17-game schedule nearing resolution with NFLPA

[Shrubbs]

I guess my diminishing returns would not kick in till around game 20 or so, much rather watch a 17th meaningful game than 2 meaningless preseason games, the NFL is betting there are more fans like me than you.I enjoy watching the games and the compation. But than again I enjoy that 3rd slice of pizza, so what do I know, thanks for the education in math 101

Yeah, that's the main thing. It's sort of personal taste. I feel like I wouldn't be getting anything out of a 17th game, but the success of the XFL may point to the conclusion that I'm in the minority here. Perhaps there's an an appetite for the majority of sports fans.

The other thing I'd point to is wear and tear on the athletes. I think the injuries are already terrible, and we're seeing guys like Luck, Gronkowski, Keuchly, and other really really talented players retire early because of it. We're losing hall of fame caliber players in their prime here, very talented guys. And it just sucks to lose them. But hey, they've made their money, it's also sad for the guys who maybe make less money in a given season that are forced to stay. I don't know. I personally don't want a 17 game season. But I get it if people do.

[one eyed bird]

would you in favor of returning to a 12 game season than

[lobachevsky]

Has this plan suggested how they would configure the 17th game, schedule-wise? Things are laid out pretty rationally right now, with 6 division games, 4 vs one AFC division, 4 vs one NFC division, and 2 games against the teams that finished in the same place in the standings as you did from the other two AFC divisions.

The most logical way to do this - or at least the way that does the least violence to the existing setup, which is IMHO pretty slick - would be to add a game from the opposing conference with the same-place finisher from one of the 3 divisions not scheduled. Be cool to schedule that at a "neutral site" but IDK how much agita that would give the schedulers.

I would like to see them keep that format and add a "rival" game for this new 17th game. We'd play the Redskins every year, home one year, away the next. And in those years when we're already scheduled to play the NFC East, we play the Skins twice, home and away. It's not unprecedented, playing non-division rivals twice in the same year. The last year the Colts were here, we played home-and-home vs. Denver (Elway's rookie year) for some odd reason. MLB does something similar, as the O's and Nats play each other home-and-home every season. If nothing else good comes out of this, it would be fun to play those clowns every season.

NFL "Rivalries" are IMO vastly overrated. There really isn't much to a rivalry unless the teams' actual fan bases interpenetrate. And you only see that in a very few instances: NYJ/NYG is the most obvious, LAR/LAC if either team actually had a fan base in LaLaLand, followed by WAS/BAL (40 miles separation)...then who? Every other possible pairing is either already baked into the divisions (GB/CHI, NYG/PHI) or is >90 miles separation, so that the fan bases barely brush up against one another.

[Shrubbs]

would you in favor of returning to a 12 game season than

That’s definitely a question I’d have to think about. On the one hand it would be great to not have to deal with these player injury problems, but on the other hand I think 12 games might not be sufficient to really figure out who the best teams are. I think about the Titans this year who started slow but proved that they were really talented, or the Colts a few years ago where the same thing happened. Half of your games would be in division which is cool too. I’m also trying to figure out if I’d miss that extra 4 games from a personal selfish point of view, and it’s hard for me to say. I love the game and love watching film so that’s one thing, but I also think there’s a bit of a mid season lull for me personally. The games are usually exciting at the end of the season because that’s where you’re fighting for a spot, and they’re exciting at the beginning because you’ve gone so long without ball. I don’t personally think that either of those “exciting” points of the season would go away, the lull would go away, because you’d still have that beginning and end no matter what unless you cut the season very very short.

So short answer: maybe, but I’m not 100% sure.

[Ortizer]

What a ridiculous retort. He as well as others here on the board obviously do have to watch it in order to keep up with this hobby. In order to actually be a fan of this sport you need to watch the games especially the end of the season when you’re likely fighting for a spot. The issue being taken is that the hobby now demands more of your time and attention when it was perfectly fine the way it was. It’s more effort being put forth by the fans for no added value.

If it replaces a preseason game, similar effort, but better product.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Ortizer]

So much wrong here. First off, any team has a "half-bye" after a TNF game, so requiring both teams to be coming off byes means that they have one stretch of 11 days between games (Sunday to Thursday a week) followed by another stretch of 10 days between games. Not conducive to good play.

