This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Full article available here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=2469I dig this.
This would be awesome. You can televise the Week 18 NFL Selection Show presented by Quizno's on NFL Network on the Tuesday Night before the games, interview players and coaches on the teams that get called out. Who wouldn't watch that?
Agreed. That's what the playoffs are for. Too many holes in the plan...
If they really want to go for 18 games without refiguring the divisions, just play 3 outside divisions each year - 6 games in the division, 12 games out (3 divisions, 4 teams each). People are overthinking this.
Don't you think weeks 18 and 19 would be more exciting under this plan than if they followed what you described? This would also be "fairer" in a lot of ways, as teams would have fewer gripes about SOS or losing out on tiebreakers, I think.Agreed. That's what the playoffs are for. Too many holes in the plan...
If they really want to go for 18 games without refiguring the divisions, just play 3 outside divisions each year - 6 games in the division, 12 games out (3 divisions, 4 teams each). People are overthinking this.
Agreed. IMO a good alternative would be to schedule the last round of division games in weeks 17-19. Not every division race is compelling, but many are, and this would leave division titles, and thus the playoff picture, up in the air until the last few weeks.If they really want to go for 18 games without refiguring the divisions, just play 3 outside divisions each year - 6 games in the division, 12 games out (3 divisions, 4 teams each). People are overthinking this.
I liked the idea but, gotta agree with these two.How about a rivalry game instead?(or one that could be marketed as such)Jets vs Giants?If every year would Buffalo vs Giants work into a rivalry both being NY teams?A Mangini (Browns) vs Jets might workORHow about playing in another location as was common in all but the current NFL?Let LA actually have a game and see what happensLet one of Giants or Jets actually play a game in NYHave one of the ohio teams play a game in masillon(sp?)Oklahoma is loaded with hundreds of thousands of Cowboys fans, why not play a Cowboys game at OU?(I would guess there's a slew of states like that)Titans and Saints played games in other locations recently. How about playing in one of those stadiums again?I'll always think a game on a military base is a cool idea and if the stands were filled with 60-80k soldiers; all the more better.Doing this would increase and/or please the team's far reaching fan base.
More exciting, sure. This is basically two additional playoff games. Fairer? Perhaps although if you're playing half the league, most of the time that will balance out. It just complicates things unneccessarily.Don't you think weeks 18 and 19 would be more exciting under this plan than if they followed what you described? This would also be "fairer" in a lot of ways, as teams would have fewer gripes about SOS or losing out on tiebreakers, I think.
Why don't you like the Yankees playing the Mets, and why would it be unfair?
Because Toronto, Baltimore, TB and Boston get to play teams that are not as competitive every year. Granted the Yanks just lost 2 out of 3 to Washington, but I would rather play 3 more with them then another 3 with a competitive Mets team. And that happens every year.Lets put it into fantasy football terms for a second. You play in a local league where the same 6 teams make the playoffs 90% of the time. So the commish says that he is changing the schedule. The last 2 weeks will have the 6 teams that are playoff bound (as of that week) play each other and those games will count as games you have to play to make the playoffs.How often are there even number of teams who are eliminated by the last 2 weeks. What happens if the team that played two weak teams got two wins to catapult them past you who had to play against the two competitve teams. Doesnt seem equitable for everyone and it would be difficult in my opinion to schedule the teams that are maybes and the teams that seem to be locks
They could use the format from 1978 for the extra games, so a #1 would play both the #1's, a #2 from one division and a #3 from the other.#2= the #2's, a #1 and a #4
You're fundamentally talking about play-in games. I understand why these games would be exciting to watch, but its not fair to the teams and could even cheapen the regular season....How often is there a truly unfair tiebreaker? I would say its happened twice since the 16 game schedule (the 2 11-win teams to miss the playoffs -- especially since an 8-8 team made the playoffs both times an 11-5 team missed them). And twice in 30 years isn't that bad.So for the other 28 of 30 years I'm not getting worked up over which 10-6 team makes the playoffs. You want to make the playoffs? Win in the regular season...Don't you think weeks 18 and 19 would be more exciting under this plan than if they followed what you described? This would also be "fairer" in a lot of ways, as teams would have fewer gripes about SOS or losing out on tiebreakers, I think.
