18-game regular season plus expanded playoff rounds.The 16 game setup is perfect. But the NFL sees more money in a 17 game schedule, and the players will make more too, so that’s why it will happen.
Ultimately it will end up being an 18 game season. Just wait.
I absolutely hate this without a firm plan to ensure every team plays an 8-8-1 home-away-neutral schedule. There should not be scenarios where one team is getting 9 home games to another, possibly in the same division, getting 8.
My guess is that there will be one opposite conference division that will match up, seeding for seeding, for the 17th game. For example, if the AFC East is playing all 4 teams in the NFC South, then each team would play the matching finisher from NFC West, 1v1, 2v2, etc. Those games would be the neutral site games: London, Mexico City, Rose Bowl, big college stadiums far from NFL stadiums like Michigan, Penn State, Alabama, etc.Also, the schedule is nicely set up now: 6 division games, 4 games against a division in the same conference, 4 games against a division in the opposite conference, 2 games against the teams in your conference that finished in the same spot as you and not in the division that you play against. Now sure how you adjust that to get a 17th.
I believe the deal is that all AFC teams will get the extra home game one year, then all NFC teams the next. That way it's balanced for playoff purposes.I absolutely hate this without a firm plan to ensure every team plays an 8-8-1 home-away-neutral schedule. There should not be scenarios where one team is getting 9 home games to another, possibly in the same division, getting 8.
The neutral games cost a lot of money to put on which would take away from the extra revenue generated from a 17th game for each team.The only way I like this is if every team has one neutral site game, and it’s against a team that’s assigned by a formula (not just human-picked marquee matchups). That actually would be kind of cool. 16 games gives plenty of opportunity to use cool domestic sites (Big House, Notre Dame, Rose Bowl), cities that don’t have an immediate local team (Toronto, Austin) plus London, Germany (anywhere in Europe, really), Mexico.. Tokyo? Australia? They could batch up four or six teams for big multi-game, Sunday-Monday “events” in some countries.
If it’s just an unbalanced number of home games that alternates, it kinda sucks.
Honestly, who gives a shit? They are alternating the home games for the conferences. It doesn't matter.The only way I like this is if every team has one neutral site game, and it’s against a team that’s assigned by a formula (not just human-picked marquee matchups). That actually would be kind of cool. 16 games gives plenty of opportunity to use cool domestic sites (Big House, Notre Dame, Rose Bowl), cities that don’t have an immediate local team (Toronto, Austin) plus London, Germany (anywhere in Europe, really), Mexico.. Tokyo? Australia? They could batch up four or six teams for big multi-game, Sunday-Monday “events” in some countries.
If it’s just an unbalanced number of home games that alternates, it kinda sucks.
It's going to be an extra AFC vs. NFC game so no traditional rivalry game.As long as they don't try and make the extra game some sort of "traditional rivalry" game, I'm on board. Baseball's done that and most of those games suck.
Because they want the revenue from an extra game.I still don't get why they don't just add an extra bye week and make it an 18-week season with two byes, like they did back in 1993. Add an extra week of rest for players, which is good for the teams. Add an extra week of TV broadcasts, which is good for the NFL. Seems to be a perfect solution to what they're going for without any of the downsides.
edit: looks like @Mugsy's Jock mentioned this above also
Put the AFC teams in one ping pong ball machine, the NFC teams in another ping pong ball machine and determine the random matchups ... and it's an offseason ratings winner for ESPN!!!It's going to be an extra AFC vs. NFC game so no traditional rivalry game.
The article says that the matchups would be based on divisional standings from previous years on a rotating division basis. Basically what @Saints Rest said above, although it’s not clear whether the games will be played at neutral sites.Put the AFC teams in one ping pong ball machine, the NFC teams in another ping pong ball machine and determine the random matchups ... and it's an offseason ratings winner for ESPN!!!
17th game Lottery next on ESPN following the conclusion of SportsCenter!!Put the AFC teams in one ping pong ball machine, the NFC teams in another ping pong ball machine and determine the random matchups ... and it's an offseason ratings winner for ESPN!!!
I like my idea betterThe article says that the matchups would be based on divisional standings from previous years on a rotating division basis. Basically what @Saints Rest said above, although it’s not clear whether the games will be played at neutral sites.
oooh, excellentI like the ping pong machine method. I'd add a third machine with sites.
