Take the 2-minute tour ×
Sports Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for participants in team and individual sport activities. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am not sure but if I remember correctly the NFL teams play 15-16 games during regular season and a couple more in the play-offs if they can make it the whole way. Why such a short season, in comparison to other leagues such as NBA where teams play 82 games in regular season and playoffs are usually a few games each round (best of 5-7-7-7)?

share|improve this question
    
I understand some of the reasons but the reason about it being very physical and players needing a rest I found slightly pathetic. If you look at the aviva premiership (rugby) they play 22 regular season games and with only 12 teams in the league less possible teams to play. Not only that but rugby is more physical as they do not wear pads and it lasts 80 minutes rather than 60 minutes, is split just into halves rather than in quarters and has less brakes so they play for longer. Besides NFL players are supposed to be world-class athletes, they're expected to play a lot. –  user1307 Apr 23 '13 at 20:32

6 Answers 6

up vote 11 down vote accepted

The physicality of the NFL is much greater than those of the NBA and MLB for example. Football is one of the most strenuous sports, and is much more of a full contact sport. When you are coming into physical contact as much as NFL players do, then you are more likely to fatigue and be at a higher risk of injury.

Players need a break to rehab from injuries, get ready for the off-season, training camp, and the preseason. The human body can only take so much, especially and when you practice several days a week, and play full contact once a week.

In the NBA for example, players do not have to worry about being tackled by a 300+ pound lineman from play to play. It is illegal to tackle an opponent in the NBA....that's not to say there's no physical contact. However, compared to the NFL and the sport of football, the NBA and the sport of basketball have much less physical contact.

Within the sport of football, a kicker has a longer lifespan than a runningback.

  • A kicker isn't involved in every play and their main focus is to kick the ball.
  • A runningback is involved with more plays and their main focus is to get by (whether by speed, or using their strength to fend off defenders) the defense. Therefore, a runningback faces more physical contact than a kicker.
share|improve this answer
2  
how about ice hockey then?? –  posdef Jul 2 '12 at 20:32
1  
In the end, ice hockey and football are two different sports. An ice hockey rink is approx 200' long and 85' wide (by North American standards). A football field is 360' (120 yards) long and 160' (53.3 yards) wide. One can make the argument that football players cover more ground and engage in more contact. Yet, another argument can be made that hockey is a more continuous game (with less stoppage of play) and has just as much contact as football, but less friction in movement due to skating. That debate would lead to much discussion, as one can imagine. –  edmastermind29 Jul 2 '12 at 20:48
3  
You're allowed a great deal of contact in hockey, and there is certainly a lot of brutality, but really you're supposed to be going for the puck. Anyone who deliberately tackled an opposing player and threw him to the ice would be penalized. But in football, that's the precise goal, on every single play. –  Joshua Frank Jul 3 '12 at 10:38
5  
What about Australia Rules Football (AFL)? The field is bigger, full contact, no pads. Check this out youtube.com/watch?v=TiGoqObb0YQ. Including pre season, they play twice as many games. Best game in the world. –  Kris Moyse Jul 16 '12 at 22:17
1  
Aussie rules is not full contact in the NFL sense. Contact happens, but is supposed to be incidental, on a par with NBA or soccer. And if you include preseason NFL plays 20 weeks. –  Oldcat Mar 31 at 21:17

A lot of the reason has to do with tradition. Football has always been a once a week event sport, and hockey, baseball and basketball have always been every night grind type sports.

There isn't really a reason that football games couldn't be played twice a week, these guys are supposed to be world class athletes. Yes the game would change, and yes the quality of play would diminish, but only until the league and the athletes in the league adjusted. But the NFL and college games have built up as a once a week event and as such they have developed their revenue model around it being a once a week sporting event (baseball, basketball and hockey teams don't build 70-100k fan arenas anymore because they can't fill them every night, football teams do because they can fill them once a week).

I don't feel like there is a physical reason that the NFL could not play games more regularly, rather, the way they have built up their brand, and their infrastructure, they need to maintain the relative scarcity of their games. It is no coincidence that the once a week, 16 game schedule league has every single game broadcast on TV, not by home team announcers, but by national, professional broadcasters. It's no coincidence that many of the teams in the NFL can rather easily fill a 70,000 seat arena. They have built their brands around the once a week event, and adding any more games (especially a second game a week) would only serve to dilute the brand and infrastructure that they have built.

In contrast, MLB, the NBA and the NHL have managed to do quite well with more local coverage of their teams, with more games, and with infrastructure that accommodates their more protracted schedules (In fact infrastructure and broadcasting contracts is a major reason that the NBA is not considering permanently shortening their schedule to the 62 game season that they played this past year). The fact is that all of these sports would have a potentially better products if they played fewer games. Imagine if your local baseball team played every 5 days and your ace got to throw every game. Imagine if basketball teams got to have fresh legs for every game of the season. Imagine if your local hockey club was able to shorten their lines to only 2 shifts, because they only played once or twice a week. (the argument against doing this would come strongly from baseball and basketball in that both are arguably rhythm sports where if you don't practice regularly you could potentially lose your hitting or shooting touch)

In conclusion, Football plays 16 games because of history. That history has led them to develop their brand and infrastructure (both physical, and contractual) around a scarce product(16 game season), rather than a plentiful one (162 game season).

share|improve this answer
    
Interesting theory, nice read :) but I guess there is a shade of gray in between 16 and 100+ games a season; football in Europe is also played one game a week, but for 30+ weeks instead of just 16. And if you look at the bigger teams, like Barca, Real, Man Utd etc they do fill their stadiums more often than not. (just to be certain, I'm not arguing against your point, but only providing another perspective) –  posdef Jul 6 '12 at 6:34
    
@posdef, I agree, Football could be played for more weeks (and they have talked about expanding the schedules as recently as 2 years ago) but asking that many people to show up more than once/week would be tough. –  wax eagle Jul 6 '12 at 13:08

I think the basic reason gridiron teams play so few games is the nature of the surface on which they play. The artificial surfaces they use in many stadiums today are extremely high-friction. This friction is what causes sufficient wear to prevent NFL teams from playing more than one game a week or for more than four months. Natural grass, though not as bad as artificial turf, is also a fairly high-wear surface especially in warm weather. This would preclude starting an NFL season during mid-summer even if it were more feasible for broadcasters and other stakeholder.

