The NFL proposes idiotic 18 game solution

[kungfoodude]

13 minutes ago, Goondal said:

Not sure how feasible it is, but my idea:
-seventeen games (eight home, eight road, one international) - Every team with an intl. game? Ewww.
-two preseason games - I like this idea.
-three byes (one has to be after your international game) - Not sure how this would work in a practical sense but it would be nice.
-your Thursday game comes after a bye - Same thought as above.
-Super Bowl on the day before President’s Day (many people are already off) - LOVE this idea.
-your international opponent is from the division in the opposing conference that you played the previous season and finished in the same position - Meh.
-every team has a home away from home in Europe.  Each European city  has an AFC and an NFC team (A city like London could have more).  AFC is the home team in even years and NFC is the home team in odd years.  Ex. if the Panthers and Bengals are Berlin then fans there get to see one of their two teams each year, thus building fan bases.  This allows for European fans to have teams to follow and raises interest without having to deal with all the logistics of having a full time team there. - I cannot see the benefit of this but I also don't care at all about the intl. games.
-international games are on at 9am or whatever and are split between the two networks so each one gets eight extra games in a new time slot - Seems reasonable.
-all player contracts and the salary cap are automatically increased by 1/16 to accommodate this seventeenth game - Not sure this would work as intended.
-Opening week has two prime time games on Thursday, Friday, and Monday the way they do now for MNF.  On Sat and Sun each network has a 1 and 430 with one prime time game.  So all teams are nationally televised and all fans get to see their teams opening match - Most fans get to see their teams in their markets anyway. This is probably ultimately unnecessary. 

 

[Goondal]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Not sure how feasible it is, but my idea:
-seventeen games (eight home, eight road, one international) - Every team with an intl. game? Ewww.
-two preseason games - I like this idea.
-three byes (one has to be after your international game) - Not sure how this would work in a practical sense but it would be nice.
-your Thursday game comes after a bye - Same thought as above.
-Super Bowl on the day before President’s Day (many people are already off) - LOVE this idea.
-your international opponent is from the division in the opposing conference that you played the previous season and finished in the same position - Meh.
-every team has a home away from home in Europe.  Each European city  has an AFC and an NFC team (A city like London could have more).  AFC is the home team in even years and NFC is the home team in odd years.  Ex. if the Panthers and Bengals are Berlin then fans there get to see one of their two teams each year, thus building fan bases.  This allows for European fans to have teams to follow and raises interest without having to deal with all the logistics of having a full time team there. - I cannot see the benefit of this but I also don't care at all about the intl. games.
-international games are on at 9am or whatever and are split between the two networks so each one gets eight extra games in a new time slot - Seems reasonable.
-all player contracts and the salary cap are automatically increased by 1/16 to accommodate this seventeenth game - Not sure this would work as intended.
-Opening week has two prime time games on Thursday, Friday, and Monday the way they do now for MNF.  On Sat and Sun each network has a 1 and 430 with one prime time game.  So all teams are nationally televised and all fans get to see their teams opening match - Most fans get to see their teams in their markets anyway. This is probably ultimately unnecessary.

I should mention, I hate the international games as well, and find them incredibly unfair to the teams involved, especially the team surrendering a home game.  Unfortunately we are stuck with them so I figure what is the best way to accomplish what the league is trying to do while making it as fair as possible.  My thought behind making it an OOC foe means it also takes those games out of the tiebreakers.

You are correct, most fans are in their teams markets.  I guess I am biased as I am not.  The first week schedule idea would also be a ratings, money-making bonanza for the league.  Hell, they could do it over Labor Day weekend and have games running all day Monday too.

[kungfoodude]

37 minutes ago, Goondal said:

I should mention, I hate the international games as well, and find them incredibly unfair to the teams involved, especially the team surrendering a home game.  Unfortunately we are stuck with them so I figure what is the best way to accomplish what the league is trying to do while making it as fair as possible.  My thought behind making it an OOC foe means it also takes those games out of the tiebreakers.

You are correct, most fans are in their teams markets.  I guess I am biased as I am not.  The first week schedule idea would also be a ratings, money-making bonanza for the league.  Hell, they could do it over Labor Day weekend and have games running all day Monday too.

Yeah but it would also take a little interest away from their Sunday Ticket crowd(not all of it, obviously). A full NFL multi-day crush of games would be an interesting idea, I will give you that.

[Harbingers]

The only way this make any logical sense is if they are planning on adding more teams.

The actual reason is because it’s just a CBA bargaining chip as it was mentioned on page one I think. 

The reason to limit players to 16 games is so that owners don’t have to pay stars millions a piece for more games. Khalil Mack largest non QB contract would have a roughly 3M dollar bargaining chip if he was forced to play two more games.

It’s all CBA bullshit. 

[MasterAwesome]

Ultimately this has too many fluky implications on a team’s success to be a viable option that I’d be in favor of, but there are some obvious benefits that extend beyond just a cash grab.

For one, essentially extending the season but keeping the amount of games played per player at 16 means more rest for each player. Not only that, but teams have the flexibility to rest players on any given week, whenever they need it the most.  Bradberry has a bit of a lingering ankle issue? Hey let’s just rest him this week since he has to miss two games this season anyways.

It also gives those players who are buried in the depth chart a chance against real NFL competition (not a meaningless preseason game against other backups). I mean Rivera apparently loves his vets and all that right? Well now we’ll get to see some more flexibility and fluidity in the lineups. For example, I love Christian McCaffrey as much as anyone but I admit I’m intrigued in actually seeing what kind of RB talent we have behind him, beyond just spelling him for a couple snaps here and there.

Then there’s the added strategic element of figuring out how to optimize your matchups in deciding when to play and rest certain players. I think that would introduce a very interesting chess match between coaching staffs.

[mc52beast]

I think the NFL is using this as bait for the next CBA talks. Pretty sure they know the NFLPA won’t go for it and they have to know that asking teams to sit players for two games is absurd. 

There’s a method to their madness