17th game -- more results-weighted schedule? [merged]

[Fencer]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2007/05/10/nfl_considers_adding_17th_game_to_season/

suggests that the NFL might add a 17th game to the season (taking yet another away from the preseason), and play it overseas in a neutral stadium.

If they do that, it's obvious how to tweak the current rules for picking opponents -- the overseas game would be against a team from the opposing conference, presumably one that had the same rank in its division you did last season. So the schedules might wind up a little more non-parallel.

By the way -- if they DO do this, I'd argue for Saturday games. The short week when added to the travel would hurt the quality of play, somewhat, but it would be the fairest, as teams would have an extra day to recover from the flights back.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

I think I like the way it is set up right now. Aside from your own division, you play a full division both inter and intra-conference, as well as one team from each of the other divisions. IMO, adding a game would throw off the balance a bit.

I don't like the over seas part of the deal at all. I understand they don't want to take a home game away from the teams, but alternate home and away if you must. One team plays 8 road games one year, 9 the next.

I think it COULD work if each team had an out of division rival, an actual rival, not a contrived one as in baseball, that they could schedule once/year on an alternating basis, creating a home-and-home as the current rotation dictates. However, the lack of these rivalries would not allow this to happen.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

I'm for it.

They aren't really adding a game. They will still play 20 pre- and regular season games.

It's just that there will be 17 real games and 3 exhibition, instead of 16 and 4.

Who would be opposed to having another good game to watch every year?

I think I like the way it is set up right now. Aside from your own division, you play a full division both inter and intra-conference, as well as one team from each of the other divisions. IMO, adding a game would throw off the balance a bit.

It wouldn't change much. The extra game could be from one of the three non-conference divisons we don't play that year. Same format: div winner vs div winner, 2nd place vs 2nd place, etc.

Every team would still have 6 division games, and 10 games with opponents the same as division rivals.

Instead of two different teams, it would be three.

If they made it one exibition and 19 real games, we could play our division home and away, one AFC divison, one nfc divsion, and five games, one from each of the remaining divisions. 1st place vs 1st place, etc. That way every division winner would play every other division winner in the nfl each year.

 

[brdmaverick]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

I really don't like the overseas part either. Keep it here with the real fan bases. Things are fine the way they are. Adding a game overseas adds.....
...
more travel
more risk for injury
watching your team at odd ball times of the day
...


Before you know it every team will have two bye weeks.

Records and milestones will be even more distorted. A 1,000 yard running back will mean sqwat in a 17 game schedule. It practically means nothing now. I think 1,200 yards is the new 1,000 yards.

 

[solman]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

What they should do is have truly flexible schedules. This would mean many more games between the best teams in the league and fewer mismatches. (i.e. more games that people want to watch.)

1. Add two weeks to the schedule, one for the extra game and one for a second bye.

2. Each team is assigned six "rivals". This would likely include the other teams in their current division, recent playoff opponents, teams that share the same region [SF and Oakland], etc.

3. When the schedule is announced, each team has:

A. Three fixed home games against known rivals
B. Three fixed away games against known rivals
C. Four fixed home games against unknown opponents
D. One flexible prime time home game during weeks 4 through 18 against an unknown opponent at one of four or five predetermined times.
E. Five flexible away games against unknown opponents.
F. Two flexible byes

4. 100% of the games during weeks 1-3, 60% of the games during weeks 4-5, 35% of the games during weeks 6-8, and a few other games throughout the season (including international games and Thanksgiving games) would be fixed games between rivals.

5. Flexible games and flexible byes would be finalized two weeks before games played after Thanksgiving; two weeks before games played during weeks 4-5 and three weeks before all other flexible games. Teams competing in international games would be guaranteed a bye the week afterwards.

6. Subject to certain constraints (no more than one flexible game per season against any given opponent, etc.) teams with the best records and teams with the worst records are scheduled against each other. [During weeks 1-8 ties are broken first by opponents W-L, second by opponents-opponents W-L. During weeks 9-19 this tie breaker is reversed]

7. The top six teams in each conference make the playoffs. There are no divisions.

8. Teams are ranked first by won-lost; second by opponents won-lost; third by opponents-opponents won-lost.

9. The final week of the season is scheduled one week in advance. Bubble teams are each matched against each other so the final playoff spots are determined in head to head competition. Only teams which "hosted" international games are guaranteed to play at home. In contests determining playoff teams, the team with the higher record is at home. In all other contests, the teams which have hosted the fewest true home games since this system began play at home.


