18 regular season games?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sounds like the NFL is actually trying to push for this:
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/n-f-l-brings-expanded-season-proposal-to-union/

This sucks for the fans. You play too many games, you end up watering down the quality of the games. Look at the NBA regular season. 16 games plus postseason is already pushing it.

I also enjoy having 4 preseason games, it takes that long to figure out what the new players can do.

[Fritz]

I'd like to just chop off one exhibition game, maybe two.

I'm still adjusting to the change from 14 to 16 games.

[Tony Oday]

wont change until there is a new labor agreement

[RashanGary]

I like it. More football is better!! I'm always excited for the first preseason game and by the end, I'm just sick of it. I hope it goes through, they can increase the roster #'s, there will be more emphasis on depth now. I'm fine with that if it means getting more meaningful football.

On their end, it's all about money, but on my end, I like it so sign me up.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I hope it goes through, they can increase the roster #'s, there will be more emphasis on depth now. They need to increase the roster size anyway. I doubt that will happen.

[Tony Oday]

What I dont get is the players have to play the 4 preseason games anyway now two will just mean something...they shouldnt get another cent.

[mraynrand]

Players get the hell beat out of them. Seems like the longer the season, the more likely you have key players lost for the season at some point. The intensity of a regular season game is nowhere near those preseason snoozefests. I'd like to see 2 preseason games and 16 regular season games max. Players should make money commensurate with what the league brings in (some fixed percentage) - period. and it should be more than it used to be - these days guys are working hard all year - except maybe for Favre. :shock:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Go back to 14 games.

Actually, they played 12 games before 1960

[bbbffl66]

What i want to know is whether the extra home game that counts will go to the Green or Gold ticket holders. Seems kinda unfair to make 1 group pay full price to watch a practice!

[bobblehead]

think about all the grant like contracts that get incentives based on yardage totals....give 'em 2 more games to hit those goals.

[Lurker64]

Man, if they go down to 2 preseason games, those first couple weeks of football are going to be really ugly.

Do we really want to play the equivalent of 2 preseason games that actually count towards the standings?

[digitaldean]

Go back to 14 games.

Actually, they played 12 games before 1960

Good luck in that happening. You could expect a minimum of $100 per ticket for the cheap seats and concessions to go even higher than the cutthroat prices they're at right now.

I see 18 games if they can get compensation and roster sizes squared away.

[The Leaper]

18 games is a foregone conclusion.

The owners want it, and the owners are the ones in the driver's seat going into this session of bargaining. The players are going to be staunchly against it because they know it is the one ace they have to play at the table this time around.

I don't mind 18 games as long as you toss in an extra bye week and add 2 roster spots per team. I think it helps a team like Green Bay, because this no doubt will extend the regular season even further into winter...which helps us get more chances at an increased HFA late in the season.

[The Leaper]

Man, if they go down to 2 preseason games, those first couple weeks of football are going to be really ugly.

I don't think the first few weeks will be ugly. Training camps will start earlier and players will still have time to learn their systems. Starters should see the bulk of playing time in the preseason games.

What might end up being ugly is the development of younger players. Suddenly, teams won't have all the extra time to evaluate the last 12 guys on the roster fighting for 4-8 spots. Intra-squad scrimmages will become a lot more necessary.

[Harlan Huckleby]

think about all the grant like contracts that get incentives based on yardage totals....give 'em 2 more games to hit those goals.
Now that you mention it, think about how all the nfl records will get broken.

I just hate the idea of adding two games, it just means lower quality play, more injuries.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't mind 18 games as long as you toss in an extra bye week and add 2 roster spots per team. Two roster spots? They need 6.

[RashanGary]

Oh gosh, it's not that big of a deal. Add 6 roster spots, make a few minor rule changes with how injuries can be handled and make it happen!!

[Guiness]

Have to love the NFL's spin...studies show the rate of injuries don't go up.

Even if I believed that (I don't, fatigue plays a part) maybe the rate doesn't go up, but you have to more chance to see if it's your turn!

[sharpe1027]

Have to love the NFL's spin...studies show the rate of injuries don't go up.

