Comments on: A case for 17 games, not 18

By: theravenlives2

theravenlives2 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:36:31 +0000

Yes, yes they do have rivalry games. They’re called divisional games. Or are you not all that interested in Cowboys v. Redskins/Eagles, Bears v. Packers/Vikings, et al. College rivalries come from history, not simply from being close to each other.
———————————————-
So the Jets and the Giants play in the same stadium, while the Ravens/Redskins and Raider/Niners are 30 miles apart. You wanna give me a rational explanation as to why they play every four years? You can’t…it’s idiotic!

By: Codebeard

Codebeard — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:38:37 +0000

Required international games make me cringe at the idea. Neutral sites, okay, but as is I already think it’s a stupid idea to play regular season games in Mexico and England.
As for this:
Slow Joe says:
2. If they do add a seventeenth game, they need to make it a “rivalry game”. Two teams that play each other every year. It’s the one thing college football has that the pros really don’t. Just a few examples:
—
Yes, yes they do have rivalry games. They’re called divisional games. Or are you not all that interested in Cowboys v. Redskins/Eagles, Bears v. Packers/Vikings, et al. College rivalries come from history, not simply from being close to each other.

By: steelers rule

steelers rule — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:58:25 +0000

For the 17th game, it MUST be a conferance game. If AFC East is scheduled to play AFC North and lets say Miami and they are to play Jacksonville and SanDiego, they would play Houston in Alabama! You could not have some teams play AFC VS AFC and some play AFC VS NFC, has this will mess up playoff tie breakers.

By: theravenlives2

theravenlives2 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:03:56 +0000

I love the 17 game Idea, and advocated it in an earlier post. Two points to ponder.
1. The neutral site game should never be a divisional game (Eagles/Giants) and should never be a rivalry game (Ravens/Redskins). Those should be saved for the home markets, with the rivalry game being alternated between the two cities (Baltimore in even years, D.C. in odd years).
2. Neutral site games should never be allowed to serve as defacto ‘home” games for one team. As an example, if the Eagles play the Broncos in State College, PA, where do you think most of the fans will come from and who will they be rooting for? If its a “neutral” site game, make it truly neutral. Make the Broncos play the Falcons in State College.

By: RedskinsRT

RedskinsRT — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:50:21 +0000

I must say that I agree, if it’s going to happen.

By: TheSleepness

TheSleepness — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:09:24 +0000

i like it…seems fair..nice job on this.

By: rmm9090

rmm9090 — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:33:22 +0000

A 17 game regular season (1 neutral game) and 3 pre-season games is the perfect season.
The problem is, that it makes so much logical sense from too many perspectives. That of course means that the powers to be (GODell and the owners) will never go for it. Their track record for making any type of logical decision regarding the league is pretty damn poor of late…example being the new overtime rules….kinda sad really.
I for one would love to see the end of an 8-8 season.
Dammit, either you have a winning season or not!
Which would include doing away with the new OT rules. Bring back the old sudden death OT rules!!!!

By: steelers rule

steelers rule — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:54:07 +0000

I been saying for YEARS, play 17 games and 1 week every teams plays at a nuetral site! Play in London, Germany, Toronto, Vancouver, Mexico, Alberquere, L.A. Sacremento, Portland, Boise, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Birmingham to name a few. Even play some in a college stadium with 90,000 fans! You could have Dallas-AZ in Alberquere, Pitt- Buffalo play in State College!

By: sportsgenious

sportsgenious — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:55:41 +0000

you SOB, you stole my idea and published it. I sent you the post below weeks ago…
OK, so what about this… it is all about money, TV ratings, advertising revenue etc, right? To compromise not having each team and players play an extra 2 games, why not extend the season (not each team’s games, just the “NFL season) by 1 week to get an extra week of TV revenue but give teams an extra bye week and just schedule accordingly. So you play 16 games over 18 weeks, the NFL gets 18 weeks on TV with less games per day instead of 17 weeks with more games per day. This way, all the records stay intact (of course this is already debatable given the 14 game schedule back in the day). To make the scedhules even, you give every team 8 road and 8 home game and then schedule each team a non NFL city game such as Mexico City, Canada, Las Vegas etc.

By: SoFlor Steeler

SoFlor Steeler — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:31:23 +0000

I do think you can make the case for adding one more wild card team from each conference as part of this – would help make the end of the season more meaningful – two more slots for 4 teams or so to chase down to the wire…

By: kitchn

kitchn — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:05:35 +0000

Holy Crap Florio !!!! You actually made sense for once!!!

