the lone star Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, youngosu said: Couldn't disagree with this more, the best reason to move to 18 games is so you can get rid of the unbalanced schedules. 18 games means every team could play their division opponents twice (6 games), every team in 2 divisions of their conference (8 games), and 1 division from the other conference (4 games). Every team in each division plays the same opponents, no more easier/harder schedules. A designated rival is a terrible reason to move to 18 games, makes far more sense under the current 16 game schedule (still a bad idea IMO however). That's cool and all, but then as a fan, I'd have to wait a long time to see the Texans and Cowboys play each other. While I am getting tired of seeing the Eagles, Giants, and Redskins so often. Also, I forgot to mention, but if it goes to 18 games, then I'd be interested in expanding playoffs as well. More football is great for me as a fan, but I do see that more games = more injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 17 minutes ago, the lone star said: That's cool and all, but then as a fan, I'd have to wait a long time to see the Texans and Cowboys play each other. While I am getting tired of seeing the Eagles, Giants, and Redskins so often. This argument seems to be a stronger case for realignment than for a yearly inter-conference rival. As a Seahawks fan I never get tired of playing the division rivals twice per year nor is their a single AFC team I want the Seahawks to play every year. Honestly as a fan I'd rather see inter-conference games eliminated along with an 18 game schedule so the Seahawks could play every NFC team every year and their division rivals twice. I think the inter-conference rival idea is just an absolutely terrible idea. Very few fans give a damn about it in MLB and even less fans would care if the NFL did it IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lone star Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 1 minute ago, youngosu said: This argument seems to be a stronger case for realignment than for a yearly inter-conference rival. As a Seahawks fan I never get tired of playing the division rivals twice per year nor is their a single AFC team I want the Seahawks to play every year. Honestly as a fan I'd rather see inter-conference games eliminated along with an 18 game schedule so the Seahawks could play every NFC team every year and their division rivals twice. Yeah, realignment would be cool. Giants, Redskins, and Eagles are cool I guess, but meh, not regional. I'd like more regional games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninerjunkie Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 No thanks. You think too many players are getting hurt now but then you add 2 more games after that and they would be dropping even more like flies. Players health is more important than the obsession of fantasy points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 7 hours ago, youngosu said: What makes these "perfect" beyond it being the current number for each? I feel I can make a pretty strong case for 12 playoff teams and 16 games both being imperfect but I look forward to your explanation of why they are perfect first. Perfect may not be the right word, but its as close to perfect as youre going to get. I guess the more accurate term would be "perfectly fine". 16 games already takes a massive toll on the players. You add two more games, as I stated, youre going to shorten the careers of players and wear them down for the playoffs. Cutting preseason games isnt going to remedy that either. Not even a little. Adding 2 more games isnt going to improve anything except bring in more money, but thats also going to massively complicate things between players and owners, and would likely result in another NFLPA strike. And would it really be worth it considering what its going to mean for players careers and the playoffs, which is going to see more injured players and players simply being worn out by the end of the season. 12 playoff teams, if anything, is already too MUCH. You dont need half the league in the playoffs. Thats silly. Just because one SUPPOSEDLY deserving team may miss out here and there doesnt mean you let more teams in. We already see .500 teams make it and on a rare occasion, a losing team. You expand the playoffs, and youre going to see more of that, and no, thats not a good thing. With 12 spots and 16 games, most games feel important. You increase the amount of both playoff teams and regular season games, youre going to make many regular season games feel less important, and water down the playoffs with lesser teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 2 hours ago, youngosu said: Couldn't disagree with this more, the best reason to move to 18 games is so you can get rid of the unbalanced schedules. 18 games means every team could play their division opponents twice (6 games), every team in 2 divisions of their conference (8 games), and 1 division from the other conference (4 games). You could even set it up so with the exception of interconference games everyone has the same home/away schedules. Every team in each division plays the same opponents, no more easier/harder schedules. A designated rival is a terrible reason to move to 18 games, makes far more sense under the current 16 game schedule (still a bad idea IMO however). Teams within each division only vary by two games in regards to who they play.....and the way they determine that is perfectly fair (previous seasons record). Beyond that, teams regress and progress season to season. There have been many times when teams who were thought to have a hard schedule going INTO a season ultimately ended up having an easy season due to teams regressing and injuries. So just because a schedule may be perceived as extremely easy or extremely hard before the season doesnt mean it will ultimately be that. And on top of that, there is no way to eliminate schedule difficulty. Even if you do it within the division (which isnt necessary since its done fairly), schedules are still going to vary wildly from division to division and conference to conference. So no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS been teams with easier schedules and teams with harder schedules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 53 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said: Teams within each division only vary by two games in regards to who they play.....and the way they determine that is perfectly fair (previous seasons record). Beyond that, teams regress and progress season to season. There have been many times when teams who were thought to have a hard schedule going INTO a season ultimately ended up having an easy season due to teams regressing and injuries. So just because a schedule may be perceived as extremely easy or extremely hard before the season doesnt mean it will ultimately be that. And on top of that, there is no way to eliminate schedule difficulty. Even if you do it within the division (which isnt necessary since its done fairly), schedules are still going to vary wildly from division to division and conference to conference. So no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS been teams with easier schedules and teams with harder schedules. 