Colts ponder effects of possible NFL season expansion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Colts officials and fans are watching with interest as National Football League owners and players’ union officials discuss the possibility of expanding the regular season from 16 to 18 games.

Representatives of the NFL’s franchise owners made a presentation to the NFL Players Association on Wednesday during labor talks in New York.

A source close to the negotiations told IBJ that owners favor the extension, but players, worried about the toll a longer season will have on their bodies, are reticent to embrace the idea.

“We haven't officially voted on it [but] there’s a lot of momentum [among the owners] in meetings I’ve been in,” Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy told reporters on a conference call Wednesday.

Murphy, a member of the owners’ bargaining committee, said a change could be made as early as the 2011 season—if a labor agreement is reached.
Colts officials are still pondering what this will mean for their team and fans.

Extending the regular season by two games likely would mean lopping off two preseason games from the schedule. That would mean one more regular-season home game for each team, but one fewer home preseason contest.

“This is being floated around in its infancy,” said Greg Hylton, Colts vice president of premium seating and ticket sales. “It’s getting discussed a lot because of the meetings this week, but it’s not something we’ve given a lot of thought to yet.”

Hylton added that the Colts have not taken a position on the idea of an extended season. He doesn’t think an extended regular season would drive the price of season tickets higher, an important point to the 63,000 plus fans that attend the games.

The Colts wouldn’t realize much—if any—of a monetary increase from an expanded season, Hylton said. The team currently sells out all of its home games via season tickets. Those season-ticket packages require fans to buy all eight regular-season home games and two preseason home games at the same price.

The practice of requiring season-ticket holders to buy preseason games along with regular-season games is a common practice in the NFL, and has “caused a lot of grumbling” among fans, said Marc Ganis, a Chicago-based sports business consultant who counts a number of NFL franchises and stadium operators as clients.

The NFL thinks it can increase its television-rights package and possibly increase league-wide sponsorship by extending the season, Ganis said.

An extended regular-season TV package potentially could hurt teams, because most teams have a local broadcast deals to air preseason games. But a bigger league-wide regular-season package likely would more than offset that.

Sports business experts said NFL teams would likely see a boost in ancillary revenue, such as concession sales, from extending the regular season because there are far fewer no-shows during the regular season than the preseason.

The Colts’ home venue, Lucas Oil Stadium, is almost 100-percent full during regular-season games, with about 5 percent to 9 percent no-shows during the preseason, stadium officials said.

But the potential downside can’t be ignored.

“There are a number of people in this business that think the NFL right now has the formula exactly right,” Ganis said. “There’s a feeling that an extension of the season could water down the product and oversaturate the market.”


  • presason games
    I am tired of paying full price for preseason games. I either give the tickets away or stay 1/2 game. I say bring on 18 games.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.