Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:10 am EDT
By MJD
Yahoo Sports
One of the ideas floating around at yesterday's "Dammit, We Need More Money, Because Some Team Owners Can't Quite Afford To Buy Houses On The Moon" Convention was the possibility of a 17th regular season game, which would probably come at the expense of the fourth preseason game.
There are complicating issues. It would create an unbalanced schedule, with some teams playing nine home games in a year, while other teams get only eight (this advantage would alternate yearly between the AFC and NFC). That is slightly messy, and not totally fair from a competitive standpoint. But there's also the possibility that everyone would play their 17th game somewhere outside the United States, and I think we can all agree that Cambodia needs to be exposed to the Detroit Lions.
There's also the the fact that another week of meaningful football means another week of injuries, and the season is already a considerable grind. Then, of course, there's the issue of the players wanting to be paid for this extra game versus the owners wanting all the extra revenue it would generate. Blah blah blah.
But here's what it would mean for me: One more week where it's perfectly acceptable to spend all day Sunday in a dark sports bar watching football until my eyes bleed. It's one more Sunday to ignore my family, to eat and drink, to ogle sports bar waitresses, and to shout irrationally at televisions with no one ever questioning why.
I am for this. Similarly, I would also be for any arrangement that somehow showers me with cash, or leads to several of the contestants for Miss Brazil throwing their nude selves at me.
But that's just me. I can't say for sure that it's a good idea from the NFL's perspective (though they do seem to have an affinity for anything that makes them more money), but if my opinion sways you at all, NFL owners, I'd be fine with penciling it in to my schedule.
A 17th regular season game? Where do I sign?
A 17th regular season game? Where do I sign?
Linear Mode
