Here's some interesting news...

Yahoo Sports Wrote:AP-KN Poll: 18 NFL games fails to excite fans
By HOWARD FENDRICH
AP Pro Football Writer
15 hours, 11 minutes ago

DALLAS (AP) — Even though Americans like watching football far more than any other sport, they don’t necessarily want a longer NFL season.

An Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released Thursday shows only lukewarm backing at best for a switch from 16 to 18 regular-season games, one of the NFL’s key—and easiest-to-understand—proposals in its labor negotiations with the players’ union.

Of everyone surveyed, 27 percent strongly favor or somewhat favor adding two regular-season games and dropping two preseason games. When the group is narrowed to those identifying themselves as NFL fans, support for the change rises to a total of 45 percent—yet only 18 percent who strongly favor it.

And that’s despite data that shows football clearly is king: 41 percent of everyone surveyed called it their favorite sport to watch, more than tripling the 13 percent who chose baseball. Basketball was nearly as popular as baseball, with 12 percent.

The NFL says its data shows fans like the idea of expanding the regular season. But Steven Keller, a 43-year-old from Crystal Lake, Ill., was among the 9 percent of football fans in the AP-Knowledge Networks survey who strongly oppose an 18-game schedule.

“There’s plenty enough football as it is,” Keller said. “Eighteen games is too many for the players. … Those guys get beat up.”

Two players for the Pittsburgh Steelers—who face the Green Bay Packers in the Super Bowl on Sunday—were vocal this week in their opposition to changing the current schedule format.

“No player wants to play 18 games,” receiver Hines Ward said. “You’re not thinking about the players’ safety if you’re trying to add two more games.”

Linebacker James Harrison echoed that sentiment, saying: “You talk about adding two games, it’s going to be a far cry to get a guy through a whole season healthy.”

Among football fans, nearly four in 10 think the game has gotten more dangerous over the past five years.

Yet 31 percent of fans, and more than half of all the people polled, said they have heard nothing at all about the labor dispute between NFL owners and players, whose collective bargaining agreement expires in early March. There will be a formal bargaining session in the Dallas area on Saturday.

If a new deal can’t be reached in time, owners could lock out the players, and it’s possible next season could be affected.

“I am afraid,” Steelers safety Ryan Clark said, “that games will be missed.”

About three-quarters of those surveyed don’t sympathize with either the NFL or players in the labor dispute. But those who were willing to choose sides were twice as likely to back the union over the owners.

“A work stoppage is not going to help anyone,” said Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy, who was a vice president of the union in the 1980s while playing for the Washington Redskins. “I also realize when you get into a work stoppage situation, I think the fans don’t like either side. It’s kind of a pox on both sides. They just want to see football.”

In other poll findings released Thursday:

— 72 percent of all those surveyed—and 64 percent of NFL fans—think players’ salaries are too high;

— 59 percent of fans think the NFL is doing the right amount to prevent concussions;

— 53 percent of men who were surveyed, and 34 percent of women, consider themselves NFL fans;

— about a third of NFL fans say their interest in pro football has increased over the last five years.

The AP-Knowledge Networks Poll on football was conducted Jan. 21-26. It involved online interviews with 1,125 adults, including 482 who consider themselves fans of professional football. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points for all adults, 5.5 percentage points for football fans.

Respondents to the survey were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods. People selected who didn’t otherwise have access to the Internet were provided with the ability to access it at no cost to them.

AP Deputy Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

I'm against it. Sixteen seems perfect to me.

One thing I gathered from the article is that college football fans are far more likely to be against more regular season NFL games than NFL fans. But even the majority of NFL fans are against it...

