The opinion you're about to read is so bizarre, so out of character, that I'm having to stop ... every ... few ... words ... to look back at the name of the author, and at his picture. Yup, that's my name. And, regrettably, that is my face.
But these can't be my words, because these are never my words. Moderation? Restraint? Those are the words that this column will be built upon? That can't be me. That's not me.
|
|
| Here's a great idea: Let's increase the odds that players will be injured. (Getty Images) |
Moderation sucks. Moderation is for pansies afraid to live their life, walking corpses who want someone else, with someone else's rules and limitations, to live their life for them.
Restraint is for losers.
So why am I calling for the NFL to show some moderation, exercise some restraint, and not expand its regular season from 16 games to 17 or even 18?
Maybe I'm a loser.
But definitely I don't like the idea of walking corpses polluting my NFL season, and that's what some teams would be reduced to if the league makes them play two more regular-season games. And the league is definitely considering it. Commissioner Roger Goodell has been talking for months about expanding the regular season, and Patriots owner Robert Kraft told the Boston Globe this week, "I think you'll see us going to 17 or 18 regular-season games in the future."
Fabulous. Meet the new NFL math: subtraction by attrition. Bodily attrition already is one of the biggest keys to an NFL season. It's the reason so much media attention is paid to a team's backup quarterback or tailback, and to its third receiver and nickel cornerback. Those guys matter, because this sport is brutal. Players get hurt. Bodies are sacrificed. The games go on.
But isn't 16 games enough? Some would say it's too much. Players are going to get hurt no matter how long the season lasts, I get that -- but why increase the odds, by increasing the schedule, by 12 percent? Last season's AFC Championship Game featured the beaten-down San Diego Chargers, with quarterback Philip Rivers playing on a torn ACL and tailback LaDainian Tomlinson barely playing on an injured knee and tight end Antonio Gates playing ineffectively on a dislocated toe. You want to see that again? Me neither.
|
|
| HilbyPirates: Geez, can you write something not about you. When you get into the topic, you are worried about guys getting injured that are making millions. If we want to see more real games and less pre-season games, then we will get what we want, despite what you say. This may sound absurd to you, but WE, as in fans, and consumers, pay these salaries, including yours. WE buy the products, WE watch the games, WE buy the tickets. Its not about you, its about what WE want. Why do you try to be on the wrong side of every issue? |
|
|
| Gregg Doyel: I don't try to do it. Just lucky I guess. And since you're paying my salary ... can I get a raise? |
| Click here for more Community reaction |
More isn't always better. Sometimes, more is just ... more. But NFL owners are so desperate to make more money, they're willing to do whatever it takes to increase the value of their television contracts. How do they do that? By expanding inventory.
There is serious consideration being given to adding a single game, meaning everyone would play 17. That would mean nine home games for half the league, eight for the other half. Unless it means eight homes games and one neutral-field game for everybody. Either option would be as stupid as letting a meaningless All-Star Game dictate something as critical as home-field advantage in the playoffs. When did Roger Goodell become Bud Selig, anyway?
Since a 17th game would be a logistical catastrophe, the only logical expansion to the regular season -- assuming there's any logical expansion to the regular season -- would be growing to 18 games.
But again, more isn't always better. Give a man a cheeseburger, and you're making him full. Give him two, and you're making him fat. The same goes for the NFL. More games wouldn't be more fun. More games would be more ... games. More injuries. And more money out of your pocket.
Believe that.
Some of you might not believe it. If you're a season-ticket holder, maybe you're thinking that an 18-game schedule would be a gift from heaven. What the hell, right? It would give you a ninth home game for your money -- money you're spending anyway, since the NFL has been extorting its suckers loyal fans into buying tickets to preseason games along with the regular-season schedule. So for you, an 18-game schedule makes sense. One less preseason game, one more regular-season game ... how can you lose?
This is how:
Owners would get together and decide to extort you for more money, because let's face it: Whatever you were willing to pay for eight regular-season games, you'll be willing to pay that -- and more -- for nine.
And if I'm thinking like that, and the owners are thinking like that, you better believe the players are thinking like that. Whatever they're making for 16 games, they'll want that, and more, for 17 or 18. So the salaries will go up. If they don't, a strike would happen. Yes -- this would be that big a deal to the players union. You can't tell today's athletes, "Guess what? You're going to work more and get paid the same!" You just can't. Even if "work" is playing football, and even if the salaries are already obscene. They'll want more money, and the union will get them more money.
Which means the owners, after growing the season to 18 games to increase revenues, would need to increase them some more. Maybe they could add to their media budget by getting a new TV deal. Of course to do that, they'd need to expand their inventory.
Twenty games, anyone? But then the players would want more money ...
That's a vicious cycle, with only one way to stop it:
Don't start it.
