8 and 8 just sounds better than 9 and 9. You won’t be able to hear Chris Collinsworth over the sound of every record being broken in one season.

The dilution of the NFL product.

They are making and effort to increase competitiveness by putting more division games at the end of the season, hopefully keeping division titles open for longer. Therefore more meaningful games and less issues like what the Colts did with the Jets last season.

By increasing the number of games, how would that affect this goal of 16 COMPETITIVE games that they are already struggling to find. They could do what southern hemisphere rugby does. Bubblegum points. Check out www.super14.com

You don’t play just for wins and loses, but points. 4 points for a W, 2 for a draw. Plus bonus points. 1 bonus point for scoring for TD’s(Tries) in a game and 1 bonus point for losing, but only by a TD or less. It drives me crazy incidentally. Maybe they could make division games worth double points or you get points based on the strength of the team you play. So beating Oakland isn’t worth the same points as Indy or New England? Have I put everybody of this idea yet? Yes, good.

And who do we play in the 17th and 18th game?

I like the current format. 3 home division games, 3 away division games. 4 intra conference and 4 inter conference games. Plus the two intra conference strength games based on your previous years record. It all makes sense to me. What is the formula for finding two more games? You could play two of the three teams from the other conference that finished at the same position as yours in the division last year, but that seems messy.

Maybe we need some inter-sports games? The Texans could play against the Rockets and the Astros as their 17th and 18th games?

So in conclusion, anyone up for a game of BASEketball?

You get your 18 game season and you get your 4 preseason games. Have two bye weeks for every team. That means playing the 18 games in 20 weeks. That gives the players the rest they will need; it gives the teams two more weeks of games; AND, they do it in 20 weeks instead of 17 weeks. That’s 3 more weeks of football! Win-Win-Win for the players, teams and fans!!!

Please vote below for Rip’s beautiful solution to the problem!

I also think the owners are dumb for trying to do this now as well. There’s already plenty of issues that make a lockout likely. Adding the extended season now is just one more roadblock to a new CBA. Maybe the owners see this as a bargaining chip in that it is a way to increase the total salary pool while at the same time lowering the percentage of the players “take”. If I’m D. Smith I’m talking to every media outlet who will listen about every study out there on the long term effects of head trauma, and how the greedy owners just want another couple of bucks while not caring about the players who risk their health on the field. I would turn it into a PR nightmare for the owners and use it against them if negotiations get ugly…and let’s face it, the will. I just don’t see the wisdom in doing this now with all the other issues that need to be addressed. Of course, the owners will still make a nice little profit even if there is a lockout so maybe they don’t care if there is one (again, something else I would use to cast the owners in a bad light if I’m the union rep).

As for the extra games….we already have teams just playing out the string the last few weeks of the season with no shot at the post season. Not to mention those teams at the top of the standings who play back ups the last week or two. Lengthening the season will only make that worse and I think the risk of diluting the overall product is an issue. Part of the allure of the NFL is that every games feels so important. At the end of the season most fans are left wanting more, but if you give it to them they may get spoiled and lose some of the passion for the game on a week to week basis. I know it’s only two games, but if your team starts off the year 3-7 everyone but the die-hard fans is going to just quit paying attention. The die hard fans are going to be there no matter what, but the reason that the NFL is the king of the sports mountain right now is their ability to keep the casual fan involved.

 Adding another game or two might give you another mulligan early in the season, but the weaker teams are going to be all but eliminated with five or six weeks(maybe more) of the season left. None of that even takes into account the physical toll extra games add both in the short and long term. As much as the idea of more football excites me in general I just can’t convince myself that this is a good idea.

You guys are actually saying NO to 2 more real actual football games that actually really count?

You’re nuts

“Revise the injured reserve rules to allow players to return to the active roster” in the 18 game context or outside of it.

Indeed, if you do this, you could even do away with the difference between the active game-day roster and the normal roster. It has never made a whole bunch of sense to have 45/6 active players, with 53 on the roster. The only reasonable explanation has been that you can stash some players with minor injuries on the 8 player “non-actives” without having them out for the year. By doing this, you ensure each team has the same number of players eligible to participate in any given game. But if you have temporary injured reserve, this rationale evaporates, and I really don’t understand why you would have the roster vs. active distinction.