I don't see no big deal about adding 2 games to the season, and getting rid of 2 games during the preseason. What needs to take place IMO is the players association and the owners need to sit down with Goodell and lay it all out. Yes with 2 additional games there will be more injuries. The solution to this, but maybe not the answer to injuries is increase the the teams player roster from 53 to 65. Anyone determined to have sustained a head injury concussion or not should be required by the league to sit one game as precautionary reason before being able to play again. Add better long term health insurance for the players as well as setting up better retirement deals for veterans who are suffering from injuries during their playing days. These are all things that can be looked at to help improve the negotiation, but is 18 regular season game to many I don't think so, but 4 preseason games are for college football does not have a preseason and they start the season off just fine. So why can't the NFL drop the preseason, and convert those games into the regular season???

The NFL owners aren't going to increase the number of players they have to pay, unless the salaries come down, and players aren't going to play more games for less money. So you can forget that idea, dude...

18 game regular season schedule is just a smoke screen to help secure a rookie salary cap with the NFL Player's union.

This way, it will look like the NFL is giving up something (i.e. their stated want/need for 18 game regular season) in order to get what they REALLY want (hard rookie salary cap).

Don't pay attention to what Roger Goodell and the NFL Owners are doing with their right hand (Hey...look over here! We want 18 games!), pay attention to what their left hand is doing behind their back (i.e. rookie salary cap), which is what they really want...but they have to pretend to give up something (false notion of a 18 game season) to get it.

I see no problem with a rookie salary cap. These guys have proven nothing in the NFL, and are being paid based on speculation alone. Many NFL owners have been burned by high draft choices that turned out to be busts, and they want PROVEN commodities...

(02-03-2011 09:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  One thing I gathered from the article is that college football fans are far more likely to be against more regular season NFL games than NFL fans. But even the majority of NFL fans are against it...

I've seen this article in a few places and I have a BIG problem with how this report has been editorialized by the writer in a slanted manner. The way it was written along with the headline gives the impression of what you just said: that the majority of NFL fans are against it. However, when you look at the article closely, you see that the actual stats are that 45% favor the 18-game schedule and only 9% strongly disagree with it. Thus, the real survey results show that a large plurality of football fans favor it, a bunch of people don't care one way or the other, and a tiny minority were against it. For whatever reason, the way this article was written in a way that made it seem like lots of people are against the expanded regular season, which is CLEARLY not the case from those survey results quoted. I have rarely seen an article (not an opinion column or blog) that was so blatantly spun in one direction (and I'm not even the biggest fan of an 18-game regular season) where it's obvious if you pay attention to the numbers quoted. It's as if though the NFLPA had written this.

FWIW, the NFL teams are going to need 20 total games (10 home dates each) in some form or fashion. Right now, there are 16 regular season games and 4 preseason games. I personally would rather have 16 regular season games and 2 preseason games, but that's like telling an SEC school to give up a home game to a Sun Belt program - there's NFW that the NFL owners are giving up a home date. So, if it's a choice between 16 regular/4 preseason versus 18 regular/2 preseason, I'll take the latter every single time. Preseason football is unbearable and too long - I'm WAY more concerned about needless injuries in meaningless games compared to a couple of extra real games.

(02-04-2011 09:22 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  18 game regular season schedule is just a smoke screen to help secure a rookie salary cap with the NFL Player's union.

This way, it will look like the NFL is giving up something (i.e. their stated want/need for 18 game regular season) in order to get what they REALLY want (hard rookie salary cap).

Don't pay attention to what Roger Goodell and the NFL Owners are doing with their right hand (Hey...look over here! We want 18 games!), pay attention to what their left hand is doing behind their back (i.e. rookie salary cap), which is what they really want...but they have to pretend to give up something (false notion of a 18 game season) to get it.

Even beyond the rookie salary cap is simply how much of the players' revenue share will go back to the owners. That issue will drive everything else. If the players agree to give up revenue, then the NFL isn't going to push as hard for the rookie salary scale or 18-game regular season. Conversely, if the NFL gets a rookies salary scale or 18-game regular season, then the players will want to maintain more revenue.

