Jump to content

Report: NFL owners pitch 18-game schedule


nucci

Recommended Posts

If it was up to me, I’d cut the pre-season down to 2 games, but add two playoff teams to each conference. Start the regular season two weeks earlier, and then when the playoffs come around each conference does 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 bracket like NBA and NHL. 

14 playoff games, 7 in each conference, before the super bowl, as opposed to the current setup which has 5 games in each conference before the super bowl.

 

Adding 4 playoff games would significantly increase the appeal of TV deals, as well as give fan bases around the league more hope in their teams ability to 1) make the playoffs and 2) actually contend for a title.

 

Personally the bye-week in the playoffs has always been too heavy an advantage for the teams that get it. And I understand they won more games, but sometimes a team that comes 2nd in a division can have the same record as the 2nd place team in the conference, but because the one team won its division it receives a bye week as well as home field advantage. To me that’s too large of a benefit to give a team in the playoffs. 

 

This would help revenue, and players wouldn’t be against it because it would make the road for everyone to a championship more accessible along with getting rid of useless preseason games in exchange for meaningful playoff games. 

Edited by Dkollidas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2019 at 2:52 PM, Mister Defense said:

Yup, dumb; pure greed from some of the richest men in the country. 

Pure greed is how some of the richest men in the country got that way.

 

These aren't the sort of people to be content with what they have.  They are kind of programmed by nature to want it all.

 

 

PS:  I have no idea why fans would not want more games in the season!  It would make for a longer season with more football.

 

More regular season games would also probably mean fewer pre-season games, which most fans would want as well.

 

The people opposed to this are, and should be, athletes.  Ideally, they would want many years of a career, with few games played per year.  Not fewer seasons with tons of games, seeing as they are paid annually, not by the game.

 

 

Edited by Nextmanup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

Just have 2 or even 3 bye weeks. Take 2 preseason games away. The pieces are there to make it work. Also if you are up by a few scores in a game...you can take players out. I really don’t understand how the players won’t even listen to these proposals. You could add 2 by weeks. Give the league an extra 3 weeks of games basically. That’s a lot more money. And the players will end up with even more rest. It definitely can work. Don’t add silly game restrictions for players. That makes it ridiculous. Just give these guys 3 bye weeks. Then they never have to play more then 5 or 6 weeks straight.

How do you know they're not listening? Maybe they are negotiating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best idea I've heard floated was a 17 game season where the extra game is played on a neutral site.

 

Would give the NFL 16 games to schedule in other locations like England, Germany, Mexico... and even cities in the US like San Antonio or maybe throw a bone to somewhere like St Louis and San Diego.

 

The NFL still gets their growing the game events and no one has to give up a home game to achieve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I can still remember hearing the old men b*tching about the NFL going from 14 to 16 games.

 

Ralph was forcing them to buy an extra game to keep their season tickets!

 

But I've been to hundreds of Bills games and never heard anyone complain that the season was too long.  

 

 

I don't remember that.  Ralph wasn't making them pay for an extra game, since they took away a preseason game, and those were at the same price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

I don't remember that.  Ralph wasn't making them pay for an extra game, since they took away a preseason game, and those were at the same price.

 

That's how I remember it too and there weren't that many season ticket holders.   People like to B word about the cost and theorize about Ralph's scheming whether it made sense or not.   NFL fans may say they resent the greed of the league but they keep lapping it up.   Guess what the highest rated tv broadcasts/programs in summer in WNY are?  90,000 DirecTV households blacked out of the WIVB feed(per TBN) in a network dispute last week and yet the ratings for the Bills/Detroit game was about 6x that of the next highest rated program.  Maybe PFT should poll NFL fans to see if they want more preseason games?   The ratings would have to prove that fans are in favor, no?:lol:

 

Anybody who thinks 18 games aren't going to AT MINIMUM proportionately increase NFL revenue(thereby proving that demand meets supply) is a complete fiscal dope.   Especially if the longer season pushes games into the programming dead zone of February and early March.    The likelihood is that adding games and extending the regular season a month(with extra byes) to 5 months will add more like 25% or more income.  Which is an astronomical sum being left on the table. 

 

Edited by BADOLBILZ
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the NFL goes to an 18 game schedule my days as a dedicated fan will probably start ot fade. I'm already paying less and less attention to the league the last few years. 

 

Getting tired of the grow the revenues at any and all cost mentality.... I have yet to hear 1 single idea in this regard that makes any sense to me. 

13 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

Pure greed is how some of the richest men in the country got that way.

 

These aren't the sort of people to be content with what they have.  They are kind of programmed by nature to want it all.

 

 

PS:  I have no idea why fans would not want more games in the season!  It would make for a longer season with more football.

 

More regular season games would also probably mean fewer pre-season games, which most fans would want as well.

 

The people opposed to this are, and should be, athletes.  Ideally, they would want many years of a career, with few games played per year.  Not fewer seasons with tons of games, seeing as they are paid annually, not by the game.

 

 

 

pure greed , and being rich, does not equate to what is right IMO. in fact I shake my head at that thought process, but then again I do not understand greed so I can't identify at all.

 

Not me. I'm growing tired of the constant changes to the sport and this overly obsessive need to keep growing revenue. Yeah that's the capitalistic way, but I'm exhausted by it. I don't want less preseason games I just want to be able to watch the ones that are being played for cheap, not a $99 gamepass BS. I don't want more NFL games I'm very content with a 16 game schedule, and I sure as hell never want to have any of my top players forced to sit 2 games a year so they only play the 16 a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Whites Bay said:

 

If the programming extended into early March, it would JUST be enough to get to March Madness.  And that would be enough to get us to Spring.  I'm in.

