pf9 Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) They should expand the playoffs instead. A 16-team playoff should work, and has worked before (1982). The main thing is to eliminate the advantage top-2 seeds have had in recent years by forcing them to play on the opening week with the other playoff teams. The next TV contract should incorporate reverse mirrors on CBS/CBSSN and Fox/FS1 which would also be used in the opening round of a 16-team playoff to keep the playoffs on Saturdays and Sundays only. Edited July 12, 2019 by pf9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 37 minutes ago, pf9 said: They should expand the playoffs instead. A 16-team playoff should work, and has worked before (1982). The main thing is to eliminate the advantage top-2 seeds have had in recent years by forcing them to play on the opening week with the other playoff teams. The next TV contract should incorporate reverse mirrors on CBS/CBSSN and Fox/FS1 which would also be used in the opening round of a 16-team playoff to keep the playoffs on Saturdays and Sundays only. I'm not a fan of 2 teams with byes either. However, if every division winner got a bye I'd be okay with that. During that week 8 wildcard teams play each other for a chance to play a division winner so 12 teams per conference make the playoffs. Seems crazy but it may have that NCAA basketball feel to it, a hot team that may not even have a winning record could be a Cinderella story even if odds are the championship games would be between two of the top 4 seeds in the conference. It would add an extra week to the playoffs but maybe that would compensate for the idea of an 18 week schedule would doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 2 hours ago, TheKillerNacho said: just leave it at 16 zzzz On the bright side, the NSFL would have to expand to 18 games too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 35 minutes ago, Malfatron said: On the bright side, the NSFL would have to expand to 18 games too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Packerraymond said: So your idea is to remove 2 meaningless games and play them meaningfully with bad players? Sweet. I'm plenty happy with the amount of football I have. Two more games of Deshone Kizer (ones as a ticket hold I'll have to pay full price for and won't be able to sell) moves the needle the opposite direction. It's probably the worst rule proposal ever concocted for any sports league. Wait a minute....lets think about this for a second. I've no clue how this would get structured "rules-wise" but what if it was mandated that you (in essence) rotate the starters. That you have to maintain some % of starters in every game. In other words - entire squads dont need to sit out entire games. Example: the offensive line. You cant sit the entire starting OL for two games - but you can sit Bak for a game - putting his backup with the other starters. Next week - you rotate Bak back in - but sit Taylor and plug his backup in. You could use this approach all the way down each OL position. Barring injury disruption - you could pretty much rotate the starting players in and out somewhat seamlessly. A similar rotation approach would work with the DL and other position players. But - if a guy's down (or out) for injury - those down games count towards the two mandated for the entire season. Punters and kickers? Sorry guys. You're in for all 18 games.    Edited July 13, 2019 by Leader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 31 minutes ago, Leader said: Wait a minute....lets think about this for a second. I've no clue how this would get structured "rules-wise" but what if it was mandated that you (in essence) rotate the starters. That you have to maintain some % of starters in every game. In other words - entire squads dont need to sit out entire games. Example: the offensive line. You cant sit the entire starting OL for two games - but you can sit Bak for a game - putting his backup with the other starters. Next week - you rotate Bak back in - but sit Taylor and plug his backup in. You could use this approach all the way down each OL position. Barring injury disruption - you could pretty much rotate the starting players in and out somewhat seamlessly. A similar rotation approach would work with the DL and other position players. But - if a guy's down (or out) for injury - those down games count towards the two mandated for the entire season. Punters and kickers? Sorry guys. You're in for all 18 games.    Yeah well who wants to start their franchise QB with any back up O-lineman if they don't have to? Especially LT but any of them really. You're just asking for an injury caused by a backup lineman getting beat and then this stupid rule goes away so why implement it to begin with? Lets avoid the embarrassment and just put this to bed. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Smokescreen to use as bargaining chip. 'But we really want 18 games' Just give us this other little thing and we'll stick to 16 for now.  LOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 3 hours ago, Thomas5737 said: Yeah well who wants to start their franchise QB with any back up O-lineman if they don't have to? Especially LT but any of them really. You're just asking for an injury caused by a backup lineman getting beat and then this stupid rule goes away so why implement it to begin with? Lets avoid the embarrassment and just put this to bed. Understood - but the point being made was the sitting of a player/or players didnt necessarily need to be on a huge scale and outside the QB sitting out probably could be accomplished with minimal disruption to the overall production of the offensive/defensive unit -- or often - to fan notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 I want to see this happen just for the chaos it will created in ffb leagues across the country when teams announce in pre-game which starters are going to sit this week.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 I actually wonder what % of starters typically play in all 16 games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Thomas5737 said: Yeah well who wants to start their franchise QB with any back up O-lineman if they don't have to? Especially LT but any of them really. You're just asking for an injury caused by a backup lineman getting beat and then this stupid rule goes away so why implement it to begin with? Lets avoid the embarrassment and just put this to bed. GB does this every year due to natural OL attrition due to injury. I expect requiring an OL to sit two games would have very little actual impact. Edited July 13, 2019 by Mazrimiv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 19 hours ago, Packerraymond said: Does Roger Goodell provide any counsel at all to the owners? Or is he paid 32m just to nod yes? This has to be the worst idea the NFL has ever come up with and by a large margin. When this idea was floated around I laughed it off, makes you wonder how 31 owners successful enough to own an NFL franchise had any success in the world when they got together and legitimately decided this proposal was worth making to their players union. I'd never root for a lockout but if it meant saving us fans from this, have at it boys. Goodell is the owners yes man. If the owners were unhappy with what he is doing he'd be out the door pretty darn quick.  This inane idea is nuts.  They don't give a horses' back end about the players safety - it all about the almighty dollar. Their stupidity is going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 16 hours ago, Bucketheadsdad said: If the league wants to extend the season, and generate two more weeks of tv revenue, why not give teams two bye weeks, instead of one?  That might help to keep more stars on the field, or give them opportunities to recover in order to play in games later in the season, or the post-season. This isn't a bad idea... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Pugger said: Goodell is the owners yes man. If the owners were unhappy with what he is doing he'd be out the door pretty darn quick.  This inane idea is nuts.  They don't give a horses' back end about the players safety - it all about the almighty dollar. Their stupidity is going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I've no idea if any of this will go through and actually dont care. But - i do see how it could work. With a mandated two games each player has to sit - in addition to the team bye week - the players are actually playing less regular season games than they do now. So the concept of overworking the players is kind of blunted no? Or - figure the starters would probably have sat for two preseason games anyway (right?) - so they're playing no more - and the fan b**** that preseason games are nothing more than an expensive waste of time is curtailed as they're replaced with regular season games that count - no? It would probably result in extended rosters to some degree - which means more players are pulling down game day checks - no? It could actually be an interesting strategic tactic. IF (and thats capitalized because its a very big if....) the teams adopt some procedure whereby they dont sit entire squads (i.e. on some week the entire first string sits....) but instead tabs one or two players a game - at strategically selected positions given the opposition's strength to sit out...... I've got no dog in the hunt. Really dont care....but it could actually work - and by working, that means putting a lot more money in players pockets as well - not just the big, bad Owners - and the overall product on the field wouldnt necessarily drop off like it does for say a preseason game. I think the NFLPA will be in favor of the idea - cause it results in more cash in their members pockets - but then again, the players are making out just fine paying off the light bill w/o having the extra games.....so perhaps they wont be so hot for the idea. We shall see. Edited July 13, 2019 by Leader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livewire Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Someone actually came up with this asinine suggestion and thought it was a good idea? Wow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.