matttyl
Footballguy
Sorta - week 17 now has mostly (if not all) divisional games.Didn't the Nfl make scheduling policy changes in an effort to restrain teams from excessive resting of stars in week 17
Sorta - week 17 now has mostly (if not all) divisional games.Didn't the Nfl make scheduling policy changes in an effort to restrain teams from excessive resting of stars in week 17
That seemed like a no-brainer all along to give more of a chance that games are meaningful at the end of the season. I don't understand why the entire last month of the season isn't divisional(rivalry) games.Sorta - week 17 now has mostly (if not all) divisional games.
This seems like a pie-in-the-sky lists of "asks" from the players imo....
This was a big reason for my suggestion of a 21-week, 18-game season with three evenly spaced byes idea that I proposed earlier in this thread. More weeks means more money to split between the owners and players. Also, nobody has to sit out any games this way.Overall, I think the players will be lucky to truly get 3 out of these 6(number 7 is rubbish imo). To get 3 out of the 6 they would have to accept an 18 game schedule. What the players should really push for is a 20 game schedule(last Sunday of August to first Sunday in January) where individual players can't play more than four REGULAR SEAON games in a row(which would mean they can't play more than 16 regular season games). That would be the best for both the players and owners and might move the needle enough that the owners would budge on #2, #3, and #4. Those are the REAL issues that will affect players and actually hurt the owners to give up, but four extra regular season games of content to sell to networks/streaming services would be HUGE not just for the owners but for the players as well in terms of growing the pie they are both splitting.
I actually like Brandt, even if I disagree with him often. These are issues that are discussed on this board often but I'm not sure that your typical S.I. audience breaks it down like this beyond, "The players want more money, and the owners want more games".
I would trust your plan before I trusted whatever goodell comes up with. Let's just hope the NFLPA is playing possum and pretending to be against the extended schedule.I never did get a response from Goodell or the NFLPA from the detailed email I sent them
Yes, the players would play all 18 games with no one having to sit out at all. That's why the three evenly spaced byes is an important part of it - for recovery time during the season. I think the whole "having to sit" thing is ridiculous and opens up so many issues that aren't really necessary.I would trust your plan before I trusted whatever goodell comes up with. Let's just hope the NFLPA is playing possum and pretending to be against the extended schedule.
Just so I understand, are you proposing the players actually play 18 regular season games? Or the teams play 18 regular season games and the players play 16 of those?
The problem with extending the players beyond 16 games is you throw all the record books out and you expose the players to more injuries so there is the potential to have a worse product in the playoffs. To me the big advantage of 16 games played over 20 weeks in the season is better rested players and a better product for the playoffs.
No offense, but I really don't like your proposal. Sure extra bye weeks could help, but it's still a crap shoot as to whether or not a bye week comes at a good time or not. I, also, don't personally like a 23 week pre+regular season. I just don't think extending the football season into the summer or later into the new year/winter is optimal.Yes, the players would play all 18 games with no one having to sit out at all. That's why the three evenly spaced byes is an important part of it - for recovery time during the season. I think the whole "having to sit" thing is ridiculous and opens up so many issues that aren't really necessary.
This would mean that players would make more because they're playing in 18 games, but so would the owners and the networks. Everyone would make more due to the bigger pie (21 weeks versus 17 weeks) that they would be getting from the networks.
Expanding the rosters by a few spots would help with the overall team fatigue, especially due to the nature of specialization that is prevalent in the league now. Also, give more IR-Designated to Return spots. Since there would be a longer season, it would be more likely that players could return from their injuries.
All the record books were thrown out in 1978 when the NFL went from 14 to 16 games, so I don't think that's too much of an issue.
I agree that the rosters should be expanded under any new format where there are more regular season games. That should be a big "WIN" that matters to veteran players in CBA negotiations and the owners shouldn't feel as they are giving anything up even if it looks that way.Expanding the rosters by a few spots would help with the overall team fatigue, especially due to the nature of specialization that is prevalent in the league now. Also, give more IR-Designated to Return spots. Since there would be a longer season, it would be more likely that players could return from their injuries.
All the record books were thrown out in 1978 when the NFL went from 14 to 16 games, so I don't think that's too much of an issue.
I hear this sentiment often but I'm not sure it holds water, at least to me.I just don't think extending the football season into the summer or later into the new year/winter is optimal.
Just what I've been saying. The three evenly spaced bye weeks would benefit everyone regardless of whether teams play 16 or 18 games. In fact, it might be enough to convince owners to stay at 16 games per team due to the extra two weeks of regular season TV revenue.Hell just give everyone 3 bye weeks and stick with 16 games. Make the NFL season longer and get more money.
I cant get how they haven't figured this out yet. Can anyone explain how this wouldnt make them a lot more money to have a couple more weeks of games, especially prime time games?
Yes, that would be 'more' money, but not as much as pretty much any 18 game proposal.Hell just give everyone 3 bye weeks and stick with 16 games. Make the NFL season longer and get more money.
I cant get how they haven't figured this out yet. Can anyone explain how this wouldnt make them a lot more money to have a couple more weeks of games, especially prime time games?
Good point. This is probably why the owners are seemingly "locked in" to wanting an 18-game schedule in order to make the TV revenue pie just as big as possible.Yes, that would be 'more' money, but not as much as pretty much any 18 game proposal.
When you factor in tickets/concessions (fairly small, I know), and the slightly lessened weekly product (Oh, the Cowboys, Steelers, Packers, Patriots, etc. are off this week...) and it's not as much money as they'd get from any of the 18 week proposals.