The result of all this is that the number of games between very strong teams will increase significantly. That means more games that people want to watch, more people tuning in to games that don't involve their team, and tons more advertising money. Bad teams will have better records than they do now (thanks to facing inferior opponents) and provide a better opportunity for individual performers to shine and take the spotlight away from a misserable season. Good teams will play more classic games. Bad teams that suddenly become good towards the end of the season will still have a chance of making the playoffs, but they'll have to earn that chance by defeating much stronger opponents than anybody else faces.

 

[RayClay]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

Play the stupid ProBowl in a different country each year.

Don't mess with the regular season.

Don't kill a league that is competitive and exciting with stupid gimmicks.

 

[smg93]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

Play the stupid ProBowl in a different country each year.

Don't mess with the regular season.

Don't kill a league that is competitive and exciting with stupid gimmicks.

The players might revolt! So many of them love Hawaii and treat it as like a family vacation.

Regarding the addition of an Overseas game, I'd love it. Actually, overseas or not, I'd love 17 regular season games.

 

[fgssand]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

I am all for anything that takes away a pre-season game and adds a real game.

All teams should play their international game in the first week of the season.

Imagine 32 teams taking off for 16 different locations globally, - awesome. If too much than at least play the "I" game within the first two weeks.

 

[Boston Jay]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

Jeez the Pats get injured enough as it is. Do we really need another game?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

One of the more interesting aspects to this is how it factors into collective bargaining negotiations in terms of the percentage of revenue the players get from this and perhaps all the other games.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2866817

It will be interesting to watch as the jockying for position for the next CBA already seems to have started. We'll all just have to wait and see what comes of it - with the exception of Bill Polian who already knows and is adjusting his Salary Cap accordingly.

 

[Fencer]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

I don't see much wrong with a 17th game.

I also don't see much wrong with expanding rosters a bit if there's too much pounding/injury.

I think the idea of a named, repetitive "rival" sux. Too much unfairness if one team has a good rival and one has a bad one.

I think matching teams up by strength of schedule is OK. Any unfairness beyond simple luck should average out over a couple of years.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

I would like to see the 20 games we have now, but without the stupid exhibition games. Make every game count. I would also like four bye weeks built into the season.

Play until April every year. Hold the draft later. Reduce the long off-season so I don't get tempted to watch the Sox.

 

[PatriotsNorth]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

As a Pats fan living in one of the likely host cities of an international game (Toronto), I obviously am loving the idea of having a meaningful game right in my hometown.

If it happened to be the Pats playing in the game, I would be in heaven. Sure, driving to Buffalo every year (1.5 hours away) is fun, especially considering how much we own them in Orchard Park, but having it right in downtown T.O. would be so much sweeter.

If this thing ever does come to fruition, help me pray that the Pats come to Toronto (especially since it is not that far...sure beats the team having to fly to Japan).

 

[MrTibbs]

NFL going to 17 games? (link)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2866680

NEW YORK -- Americans always seem to want more pro football. Yet it's the folks abroad who might be getting an extra taste of the NFL in the future.

Although talks are extremely preliminary, the NFL is investigating adding a 17th regular-season game and playing it outside the United States. The extra game would take the place of one in the preseason, allowing every team to play once abroad without sacrificing a home game.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Re: 17th game -- more results-weighted schedule?

I don't see much wrong with a 17th game.

.

I do. Some teams will have 8 home games while others have 9 and THAT could make the difference on a team making the playoffs or not. In addition, if there are 9 games, expect season ticket costs to go up by 1/8th 12%...Will they go down when a team has 8 games instead? Not likely.....

 

[QuiGon]

This 17th game idea is just a disaster in the making. The sort of thing people will look back on 50 years from now and say "WTF were those morons thinking?"

EDIT: Don't get me wrong... I am all for expanding the regular season (and reducing the preseason)... but send 32 teams abroad and messing with the symmetry of the current schedule is just a disaster waiting to happen. How would you like to be the teams that has to go to Japan or China...?

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

If anything, go to 18 games, 6 in division, 4 vs one division from the other conference and the remaining 8 versus 2 divisions in your own conference...reduce preseason games to 2......