Jump to content
candyman93

CBA Approved

Recommended Posts

That can be mitigated by not guaranteeing top 4 seeds for division winners. If a division leader knows that they can't just simply win their division to be at home in the first round, then it would definitely play for seeding, like all teams fighting to get in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NVRamsFan said:

Not what I'd read at all. The 17th games are supposed to be neutral sites not necessarily international though.

It may not be written but we all know that's where it's headed. More games in Mexico and London.

And before we know it....china.  

The owners seem to think the NFL can expand as much as the NBA does and still succeed and that is not ever going to happen. Internationally (in most countries), the NFL will always take a backseat to Soccer, Basketball, and Baseball.

This clouded vision that they appear to have for the future is just not realistic. But they keep pushing it more and more and all they are doing in the process is alienating it's base core fans who have stood by the product for decades. At this rate, it's a lose-lose for them.

I'm with Killernacho, these ridiculous and unnecessary changes have me more less interested in football than I have ever been.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pf9 said:

While 14 playoff teams is a step in the right direction, I still want a 16-team playoff field down the road

Why on Earth should 1/2 the League,  make the Playoffs regardless of record? 14 is beyond enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pf9 said:

I'm mainly concerned about the rest advantages that I want to eliminate completely. I want every playoff team to have an equal chance on paper to make the Super Bowl

The "rest advantage" is a credit to those teams who worked hard to earn those bye spots. I don't know about you, but they should be given some sort of achievement for their accomplishments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pf9 said:

While 14 playoff teams is a step in the right direction, I still want a 16-team playoff field down the road. As it is, in the last few years the first-round bye has been too much of a competitive advantage. The 2012 Ravens are the last Super Bowl team to have played in the wild card round. No one wants the Super Bowl to be #1 VS. #1 year after year.

Plus, in the next TV contract, I am adamant that the reverse mirror be adopted for Sunday afternoon games to distribute additional CBS and Fox games to markets via CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports 1, respectively. When the inevitable expansion to 16 playoff teams comes the reverse mirror would also be used in the first round during the early afternoon slots on CBS and Fox to have all playoff games air nationally in a way that won't require weeknight games.

Why? What's the point of even having the regular season then if making the playoffs is just a participation trophy? There should be a big reward for being one of the top regular season teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pf9 said:

I'm mainly concerned about the rest advantages that I want to eliminate completely. I want every playoff team to have an equal chance on paper to make the Super Bowl

Then what's the point for the top teams in the league who have clinched a playoff spot to even try the last few weeks of the season? May as well just play your backups right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the endgame for the league is 16 international games a year so every team has 8 home, 8 away, 1 international.  I hope they throw in an extra bye week in there and make it a 19 week league schedule then.  And I don't mean the "bye" between the third preseason game and the first regular season game, that's the least useful bye week in professional sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

It may not be written but we all know that's where it's headed. More games in Mexico and London.

And before we know it....china.  

The owners seem to think the NFL can expand as much as the NBA does and still succeed and that is not ever going to happen. Internationally (in most countries), the NFL will always take a backseat to Soccer, Basketball, and Baseball.

This clouded vision that they appear to have for the future is just not realistic. But they keep pushing it more and more and all they are doing in the process is alienating it's base core fans who have stood by the product for decades. At this rate, it's a lose-lose for them.

I'm with Killernacho, these ridiculous and unnecessary changes have me more less interested in football than I have ever been.  

I think the vision is 16 international games a year.  A lot of coutnries could support 1 NFL game a year.  France, Germany (Could perhaps do multiple in Germany), China like you said, maybe a couple in Mexico, I could see as many as 4 in the UK, then you can really start to push the envelope and think about Tokyo, Moscow, Mumbai, Seoul, Brazil, etc...  Essentially hit the biggest metropolitan areas in the world.  You can't support a full time team there, but 1 game a year?  That's feasible, and it makes the competitive balance equitable if every team has 1 international game each season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

I think the vision is 16 international games a year.  A lot of coutnries could support 1 NFL game a year.  France, Germany (Could perhaps do multiple in Germany), China like you said, maybe a couple in Mexico, I could see as many as 4 in the UK, then you can really start to push the envelope and think about Tokyo, Moscow, Mumbai, Seoul, Brazil, etc...  Essentially hit the biggest metropolitan areas in the world.  You can't support a full time team there, but 1 game a year?  That's feasible, and it makes the competitive balance equitable if every team has 1 international game each season.

I made a list on another thread, and I think it would work. Could even include a few neutral site domestics like Oakland and San Diego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, pf9 said:

That can be mitigated by not guaranteeing top 4 seeds for division winners. If a division leader knows that they can't just simply win their division to be at home in the first round, then it would definitely play for seeding, like all teams fighting to get in the playoffs.

To those who responded to my sentiment for a 16-team playoff. You did not read this post. If division winners were to lose seeding priority, potential playoff teams would definitely play for seeding. Like for instance, Philadelphia, despite winning the NFC East, would have only been a #7 seed in my proposed playoff format. 2 wild card teams had better records than the Eagles, and a 9-7 wild card team would have clinched the #6 seed over the Eagles on a tie-breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, my reverse mirror proposal would allow casual football watchers or fans of teams who aren't in the playoffs to switch between 2 playoff games that are being played at the same time on CBS/CBSSN or Fox/FS1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric Reid... should of known. Biggest problem in the NFL and whines about everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BayRaider said:

Eric Reid... should of known. Biggest problem in the NFL and whines about everything.

Expect nothing less from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×