By: Cephas120

Cephas120 — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:03:52 +0000

I’ve liked the 17 game idea since expanding the regular season was first talked about a few years ago. My idea was that the 17th game would be for a cross-conference “rival,” so that the schedules would rotate similarly to how they rotate under the current scheduling system.
For example, the Redskins would play the Ravens every year, rotating between Baltimore and Washington. The Giants would play the Jets. Eagles would play the Steelers, etc.
Sadly, this will never happen because there is an uneven number of home and away games.

By: Fogs77

Fogs77 — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:56:43 +0000

There aren’t 32 decent Quartbacks to go around?? Say’s who? The Pat’s didn’t know what they had in Tom Brady until Drew Bledsoe got hurt. Ram’s were thinking of cutting Warner and hiring him to wash jock straps before Trent Greene got hurt….
Bottom line – The extra reps in the tw0 games might expose players to extra injury risk…..but that is a risk they take in order to make multi-millions of dollars a year as a professional football player. Nobody has a gun to there head. They should be thankful for having the opportunity that they have.
The salary cap has created tremendous parity in the league. These extra games, extra injuries, and possible expansion of rosters will just put more of an emphasis on teams having to be much better about evaluating their talent, having depth, and having players that can perform multiple rolls. They will have to draft better, retain talent better and maximize that talent better. The cream will rise to the crop, their will be less parity and the league will be a better place.
I vote for 18 regular season games and wish there were more. I could watch the NFL all year long.

By: kirddes

kirddes — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:32:36 +0000

this whole article is Florio’s wet dream, as well as most of the comments. The new schedule will be 18 games, because the NFL does what it wants AND YOU WILL LIKE IT ! That’s why they are not totally afraid of a work stoppage – because you will all be there when they return.

By: Danwhitmer

Danwhitmer — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:27:58 +0000

PEOPLE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE, THE EXTRA GAME WOULD BE A “NEUTRAL SITE GAME” NO TEAM WOULD HAVE 8 HOME AND 9 AWAY, OR 9 HOME AND 8 AWAY. THEY WOULD HAVE 8 HOME 8 AWAY AND 1 NEUTRAL SITE GAME.

By: Neoplatonist Bolthead

Neoplatonist Bolthead — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:11:58 +0000

I think an extra cross-conference game is a great idea.
1) It helps make Strength of Schedule really matter if you’re facing an equally-placed cross-conference team.
2) You know for sure that teams can alternate home/away year after year, because conferences don’t change much.

By: DJSlyBri

DJSlyBri — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:52:35 +0000

17 games plus two bye weeks would give the league 19 weeks of football on TV. I would be good with that.
The neutral site game is the way to go, whether in America or elsewhere, and the 2 bye weeks would allow players more time to heal in-season and would allow teams that have to travel to, say Germany or Japan, for a game to still have a normal bye week at home.

By: Jack Coyote

Jack Coyote — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:47:50 +0000

The regular season is already meaningless at 16 games, not to mention diluted by all the injuries. Expanding to 17 or 18 games pushes the regular season closer to irrelevance. Not to mention the added health risks to athletes. If expansion is basically a done deal, then the bulk of the additional revenue should go into a trust fund for the retired athletes pensions and to cover their medical costs and other related health issues. After all, the owners and the NFLPA aren’t the ones putting their health and their lives on the line.

By: NJ28

NJ28 — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:43:44 +0000

I am sure this has been mentioned but I am too lazy to read every post. That 17th game would fall right into Goodel’s master plan to have regular season games played out of the country. This would assure no one was losing a home game if each team played a game in England, Canada, Mexico or where ever.

By: bub4lyfe

bub4lyfe — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:37:52 +0000

This is the best article I’ve read on this site in the past three years. I have hated the idea of expanding the regular season until reading this article, because I think your plan covers many of the problems a lot of people have with expanding the regular season (or at least compromises on them), with the added bonus of making every team a winner or a loser (ties are for soccer).

By: BostonISaChraphole

BostonISaChraphole — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:09:17 +0000

This may be the only thing you have ever wrote that is any good. You should frame it and hang it in your office.