Not only that, but if the intention is to schedule at least one game per team at a "netural venue" well outside of CONUS (& I think that's pretty clearly true) then the byes need to surround any such games, otherwise jet lag & time-zone shifts will be a major if not determining factor in the games.

Also, excluding "4 to 6 of the worst teams" is one of those "please-don't-throw-me-in-the-briar-patch" situations - no one wants to play on Turrsdee night, why reward the bottom-feeders?

And finally, get off my yawn, I need a nap.

So what if they did tnf for neutral site games? Probably would never happen, but would definitely solve that issue.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Jfoh]

I never understood the reasoning of having a 53 man "active" roster during the year, yet only allowing 46 to be active on a game day.

What is the logic of that...what other sport allows you to have a full active roster on every off day of the season, but on game days, you are restricted and have to make 11% of them ineligible to play?

I can't think of any reason other than for gamblers who wait to bet until the "inactive" lists are put out an hour and a half before the games.

Increase the active roster by a few and get rid of the "inactive" lists.

The reason for only 46 active is it was decided that some teams gained an advantage with all 53 being active. It was said a good teams 53-rd man might be better than another teams 48-th man. So by making goods teams inactive better players it would help the weaker teams.

I’m all for expanding rosters. I’d keep 60-65 on the roster and make 50-55 active. That way your practice squad does not get raided and you could develop younger players. Plus a larger active roster would make more replacements available so slightly injuried players could get less reps and maybe less extra injuries. Plus more players qualifying for retirement and benefits.

[Mista T]

Yeah, that's the main thing. It's sort of personal taste. I feel like I wouldn't be getting anything out of a 17th game, but the success of the XFL may point to the conclusion that I'm in the minority here. Perhaps there's an an appetite for the majority of sports fans...... I don't know. I personally don't want a 17 game season. But I get it if people do.

The other side of the coin that 17th game opponents frequently bypass is that we'd be getting out of one preseason game (mandatory to pay for with season tickets). I would trade dropping preseason games for an extra regular season game in a heartbeat. Also, considering that the London game is here to stay, the 17th game also assures us that we would not be having to give up a home game (or, in Jacksonville's case: 2 home games).

Yet another potential benefit could be, for those of us who enjoy following the Ravens on the road, adding new locations to follow the team.

So what if they did tnf for neutral site games? Probably would never happen, but would definitely solve that issue.

Brilliant suggestion! Really.

All the 17th neutral games would involve equal rest & near-equal travel for each opponent. I could see a full bye week preceding the neutral game, play it on TNF, and followed by the mini-bye after the TNF. Reducing travel weariness, sleep deprivation, and jet lag impact.

[HbgPARavenfan]

The good news is you wouldn’t have to watch it

True. I just think you know who the good teams are by week 17, honestly.

[Ravenswintitle]

They're going to kill the golden goose. Best playoff setup in all of sports - and they're going to change it...


NFL playoff structure is about to be changed. Under the current CBA proposal, seven teams from each conference will make the playoffs, with only bye per conference, sources tell ESPN. It would go into effect this upcoming season. More coming on http://ESPN.com.

[Ravenswintitle]

Jamison Hensley


Under this format, these would have been the No. 7 seeds over the past five seasons for AFC & NFC ...

2015: Jets (10-6), Falcons (8-8)
2016: Titans (9-7), Bucs (9-7)
2017: Ravens (9-7), Lions (9-7)
2018: Steelers (9-6-1), Vikings (8-7-1)
2019: Steelers (8-8), Rams (9-7)

[Bhcforlife]

I don't mind adding a game but I hate the playoff change. Last year the Steelers would have played the Chiefs, a game that would have taken all of about 10 minutes to be decided. I guess it's for ratings and being able to show 6 games instead 4 on WC weekend, but I'm skeptical of how many of those 2-7 matches are going to be competitive enough to keep an audience for the entirety.

I don't know. I just hate how the NBA and NHL have half the league getting into the postseason. I see where MLB is trying to put 14 teams in the postseason under their next CBA and that's gross. It just waters down the product, makes the regular season less meaningful, and lessens the achievement of making the playoffs.