Even if I believed that (I don't, fatigue plays a part) maybe the rate doesn't go up, but you have to more chance to see if it's your turn!

If studies were to show that the rate of getting hit by a car while closing your eyes and running across the interstate is the same the 1st time as it is the 18th time, the NFL suggests that there is no harm in running across 18 times instead of just once. Brilliant!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oh gosh, it's not that big of a deal. Add 6 roster spots, make a few minor rule changes with how injuries can be handled and make it happen!!

Why? NFL football in the summer sucks. I like the preseason games, which you can sort-of half watch, but it dimishes the excitement of the season opener if it comes in August. There is a real change after labor day, schools starting, the weather cooling down, etc., and the new football season is part of that change. Summer is for vacations and leisure time activities like baseball. Fall is for the serious business of the football season.

What's the alternative, start the playoffs in late janury? That sucks too, the season is plenty long enough as it is.

18 games will make a real difference in the quality of football. There is zero reason to go this direction, other than money for the NFL owners. The other pro sports are greatly diminished by too many regular season games. Over-doing it in the NFL will be even worse, since the players get so beat-up.

This is a horrible development.

[pack4to84]

So who would be the first RB to finally break Eric Dickerson rushing record? When would Tom Brady's 50 TD record go down? Will 2 extra games a year help P.Manning catch Favre's records? Will it help a RB break Emmitt Smith career rushing record?

[bobblehead]

So who would be the first RB to finally break Eric Dickerson rushing record? When would Tom Brady's 50 TD record go down? Will 2 extra games a year help P.Manning catch Favre's records? Will it help a RB break Emmitt Smith career rushing record?

Chris Johnson, Within 3 years, Yes, and Yes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Will it help a RB break Emmitt Smith career rushing record? OK, so there is this small silver lining. :lol:

[Noodle]

I'm with Blue Dog on this. This really would be hard on the players -- even a tough guy like Ray Lewis says "hell no!"

Too much of a good thing is not a gooder thing.

[wpony]

I think this would really hurt a team like the Packers that builds through the draft where are you going to get your new players the training and the game exposure they need to learn from and excel.
If they insist on extending the season for us fans LOL ya right :lol: at least leave the preseason alone or start a minor league like baseball has.

[Patler]

Going to 14 from 12 was "too much".
Going to 16 from 14 was "too much".
Now going to 18 from 16 is "too much"

But, preseason will shorten just as it did in the past. from 6 to 5 to 4, now 2.
Roster sizes will increase, just as they did in the past, from 32 to 36 to 40, to 48 with 40 active, to 53 active with 45 eligible on game days. I suspect those numbers will change yet again if the season is extended.

The league will adapt, the teams will adapt, the players will adapt.

It's no big deal.

[get louder at lambeau]

Going to 14 from 12 was "too much".
Going to 16 from 14 was "too much".
Now going to 18 from 16 is "too much"

But, preseason will shorten just as it did in the past. from 6 to 5 to 4, now 2.
Roster sizes will increase, just as they did in the past, from 32 to 36 to 40, to 48 with 40 active, to 53 active with 45 eligible on game days. I suspect those numbers will change yet again if the season is extended.

The league will adapt, the teams will adapt, the players will adapt.

It's no big deal.

I say they just follow baseball's lead and have a 162 game regular season plus playoffs and a 7 game championship series.

[vince]

Going to 14 from 12 was "too much".
Going to 16 from 14 was "too much".
Now going to 18 from 16 is "too much"

But, preseason will shorten just as it did in the past. from 6 to 5 to 4, now 2.
Roster sizes will increase, just as they did in the past, from 32 to 36 to 40, to 48 with 40 active, to 53 active with 45 eligible on game days. I suspect those numbers will change yet again if the season is extended.

The league will adapt, the teams will adapt, the players will adapt.

It's no big deal.

I say they just follow baseball's lead and have a 162 game regular season plus playoffs and a 7 game championship series....and go to 25-man rosters.

