Once the owners get that 18th week they'll be happy for about a week, then they'll start pushing for a 19 game regular season. These owners could give a rats ass about player safety. The people who own these teams care about one thing...MORE MONEY!

For me, just to watch every Packers game, I subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket, Peacock, Amazon Prime, You-Tube TV, and Netflix. I'm sure I left one off but you get the idea. It's become ridiculous AND expensive.

The Players will continue to pay the price with their bodies, the fans with their wallets, while the owners just sit back and get more and more $$$.

Cory - It is better.
The league utilizes several deliberate mechanisms
to ensure competitive equality across its franchises.

A teams schedule is part of it.

The NFL has trapped teams in mediocrity.
Because general managers often prioritize
"safe" picks with limited upside over high-risk,
game-changing talent.

The cap protects the teams and the owners.
And Those who want money, will get it!

I fully agree, but we could stop it if 30 % of fans stopped watching, betting , and attending even for part of the season. Wait I have to cancel the NFL ticket?1?!

Cory I agree I was against the 17 game season. I would have rather them add an extra bye week to give me an extra week of football. Yes I watch other teams. One thing I hate about the added game is that it does not fit the schedule like 16 games did.

It is good if the NFL increases revenue. That allows the player to be paid more. The lowest paid player in the NFL makes $885,000 for one season. The average viewer would have to work 10 years to make that much money. Plus with increased revenue means that the NFL will remain successful.

When they go to an 18 game season the changes I would like to see is the first two weeks should be NFL v AFC games only being that most of the starters do not play preseason. I would also like to see the game day roster increased and also the extra bye week.

The 16 game schedule was perfect for the NFL. Even then there was plenty of wear and tear on the players but now greed has completely taken over the league's decision making process. It's not just the number of games it's also the unnecessary additional travel of international games and the short weeks with TNF. Plus many of the playing surfaces around the league are dangerous.

The combination of all of these factors plus less practice time mandated by the CBA continue to dilute the quality of play and increase the risk for the players.
Fans are paying more than ever to watch an increasingly diluted product on the field. It's all greed and it's all unnecessary.

Bottom line is that the league doesn't care about its players or the fans. Thanks, Since '61

My employers never gave a crap about my health or well being. Expose me to a bunch of sick kids. Put some violent ankle-monitoring kids in my class. They didn't care. If you have an employer who truly cares about you and your well-being, you are a lucky, lucky, individual.

18 games and more in season overseas games as well. It’s more than just a game addition. The problem with football is there aren’t enough players of quality to maintain quality in a squad based approach, particularly at key positions. Add the fact that the league refuses to have 2 genuine byes or to face up to the issue of artificial surfaces. More is likely to inevitably bring dilution of quality. The balance between profit maximization and long term attractiveness of the product is one we are perilously close to.

This also means more CAP money which goes to the players. So they do get something with more games played.

The NFL needs to continue to evolve if they are adding games such as increasing rosters and changing how the practice squad works with 'call ups' etc. They have made some changes but need to continue to review.

I would like them to scrap going to Europe. That is too hard on a team and quite frankly, I do not see the reason for it. Do we really want some Europe football teams?

If the NFL expands to 18 games I'll have to look for a sponsorship to be able to afford the additional fees we know the various platforms will charge.

Anyone want an agreeable NIL deal for a 67 year old die hard Packer fan?

All of this was covered in the children's book, "If You Give A Mouse A Cookie".

The overall quality of the games, or its parity, makes it easy for me to watch whatever is on broadcast TV. I don't see the value in paying high prices or multi-platforms to watch any specific team, and that includes the Packers. As long as I can watch any game on the internet for the low fee of $45 a year, I'm happy. When that changes, I'll watch what is on broadcast TV only. I'll not give one penny to watch a yearly diluted product. When a restaurant stops being special, I don't go there anymore to pay for less quality. But, if you believe the quality is there, go for it.

A few years ago, Goodell declared that football would generate $25 billion a year. If that means more injuries, long term and short term problems for players, or whatever, he doesn't care. What he is interested in is making the NFL a cash cow and milking it for whatever he can.
But there is a problem. The regular fans are getting squeezed out to be replaced by luxury suites that only a few can afford. And the people attend to be seen and hob-nob with the other rich people, not really watch the game. With the advent of PSL's, and the overpricing of everything to go to a game, to forcing people to pay for exhibition games that used to be the sole avenue to regular fans to attend even sham games, everything is now money driven. Right now, just to get into the stadium to see a game in the nosebleed seats, the cost is $176. Not including parking, driving, getting some concessions and some memorabilia from the game.
But there will be a reckoning. As Mark Cuban once said, "Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered."

14 week schedule is more than enough with the play offs being crazy length now as well. Look at the craziness of schedule for Pro BB and Hockey as well! None of these are easy on the body! Think of the money makers=The Players.

There is much I agree with in this article Cory.
One of the points I disagree with is (and many of you will be opposed to my position); I don’t feel feel sorry much for the players and the argument for their safety.
Is there any player who is not aware of the risk??
Concussions; knee & ankle injuries; torn muscles; and on and on. Let’s cancel sports—people are being injured.
I worked in a very high risk profession—so did many of you. And I didn’t collect an exorbitant salary.
As Lombardi said, football is a collision sport. He didn’t appear to tolerate or take much pity on injuries. Why aren’t we ranting about his lack of compassion?
Pursuing safety measures is fine. Failure to comprehend the consequences of playing or being employed in high risk environments is naivety.
Go Packers!!!

I think it would be an interesting season if the league went to 18 games, but limited every player to no more than 14 games. Yeah, then your backups become uber important!