hall of Famer or not, manages to break Jerry Rice's single-season receiving yardage total, that man deserves his place in the record book. Period. You'd put an asterisk by his name and say "But he's not as good as Rice!" forever just because he doesn't have the same sustained greatness? You'd diminish that guy's accomplishment just because you liked the old guy better? For all the talk about an 18-game season pissing on the league's history, the 16-game crowd doesn't seem to have a problem pissing on its future.
Besides, I thought we were worried that an 18-game schedule would turn every team into a trauma ward and force the NFL to sign UFL players for the last two weeks of the year. If that's true, we shouldn't have to worry about today's "lesser" stars stealing glory away from the heroes of decades past. And hey, while we're talking about injuries...
2. Injuries, schminjuries.
The simple sad fact in football, in sports, in life itself, is that injuries happen. Brace yourself for a shock--sometimes players get hurt doing things that aren't sports! Even for "funny" injuries like Vince Coleman's ill-fated fight against the tarp machine in 1985 (look it up), it's doubly unfortunate when a player misses games because of non-game-related injuries. But it's going to happen no matter what, and you can't predict what will happen during the 165 hours a week when a player isn't playing football. Should owners ban their players from, say, climbing ladders? Driving faster than 50mph? Being on a team with a terrible head coach who thinks it's a good motivational tool to keep a tree stump and an axe in the locker room? At least two of those ideas are ridiculous. The point here is that we don't, and can't, and shouldn't expect players to be hermetically sealed when they aren't playing meaningful games.
And speaking of meaningful games...
3. It's not even that much of an expansion.
Two more regular-season games = two fewer preseason charades. We aren't advocating the kind of season creep that causes the World Series (formerly known as the "October Classic") to be played in November. We're not asking players to run at game speed in full pads in the searing July heat. This is the best kind of "expansion"--taking two meaningless, boring games off the schedule and replacing them with sweet, juicy football goodness.
And since we're not really adding new games, most players will still be playing in 20 games. It's just that two of those games won't be near-pointless exercises with 8th string defensive backs trying to impress the coach by laying out whatever poor schlub just caught a pass from the practice squad quarterback in the 3rd quarter. Looking back one point to the injury concern, this isn't really "two more games". It's closer to "two more quarters" for the average player.
For the average fan, it's definitely closer to "two more games". More chances for a team to come together and make a playoff push. More chances to see dramatic fourth-quarter comebacks that only happen when a game's outcome has real implications for the season. Would we have seen the Colts stuff the Bengals on 4th-and-2 in a preseason game? No, because we would have left as soon as they turned off the beer sales.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.
2 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Got to disagree...
1.) Records are important, if they weren’t, guys like Manning and Montana and Marino wouldn’t be held to the status they are. More importantly, some records are simply a measuring stick of how good you are. The fact Jerry Rice scored 22 TD’s in 12 games is far more impressive than some schlub who does it in 18 games… and thats a fact…
2.) More games simply increases the chances of injury. That is a hard proven fact. Look at the NBA, MLB, and the NHL. The longer the seasons the more chance for injury. Injuries can happen anytime from Week 1 to Week 18, but the cold hard facts are that more exposure to injury breeds more risk…
To go along with that fact, you also have the tired factor. As teams play longer in meaningful games, guys will have to determine should I go out and sit, thus depriving games of star players in somewhat competitive games. Picture the Colts/Jets game last year….now imagine if the Colts had had to do that for 4 weeks, not 2. The fans would have been in an uproar. However, the Colts had a 1-3 game lead on every team in the conference when this past season ended.
Lastly, in the event a team was to go 13-3….they could possibly realize that finishing 3rd in the conference and resting players is better than finishing 2nd… which the Colts have almost always done… This will simply INCREASE the amount of games where you see “scrub” players playing…..which for the Colts….have been games 15 and 16 pretty much every year of Manning’s career…
3.) My previous response in #2 covers most of what you stated in this slot, but I wanted to add this particular annoyance of mine. Games that don’t mean jack squat….
Remember in 2007 when Brady broke Manning’s TD record? He came back into a game he was up like 28 pts just to throw a few more TD’s….. Remember the year when Manning set his record and was leaving games like the Lions, Texans, and a few other teams after posting up 6 TD’s through like 2.5 quarters? These types of games will not lessen, but increase…..and not only will records become less relevant, but so will players who do it.
You’ll have Joe Carpenter throwing 48 TDs and 5500 yards a season, and he won’t even be a pro bowler….you’ll have a 2500 yard season by a has been player…. it’ll be arena league football stats….and purists and even your average fan will not be happy…
Think about it…. most fans outside of New England know the Patriots ran the scores up in 2007…. and the teams they played were so horrible for much of the year that they couldn’t stop them from doing so….. do you really think that fans want to watch that kind of crap again? Nope….
The two previous teams to set the NFL scoring records were absolute juggernauts….but the irony is that while one team finished 15-1….the other finished 10-6. The 2000 St. Louis Rams absolutely scored at will in 2000 but couldn’t stop just about anybody on defense…
Counter
1) I agree that Jerry Rice’s record is extremely awesome. But that shouldn’t be the factor that keeps the league from playing more meaningful games. Besides, like I said originally, we already know Jerry Rice was the greatest receiver the league has ever seen. Playing more games won’t make somebody else better, unless you’re the kind of person who only ever looks at stats and doesn’t bother learning anything like history or context.
2) There is exactly one way to completely ensure that no one gets injured. That way is to not play the games.
If you want to play football, you have to accept that someone will almost certainly get injured. I agree that the league has a responsibility to ensure that no one is needlessly put in harm’s way, but I don’t agree that the injury risk is a valid argument for keeping the status quo. In fact, Nate over at 18to88.com made the point that if you’re truly that concerned about injuries, you should be arguing for a move back to 14 or even 12 games.
As far as the Colts’ penchant for resting starters goes—even assuming that resting starters is necessarily a bad thing, hasn’t a team that’s locked up a #1 seed with several weeks remaining in the schedule earned the right to do whatever the hell they want with those spare games? We all want to see Peyton, but let’s be honest—Peyton for 14 games is more entertaining than 99% of everyone for 16. Besides, the Colts are clearly outliers in this scenario, and shouldn’t really be the driving force in the argument. The middling teams will still be jockeying for position in Weeks 18 and 19, and that provides more excitement overall.
3) 5000 yards has happened a grand total of twice in the history of the NFL. In fact, 4500 has only been breached 19 times. Arena League numbers those ain’t.
Since we have to have the records discussion yet again, do you know what the highest single-season passing yardage total was before the 16-game schedule? It was 4007 yards by Joe Namath in 1967. For contrast, the best 16-game total is Dan Marino’s 5084 in 1984. Do you think that increasing the season by 15% was the only thing that led to a 27% jump in yardage totals, or maybe possibly could there have been some other factors involved? Even with 18 games in the schedule, as things are now guys won’t be breaking those vaunted records you hold so dear unless they’re pretty damn good in their own right.
I still say you don’t get to discredit future records from an 18-game season unless you’re willing to throw out any and all records from a 16-game season. If you’re such purist, you should repudiate the 16-game season and only consider 14-game seasons “worthy” of discussion. You can’t in good conscience decide that 18 games is inflated and bogus but be OK with the move to 16 games from 14.

by 













