Dear National Football League… if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Over the past few weeks, talks of adding additional regular season games have been all the buzz around NFL headquarters and this past week’s owners’ meeting in Dana Point.
Commissioner Roger Goodell has been adamant in his support for raising the amount of regular season games from 16 to 18.
Dear Roger Goodell… if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
The NFL is the country’s most successful and most popular professional sports entity, raking in billions from advertising and continuing to supply a product that keeps fans dishing out their money for tickets, television packages, and merchandise.
Of course the thought process is… two more games equals more money. But making the switch based on this thinking would be greedy and irresponsible.
Companies pay millions to advertise during NFL games and at stadiums. While the economy has been struggling and advertising money has been low, football seems to have shown immunity. The NFL did exceptionally well this season and figures to do fine next year as well.
But would adding two extra games really be fair to the advertisers? Would there be enough advertising money to support two extra games? All signs in today’s economy lead to no. Plus, auto manufacturers have traditionally been the biggest advertisers for the NFL and there’s no telling when they will be back on their feet and ready to support even a 6-game season.
And if the advertisers struggle, then its obvious the networks won’t be too quick to jump at the idea of more games. CBS, NBC, and Fox, whose contracts cover the next three seasons, would a larger schedule if they believed it would increase ad dollars. But again thinking in terms of the recession, common sense says they won’t.
Plus, adding games to the schedule means more meaningless mid-season games between inept teams. Bad games = nobody cares = nobody watches = BAD ratings.
It doesn’t seem to care that anybody is worried about how the players thoughts regarding the expansion. And it doesn’t seem to be likely that the NFLPA (Player’s Association) will be jumping for joy at the thought. Two more grueling, bone breaking, body bruising, put your life on the line games.
The health of NFL players, both current and retired, is a big issue and the NFL is trying to take new steps to protect its most important asset. Adding more games is sure to increase the wear and tear on players’ bodies and injuries are sure to go up. This would be no way to protect players.
And what about the record books? Does anyone remember when the football season used to be only 14 games? As we add games to the schedule, players have greater chances to boost their numbers and will eventual dwarf the earnings and achievements of those great players who dominated when the seasons were shorter.
Just imagine how angry retired players will be when they hear about how the accomplishments of today’s athletes are more impressive because they were able to compete at such a high level throughout a much longer season.
And as easy as it would be to break records, it would be almost impossible to go undefeated. The 1972 Miami Dolphins remain the only team to achieve a perfect season and they went 17-0, including the playoffs and the Super Bowl. Now, teams would be playing more regular season games than the ’72 Dolphins did during that entire season.
The NFL puts a great product on the field week in and week out. More games equals more chances to mess it up.
It’s not broken, so pretty please, don’t fix it.
Deford Says Thanks For A Good Game, Drops Mic
6 years ago
You make a number of good points in this post. I completely agree with you that the NFL is fine the way it is. Part of me thinks that this move to add more games to a season is another attempt by the fat-cats in charge to increase profits. While you can't blame them for wanting some extra money, it has to be taken into account that every change you make to the NFL cause a fundamental change to the sport in general. Football is too important go screwing around with it every year or two.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the ramifications (i.e. network deficits, ad losses, etc.) are high when increasing the number of games, but if viewers love this game so much and it is the most affluent sports industry in the country, two games won't make or break the banks. So GM can't advertise as much, and we have one or two more Bud light commercials. Maybe advertisers can become more cost-effective and create economical and interesting commercials, ticket prices can become more reasonable during the season, and football can then reach an even wider audience. Let's look at the glass half full, shall we?
ReplyDeleteWB... of course its good to look at the glass half full but it's not as easy as "maybe have one or two more Bud Light commercials." First, one more home game per season will not reduce ticket prices. Second, you completely ignore the issue of player health throughout an entire season. Sure fans love football but as a fan myself, two more games in a season will only lessen the important of regular season games. There is no desperate need to make this change so things should stay as is without risking failure...
ReplyDeleteIf they are in peak fitness making millions of dollars a year, one game should not break their incredibly fit bodies. They should be happy about more press and another chance to rack up their records. 16 games versus 17 makes football less significant? Well you hold a lot to your football watching then Schwartz. The change is not a result of "desperation" but rather a better opportunity to increase the popularity of the sport.
ReplyDeleteYes of course they are tremendous athletes who are in the shape to play extra games but the point is injuries... No matter how fit their bodies are they are still prone to injuries and in football those can be career ending and life threatening. These players risk their bodies and well-being every time they get out on the field and there is no reason they should have to subject themselves to two more chances to ruin everything.
ReplyDelete