Jump to content

17 regular season games in new CBA being discussed.


BILLS55

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, artmalibu said:

 

I can see that... But I wouldnt like to see half the teams making the playoffs. 

 

 

I had not even thought about the half of league making playoffs but it still makes it less % than nhl or nba and since it is one and done I think people will enjoy enough to make it work.

Edited by Buffalo Timmy
forgot word not
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, egd said:

 

 A second bye week will never happen. This is a non-starter. The league already tried this a few years ago, and it failed miserably.

 

A second bye week is out of the question. See my post above.

 

The league would rotate it each year, so a team has nine home games one year, and only eight the next.

 

There are lots of other ways.

 

This isnt the old days , players would welcome another bye week and there are plenty of other games to watch and if you dont watch other games its that perfect opportunity to take that weekend trip you've been putting off.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, egd said:

 

 A second bye week will never happen. This is a non-starter. The league already tried this a few years ago, and it failed miserably.

 

A second bye week is out of the question. See my post above.

 

The league would rotate it each year, so a team has nine home games one year, and only eight the next.

 

There are lots of other ways.

why is a second bye week a non starter? I know it was discussed before but if the players get paid without playing I am quite certain they will be ok with it.

secondly I would be shocked if the 17th week is not neutral site games.

Third what is "another way" to be fair each year? to argue it over a decade time frame I do not seem flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, KRT88 said:

Lorenzo Alexander said on WGR550 that this has no chance of happening. Players will never agree to this. 

 

They will if they want to get paid. They cant hold out forever whereas most owners are billionaires and will get what they want here.

 

Players need to quit being babies, its the same amount of games they already play and if Canada can do it so can we.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lorenzo Alexander said this is a non starter for the players...they aren't even listening until they make drastic changes to long term health care and money for the players in return for asking them to possibly shorten their careers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

No it won’t, because that’s already happened. Training camp and practice limitations in the CBA led to that. Many teams are barely participating in the preseason as it is, with more likely to follow. The first and last preseason games are a joke currently and should be eliminated. 

Nope, self inflicted wound is what that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

No need for an extra bye week if preseason is shortened. Terrible idea. Expanding the playoffs might be good. 

That’s exactly what the league wants, playoff games reap big bucks. That’s how the 17th game was talked about when the league first brought it up a month or so back,  It has nothing to do with making anything game wise better, it is only about the coin for the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Nope, self inflicted wound is what that is.

Not clear on your point, but okay.  Yes, the league and players changed those rules but the results are clear. Sloppy football for the first few weeks has resulted. Dressing players for games carries risk. The players won’t dress for more games without big changes to compensation plus other rules, so preseason would have to be cut. As I said, the first and last preseason games are a joke fest already and won’t be missed. 

4 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

That’s exactly what the league wants, playoff games reap big bucks. That’s how the 17th game was talked about when the league first brought it up a month or so back,  It has nothing to do with making anything game wise better, it is only about the coin for the league. 

Of course it is. I don’t think it’s ever been presented as improving the game itself. Extra playoff teams could have the effect of making things interesting for more fans though. Not a bad thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KRT88 said:

Lorenzo Alexander said on WGR550 that this has no chance of happening. Players will never agree to this. 

 

That’s not what he said. He said, as of right now, there’s not a discussion to be had but that he also believed the union would be open to the idea of an extended schedule if the compensation was right. He then indicated that compensation would have to be pretty massive. He also indicated that he thought it could be a bargaining chip for better benefits/health care.

 

That sounds like an extended schedule will be coming down the pipeline someday after a few years of arguing over the compensation.

Edited by eanyills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep it exactly as-is, the structure of the scheduling is perfect.

 

If it has to be increased though, I would keep the same core 16 games

and then add 1-2 games against the other 3 NFC division teams who placed in the same position the previous year.

If only 1 and not 2 of these games is added, I would have it played at a neutral location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

why is a second bye week a non starter? I know it was discussed before but if the players get paid without playing I am quite certain they will be ok with it.

secondly I would be shocked if the 17th week is not neutral site games.

Third what is "another way" to be fair each year? to argue it over a decade time frame I do not seem flying.

