Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    Now that it's seemingly unavoidable, agreeing or disagreeing with it is inconsequential. My only concern now is, how will they expand it?

    What I will NOT like, is keeping the divisional setup the same. I don't see how you can only play 6 out of 18 (33%, no other sports has an inter-division percentage so low) games in your own division. A team could conceivably go 0-6 in the division, but 12-6 overall, and win a division that they never beat another team in. That may be extreme, but so is watching an 11-5 team miss the playoffs, it would EVENTUALLY happen to someone.

    So, what then? Ideally, you'd play about half in-division. But I can't see figuring out a fair way to do that, you can't play 3-3-3...unless you figure out a neutral site for the 3rd meetings of teams. NYJ v MIA @ NE? NE v BUF @ MIA? Would be interesting, but never happen.

    4-4-4? Now that's too many games against single opponents. Though, I don't mind 12 out of 18 games being in-division, but not with only 3 opponents to spread them out.

    My thought is to go to 4 divisions, 2 in the AFC, 2 in the NFC, each 8 teams. 2 games versus each inter-divisional opponent, the last 4 on some rotating basis, similar to what they do now. I'd then split it up by East/West/North/South, pitting East v West, and North v South. I like the dynamic of pitting those parts of the country against each other, it's already there anyway.

    East Division:
    NE
    NYJ
    NYG
    PITT
    PHI
    BAL
    BUF
    WAS

    West:
    SD
    OAK
    SF
    ARI
    DEN
    SEA
    KC
    STL

    South:
    DAL
    HOU
    TENN
    JAX
    TB
    ATL
    NO
    MIA

    North:
    GB
    CHI
    INDY
    MINN
    CLE
    CIN
    DET
    CAR

    The one team out of place would really be Carolina in my North. Couldn't swing it any other way. I think you basically keep all the rivalries worth mentioning (CHI/GB, NE/NYJ, DEN/OAK, etc) and you create more with the likes of HOU/TENN/DAL, SF/OAK/SD/LA (eventually?), MIA/JAX, PIT/PHI. 14 games being in-division would make winning your division a true accomplishment, and the 4 bye weeks go to the 4 division winners, no muss, no fuss. 4 Wild cards per conferance (AFC/NFC) determined by best overall record, then the normal tie breakers (common opponent record, etc).

    Again, looking forward, 18 games seems inevitable, it's time to accept that fact, and see how an 18 game schedule works.

    Would anyone be happy leaving it as-is, and adding 2 more out of division games? For comparison, 72/162 games in baseball, 16/82 in division with 52/82 in conference (which is really what matters in that league) in the NBA. In the NHL, 24 of 82 in division with 64 of 82 within your own conference.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw. Show Philskiw's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    I dont think you can have all new york teams in the same division.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    would not force a division realignment.

    my take is it is a stoopid idea to go to 18 games. the players will be too beat up by the time the playoffs start.

    they oought to expand the playoffs to 8 teams in each conference.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    I think this 18 game schedule is strictly gamesmanship on the owners part for the new CBA. I think this is put on the table in order for a "quid pro quo". The players will give in to the rookie salary cap and the owners will revert back to the 16 game schedule. Thus the owners can recoup some money ( big time!)and in fact the veteran players will probably benefit  monetarily also. The only losers ... the college kids and agents ..who by the way aren't at the big table. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    In Response to Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...:
    [QUOTE]I think this 18 game schedule is strictly gamesmanship on the owners part for the new CBA. I think this is put on the table in order for a "quid pro quo". The players will give in to the rookie salary cap and the owners will revert back to the 16 game schedule. Thus the owners can recoup some money ( big time!)and in fact the veteran players will probably benefit  monetarily also. The only losers ... the college kids and agents ..who by the way aren't at the big table. 
    Posted by mgraham[/QUOTE]

    Good post, very astute...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    In Response to Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...:
    [QUOTE]I think this 18 game schedule is strictly gamesmanship on the owners part for the new CBA. I think this is put on the table in order for a "quid pro quo". The players will give in to the rookie salary cap and the owners will revert back to the 16 game schedule. Thus the owners can recoup some money ( big time!)and in fact the veteran players will probably benefit  monetarily also. The only losers ... the college kids and agents ..who by the way aren't at the big table. 
    Posted by mgraham[/QUOTE]

    You may be right about the gamemanship part, but I'd disagree with the reason. I think most players also want a rookie salary cap, the ONLY players that would want to keep it how it is are (as you mentioned) currently still in college, and don't get a vote. I think the owners may, however, use it to leverage the union into taking a smaller overall percentage, which as I understand it, is what they're really going after.

    But I really don't think it's a bluff, I think they really do want it.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    ma6dragon9  you are right the owners are looking for more $. The presesason games are sold out in most parks ( season ticket reqs)so that revenue source for 18 games ( less concessions and parking) is unchanged ... unless it is the TV  NETWORKS( already guarranteeing the owners some revenue in a lockout) that is the wild card! I could see a 16 game schedule, rookie cap...with expanded playoffs being the mediating factor here.

    I really believe this is a bargaining chip. Also Bill Poilian is the mouthpiece for this!

