The National Football League would like to extend the regular season two extra games per team from 16 to 18. Their intentions are clear and - from a business perspective - sound: the more games played, the more money they make. The players are resolutely against this change for personal health and safety concerns. Football is a brutally violent game and playing more inevitably leads to an increased injury burden. Some in the media and around the league believe this will be a critical impasse in the upcoming collective bargaining agreement which may lead to a lock-out. In fact, there are some who believe this issue is so divisive that one side will have to completely cave or football as we know it is over.
Luckily, there is a relatively simple solution to this problem: a 19-week regular season without adding a single game, increasing TV revenue at a level similar to the new plan proposed by the league. The key fact to remember is that the league is has not completely saturated the television market. In the vast majority of US households, there typically 5 NFL games on TV per week: on Sunday there are two in the morning and one in the afternoon (or vice versa) and one in the evening, with one Monday night game. Occasional Thursday games and double-decker Monday nights are a nifty trick by the league to squeeze in more games over the last decade, to the tune of about 6-10 games per year (if you buy the special NFL network channel, of course). So unless you pay for the satellite package, your house is getting between 5 and 7 “watchable” games (not taking into account the unwatchable games played in the NFC West last season).
Simply put, there are a lot of good games most fans don’t get to watch, which is not good business. The 18-game plan does not address this issue of inefficiency. However, if they stretch the season out by two weeks, the total number of “watchable” games will increase by the exact same number as if they added two games to each team’s schedule. Let’s do a little math:
Now:
Number of games: 256 = 32 teams * 16 games / 2 teams per game
Number of ‘watchable’ games: 96 = 34 morning + 17 afternoon + 17 night + 20 Monday + 8 Thursday
Proposed by league:
Number of games = 288 (+32)
Number of ‘watchable’ games = 108 (+12)
Proposed here:
Number of games = 256 (same as today’s NFL)
Number of ‘watchable’ games = 108 (+12, same as the league-proposed plan)
What would the players think?
I’ll start with the easy one. The way you stretch the season out is by adding two bye weeks for each team. Bye weeks are a godsend for players and coaches because they let guys rest up, get healthy, and game-plan for the next week. This is particularly crucial for players suffering from concussions. This is clearly a player-friendly solution, but I am going to hammer home this point: fewer injured players make for a better football product on the field.
What would the fans think?
The first thing fans will like (and I say this as a Bears fan living in Los Angeles) is they get a better chance to see out of market games and marquee match-ups. Stuck in Cardinal country? Well yes the Cards games will still be on (as long as they aren’t blacked out...) but you get to see more of the Patriots, Packers, Cowboys, Bears, Colts, and other teams because there are at least a dozen extra games to watch. Plus there are some potentially interesting/dastardly new angles to Fantasy Football with all the extra bye weeks.
The fly in the ointment is that fans will now have three dreaded bye weeks where their favorite team doesn’t play. But this is an issue the league can deal with through marketing. Side note, if you are a Chargers fan, those bye weeks mean no black-outs! Overall I think fans will come out winners here because the product will be better.
What would the league/owners think?
This is the tough part. Obviously there is no additional revenue in this plan generated at the stadiums. No extra ticket/concession/fan-gear sales whatsoever. The coveted luxury boxes will not be open for an extra game. These are a valid concerns and could be the main reason a plan like this may never get off the ground.
There are a couple big reasons why the owners should like this plan. First off, at least a 10% jump in TV revenue because of the extra “watchable” games. That’s a huuuuge amount of money they can just pocket. Plus if they play their cards right by televising “public teams” more, they could do even better. Also, the HDTV era has serious potential to reduce fan interest in actually going to games. Some historically strong fan bases have recently opted to just stay home. Other franchises are floundering. While adding one more home game has potential to dilute the product, the additional bye weeks (and thus better player health) will get more of the league’s premier talent on the field and improve the product. Lastly, this solution could be a strong bargaining concession on the owner’s side that could win them some ground on other key issues such as rookie pay scales and front-loaded guaranteed contracts.
Final Thoughts
No one wants an NFL lock-out. It’s bad for owners, bad for fans, and bad for players. I believe most fans will side with the players as concussions and other serious injuries have become more commonplace and more of a focus in today’s game. At the same time, there is clearly demand for more football on TV. As a compromise between the league’s desire for more games and the player’s desire to not be subject to an increased load of pain, I am suggesting a 19 week NFL regular season wherein each team has three bye-weeks. And I will stress this point one more time: more bye weeks means a better product on the field, guaranteed.