My understanding is that the 18-game regular season is probably the LEAST controversial issue in this negotiation. The players may not like it in principle and squawk about it in the media, but the union leadership knows that despite the injury risks, it's the one item on the table that can make BOTH the players and owners more money (increased ticket revenue, significantly more TV revenue, etc.). Considering how much ESPN kicked up its rights fees for Monday Night Football, virtually everyone in the know believes the 18-game regular season is coming. So, the issue isn't about whether an 18-game regular comes to fruition (because it almost certainly will), but rather how the revenue from that longer regular season gets allocated.

(02-04-2011 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-03-2011 09:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  One thing I gathered from the article is that college football fans are far more likely to be against more regular season NFL games than NFL fans. But even the majority of NFL fans are against it...

I've seen this article in a few places and I have a BIG problem with how this report has been editorialized by the writer in a slanted manner. The way it was written along with the headline gives the impression of what you just said: that the majority of NFL fans are against it. However, when you look at the article closely, you see that the actual stats are that 45% favor the 18-game schedule and only 9% strongly disagree with it. Thus, the real survey results show that a large plurality of football fans favor it, a bunch of people don't care one way or the other, and a tiny minority were against it. For whatever reason, the way this article was written in a way that made it seem like lots of people are against the expanded regular season, which is CLEARLY not the case from those survey results quoted. I have rarely seen an article (not an opinion column or blog) that was so blatantly spun in one direction (and I'm not even the biggest fan of an 18-game regular season) where it's obvious if you pay attention to the numbers quoted. It's as if though the NFLPA had written this.

Frank, unless I'm mistaken, 45% being in favor of the move to 18 games is a minority. This includes the percentage that is STRONGLY in favor of expanding the regular season. The 9% that STRONGLY disagreed was only ONE aspect of those against. But subtracting 45% from 100% tells us that 55% are against it. So the statement that the majority of NFL fans being against expanding the season is correct...

You were just guilty of doing the same thing you accused the writer of doing - slanting the information. Although I think in your case it was more misinterpreting what was written. The way the survey broke it down was this...

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

However when totaling the information, the strongly agree and agree add up to those that agree, and the remaining percentages are those that disagree, whether strongly or mildly disagreeing...

As they say, there are lies, d@mn lies, and statistics...

(02-04-2011 11:17 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-04-2011 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-03-2011 09:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  One thing I gathered from the article is that college football fans are far more likely to be against more regular season NFL games than NFL fans. But even the majority of NFL fans are against it...

I've seen this article in a few places and I have a BIG problem with how this report has been editorialized by the writer in a slanted manner. The way it was written along with the headline gives the impression of what you just said: that the majority of NFL fans are against it. However, when you look at the article closely, you see that the actual stats are that 45% favor the 18-game schedule and only 9% strongly disagree with it. Thus, the real survey results show that a large plurality of football fans favor it, a bunch of people don't care one way or the other, and a tiny minority were against it. For whatever reason, the way this article was written in a way that made it seem like lots of people are against the expanded regular season, which is CLEARLY not the case from those survey results quoted. I have rarely seen an article (not an opinion column or blog) that was so blatantly spun in one direction (and I'm not even the biggest fan of an 18-game regular season) where it's obvious if you pay attention to the numbers quoted. It's as if though the NFLPA had written this.

Frank, unless I'm mistaken, 45% being in favor of the move to 18 games is a minority. This includes the percentage that is STRONGLY in favor of expanding the regular season. The 9% that STRONGLY disagreed was only ONE aspect of those against. But subtracting 45% from 100% tells us that 55% are against it. So the statement that the majority of NFL fans being against expanding the season is correct...

You were just guilty of doing the same thing you accused the writer of doing - slanting the information. Although I think in your case it was more misinterpreting what was written. The way the survey broke it down was this...

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

However when totaling the information, the strongly agree and agree add up to those that agree, and the remaining percentages are those that disagree, whether strongly or mildly disagreeing...