Ladies and gentlemen, introducing your 2012 Packers!
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c343/twernke/Packers/1921TeamPhoto.jpg

Actually, I'm all for the 18-game schedule. I'd also be for getting rid of the preseason games altogether and going with the way it's done in college. Straight 20-game schedule. Bigger rosters of course. More substitutions. Change the IR rules. Continue to tweak the rules to make the game safer for players. Prevent cut blocks and intentional low hits for example. Figure out how to deal with/prevent head and neck injuries. Schedule non-conference (less important) games first like colleges do.

I'd like to see a few more teams make the playoffs too. Go with a 16-team playoff schedule. Eliminate the playoff byes.

[get louder at lambeau]

Schedule non-conference (less important) games first like colleges do.

That would be pretty cool. Have them start with a non-conference game, then conference, then division.

[Badgerinmaine]

I'd like to see a few more teams make the playoffs too. Go with a 16-team playoff schedule. Eliminate the playoff byes.
Half the teams in the league in the playoffs? No, thanks. Just imagine..."With two games to go, the 6-10 Bears still have a shot at the playoffs!"
On the other hand, Vince, I think the ball boy in the front of your team photo may have a future as a shifty change of pace back. :-)

[MadScientist]

Oh gosh, it's not that big of a deal. Add 6 roster spots, make a few minor rule changes with how injuries can be handled and make it happen!!

Why? NFL football in the summer sucks. I like the preseason games, which you can sort-of half watch, but it dimishes the excitement of the season opener if it comes in August. There is a real change after labor day, schools starting, the weather cooling down, etc., and the new football season is part of that change. Summer is for vacations and leisure time activities like baseball. Fall is for the serious business of the football season.

What's the alternative, start the playoffs in late janury? That sucks too, the season is plenty long enough as it is.

18 games will make a real difference in the quality of football. There is zero reason to go this direction, other than money for the NFL owners. The other pro sports are greatly diminished by too many regular season games. Over-doing it in the NFL will be even worse, since the players get so beat-up.

This is a horrible development.

The plan is to put the games at the end of the year, pushing back the Super Bowl. There will still be no real football in August. Ice Bowls will be a more common occurrence.

If they change the injury rules (e.g. IR for 8 weeks instead of the whole season), teams could actually be healthier at the end of the season. The biggest risk is for QB injuries, but if the best teams tank the last couple of games, the risk will be reduced.

[The Leaper]

The plan is to put the games at the end of the year, pushing back the Super Bowl. There will still be no real football in August. Ice Bowls will be a more common occurrence.

Which is why I pointed out that a team like Green Bay should be SUPPORTIVE of the 18 game season. I think it slightly benefits us...with more home games in the chilly weather.

18 games is going to happen people...are you blind? Money talks in sports...and 2 extra weeks of regular season games means $$$$ for the NFL from future TV contracts.

Also, I doubt that Ray Lewis is really so hardcore against this. He simply HAS to speak out against it (like all players do right now) because it is a bargaining chip the players can use in this next round of bargaining. The fact of the matter is that the owners look to have the upper hand going into these contract negotiations...so the NFLPA will make certain that all players are united AGAINST the 18 game season (which the owners want) because that is a concession they can give the owners in order to obtain something the players want.

It's all posturing before a huge showdown over the next work agreement.

[The Leaper]

Half the teams in the league in the playoffs? No, thanks.

I agree. No interest in making the NFL like the NBA. I think 12 is the right number...and I like byes going to teams as a reward for a good season.

[vince]

I'd like to see a few more teams make the playoffs too. Go with a 16-team playoff schedule. Eliminate the playoff byes.
Half the teams in the league in the playoffs? No, thanks. Just imagine..."With two games to go, the 6-10 Bears still have a shot at the playoffs!"
You might feel differently if that borderline team was the Packers, whose star QB is finally set to come off the 4-game disabled list. More teams in the hunt would only increase interest and be good for the league IMO. A sub-500 team would infrequently make the playoffs. As it is, 8-8 teams have often made the playoffs. Why not give the couple additional teams who now are getting eliminated by some obscure and irrelevant tie-breaker - and may be the hotter team or just getting healthy at the right time - a chance to lift their cities and be the next cinderella story like the Giants from a couple years ago?

