The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Should the NFL extend their season?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,136 times Debate No: 55410
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




16 games is actually the sweet spot for any sport. Especially in football, where they play only once a week, making the buildup and anticipation greater for each and every game. In hockey, basketball, and baseball, people forget about games and loose interest, but during a football season, your are always looking forward to sunday where every game is important.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Football, since having been a professional sport, has always had the least amount of games in a season out of the four major American sports. This has been great for the NFL, the quality of the game has improved drastically. More fan attendance at each game, less injuries to players, and most of all, it keeps the game exciting. In football, there are no meaningless games.


Con says that the NFL has always had the least amount of games, and then makes the connection that this has been great for the NFL as the quality of the game has improved drastically. However, if the NFL has always had the least amount of games, this cannot be the reason for an improvement in the quality of play. If there is a change in the dependent variable (quality of the game), there must be a change in the independent variable (relative number of games played) in order to surmise a causal relationship.

Football tickets are not easy to come by, which indicates that there is actually a surplus of demand and that there would be little if any decrease in fan attendance given an increase in the length of the season. Additionally, the proposal actually on the table entails an increase in the NFL regular season from 16 games to 18 games and a decrease in the preseason from 4 games to 2 games. The average regular season attendance is much greater than that of preseason attendance, so we can conclude that an increase in the length of the schedule would actually increase fan attendance rather than decrease it. The increase in relative proportion of regular season games to preseason games also means that two games that were preseason season games would now be more meaningful, thus nullifying the con"s "no meaningless games" argument.

Finally, since the overall number of games remains the same, the injuries argument also does not seem to apply.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, The con side is referring the regular season. With a limited number of regular season games, NFL teams can't loose 8 consecutive games and expect to make the playoffs. Yes, fan attendance is greater in the regular season than the preseason, but with more games, the value of tickets would decrease, so they would obviously be in less demand, so you can't be certain that an 18 game regular season would increases ticket sales and fan attendance. In the remaining three major american sports (i.e. Hockey, Basketball, Baseball) the NHL, NBA, and MLB all have a season consisting of at least 50 games for each team. In baseball (just as popular as football in the US) there are often games that do not seem to mean much. They are televised on local stations instead of national stations, and in June, July, and August, the attendance at games is incredibly low in their 162 game season. This shows that a longer season could decrease the interest in football during the middle of the season. Of course, an extension of just two games would not do the same, but it shows what a longer season would do, but what even a 2 game extension will do is create more chances for injury. In football, players get injured all the time in a 16 game season. An 18 game season creates more chances for injury, and an even larger extension of the season could be catastrophic. A 2 game preseason and an 18 game regular season would be equal to the same amount of games that we have now, but starting players do not play as often as backups in the preseason, so during an 18 game regular season means 18 chances for starting players to get injured, more than we have now.


I do not agree with Con that an increase in the length of the regular season to 18 games would have any kind of tangible decrease in demand for tickets. The demand is so much higher than the supply right now, that the effect would be negligible. For example, the season ticket waiting list for the Green Bay Packers has an average waiting time of 30 years with 81,000 different names on that list [1].

Con is correct in saying that there is less interest in every game of the other major sports in the United States, but voters should remember that one should not compare the 82-game regular season of the NBA or the 162-game of the MLB, as the scale of the proposed change of the NFL regular season is only 16 " 18 games, and is thus far too small for Con to fairly use the NBA and the MLB as a comparison. Con acknowledges that a two-game increase in the schedule "would not do the same," which seems to defeat his own point as he does not then explain how stating these facts has to do with the debate itself.

Yes, 18-game regular season gives starters two more chances to become injured, but coaches are aware of this and would lighten up pre-season practices in preparation for the longer season, where a lot of players get injured anyway. For example, Sean Lee, linebacker of the Dallas Cowboys and arguably the Cowboys" best defensive player, is out for the year now with a torn ACL because of injuries he incurred during practice before the season started [2].

To conclude, the increased league revenue, increase in quality of play (substituting two regular season games for two preseason games), along with the seeming like of cons, leads me to support the NFL extending their season.

Thanks you, AirplanesAndBaseball for allowing me to participate in this debate.


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither had poor conduct. S&G - Tie. Neither made any major spelling or grammatical errors. Arguments - Pro. This was a good debate on both ends, but what it came down to was Con arguing that because (x) is good, we should not change that which is good, therefore keep (x) the way it is. Whereas Pro had the BOP to show why extending the season would be better. For me, Pro achieved this in the final round in which he not only rebutted the key points raised by Con in terms of how coaches could alleviate the increased risk of additional games and continued to show how ticket revenue would stay the same. I believe Pro took arguments because of these reasons and therefore award these points to him. Sources - Pro. He was the only one to utilize sources in this debate to strengthen his points. Good debate once again guys!!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.