16 neutral site games seems like a lot -- I'd guess teams will just have 8 home games one year and 9 the next.The article says that the matchups would be based on divisional standings from previous years on a rotating division basis. Basically what @Saints Rest said above, although it’s not clear whether the games will be played at neutral sites.
I read each conference will alter 9 home games on a 2-year rotation.I absolutely hate this without a firm plan to ensure every team plays an 8-8-1 home-away-neutral schedule. There should not be scenarios where one team is getting 9 home games to another, possibly in the same division, getting 8.
I'd have the ghost of David Stern pick them out of a bin. That way we could have Steelers-Cowboys and Pats-Giants.Put the AFC teams in one ping pong ball machine, the NFC teams in another ping pong ball machine and determine the random matchups ... and it's an offseason ratings winner for ESPN!!!
I'm thinking of games like Giants/Jets; Rams/Chargers; Steelers/Eagles; all of which are Inter Conference. But, when you do that, you end up with something the equivalent of Bears/Cardinals with the lame reasoning that the Cardinals used to play on the South Side or some such nonsense.It's going to be an extra AFC vs. NFC game so no traditional rivalry game.
If they go to 18 games they can get 20 weeks of regular season with 2 byes, right?I still don't get why they don't just add an extra bye week and make it an 18-week season with two byes, like they did back in 1993. Add an extra week of rest for players, which is good for the teams. Add an extra week of TV broadcasts, which is good for the NFL. Seems to be a perfect solution to what they're going for without any of the downsides.
edit: looks like @Mugsy's Jock mentioned this above also
They won’t do anything that stupid. The NFL has done a remarkably good job maintaining schedule integrity over the years. Besides, you can reach a similar result by having the extra game be a third game based on prior-year results — so you’ll get four extra marquee matchups between defending division champions.Peter King has been thumping something even worse- leave it up to the league to create the most "intriguing matchups".
FWIW, you can't have all the games in London - there aren't enough stadiums for this. I think they can only really use Wembley, Twickenham and Tottenham's stadium, and the latter is used for soccer every other weekend at least, while Twickenham has rugby matches on a regular basis. (You could of course tweak your idea to involve other UK and/or European cities.)With them officially going to a 17 game schedule why not do this:
1. Play 2 games a week in London in Weeks 4-11.
2. Every team would have their bye week in the week after.
3. Doing it this way makes every team's 17th game a neutral site game.
4. NFL gets their wish of a 17 game schedule while simultaneously expanding their reach in London which they've long wanted to do.
Am I making it to simple, this almost makes too much sense when I look at it.
After missing numerous Sox-Yankees games for weddings in the late 90s, I felt very proud of myself when my wife and I settled on February 10 as our wedding date almost 20 years ago. I wasn't going to cause any guests to miss a big game, and my future anniversary would not be similarly conflicted.One week closer to a President's Day weekend Super Bowl!
Have to assume that after the pandemic recedes they will want to return to Mexico City. It would also be interesting to try out some potential US expansion cities to build or maintain corporate partnerships - Salt Lake City, St. Louis, and OKC come to mind.FWIW, you can't have all the games in London - there aren't enough stadiums for this. I think they can only really use Wembley, Twickenham and Tottenham's stadium, and the latter is used for soccer every other weekend at least, while Twickenham has rugby matches on a regular basis. (You could of course tweak your idea to involve other UK and/or European cities.)
Does the proposed schedule (17 games in 18 weeks) still start the Sunday after Labor Day; in which case there will definitely be some years where the game is on that weekend (like this year would be, for example)? Or are they going to start sooner because there are one or two less practice games?One week closer to a President's Day weekend Super Bowl!
I haven’t checked the CBA to be sure, but I would expect that the NFLPA must approve any expansion of international play, as that’s a pretty big change in work conditions. Expanded play in Mexico would be a tough sell to the union in light of the problems they had with field conditions a couple years ago. (If you only meant that existing commitments will be resumed once the pandemic is behind us, I agree with that.)Have to assume that after the pandemic recedes they will want to return to Mexico City. It would also be interesting to try out some potential US expansion cities to build or maintain corporate partnerships - Salt Lake City, St. Louis, and OKC come to mind.