 

?  

 

You are part of the 24% who already KNOW they'll watch and enjoy it of the 99%+ who WILL watch and enjoy it.:lol:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Limeaid said:

If Mike Florio says one thing I believe opposite despite what twits voted for.

 

I would not mind a longer season with more bye weeks with slightly larger roster and less preseason games and less restrictions by NFLPA on contact in practice.

 

...maybe LaCanfora is his primary source?...just askin'............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ddaryl said:

If the NFL goes to an 18 game schedule my days as a dedicated fan will probably start ot fade. I'm already paying less and less attention to the league the last few years. 

 

Getting tired of the grow the revenues at any and all cost mentality.... I have yet to hear 1 single idea in this regard that makes any sense to me. 

 

pure greed , and being rich, does not equate to what is right IMO. in fact I shake my head at that thought process, but then again I do not understand greed so I can't identify at all.

 

Not me. I'm growing tired of the constant changes to the sport and this overly obsessive need to keep growing revenue. Yeah that's the capitalistic way, but I'm exhausted by it. I don't want less preseason games I just want to be able to watch the ones that are being played for cheap, not a $99 gamepass BS. I don't want more NFL games I'm very content with a 16 game schedule, and I sure as hell never want to have any of my top players forced to sit 2 games a year so they only play the 16 a year.

My point is that more games simply means more football, which your average fan wants IMO.

 

The reason why people contribute at this forum, for example, in the height of the off-season, is because they want more football and can't take it!  They want to be involved with the sport any way they can.  It's also why fans watch these meaningless pre-season games, myself included. 

 

I would love to have the real season start a week earlier and end a week later than normal.  More football.

 

I understand being annoyed by the greed of the owners and the constant desire to grow/change the game, but that is a rather abstract philosophical point, whereas a few more football games just means 2 more Sundays a year I get to excited about Bills football.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Whites Bay said:

 

If the programming extended into early March, it would JUST be enough to get to March Madness.  And that would be enough to get us to Spring.  I'm in.

 

I’m sure they’d be smart enough to go head to head with March Madness. Even I would be torn then unless the Bills were on.  I LOVE March Madness! I’m not alone there! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2019 at 2:53 PM, nucci said:

How do you force a team to play it's backup QB?

 

 

This is a stupid idea. What if you miss out of the playoffs or home field because of the one loss sustained when your backup QB played. The only way this would work is if your last game didn't mean anything. It would be interesting to see how some coaches would strategize this idea though. Do you play your backup week one, against your worst opponent or when your season is decided. I still don't wanna see this happen.

Edited by Bubba Gump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens with specialty players like kickers, punters, long snappers, etc? Are teams gonna have to carry two of each? Also, this scenario. Week 18. Barkley is in, and Allen is benched. Barkley gets hurt. You're telling me that Allen can't go in there, and we're stuck with Tyree Jackson? (Not a knock on Jackson, just a hypothetical scenario.)

Edited by The Real Buffalo Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I think would be cool if they did add a week, is do what MLB did with interleague, and create inter-conference rivalries. Jets/Giants Ravens/Redskins 49ers/Raiders Rams/Chargers Texans/Cowboys etc. Living in Houston, Texans fans try too hard to have a rivalry with the Cowboys. But if they got rid of the annual preseason game against them, and turned it into a legitimate game every season, it might just happen. Crazy that we have two stadiums shared by teams that only play each other once every four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

So what happens with specialty players like kickers, punters, long snappers, etc? Are teams gonna have to carry two of each? Also, this scenario. Week 18. Barkley is in, and Allen is benched. Barkley gets hurt. You're telling me that Allen can't go in there, and we're stuck with Tyree Jackson? (Not a knock on Jackson, just a hypothetical scenario.)

I think this aspect of it (players only being allowed to play a portion of the full season) is what doesn't sit well with fans for some of the reasons you mention.

 

It comes across as gimmicky and sort of cheapens the sport.

 

The owners are just trying to find a way to get the NFLPA to sign off on it...it's a way of them getting their extra games without the players being able to use traditional extra game arguments against it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...allegedly, don't current player salaries include 4 pre-season games?...and how many of the top echelon players even come close to playing 4 GAMES much less 4 QUARTERS?....anybody think that the NFLPA lets Owners skate versus demanding 18/16 of players' salaries?...and the asinine proposal of capping players' season at 16 games is ludicrous.....sitting out key players in the home stretch because you're finally in the hunt?.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A view from across the pond ..

 

To observers in England, the NFL season seems far too short, lasting just over 5 months. Just as we're getting into the excitement of who will qualify for the playoffs, then the playoff games, the Superbowl is upon us in early February, and it's all over until the following September. Surely there can't be, or shouldn't be, that much difference in quality between the first and second choice players for any given position, and with careful management and squad rotation, an 18-game season with each player playing a maximum of 16 games is easily achievable.

 

For comparison purposes, the Rugby season is 8+ months long, with 22 scheduled league games, and the top 4 teams entering the playoffs. Then there's also the European Cup competition, with a minimum of 6 pool games, then playoffs for the top 8 teams. And some players will also be selected for their International sides, so can easily end up playing 30+ games in a season - and these guys have to stay on the field for a full 80 minutes of action in each game. The NFL millionaire players don't realise what an easy life they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...