As they say, there are lies, d@mn lies, and statistics...

I am one of those in favor of an 18 game regular season schedule and 2 game pre-season schedule. Currently the 16 game regular season and 4 game pre-season makes the preseason too long. The pre-season games are meaningless and none of the teams take things too seriously. There is a huge difference in the quality of the game between regular season games and pre-season games. Sure there will have to be adjustments to rosters to account for this but that should not stop having 18 game regular seasons and 2 pre-season games.

(02-04-2011 11:17 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  As they say, there are lies, d@mn lies, and statistics...

That is true!

I was able to find the full results, which do support my contention, though:

http://surveys.ap.org/data%5CKnowledgeNe...012811.pdf

A plurality of NFL fans (45%) either support or strongly support an 18-game regular season.

34% of NFL fans don't care one way or another.

21% of NFL fans either oppose or strongly oppose the 18-game regular season.

You have to take into account the people that "don't care" - those aren't people can really be accounted for in either category. Regardless, of the people that actually have an opinion on the issue, the article could have also easily said that over twice as many people supported the longer regular season as didn't support it (which would have technically been true and changed the tenor of the article completely). The only reason why this bothered me so much is that this is AP copy that's being carried on pretty much every news and sports site, so the misleading headline is getting airplay everywhere, yet the survey results themselves present a much more nuanced and different picture.

That survey also showed that 57% of those surveyed were NOT NFL fans. I find that statistic very interesting...

(02-04-2011 01:22 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I don't see no big deal about adding 2 games to the season, and getting rid of 2 games during the preseason. What needs to take place IMO is the players association and the owners need to sit down with Goodell and lay it all out. Yes with 2 additional games there will be more injuries. The solution to this, but maybe not the answer to injuries is increase the the teams player roster from 53 to 65. Anyone determined to have sustained a head injury concussion or not should be required by the league to sit one game as precautionary reason before being able to play again. Add better long term health insurance for the players as well as setting up better retirement deals for veterans who are suffering from injuries during their playing days. These are all things that can be looked at to help improve the negotiation, but is 18 regular season game to many I don't think so, but 4 preseason games are for college football does not have a preseason and they start the season off just fine. So why can't the NFL drop the preseason, and convert those games into the regular season???

The problem is there will be more injuries. 16 is enough. Hell 14 would be ok.

They should stop playing 4-5 preseason games and instead play 2 at most. Then they can lengthen the regular season schedule by a couple of games.

But then, that's less $$$ coming in, so they won't do that.

I think the season is too long as it is...go to 14 games

(02-04-2011 03:08 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  They should stop playing 4-5 preseason games and instead play 2 at most. Then they can lengthen the regular season schedule by a couple of games.

But then, that's less $$$ coming in, so they won't do that.

That's actually what the owners are proposing: adding 2 regular season games and eliminating 2 preseason games.

The players would want an increase in their salary for the additional games played, and to compensate for the extra wear and tear on their bodies. But the owners want more games with less pay. It'll NEVER happen as things stand now. If the NFL tries to do this, I've got a feeling that at least one NFL season would be canceled, because there's no way the players will submit to it...

(02-04-2011 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right now, there are 16 regular season games and 4 preseason games. I personally would rather have 16 regular season games and 2 preseason games

I would approve of that. I could even approve of 15/3 -- with the two conferences alternating each year the 9th home game occurring in the exhibition schedule or the regular-season.

Back in the mid-70s, the World Football League tried a 20-game schedule with no exhibition games. And in the 80s, the USFL played an 18/2 format. Neither caught on with the public.

Quote:So, if it's a choice between 16 regular/4 preseason versus 18 regular/2 preseason, I'll take the latter every single time. Preseason football is unbearable and too long - I'm WAY more concerned about needless injuries in meaningless games compared to a couple of extra real games.

+1

aren't NFL players actually underpaid vs their cohorts in other sports?