2 games is pretty significant in a 16 game season so downplaying that variance seems a little silly to me. Determining a schedule based on previous season's record is NOT perfectly fair. Claiming it is is absurd for the very reasons you described in your next 2 paragraphs. In addition to the reasons you mention there is also the reality that using a previous season to influence who will be the champion of the current season is inherently unfair. Each season's champ should be determined on the merits of that season. And sure, you can never have a perfect schedule but you could do a better job with either a 14 game or 18 game schedule. 16 games is clearly the wrong number for the very reasons you yourself just described. And of course schedules will vary wildly from division to division which brings up the reason 12 playoff teams is clearly the incorrect number. The varied schedules (that you admit exist) means that a team going 10-6 in 1 division does not mean they are better than a team that goes 9-7 in another division (and its even worse when it comes down to a tie-breaker) so the fact that teams get byes or wildcards based on such a meaningless distinction clearly makes 12 teams the wrong number. 2 per division (yes half the league) or only division champs making the playoffs would both be an objectively fairer way to determine the champion. That said, if you are married to the 16 game schedule 12 playoff team system than the best way to accomplish that is expand to 34 teams, get rid of division altogether. Play everyone in your conference once, top 6 in each conference make the playoffs, top 2 get byes. That would work within the 16 game 12 playoff team system. The current structure does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 21 minutes ago, youngosu said: 2 games is pretty significant in a 16 game season so downplaying that variance seems a little silly to me. Determining a schedule based on previous season's record is NOT perfectly fair. Claiming it is is absurd for the very reasons you described in your next 2 paragraphs. In addition to the reasons you mention there is also the reality that using a previous season to influence who will be the champion of the current season is inherently unfair. Each season's champ should be determined on the merits of that season. And sure, you can never have a perfect schedule but you could do a better job with either a 14 game or 18 game schedule. 16 games is clearly the wrong number for the very reasons you yourself just described. And of course schedules will vary wildly from division to division which brings up the reason 12 playoff teams is clearly the incorrect number. The varied schedules (that you admit exist) means that a team going 10-6 in 1 division does not mean they are better than a team that goes 9-7 in another division (and its even worse when it comes down to a tie-breaker) so the fact that teams get byes or wildcards based on such a meaningless distinction clearly makes 12 teams the wrong number. 2 per division (yes half the league) or only division champs making the playoffs would both be an objectively fairer way to determine the champion. Nothing that you suggest here is going to fix your unnecessary propaganda on equality within the league. You are always going to have good teams and bad teams. Therefore, you are always going to have some teams playing easier schedule than others. It doesn't matter if you have 14 games or 99 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 21 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: Nothing that you suggest here is going to fix your unnecessary propaganda on equality within the league. You are always going to have good teams and bad teams. Therefore, you are always going to have some teams playing easier schedule than others. It doesn't matter if you have 14 games or 99 games. Yeah, sharing an opinion on a message board is now propaganda. Whatever..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 What alot of people are missing from the OP's article is this.... Quote A total of 18 regular-season games per team, with maximum participation of 16 games per player. So the injury concerns are lessened, but this also means that we have to watch our favorite teams' back up QB vs another back up QB for two weeks and potentially even on MNF or SNF. Sounds like TWO glorified 3rd pre-season games to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, youngosu said: 18 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: Nothing that you suggest here is going to fix your unnecessary propaganda on equality within the league. You are always going to have good teams and bad teams. Therefore, you are always going to have some teams playing easier schedule than others. It doesn't matter if you have 14 games or 99 games. In other words you were talking out of your *** when you said 16 and 12 is perfect and have no actual basis for said opinion. Fair enough..... 16? 12?.... I'm sorry, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 1 minute ago, JustAnotherFan said: 16? 12?.... I'm sorry, what? I thought you were mafia who I was responding too originally. Look, I get it, you don't like me sharing my opinions, so how bout you just ignore me? Calling my opinion propaganda is pathetic. But whatever, to each their own. I couldn't care less about your opinions either. So its win-win.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 And not that I said anything about 16 or 12 games, but yes, 16 games is perfect for a 32 team league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: And not that I said anything about 16 or 12 games, but yes, 16 games is perfect for a 32 team league. Because why? You say so? Cool, I guess. Are you free to provide all opinions for all situations? Wouldn't want to disagree with your opinions based on literally nothing. Was 16 perfect when it was a 28 team league? 30 team league? 31 team league? What size does the league need to be for 16 to no longer be perfect? 34? 40? Oh share your wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 Just now, youngosu said: I thought you were mafia who I was responding too originally. Look, I get it, you don't like me sharing my opinions, so how bout you just ignore me? Calling my opinion propaganda is pathetic. But whatever, to each their own. I couldn't care less about your opinions either. So its win-win.... The thing is, I wouldn't call your opinions propaganda if you posted about anything else other than anything about how unfair you think the league is. I mean seriously your posting history is on this site to date are all about the same topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.