    Your thoughts
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    In Response to Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...:
    [QUOTE]I think this 18 game schedule is strictly gamesmanship on the owners part for the new CBA. I think this is put on the table in order for a "quid pro quo". The players will give in to the rookie salary cap and the owners will revert back to the 16 game schedule. Thus the owners can recoup some money ( big time!)and in fact the veteran players will probably benefit  monetarily also. The only losers ... the college kids and agents ..who by the way aren't at the big table. 
    Posted by mgraham[/QUOTE]

    true dat
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brendon-Patrick. Show Brendon-Patrick's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    Love it, love it, love it. Although removing AFC/NFC conferences all-together might be a better idea. Just have 2 wildcards per division, (East, West, North, South)? Or, offer 8 wildcards to the 8 teams with the eight best records aside from the four division winners.

    BYE - East Winner

    BYE - West Winner

    BYE - North Winner

    BYE - South Winner

    WC #1
    vs. -----> ? vs. #4 BYE TEAM
    WC #8

    WC #2
    vs. -----> ? vs. #3 BYE TEAM
    WC #7

    WC #3
    vs. -----> ? vs. #2 BYE TEAM
    WC #6

    WC #4
    vs. -----> ? vs. #1 BYE TEAM
    WC #5

    That's one ideal situation. I think that playoff format is less likely to happen however, should there be a rearrangement of the league. The other playoff format parallel to your North/South/East/West divisions and my non-conference idea includes 2 wildcard slots for each division.

    BYE - East Winner

    BYE - West Winner

    BYE - North Winner

    BYE - South Winner

    East WC #1
    vs. ---------------> ? vs. Eastern BYE TEAM
    East WC #2

    West WC #1
    vs. ---------------> ? vs. Western BYE TEAM
    West WC #2

    North WC #1
    vs. ---------------> ? vs. Northern BYE TEAM
    North WC #2

    South WC #1
    vs. ---------------> ? vs. Southern BYE TEAM
    South WC #2

    Then the winners would be limited to four teams, a semifinal. A rearrangement of the seeds, (based on total wins accumulated in both the regular season and playoffs), would be applied to an official playoff bracket, and all remaining teams would be given a second, (or third), BYE week to recuperate. Now, following this playoff BYE week, the team with the best win:loss ratio remaining in the playoffs would play the team with the worst remaining win:loss ratio, and the team with the second best win:loss ratio would play the team with the second worst win:loss ratio. From there, you can probably guess how the Super Bowl matchup comes to be. There would be an additional BYE week once there are only two teams remaining in the playoffs, as there is already.

    Review: 
    There would be the one regular season BYE week of course, two additional games added to the regular season, (18 games), a BYE week awarded to the 4 division winners, and a much needed playoff BYE week before the final 4 teams play in a semifinal. Essentially, there are 22 opportunities to win with 4 potential BYE weeks, as compared todays NFL where there are 20 opportunities to win with 3 potential BYE weeks. Another proposal I would make is that there be a BYE week for all 32 NFL teams prior to the first regular season game. In other words, 2 preseason games conclude, and then a BYE week before the next game; week 1 of the new seasons "real" games. Then, essentially, there would be 5 BYE week opportunities! Everything smoothes out, there is more cash-flow, and the quality of NFL action is essentially greater for a longer period of time! Everyone is as happy as can be. There could also be strong contractual obligations for players elected to the Pro Bowl, (could be zero, one or two weeks following each Super Bowl), to actually participate in the Pro Bowl, cash incentives included.

    So, 30 weeks:

    Preseason game #1
    Preseason game #2
    Recess #1
    Regular Season Week #1
    Regular Season Week #2
    Regular Season Week #3
    Regular Season Week #4
    Regular Season Week #5
    Regular Season Week #6
    Regular Season Week #7
    Regular Season Week #8
    Regular Season Week #9
    Regular Season Week #10
    Regular Season Week #11
    Regular Season Week #12
    Regular Season Week #13
    Regular Season Week #14
    Regular Season Week #15
    Regular Season Week #16
    Regular Season Week #17
    Regular Season Week #18
    Playoff Wildcard Week
    Playoff Divisional Week
    Recess #2/BYE Week #3, or, #4
    Playoff Semifinal Week
    Recess #3/BYE Week #4, or, #5
    Playoff Final Week (Super Bowl)
    Recess #4
    Recess #5
    Pro Bowl

    Compare that monster to the current system, which is great as it is, but is less conducive to the type of money and work schedule both the Union and the NFL can agree to right now.