Broadcast companies would say "Hey, I'm still only getting 16 games from the big draws, so I'm not going to offer that much more for the contract."
Then I guess we’ll be getting 18 games...
I get the sense that the owners want an 18 game schedule simply because they won't give in to the players on the issue, not because it makes logical sense.Maybe this was discussed in July or was in the original proposal but I don't understand why the NFL needs more games to make more money. Won't they get 80 cents on the dollar just adding more weeks? It is already a 16 game, 17 weeks schedule. Why not a 16 game, 18 week schedule? Or 16 game, 19 week schedule? Doesn't additional bye weeks give ALL sides MORE of what they want? Players get more rest/recover time, networks get more eyeballs, owners/players get more $. What am I missing? Surely the $ the owners are after isn't gate receipts, is it? Surely the networks would pay MORE for an 18 or 19 weeks schedule with the same number total games, right?
I never said it's more money than 18 games.Just what I've been saying. The three evenly spaced bye weeks would benefit everyone regardless of whether teams play 16 or 18 games. In fact, it might be enough to convince owners to stay at 16 games per team due to the extra two weeks of regular season TV revenue.
However, I just have a feeling from what I've been reading that they owners are stuck on an 18-game schedule and the best (only) way to accomplish that is more rest during the season. The three evenly spaced bye weeks what makes the most sense, imo.
If they do decide to just add a 17th game and make it an international game, then I would think that the players would also still benefit from more time off during the season, both for traveling and recovering.
That's an interesting perspective, but one that is completely contrary to my POV. First because I think more games INCREASES the risks of injury and second because I don't believe that moving to 17 games will cause players/coaches/GMs/owners to take an NBA-like approach in which players are "rested" or given "extra time" to recuperate. That is, 17 games won't have a meaningful impact on the value/cost of a single game.Has anybody had a change of thoughts on the 18/16 proposal after seeing so many players missing games this year?
There would be a ton of players like Brees, Mahommes, Tyreek Hill who would play two more games in that format than they will play this year.
Players like Barkley, James Connor, Adam Theilen could be afforded more rest to get a lot closer to 100%, as opposed to playing through injuries.
I feel like each and every week there are several new cases that remind me of the 16/18 thing, and how it would help the situation.
Regarding the home/away games, my understanding is that every team would play a "neutral site" international game each year, so that at least balances out the scheduling issue.That's an interesting perspective, but one that is completely contrary to my POV. First because I think more games INCREASES the risks of injury and second because I don't believe that moving to 17 games will cause players/coaches/GMs/owners to take an NBA-like approach in which players are "rested" or given "extra time" to recuperate. That is, 17 games won't have a meaningful impact on the value/cost of a single game.
As I've said before, I don't really understand why an 18 week season with 2 byes isn't the answer to ALL the problems. The additional TV revenue would be FAR more valuable than the extra gate revenue.
And how does a 17 game schedule work exactly? It isn't divisible by two so you'd have some teams with 9 home games and others with 8! The article mentions more international games...so we're talking about moving from a handful on international games to 17 international/neutral site games! If that's the case then the extra game doesn't result in additional gate receipts for current owners. So what's the point? What am I missing because the more I think about the more this solves NOTHING
But it isn't more games, per player. I can't come up with an argument to why a player would be more susceptible to injury playing 16 games over 19 or 20 weeks, as compared to 16 games over 17 or 18 weeks, especially when you consider the added value of the flexibility of "player byes". Team byes are a crap shoot as to how much they will benefit teams/players from a health standpoint.That's an interesting perspective, but one that is completely contrary to my POV. First because I think more games INCREASES the risks of injury...
I assume the 16/18 model would still have a team bye (or two), so that would be 19 (or 20) weeks of TV revenue, as opposed to 18 in a 16 game (2 bye) model.As I've said before, I don't really understand why an 18 week season with 2 byes isn't the answer to ALL the problems. The additional TV revenue would be FAR more valuable than the extra gate revenue.
Grigs-But it isn't more games, per player. I can't come up with an argument to why a player would be more susceptible to injury playing 16 games over 19 or 20 weeks, as compared to 16 games over 17 or 18 weeks, especially when you consider the added value of the flexibility of "player byes". Team byes are a crap shoot as to how much they will benefit teams/players from a health standpoint.
I assume the 16/18 model would still have a team bye (or two), so that would be 19 (or 20) weeks of TV revenue, as opposed to 18 in a 16 game (2 bye) model.
One of the worst ideas I've ever heard anywhere. I don't even know where to start. Even the NFL isn't this out of touch iso I'm not worried.Grigs-
Apologies, I misunderstood your comment and as such it sounds like we are arguing for the same thing (i.e. same number of games over more weeks resulting in an additional bye week). Indeed, like anyone spending a minute thinking about this comes to this as the obvious win-win solution.
Mexico could get a couple. Maybe Canada gets another shot after their blunder this preseason too.bicycle_seat_sniffer said:so 17 game season means everyone plays a neutral site game? will London pretty much have a game every week then? I wouldn't doubt it there would be two byes a season too.
ive seen everyone on tv....shrugMaybe they'll actually televise the International games
Because of 1 more game. He’s comparing 17 games to a 162 game baseball season. I think that guy needs to take a math class.
I don't see us extending our FF season a game. 14 teams, play each team once, 3 rounds of playoffs, pro bowl and nothing the last week.
Maybe more people will adopt 2-week Super Bowls. Love that as a way of reducing variance and letting the best team (that gets there) have an advantage.I don't see us extending our FF season a game. 14 teams, play each team once, 3 rounds of playoffs, pro bowl and nothing the last week.