|
||||
|
|
Talk Sports Discuss everything that is sports-related, like MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, NCAA sports and teams, trades, coaches, bad calls etc. |
|
Thread Tools |
02-21-2020, 09:18 PM | #1 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 9,038
|
What do you all think of this 17-game season nonsense?
I’m interested to see WHO the game is played against? Conference opponent or non-conference opponent?
They’ve had the revolving schedule in place for a while now, so how will it affect that? |
02-21-2020, 09:43 PM | #2 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 6,397
|
I don't like it. But knowing the NFLPA and how 20yr old men think, they'll cave.
__________________
If a man is guilty 4 what goes on inside of his mind, then let me get the electric chair 4 all my future crimes. - Prince Batdance June 7, 1958 - Apr 21, 2016 |
02-22-2020, 10:12 AM | #3 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 5,737
|
And more teams in the playoffs... lame, lame, and more lame.
__________________
My fictional team logos and uniforms |
02-22-2020, 03:24 PM | #4 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,013
|
Hopefully they don't go for it. There's no reason for either. Neither improves the game. The only reason to do it is to stuff more money in the pockets of the owners and further render the regular season meaningless.
|
02-22-2020, 03:48 PM | #5 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,858
|
From this fan's perspective, here's what I like:
- With seven teams instead of six in each conference making the playoffs, this will make for more teams in the hunt over the last several regular-season weekends, typically making for many more meaningful games between teams shooting for a playoff berth as the season winds down. - Whereas the current system - sort of "to make the numbers work" rather than making strategic sense - rewards half of the division winners with a bye, the new system will reward only the best team in the conference with a bye, and then all three other division winners are treated the same by hosting an opening playoff-weekend game. This seems more-sensible & equitable, valuing the regular-season accomplishments of the best team in each conference. - Presumably, both Saturday and Sunday of the first playoff weekend will now have three playoffs games instead of two. As a fan who looks forward to NFL playoff bbq's & get-togethers with friends in January, I don't see a problem with this at all. - Trading a meaningless exhibition game for a regular season game. Seems like a plus. Quote:
Any type of increase in playoff teams - in any sport - predictably meets with get off my lawn types of reactions here and elsewhere. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm just wondering: If the NFL moves forward with these ideas, where/when - specifically - will y'all be going "this really sucks?" Will it be during that 18th weekend? "Those first 17 weeks were fun, but this 18th weekend of regular season football is a real drag." Or when the playoff teams are known? "That 9-8 #7 seed in the NFC has no business in the playoffs, despite the fact that the #7 seed in the AFC is 11-6." Or on the first weekend of playoff football? "Two games per day was perfect, but three games is just viewer overload." Or on the 2nd weekend of the playoffs? "No fair! The Packers and Chiefs shouldn't be the only teams off this weekend. The #2 seeded Niners and Ravens should be off, too!" |
|
02-22-2020, 04:40 PM | #6 | ||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 6,397
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My feeling is I don't want players playing more football. It is my favorite sport. But what I now know about their lives post career, I just don't want them to put themselves through anymore physical trauma than they do now. Until we can "nascar" the equipment so that the players can walk away from their crashes w/barely a scratch, let's pretend we've reached the limit. I prefer a playoff to have teams that I feel truly could claim to be champion with a straight face. Not someone who barely gets their foot in the door then proceeds to get hot. To me, any playoff that has a third of the teams in it is too much. Not saying that is right. Saying that is my preference. I'd prefer 10 in the NFL/NFL/NBA, 8 in MLB.
__________________
If a man is guilty 4 what goes on inside of his mind, then let me get the electric chair 4 all my future crimes. - Prince Batdance June 7, 1958 - Apr 21, 2016 |
||||
02-22-2020, 04:59 PM | #7 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,013
|
Quote:
I just don't want the NFL to go down the route that says if you play ok, you get a shot at the title. You're .500? Sure, you're good enough to be in the playoffs. The NFL already has more than enough 8-8 and 9-7 teams make the playoffs, you want to guarantee them? Yes sometimes a 10-6 or an 11-5 team doesn't qualify, but how often does that happen? The NFL has already had 2 teams with losing records make the playoffs, you want more? I liked baseball years ago when just making the playoffs was reason to celebrate. Now not so much. Making the playoffs in the NBA and NHL is no more exciting than taking a dump. But hey, people like it. |
|
02-22-2020, 05:22 PM | #8 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,152
|
Every year there are two or three teams I think "wait they are in the playoffs?"
we dont need more |
02-22-2020, 06:12 PM | #9 | ||||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,858
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: The idea of going to just 2 exhibition games plus an official public practice was from an article from a few months ago, not a recent report. So I don't know if that's actually on the table right now. Quote:
In addition, the 17-game regular-season would likely bring an additional bye week for teams, which would be an additional rest & recovery week for players. (And rosters would be expanded, leading to more jobs and - I'm just speculating - perhaps less practice snaps & special teams snaps for established players.) Quote:
Last edited by thehef; 02-22-2020 at 06:32 PM. |
||||||
02-22-2020, 06:39 PM | #10 | |||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 6,397
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If a man is guilty 4 what goes on inside of his mind, then let me get the electric chair 4 all my future crimes. - Prince Batdance June 7, 1958 - Apr 21, 2016 |
|||||
02-22-2020, 07:49 PM | #11 | ||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,858
|
Quote:
SATURDAY 7 rams @ 2 packers, 10am 5 bills @ 4 texans, 1:30pm 6 titans @ 3 patriots, 5:15pm SUNDAY 7 steelers @ 2 chiefs, 10am 6 vikings @ 3 saints, 4:30pm 5 seahawks @ 4 eagles, 5:15pm ... than this... SATURDAY 5 bills @ 4 texans, 1:30pm 6 titans @ 3 patriots, 5:15pm SUNDAY 6 vikings @ 3 saints, 4:30pm 5 seahawks @ 4 eagles, 5:15pm Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On a related note, more troubling than any other aspect, I'd think, is that with a 17-game regular season, some teams will have an 8/9 home/away split, whereas others will have a 9/8 split (and some will have an 8/8 split with one international game). Some teams are already at an advantage or disadvantage based upon strength of schedule. This could even that out in some cases, but make it worse in others... |
||||
02-22-2020, 08:13 PM | #12 |
Global Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 10,703
|
I like it. I'm just surprised they didn't go with 18 games like the CFL. I like the symmetry of 9 and 9. Is a 3rd preseason game really that necessary?