Sure...they might be more exciting, but this has :trainwreck: written all over it. Far too difficult to plan for far too many teams. Even worse, while done with the intention of "fairness", in the end it's just as likely to make things LESS fair.A blanced , predetemined schedule is the only way to go.Chase Stuart said:Don't you think weeks 18 and 19 would be more exciting under this plan than if they followed what you described? This would also be "fairer" in a lot of ways, as teams would have fewer gripes about SOS or losing out on tiebreakers, I think.FUBAR said:Sinrman said:vikingdave said:Agreed. That's what the playoffs are for. Too many holes in the plan...
If they really want to go for 18 games without refiguring the divisions, just play 3 outside divisions each year - 6 games in the division, 12 games out (3 divisions, 4 teams each). People are overthinking this.
+1I do like the flexible schedule idea for more meaningful games at the end of the year, but this is basically adding another playoff round.I think it would be cool to look at the possibility of leaving week 16 and 17 open, and letting those games be scheduled mid-season. The idea of the home team "inviting" another team to one of these games would be really interesting.Sinrman said:vikingdave said:
Of course, teams already do this in the playoffs.
Yes, but there's an embedded level of interest in playoff games. Not so for teams that are out of the playoffs, playing other teams clearly out of the playoffs, and having to get people to attend a game they hadn't budgeted for with no energy or meaning. Again, you could work this for the contending teams well enough. But what about the rest of the teams trying to make the best of two crappy late season matchups with no consequence?
Are you saying Oakland vs. Detroit in December when both teams stink is normally compelling, but if it's Oakland vs. SF when both teams stink, it won't be compelling? What's the difference? Yes, this is somewhat like adding two more weeks to the playoffs (except the top teams can't get knocked out). That sounds like a good thing.
That's what I was thinking. For crappy teams, they trade 2 meaningless games prior to the start of the season for two meaningless games at the end of the season. They try to take into account the rivalry factor here, but what if all of a teams arch rivals are the good teams that they can't schedule?
A tremendous amount.1) Teams know before the season starts what their trouble games are going to be like. And depending on how their records proceed, teams take measure to ensure sell-outs as the season goes on. As is currently constituted, Oakland would know that the Detroit game isn't looking like a barn burner and can start ramping up the promotional ticket distribution. More tickets as 'give aways', more discounting, etc...When you don't know you're going to have the suck games until late in the season, you're going to have more difficult filling those seats2) As a season ticket holder, I can sell my tickets in much the same way for the same reason. If I see we're playing the Bengals in the last week of the season, I'm going to seriously consider selling those tickets [for a discount] months in advance since the game isn't likely to be meaningful. If I don't know who's playing until a week or two before, that's not going to happen3) At least for the first few years, people are going to be worn out by the added games. Chase, as a Jets fan you know how exhausting the last month or two of a season can feel if your team sucks. As a season ticket holder, the idea of having to slog through another game or two for my team would drain me, and I would think the incremental demand for those tickets would also wane
I completely disagree. The randomness of the playoffs is such that adding two more weeks will make it that much harder for the great teams to get to where they're supposed to be. It's bad enough we now have teams at the .500 mark pushing for playoff spots, to effectively open the "one and done" ladder to even more teams would take away from the achievements of the handful of truly excellent teams each and every year.
I agree with points 1 and 2, but I don't think they are serious negatives tot he plan. As for 3, people are going to be worn out by the added games regardless of the schedule, so I think that's a moot point.I also disagree with your point about the playoffs. I think this plan will make it easier for the great teams to get where they're supposed to be.
Agreed. That's what the playoffs are for. Too many holes in the plan...
