Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Expanded playoffs over 18 game season. It could happen.


SCO96

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to post the entire article. But, I'm going to paste some of the more interesting snippets from Pro Football Talk below the link. I'd love to hear what you guys think about this.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/08/28/report-expanded-playoffs-likely-focus-over-18-game-season/#comments

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said recently that the NFL is looking at ways to make the preseason better for its fans and most would point to cutting the number of preseason games as the place to start....

Losing those games would cost teams revenue, which has led to a concurrent discussion about expanding the regular season. That notion has been met with strong resistance from the NFLPA and Maske reports that the league is shifting gears in response...

The potential change would give each league seven playoff teams while eliminating one of the two byes currently handed out. It’s expected that one of the six first round games would be played on Monday night.

With questions still to be answered about how much of a revenue boost that would provide along with Maske’s note that some owners aren’t ready to move on from a longer regular season, there’s more to work out as the push for a shorter preseason and talks on a new CBA go on.

-----

I may be in the minority in this, but I think this is better than an 18 game regular season. After hearing the comments from Andrew Luck and Gronk over the last couple of days, the last thing we need is for the NFL to add 32 more regular season games and subject their players to even more punishment. My thoughts from the discussion are highlighted below.

I wouldn’t expect the owners to give up millions in ticket revenue in the preseason without a way to recoup it by seasons end. We currently have 16 teams per conference. Six teams in conference make the playoffs each year. That means 12 of the 32 teams make the postseason. Even if you added 2 more participants over half the teams (18) would still miss the playoffs. It also makes the bye slot more valuable which keeps the regular season meaningful.

I like things the way they are. But, adding an extra playoff team per conference is a reasonable compromise “IF” you expect the owners cut 32 games worth of revenue from the preseason.

-----

Thoughts?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, run-run-pass-punt said:

That's too many teams making the post-season imo.

I don't like it.

Most of the people on the PFT website were against it as well. But, with the decreasing quality of preseason play and the risk of injury it's possible the preseason could be shortened in the future. Would you rather have an 18 game regular season or 2 extra playoff teams and two extra games on wild card week? The lost revenue from the preseason has to come from somewhere.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to see rosters expanded.  Not sure why the NFLPA is not focused on this.  Deeper rosters would make it easier to spell valuable players when rest is needed or nagging injuries happen.  Why are billion dollar teams forced to go bare bones on their roster when the benefit to the fans investing in the team is palpable?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

I'd want to know how much revenue, exactly, they are losing by cutting a preseason game in a mostly empty stadium.

I was wondering the same thing. I rarely watch a preseason game these days, but last week I did see a couple of minutes of a game. The stadium couldn't have been filled more than 60% capacity.

We have to remember that the NFL teams share their revenue. Those games are televised so the league gets the TV money. And, even the poor attendance balances out across the league since you're still playing 16 preseason games per week in the month of August.

If they weren't making SIGNIFICANT money in the preseason you'd think the owners would have already realized cutting the preseason is a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like extra playoff teams more than 18 games where players can only play 16 games. 

Expand the rosters- if nothing else, have all 53 players available, and another bye week or two, add a couple of playoff teams, do it right, you get another month of football revenue. That more than makes up for loss of 2 preseason games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SCO96 said:

I was wondering the same thing. I rarely watch a preseason game these days, but last week I did see a couple of minutes of a game. The stadium couldn't have been filled more than 60% capacity.

We have to remember that the NFL teams share their revenue. Those games are televised so the league gets the TV money. And, even the poor attendance balances out across the league since you're still playing 16 preseason games per week in the month of August.

 

 

I could be wrong but I believe "revenue sharing" for franchises is limited to national and cable TV deals and league-wide marketing/sponsorship deals.  Ticket revenue belongs to each team, which is why every franchise is always trying to build new stadiums and cater new stadiums to higher revenue premium seats.

Only a handful of preseason games are nationally televised so not sure that revenue is even counted in the sharing pot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • why rig the scenario with the "as a passer" tag.   I mean, I assume you do that because Bryce needs help in the argument.  If we are just talking players and no contacts?   I mean, give me Young over Russell Wilson.   That's it.   I'd put him on par w/ Penix, Fields, and Rattler,  so that's a wash.  Give me everyone else over Bryce.  And I'm not handicapping the other players as passing only because when you start doing that it's really meaningless.   
    • McCarthy to date, for sure. That's a very early sample size, however. Russell Wilson is a backup. Not sure Wilson wouldn't be better suited to our offense specifically, but at the bare minimum it's basically a wash. Hurts I would generally disagree with. I do think Hurts is likely to be less than stellar in our offense. Justin Fields - Agree. Fields is a significant threat on the ground but he sees the field as badly or worse than Bryce. And that's with significantly more reps. Spencer Rattler - I honestly thought this would be an easier call that it is. TBH, right now Rattler looks a lot better. Really almost across the board. Kyler - Murray is better. Basically across the board. Not significantly better, mind you. Trevor Lawrence is more debatable than it seems. Low completion percentages, tons of TO's.....he really has been quite bad this year in Jax. He is considerably more talented than Bryce but the results have been marginally better. Tua - Tua is a little more dynamic of a player but he is a TO machine. Tend to agree. Caleb Williams. Not sure on this. Williams is still struggling to be consistent but his upper end is WAY higher than Bryce. He shows it fairlu frequently, as well. Probably would rather be working through Caleb's issues than Bryce. Penix - 100%. This guy stinks. Cam Ward. This is a little tough. Again, far higher ceiling on Ward and he shows flashes but it's been a mess there in Tenn. Probably lean towards Bryce here.
    • he doesn't have the arm to make all the throws, the premier QBs make.  That's a fact.   So there are plays that won't exist for him that will for others.    To act like every QB in the NFL can make all the same throws isn't a stance anyone actually takes.....yet folks are doing it for Bryce.   
×
×
  • Create New...