I do agree with some talking heads that the max # of games players can play should be 16 though. Imagine the talk there'd be about when should your team rest your QB or other star? Do you play them most of the season thinking chances are they'll get injured for one game sooner or later or do you rest them against a opponent you'll definitely will or lose against? Then imagine if you left it to the last game and you were forced to rest them and you had to win that game to get into the playoffs. Oh boy! |
02-22-2020, 08:24 PM | #13 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,013
|
Quote:
The guy in particular was in favor of adding teams. And this is why statistics is considered one of the three greatest lies. Because you can cherry pick what you want in order to make a point. Yes, five 8-8 and five 10-6 teams did not make the playoffs in the last 10 years. But that's forgetting (conveniently) the eight 9-7 teams, one 8-7-1 team, and one 9-6-1 team that would also have made the playoffs under the new system. A more realistic way of looking at it is to say only 5 teams out of 20 over the past 10 years should have made the playoffs. 6 if you want to stretch it. But by no means is it the same amount. Unless, and like you said, you consider a 9-7 team worthy. Quote:
Last edited by Ragnar; 02-22-2020 at 08:26 PM. |
||
02-22-2020, 09:33 PM | #14 | |||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 6,397
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If a man is guilty 4 what goes on inside of his mind, then let me get the electric chair 4 all my future crimes. - Prince Batdance June 7, 1958 - Apr 21, 2016 |
|||
02-22-2020, 09:55 PM | #15 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 8,608
Infractions: 1/0 (0)
|
The Chargers wish they could play 17 games on the road
|
02-23-2020, 12:57 AM | #16 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 693
|
17 games is retarded and so is 7 playoff teams
A good part of winning the Super Bowl is already just avoiding too many injuries, adding more games is only going to further emphasize that. If you're insistent on adding more game$ then at least have the sense to keep an even number though |
02-23-2020, 01:56 PM | #17 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,013
|
Quote:
I'm a fan of the sport. I don't care what players or owners make. But if you're going to compromise the game I love to make more money, then I have a problem. None of these proposals has any positive impact on the game itself. That said. If the league expanded to 36 teams I could see a reason to move to an 18 game schedule. Because it improves the game. |
|
02-23-2020, 05:34 PM | #18 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,858
|
Quote:
A second bye week, without adding a 17th game, makes more sense to me. Owners win (more $$$), fans win (another weekend of games), and players win (a rest week, plus they will surely get a slice of the additional $). As for adding the 7th playoff team in each conference, I realize I'm in the minority here, but I simply do not see how it hurts. One more playoff game on both the first Saturday & Sunday of the opening playoff weekend, and the likelihood that one of the best teams from each conference still makes the Super Bowl, albeit the chance that there's one more barely-made-it team that could get hot. It's all "win" from my perspective. Bring it. |
|
02-23-2020, 10:46 PM | #19 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,013
|
Quote:
I went all the way back to the realignment and added an extra team to each conference. 27 of the 36 had records between 8-8 and 9-7. I love the playoffs too. Best time of the year. I just don't think those teams deserve the chance based on their regular season record. If a league is going to allow .500 or close to .500 teams make the playoffs then the regular season is just for home field advantage. The playoffs original intent was to have the best teams battle it out for a championship. Not half the league. |
|
02-24-2020, 05:25 AM | #20 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,858
|
Quote:
In that same time period, since realignment: - 33 teams made the playoffs with a record worse than 10-6 - only three times since realignment have the playoffs featured only 10+ win teams (2003, 2004, 2012). In each of those years, the flip side of "diluting" the playoffs had they allowing a sub-10-win into the playoffs as a 7th seed would have been also allowing a "deserving" 10-6 team into the playoffs as a 7th seed... - the average number of wins for playoff teams since realignment is 11.1, and had the seven-teams-per-conf been in place, the avg number of wins would've been 10.8... - if we loosely define playoff teams' worthiness (of being in the playoffs) as follows and count them since realignment, we have... 12+ wins, Elite = 84 teams, 39% 10-11 wins, Solid = 99 teams, 46% <10 wins, Sketchy = 33 teams, 15% Under expanded playoffs, those numbers would've been... 12+ wins, Elite = 84 teams, 33% 10-11 wins, Solid = 108 teams, 43% <10 wins, Sketchy = 60 teams, 24% Quote:
I guess I look at it this way: a) If a 9-7 or 10-6 seventh seed is just as good as an 11-5 team, then there's no harm because we should be in for a good game against the #2 seed. b) If, OTOH, a 9-7 or 8-8 seventh seed has no real business being in the playoffs, then the #2 seed that will face them should have a relatively easy, rust-preventing trip to the divisional playoffs. That's how I see it. YMMV |
||
Bookmarks |
|
|