- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
My preference would be two. There are far too many injuries as it is. Either that or increase the amount of players that can be suited up for each game.
********************************************************************************
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-momentum-for-shortening-preseason-by-a-game/
Packers president sees momentum for shortening preseason by a game
Posted by Darin Gantt on February 26, 2016
Green Bay is one of the “fortunate” teams to get to play five preseason games this year, but Packers president Mark Murphy said there’s more talk about shortening the exhibition slate to three.
Via Rob Demovsky of ESPN.com, Murphy said that the league’s competition committee has talked about reducing the preseason by a game, and Packers coach Mike McCarthy is all in favor of that.
“That would probably be a little more practical, especially with all the emphasis on player safety,” McCarthy said. “Hell, they’ve cut back everything else. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go to three games. Three games with a two-week bye week, with two weeks before the opener. That’s just my opinion. Nobody’s told me that. I’d be for it. I think it makes a lot of sense. Then you could be a little more aggressive in that third game. Just take the fourth one out.”
Since fourth preseason games rarely feature starters, or at least stars, few would miss the “game” if it went away. And Murphy said McCarthy’s suggestion has some traction.
“I think there would be support for three,” Murphy said. “I think Mike’s [idea], that’s what we’ve talked about. Rather than playing that fourth game on a Thursday, . . . don’t play a fourth game and then you’d have an extra week. We’ve looked at different models, but I think that’s the one that makes the most sense.
“You’re giving up some revenue, but it’s one of the worst things we do. The move we made on variable [ticket] pricing helps a little bit in how preseason is viewed, but especially that fourth game is kind of a throwaway.”
Of course, shifting the cost to regular season games — as the Packers did last week — will make up for that revenue hit. But getting rid of a meaningless game sounds like the kind of thing coaches and players and consumers would support anyway.
---------------
I would love the pre season cut down to three games, maybe even two. Teams know what their veterans can do already. No need to take chances. With the way things are now half the league is mediocre at best. Why risk losing a starter or high priced player in pre season.
---------------
Removing the game would basically be a 5% drop in ticket revenue for non-playoff teams. I don’t think many owners will get behind it unless there is a regular season game added.
----------------
I understand that most people aren’t particularly interested in the preseason, but it serves one very important purpose that most people overlook.
Basically, most of the guys on the field are playing for their jobs. Yes, everyone knows what most of the starters can do already so their presence isn’t really necessary beyond 1 qtr. to “warm up” for the season, but a lot of the other guys aren’t even guaranteed a roster spot. Those guys deserve all the opportunities they can get to prove themselves and get some of their game on film so they can try to secure their roster spot, or at least spark interest with other teams.
Also, preseason is very important for rookies to get a taste of the NFL even if they aren’t ready to start yet. That experience is very valuable for 2nd/3rd string players. Preseason is nice for hardcore fans too because they can get a feel of how much depth their team has. Lets face it, most starters go down at some point or another during the season so it’s nice to know who will be stepping up in their absence.
For those reasons, I do not think the preseason could be shortened. It’s a huge job interview opportunity for lower tier players.
********************************************************************************
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-momentum-for-shortening-preseason-by-a-game/
Packers president sees momentum for shortening preseason by a game
Posted by Darin Gantt on February 26, 2016
Green Bay is one of the “fortunate” teams to get to play five preseason games this year, but Packers president Mark Murphy said there’s more talk about shortening the exhibition slate to three.
Via Rob Demovsky of ESPN.com, Murphy said that the league’s competition committee has talked about reducing the preseason by a game, and Packers coach Mike McCarthy is all in favor of that.
“That would probably be a little more practical, especially with all the emphasis on player safety,” McCarthy said. “Hell, they’ve cut back everything else. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go to three games. Three games with a two-week bye week, with two weeks before the opener. That’s just my opinion. Nobody’s told me that. I’d be for it. I think it makes a lot of sense. Then you could be a little more aggressive in that third game. Just take the fourth one out.”
Since fourth preseason games rarely feature starters, or at least stars, few would miss the “game” if it went away. And Murphy said McCarthy’s suggestion has some traction.
“I think there would be support for three,” Murphy said. “I think Mike’s [idea], that’s what we’ve talked about. Rather than playing that fourth game on a Thursday, . . . don’t play a fourth game and then you’d have an extra week. We’ve looked at different models, but I think that’s the one that makes the most sense.
“You’re giving up some revenue, but it’s one of the worst things we do. The move we made on variable [ticket] pricing helps a little bit in how preseason is viewed, but especially that fourth game is kind of a throwaway.”
Of course, shifting the cost to regular season games — as the Packers did last week — will make up for that revenue hit. But getting rid of a meaningless game sounds like the kind of thing coaches and players and consumers would support anyway.
---------------
I would love the pre season cut down to three games, maybe even two. Teams know what their veterans can do already. No need to take chances. With the way things are now half the league is mediocre at best. Why risk losing a starter or high priced player in pre season.
---------------
Removing the game would basically be a 5% drop in ticket revenue for non-playoff teams. I don’t think many owners will get behind it unless there is a regular season game added.
----------------
I understand that most people aren’t particularly interested in the preseason, but it serves one very important purpose that most people overlook.
Basically, most of the guys on the field are playing for their jobs. Yes, everyone knows what most of the starters can do already so their presence isn’t really necessary beyond 1 qtr. to “warm up” for the season, but a lot of the other guys aren’t even guaranteed a roster spot. Those guys deserve all the opportunities they can get to prove themselves and get some of their game on film so they can try to secure their roster spot, or at least spark interest with other teams.
Also, preseason is very important for rookies to get a taste of the NFL even if they aren’t ready to start yet. That experience is very valuable for 2nd/3rd string players. Preseason is nice for hardcore fans too because they can get a feel of how much depth their team has. Lets face it, most starters go down at some point or another during the season so it’s nice to know who will be stepping up in their absence.
For those reasons, I do not think the preseason could be shortened. It’s a huge job interview opportunity for lower tier players.
