The NFL team owners have tabled a proposal to change the regular season from its current sixteen game schedule to an eighteen game one. As part of this, and with a nod to the issues the NFL has been having with concussion protocols and long term neurological damage, they have said that the players will still be capped at playing a maximum of sixteen regular season games. The obvious reaction comes in two parts; first it is a blatant revenue grab and secondly, who wants to see two games with replacement players?
On the surface it does seem it is a money making exercise, two more games per season, with one of those a guaranteed home game, and extra television money. However, it is more likely to be a way for them to try and claw back some of their falling revenues. Viewing figures have been falling, and with that then advertising revenue will fall, which will lead to lower payments to the NFL. Having extra games will more than offset that. The extra TV rights and ticket sales will obviously generate more revenue, but it will also mean that there are additional payments out to be made. To cover a full foster across eighteen games when players can only play a maximum of sixteen will mean that there will need to be additionally players that need to be paid.
The 16 game limit per player could be interested depending on how it is administered. Do they drop 6 players per game to rotate the full squad for the season, or go for the play two games with replacement squads’ option? If the former then it would require some good management of the squad to offset a star quarterback with making sure all the other offensive weapons are playing that week. If the latter then do they replace bye weeks with replacement weeks? Or is it a GM decision, go all out for the playoffs early in the season, book a spot and send the b team out for the last couple of games, or do you play the b team when you have a couple of weaker looking opponents on the schedule? How long before the start of a game would they have to declare which players were active?
From the paying players perspective there would be more players to pay, but the main contracts wouldn’t change as there wouldn’t be extra games for those players to pay. The additionally players would likely be on the league minimum.
From a season records perspective, the team records will be going out the window in the first few seasons. However, limiting the players to a maximum of sixteen games would mean that the old records wouldn’t get ripped up as the games played to reach those records would be the same as when the current records have been set.
The other main issue to look at is how they would do the schedule for an eighteen game season. The current way the division structure and schedule is set up perfectly for a sixteen game season. Six games within their own division, four games against each team in a division in their own conference and another four against a division in the other conference, and then two against the remaining two teams who finish in the same place in their division in the same conference that they aren’t already playing that year. The last two games can’t really be done against the other conference as there would be one team out each year so it wouldn’t quite match. So do you play two more conference games against the two teams that finished in the nearest position to you? So if you finished third, you would play the fourth placed team in the other two conference divisions, fourth plays third, first plays second, second plays first. Would that tilt the conference / inter-conference balance too far one way?
Of course the fans are the ones that are likely to end up the losers. They would want to see the best team possible playing each week. For them to turn up and there be a handful or dozens of replacement players playing isn’t going to set the pulse racing. Especially for those going to games from overseas, perhaps to see the only live in the flesh game in their lives. To pay out thousands to end up at a game where the star players are missing will leave a bitter taste in their mouths (and wallets).
Perhaps if owners looked at ways of reducing game time, then the falling viewing figures might bounce back. There are too many for TV breaks in the game. Having less adverts, but with higher viewing figures would even out what advertisers would pay.
There may be lots of fans who think the season goes too quickly, and it’s far too long before the next season rolls around. But adding games to the schedule isn’t necessarily the right way to go about servicing that need. Making the current content better would be far more beneficial.