18 game schedule? Spring exhibitions?

**Mista T** · 10-15-2008, 03:03 PM

Check out:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ml?eref=sircrc

NFL owners discussed playing spring preseason games as part of a possible expansion of the regular-season schedule.

.... Goodell said that prevailing feeling was that if the schedule is expanded, it should go to 18 games, not 17.

Should the expanded regular season get approved, one or two preseason games would be eliminated.

I would love to see 9 home games and just one mandatory exhibition. And Spring exhibition games or scrimmages (hopefully not full priced & mandatory) - icing on the cake, breaking that long period between the Super Bowl and training camp.

Not discussed was the international game in a 17-game schedule -- perhaps that has fallen off the table?

**OwingsMillsAlex** · 10-15-2008, 03:05 PM

As long as I don't have to pay full price for preseason tickets I'm good with expanding the regular season. I basically give away close to $400 worth of tickets and parking for the games as no one wants to pay top dollar for preseason.

**Ravenswarrior19** · 10-15-2008, 03:32 PM

The way our team has been crushed by injuries lately, I don't think 18 games is very realistic. The sport is already a game of "injury roulette". Expanding the schedule just makes it more likely that the eventual SB Champ will simply be the team that lucked out and stayed healthy.

If they want players to smash heads for 18 weeks of real football, they might as well just come out and endorse steriods and HGH. I can't see any other way to keep guys on the field that long.

**Bez513** · 10-15-2008, 04:02 PM

Expand the schedule but throw in another bye week for each team maybe? I'm all for elimination preseason...it is a crime to charge full price for tickets. I think PSL owners should have a choice to attend preseason games and if they don't then the Ravens could sell the tickets if they wanted to.

**Jeremiah W** · 10-15-2008, 04:30 PM

Hopefully expanded schedule will also lead to expanded rosters. There is not enough players active on game day to begin with, but when injuries occur there are really big holes. It does not make any sense to put so many viable prospects out of work after putting them through camp when they can be learning the game and the playbook so they make better fill ins when the time comes.

It would be great to see the young guys get preseason type snaps in the spring and make the real preseason a lot shorter and a little more veteran prep instead of youth development.

I could use an extra 2 months of football. Add in a couple bye weeks so the entire leauge gets relativly even breaks throughout a longer grind of a season.

**camdenyard** · 10-15-2008, 09:40 PM

Hopefully expanded schedule will also lead to expanded rosters. There is not enough players active on game day to begin with, but when injuries occur there are really big holes. It does not make any sense to put so many viable prospects out of work after putting them through camp when they can be learning the game and the playbook so they make better fill ins when the time comes.

I am absolutely for an expanded schedule from 16 to 18 games. Today, it feels like when we lose a game it's like taking a 2x4 across the head. Too much rides on each game. And I hate preseasson games with a passion. I'm throwing money away because the product quality sucks.

Expanding the rosters is a good idea on the surface, but in essence there is already an expanded roster - it's the practice squad. Moves are made on the PS all the time. The downside is that those guys aren't really that good in the first place, and the net effect would be watering down the league. All in all, I am for adding 2-3 players to the roster.

It would be great to see the young guys get preseason type snaps in the spring and make the real preseason a lot shorter and a little more veteran prep instead of youth development.

I have two problems with this. First, the one benefit of preseason games is to prepare players for games that matter - getting timing down, culling the roster of players that just aren't cutting it, etc. What good does it serve to do this in May or whenever, then shut it down for 2 months, and then go into training camp? It puts the cart before the horse.

Secondly, this does a disservice to many coming into the league out of college. Under the current rule, I believe, a player cannot participate in a major way until their class graduates. The NFL would be asking these players to play full contact games before they really understand the NFL or their team's systems, and then there is the issue of how would contract negotiation be accelerated, etc.

I could use an extra 2 months of football. Add in a couple bye weeks so the entire leauge gets relativly even breaks throughout a longer grind of a season

I think the NFL season is long enough. There really isn't much of an offseason in the NFL anyway...the Pro Bowl ends the season in February. Free agency follows that, then the draft, OTAs, etc. Preseason in spring would be even more phony than August games. No thanks.

**ravenfever_com** · 10-16-2008, 03:22 PM

No they will not charge less for the preseason games or those new spring games they will just charge MORE for the other games .... never think for once it will not cost us more ...

I agree the expanded season will call for more men on the roster. I do not like the idea of spring football games however I more team on team play for training camp would be awesome. I think we should play the Eagles and Skins every year as a touch game as we use to play our O vs D.

Just my thoughts and nothing more ...