 

 

The NFL tried that in 1993, and it was disaster. It will never happen again.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/92npy2/in_1993_the_nfl_added_a_2nd_bye_week_for_each/

"Q: What happened when they expanded to two bye weeks in 1993?

A: One word: disaster. CBS and NBC freaked out because their ratings plummeted thanks to a continually depleted Sunday slate; teams complained that they couldn't maintain momentum when they weren't playing enough games in a row; everyone hated losing the week off between the conference title games and the Super Bowl; and most importantly, fantasy owners couldn't figure out who to bench/waive/pick up since we didn't have the Internet yet.

The real problem: With only 28 teams and a top-heavy league, that left eight or nine Sunday afternoon games per bye week … and only two or three of those games were good. We didn't have DirecTV's season package back then, or the Red Zone Channel, so if you were stuck with a crappy local game (or even worse, a crappy local team that wiped out the quality national game you could have been watching), your whole day was ruined. Trust me, my Patriots overachieved that season by going 5-11. (Double bye weeks) + (no DirecTV) X (crummy local team) = bitter. And that's why double bye weeks went the way of New Coke, "Cop Rock," Planet Hollywood, Rick Mirer and "The Pat Sajak Show." "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chicharito said:

Not with the money they can make in international cities.

The NFL has to rent out a stadium, pay team travel & housing costs, they do not get the same revenue from broadcasting, and don’t get much if anything from ticket or in stadium Merchandise and food sales, or parking in those countries.  Those stadium owners have the league over a barrel so to speak.  The games are well attended, but the league ain’t getting the cash.

 

International games don’t make as much money because the Monopoly is not in effect in other country’s, in the states the league owns most of  the parking, most of each stadium, keeps ticket sales, merchandise and food sales, broadcasting income, not so much internationally, those games are about future opportunity, thus far the league has mostly failed outside of North America, although they keep on trying, so good for them.

 

Home turf playoff games is where the money is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, egd said:

 

 

The NFL tried that in 1993, and it was disaster. It will never happen again.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/92npy2/in_1993_the_nfl_added_a_2nd_bye_week_for_each/

"Q: What happened when they expanded to two bye weeks in 1993?

A: One word: disaster. CBS and NBC freaked out because their ratings plummeted thanks to a continually depleted Sunday slate; teams complained that they couldn't maintain momentum when they weren't playing enough games in a row; everyone hated losing the week off between the conference title games and the Super Bowl; and most importantly, fantasy owners couldn't figure out who to bench/waive/pick up since we didn't have the Internet yet.

The real problem: With only 28 teams and a top-heavy league, that left eight or nine Sunday afternoon games per bye week … and only two or three of those games were good. We didn't have DirecTV's season package back then, or the Red Zone Channel, so if you were stuck with a crappy local game (or even worse, a crappy local team that wiped out the quality national game you could have been watching), your whole day was ruined. Trust me, my Patriots overachieved that season by going 5-11. (Double bye weeks) + (no DirecTV) X (crummy local team) = bitter. And that's why double bye weeks went the way of New Coke, "Cop Rock," Planet Hollywood, Rick Mirer and "The Pat Sajak Show." "

25 years ago it failed and now it is still dead? The TV world has changed a ton since then as has players desires. I am not saying it is a done deal but the  landscape is so different that comparing them is line comparing beer salad then and now.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

The NFL has to rent out a stadium, pay team travel & housing costs, they do not get the same revenue from broadcasting, and don’t get much if anything from ticket or in stadium Merchandise and food sales, or parking in those countries.  Those stadium owners have the league over a barrel so to speak.  The games are well attended, but the league ain’t getting the cash.

 

International games don’t make as much money because the Monopoly is not in effect in other country’s, in the states the league owns most of  the parking, most of each stadium, keeps ticket sales, merchandise and food sales, broadcasting income, not so much internationally, those games are about future opportunity, thus far the league has mostly failed outside of North America, although they keep on trying, so good for them.

 

Home turf playoff games is where the money is. 

It does remember when the bills played those bull#### Toronto games? It was all for the money. Corporations pay big money to host games! The bills sucked at the time and we as fans pretty much revolted and refused to follow them to Toronto that’s what it was canceled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...