    Back to the division ideal, 8 Eastern teams, 8 Western teams, 8 Northern teams, and 8 Southern teams. Think of the territorial proclamations that can be made by fans of different regions, (North, South, East, West). The pride might be greater, (e.g., "I'm a neutral fan at this point, who do I feel best represents the East?" Bragging rights!), the demand stronger by success per region also. The competitive fight between divisional teams would be great to see as well, perhaps more so than we're already used to since there are more opponents we see a lot of each year. There would always be some sense of familiarity, one greater than now amongst fans. Thus, I believe, the general fan knowledge might improve as well. This could be great to watch as a spectator, and even greater to track as a fan. And from a historical perspective? Oh man, more meaningful records being pushed and set by a new generation of football for todays generation of people; a generation that has lived with football as the dominant entertainment source of modern American culture. There are also more "mini-dynasties". Winning a division consistently? Over seven other teams? That's a mini-dynasty! Super Bowls mean more than ever if won over and over again! The NFL actually improves itself under this proposed system that we're sort of collaborating on here. There is more of a grind and a greater sense of accomplishment in the end, I believe.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brendon-Patrick. Show Brendon-Patrick's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    Anyone else going to elaborate? I was excited by these ideas and no feedback.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    I would love a reordering and focus on the geographically close teams. One person commented you can't have all 3 NY teams in the same division, why not? Close proximity is what fuels true rivalries. It's the best when teams of your rival are close enough to drive to your stadium, and vice-versa. Why are the Yankees and Sox such huge rivals? One, because the Yankees have won so often, but also because it's a 5-6 hour drive between stadiums. If you come into CT you see both all over the place. People chant "Yankees S U C K" and get responses like "Nice rings". Sure, LA and Boston have a healthy basketball rivalry, but is it REALLY that intense? Only when they meet in the finals, there isn't a constant undercurrent of dislike between them.

    Imagine having the Jets/Giants/Bills/Pats/Eagles/Steelers/Ravens/Redskins in one division. You'd create such interesting dynamics. There is already so much in-fighting in that group now, and pitting them against one another regularly would be awesome. I know I know, you'd be losing that coveted Browns/Steelers rivalry....OoOoOoOo. Pats/Jets = money. Steelers/Ravens = money. Steelers/Pats = money. Jets/Ravens = money. Ravens/Redskins = in short order will be huge, Eagles/Steelers = money. Eagles/Giants = money. Buffalo is really the only team without a good rival, and that's only beause they've been so bad for so long. Those are 7 good matchups, nevermind the Pats/Eagles or Pats/Giants recent history.

    2 in-season byes are a neccessity with an 18 game sched, as Bren-Pat covered.

    I guess I just hope they shake it up. They've tried this system for about 15 years, and though it's not bad, it can be improved upon. They are missing a huge opportunity to ratchet up the intensity even higher.

    Also, is there anyone, I mean ANYONE out there who absolutely loves the system as it is now and would hate any changes? I doubt it, but I'd love to hear from them.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    In Response to Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...:
    [QUOTE]Anyone else going to elaborate? I was excited by these ideas and no feedback.
    Posted by Brendon-Patrick[/QUOTE]

    Effrin (only the r got it through! EFFRIN!?!) A, I like the intensity! You put some serious thought into that, kudos. I just hope the bigwigs are even considering a change, but it seems unlikely as there haven't even been any whispers of a change.

    I agree that they are missing out. I especially like the mini-dynasty angle. I've never been too immpressed or proud that the Pats have dominated the AFC East for about 10 years as there are only 3 other teams. Winning the AFC crown gets lost because of the Super Bowl (Just ask McNabb), but winning over 7 other teams, year in and year out? Yeah, that would be quite an accomplishment.

    Someone forward this thread to Goodell and the owners!

    I guess divisional breakdowns are not of huge interest to the general masses...but the general masses tend to like things like Jersey Shore, so I guess it's ok to be an outsider sometimes.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brendon-Patrick. Show Brendon-Patrick's posts

    Re: Speaking of an 18-game schedule...

    With roughly 30 weeks of NFL football season -- 20 scheduled games for every team and then a playoff tournament stuffed with recesses to reward the teams that have been able to last the longest -- most of the year figures to be filled up with quality American football action. That leaves around 22 weeks for these highly-paid, unique, and legitimately talented professionals to operate in an offseason. That offseason needs to include: a free agency period, (one without restricted free agency and one that begins on a date at least two weeks after the Pro Bowl), an NFL Draft, (with a rookie wage scale), perhaps a less-important/less-concentrated-on NFL Combine, a couple of different training camp regimes, and the NFL Hall of Fame ceremonies.

    This type of rigid work schedule might lead to shorter career averages for players, (another strategic money-advantage working in the NFL's favor), which might actually be good news for player health and safety, (yes! the players benefit too). I think there will be many players who get burned out rather quickly and not necessarily from the physicality of a longer, more intense NFL season. Instead, players will wear down from the lack of any true "down time". 

    NFL employment becomes more of a fulltime job, yes. Players realize they 
    have to give 100% during every opportunity, every year, because the pressure and demand of being in the NFL comes with a high standard, setting the bar, (as if the salaries weren't enough of an indication). The consistency level has to be top notch year in and year out. Reaching the NFL will certainly continue to be a pinnacle achievement for many, but questioning one's commitment level should not be out of anyones question nowadays.


    Players would ideally make big cash over a smaller span of time when compared to todays NFL system. Today, many people think athletes are paid too much. The NFL can appease the general public even from a financial perspective, imagine that? And with shorter careers, statistical records for past individual players would likely remain competitive with future statistics for some time.

    Under our proposed system, there is greater balance in nearly every major facet, a greater product overall, and likely a greater draw for more business internationally.
     

Share