Although ice hockey is an extreme contract sport like gridiron, ice is a low-friction surface that exerts very small forces on players’ bodies even during violent contact (of which ice hockey has plenty). As a result, if they do not suffer a collision with a puck or sharp skate blade or stick (which in fact can be more dangerous than collisions with giant gridiron linemen), ice hockey players can keep going for a long time at a physical peak.

European soccer surfaces (generally natural grass) do cause wear on bodies but it is limited by the cool and damp climate and youthful soils. Australian football (AFL) is played on much drier surfaces owing to the hot and dry Australian climate and extremely ancient (formed in the Carboniferous vis-à-vis Northern Hemisphere soils from recent glacial till or mountain alluvium) soils that require much denser rooting systems for minimal nutrition. As a result, even a 22-game season with much less physical contact than gridiron is physically very difficult for tall and slimly built people.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 excellent perspective. –  edmastermind29 Jan 3 '13 at 3:16
    
This is a great point. I'd love to see links to any of this if they exist. +1 either way. –  SocioMatt Jan 3 '13 at 16:37
    
I agree with @SocioMatt this is a nice answer, and the quality of it would be double if you could provide references to your key points. –  posdef Jan 7 '13 at 16:29

There is the argument that because football is very physical on the players, having the season much longer is not reasonable. That's part of the reason.

They could obviously work around this by playing less often but over a longer period of time, but that would confuse the schedule (which is a strength they have over other sports). Or they could sign more players, which would increase costs, but television revenue and ticket sales are good, so the problem might rather be that there aren't that many more good players available.

They can't start the season much earlier. The NFL relies heavily on integrating college drafts into the teams, and the college players aren't going to be fully available until they have concluded their studies around April. Many NFL teams have in the past shared stadiums with baseball teams (not so much anymore), and so adding more games before October would create scheduling difficulties. And television networks don't want to show high-value programming during the slow summer months.

They can't end the season much later. First of all, you don't want to move the Super Bowl from its established location. Also, football is traditionally an outdoor sport that's at home in the north, and the weather dictates that you shouldn't play too many games between January and March. They do play the occasional playoff game in the snow, but you don't want that every week. Then, in February, you have the Winter Olympic Games to contend with every four years, and in March baseball season gets slowly going.

So all things considered, the current setup is the sweet spot that works for the sport and the league. They could probably expand it, but only a bit without diluting the product.

share|improve this answer

Football at the NFL level, and even at the college level, is such a physically-demanding sport that players require at least one week of rest between games. Beside the typical injuries seen in any sport—muscle strains, sprains, bruises, etc.—pro football players are increasingly having to deal with concussions (i.e. "brain bruises") because it's not just a contact sport, it's a collision sport. You don't see boxers fight every day, or every week, for the same reasons: the sport is so brutal that the players need extra time to heal from the previous contest.

On the other hand, the shortness of the NFL season has an extra benefit: it makes each game much more valuable in terms of determining a champion. A short season increases the drama, and since sports is fundamentally entertainment, that can be a good thing.

share|improve this answer
1  
it's common to hear about the physical demands of american football, but the same reasoning does not prevent longer seasons as there are other sports where collisions are a significant part of the game (e.g. aussie-rules football and rugby) where the players don't have any protection, or sports where collision occur at even higher speeds with even less balance (e.g. ice hockey) –  posdef Apr 25 '13 at 10:08
    
Perhaps, but the collisions in a sport like hockey are incidental to the game; for example the North American brand of ice hockey is much more physical than the European style, which is more finesse, collisions are not necessary to play at a high level. Running full speed into your opponents is a feature of American football. The goal of the defenders in American football is to tackle the ball carrier, with enough force the stop their forward progress—collisions as a feature. No other sport has that, not even rugby, which is why ruggers can play with significantly less protective equipment. –  boycaught Apr 25 '13 at 12:23
    
the notion that rugby is more physical than American football is preposterous, and usually mouthed by people who never played football. I've played both sports, and American football is far more physical and dangerous. Just the fact that you are clothed in armor makes you feel like you can take more risks, which heightens the speed and violence of collisions. –  boycaught Apr 25 '13 at 12:35
    
@boycaught but with that logic, one could argue Hockey is more physical, as one has even MORE armor on. (And is a sport that, while not sanctioned, is heavily based on fist fights). –  DA. 8 hours ago

I'm not an expert, so can only offer a theory here, but contrary to the other answers, which talk mainly about the physical toll (which is valid, but not necessarily in comparison to other sports with equal physical tolls), I would argue it's purely business. The NFL is very good at what they do as a business. They are ranked as the #1 most lucrative sports league on the planet.

As such, one could say the reason the season is shorter compared to other sports is because it's already long enough to keep the league ranked #1 in valuation. The supply apparently meets demand just right the way it is. Why fix something that ain't broken?

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.