By: Eustus

Eustus — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:58:27 +0000

It’s an interesting proposition. But it’s not perfect.
Even with neutral site games, one team is the home team and the other is not (although arguably, being at a neutral site should dramatically diminish the home field advantage).
More importantly, but cutting from 4 preseason games to 3, you end up with half of the teams in the league with 2 home preseason games and half the teams in the league with only 1. Not a huge deal, if you’re not an owner counting on the season ticket base to pay full freight for preseason games. If the owners go for a 17 game schedule, they’ll want to keep 4 preseason games – which means they would have to come up with a way to increase compensation for the players for the season expanding from 20 to 21 games.
18 games works for the owners (especially in cities where the entire stadium isn’t sold out as season tickets). They can throw away the two preseason games and exchange them for regular season games (and sell more tickets and justify a higher price for local TV and radio rights).
So, even though 17 games makes more sense, from a competitive standpoint – it doesn’t make more sense for the owners pocket books. And for that reason alone, I just don’t see it happening.

By: SoFlor Steeler

SoFlor Steeler — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:55:38 +0000

What is fascinating is reading through the comments and counting the number of people who did not get your neutral site idea….
No wonder this country is in trouble – these people actually are allowed to vote!!!!
8 home – 8 road – 1 neutral site is what we are talking about folks…
That is NOT the same as 8 home and 9 road….
And I do think it has the best chance of delivering the incremental revenue that the league is looking for – let London – Tokyo – Mexico City – Rio – Bejing all bid for the rights – could be awesome….

By: BernieMac

BernieMac — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:54:43 +0000

first…Hopefully you continue to use the source of this idea for more of topics
second…. I dont care that much for preseason myself but lets be honest here. Not every one can come out and have years like peterson, flaco, ryan, johnson,etc. That being said I believe that the preason is very important for the devolpment of young players and those that dont get the chance to play as much.
Third…. do you really think that if you offer these guys the same money to play a few more games than they are now that they willl choose to sit at home. well maybe the first year but not after that.
In short the ones that play the most make the most and injuries can happen at any time and they dont get paid to worry about getting hurt they get paid to play football. So they can go try out for the NBA or MLB that play even more games than they do and see if they like it….. if they can make it. Preseason should not change and the season should be longer. For players like farve, 85 and TO who claim to play only because the enjoy the game and not for the money the should be in support of more chances to do what they like to do best. PLAY FOOTBALL

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:50:44 +0000

[/b]Personally, I like staying at 16, but you make a better argument for 17 than the league can for 18.

By: FinFan68

FinFan68 — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:24:24 +0000

I love the season the way it is. The scheduling works out as fairly as possible and the numbers work out perfect (div/conf/non-conf games). The teams use the pre-season to evaluate talent and adjust their rosters.
That being said, i would prefer a 17/3 season over 18/2. I don’t buy the injury argument (how many players are severely injured in playoff games? it should be at a higher rate than the reg season due to higher intensity and extended wear/tear but in reality it is not)
I CAN’T STAND THE FOREIGN GAMES but if each team were forced to do it then it would be fair. Might as well build a superstadium in Las Vegas and play all super bowls there while they are at it.

By: Sophocles

Sophocles — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:15:16 +0000

I had always thought that the 18 game proposal was just a negotiation ploy to implement the 17 game season. The 17th game played as a regional interconference rivalry game for those who have such rivalries: NYG/NYJ, Redskins/Ravens, Chiefs/Rams and SF/Oakland. The others can have it done by formula rotation.
Fiorio’s plan differs from that espoused by the NFL: two preseason games instead of three. This would be a financial mistake.
Considering that attendance at the preseason games is currently a mockery, going to a home-away-neutral format for the three preseason games could mitigate losses, e.g. fans in neutral Portland or San Antonio or Omaha might actually fill the stadiums and hang around for 4 quarters, consuming concessions and buying NFL licensed products. The revenue loss from playing the third game at a neutral site would be small compared to the huge revenues from the extended season and overseas games.

By: damnvarmint

damnvarmint — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:14:38 +0000

An expanded season means waterd down games and watered down talent. If you think there is a problem with “off field issues” now, wait until the pool of players is so diluted that teams have to seriously consider signing Maurice Clarrett or Michael Vic…….nevermind.

By: BigBear123

BigBear123 — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:09:44 +0000

Would also be a good way to test new markets. Can play 6 games in LA and even give Toronto a better team than the Bills to watch.
Not the same have a revolving door of teams play in your city, but get some good matchups and tickets will sell.

By: BigBear123

BigBear123 — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:05:19 +0000

luxm says:
August 27, 2010 1:43 AM
That, honestly … Sounds Genius. I sure would love it. And everyone would benefit it seems.