Jump to content

How the NFL should get to an 18 Game Schedule


ChaRisMa

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Brad gluckman said:

Why not just add another bye week or two? You may not get revenue through ticket sales but there would be an increase in TV revenue. Plus, it gives players rest and keeps them healthy. Less injuries to star players is good for everyone. 

Echo echo echo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

This is just grandstanding by the owners. The players will demand guaranteed contracts. The owners will demand 18 games. 

Negotiations will start from there and then finally move to the one thing both sides care about for real, what percentage of football revenue will players make.

Makes the most sense. Owners know that's what they want next and this is the most logical stand to take for their side to fight over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing more I want to do then pay for my season tickets and get ready to drive Lambeau and hear that I got a game that they decided to bench Aaron for.

The NFL tries to outdumb themselves every year.

I'd be in favor of a league wide boycott where every teams fans refuse to watch the 2 game where their starting QB is benched if this went through. I'm not going to increase my consumption for a garbage product. I'll take that extra money and write a check to Gutey and put "for Khalil Mack" in the memo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all great stuff but you sit a guy for week one and two bases on schedule and then Sami week 3 knee sprain, another one sprains an ankle. So now you get possibly 2 gone for more than 2 games. Yes guys miss time already as noted but you strategically sit guys who may get hurt right after. 

 

Myself i I like the 16 game season and the preseason is fine. More games means more injuries longer season more practice or less of the union gets its way. 

Another poster said it as well there will be games that are possibly thrown especially out of conference games which already lose based on div and tiebreakers already in play.  

Diluting the talent oool with more players and more games will make the product lesser. Ask Brett Hull. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Norm said:

IDK, Kizer starting might be the game I look forward to most lol

In a league with serious practice limitations, getting a mandatory 2 weeks of backups would be good for everyone involved. And IF teams knew their backup QB was gonna play 2 games they would under no circumstances have Graham Harrell or Brett Hundley as backups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, ChaRisMa said:

In a league with serious practice limitations, getting a mandatory 2 weeks of backups would be good for everyone involved. And IF teams knew their backup QB was gonna play 2 games they would under no circumstances have Graham Harrell or Brett Hundley as backups.

If only this was started years ago my Tim Tebow would be in the NFL :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

This is an extremely compelling argument against mandatory backup games.

lol, rude.

 

IDK, even as ****ty as Tim was I bet you most people would rather watch him than most blah random boring (also crap) backups if they are being honest with themselves lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Packer_ESP said:

Where would they find upgrades and why aren't they doing it now?

Very true. Always felt they kept Harrell because he was sharp in the room with film and whatnot. I'm sure if they knew he would play they would have tried to get better though. That was always my feel anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing I don't think has been addressed is how do they determine who the other two teams are that get added to the schedule. Right now you play:

6 Division Games

4 Games against another Conference Division that rotates year to year. 

4 Games against an apposite Division that rotates year to year.

2 Non-division conference games that feature a team that placed equal to you last year that are not from the division in which you play all 4 teams.

If we add two more games I assume that you add two more from the non-division conference pool.  For example this year the Packers play the 6 Division Games, the NFC West, The AFC east,  the Redskins (NFC East 3rd place team) and the Falcons (NFC South 3rd Place team).  If it were an 18 game season they would also play the 4th place NFC South and East Teams to get to 18.  The first and second place teams would play each other in this instance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Packer_ESP said:

Where would they find upgrades and why aren't they doing it now?

They will develop them same as now. They’ll just have two actual game weeks to develop them in. Practices. The full offense. It’ll lead to better QBs moving to teams that actually need them for 16 games. But everyone has the same playing field for backup QBs. Every team in the NFL aims to have a .500 backup QB. Backups upset starters all the time. Brett Hundley won 3 NFL games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL is entertainment, produced by entertainment giants. And the winning formula they use in the movies and TV shows... and football games... is to pimp the Leading Men. The stars of the game. Rodgers vs Brady !!!!

So what happens when the Stars sit ?  it just makes this junior varsity football - same as preseason.
Robert Kraft famously said: " Going to see the Patriots without Tom Brady is like watching Lethal Weapon, without Mel Gibson"

I don't see dilution as the solution, but I will freely admit, I don't see a "problem" with 16 regular season games either. And I'm reluctant to change the game even more just to feed the insatiable greed of a few owners. 16 is plenty, playoffs are fine.

Quit ******* around with the game... B|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...