I think it would be good for the game and eliminate the huge unfair competitive advantage of an additional bye week and one less game to win at the most important time of the season. Just my opinion.

[MadScientist]

I'd like to see a few more teams make the playoffs too. Go with a 16-team playoff schedule. Eliminate the playoff byes.
Half the teams in the league in the playoffs? No, thanks. Just imagine..."With two games to go, the 6-10 Bears still have a shot at the playoffs!"
You might feel differently if that borderline team was the Packers, whose star QB is finally set to come off the 4-game disabled list. More teams in the hunt would only increase interest and be good for the league IMO. A sub-500 team would infrequently make the playoffs. As it is, 8-8 teams have often made the playoffs. Why not give the couple additional teams who now are getting eliminated by some obscure and irrelevant tie-breaker - and may be the hotter team or just getting healthy at the right time - a chance to lift their cities and be the next cinderella story like the Giants from a couple years ago?

I think it would be good for the game and eliminate the huge unfair competitive advantage of an additional bye week and one less game to win at the most important time of the season. Just my opinion.
The problem with too many teams making the playoffs is that it degrades the value of the regular season. Part of the weekly draw to football is that almost every game is important. The more teams you put in the playoffs, the less of an attraction those weekly games become. The more people think they can miss a game, the more they will and the more they will find they have other things and better things to do with their time.

[vince]

For a sport with an oversupply of tickets like baseball, I'd say that has some credence to it, but not for NFL football.

For winning teams clearly in the playoffs, there is far more demand than supply for NFL game tickets. People want to see winners. That's why tickets are so outrageously high on the open market when their team is winning. Try to scalp tickets to a game when the Packers are 13-3 and clearly in the playoffs vs. 6-10 and see how it turns out. Value goes through the roof when teams win.

Adding more teams to the playoffs would only ADD value for regular season games for those borderline teams in the hunt that otherwise would be out of the race late in the season and would otherwise have a harder time selling tickets.

Adding playoff teams would increase demand for tickets in the NFL where it might otherwise be softer rather than decrease it. And particularly in a more limited-supply sport like football, demand for tickets of the winningest teams will always outpace supply.

[ThunderDan]

Half the teams in the league in the playoffs? No, thanks. Just imagine..."With two games to go, the 6-10 Bears still have a shot at the playoffs!"


Hell by adding 1 more playoff week you could have all 32 teams in the playoff.

"The 2-13 Lions really need to win this week if they don't want to play the 14-1 Packers in the 1st round of the playoffs!" :lol:

[The Leaper]

Adding playoff teams would increase demand for tickets in the NFL where it might otherwise be softer rather than decrease it.

Demand is hardly a problem for except in certain cities (like Jax) where they don't show up even when they have a playoff team. Your idea can't possibly address that kind of "soft" demand.

You don't need to expand the playoffs to drive interest/demand. The last few seasons have seen most teams in the league stay in the playoff race up until the last couple weeks.

I completely agree that it would be foolish to have a 5-9 team still have a chance at the playoffs with 2 weeks to go. Yuck. You should have to EARN your way to the playoffs. The problem with the current playoff setup isn't how many teams get in, but how the rules are setup so that an 8-8 division winner can host a 11-5 division runnerup. I believe that all division winners should advance to the playoffs regardless of record...but they should not be guaranteed a home game.

[Patler]

With 12 teams in the playoffs, every once in a while a team with a very good record feels left out because they didn't make the cut.. But if you expand it to 16 teams, most years every team with a winning record would make it, and even 8-8 teams some years.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me that a barely winning record should virtually guarantee a playoff spot.

[sharpe1027]

With 12 teams in the playoffs, every once in a while a team with a very good record feels left out because they didn't make the cut.. But if you expand it to 16 teams, most years every team with a winning record would make it, and even 8-8 teams some years.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me that a barely winning record should virtually guarantee a playoff spot.

To me, it is no more ridiculous than adding extra games in the regular season. Neither are necessary nor do the seem to be wanted by many of the fans. Bottom line, both have the potential to make them more money for the NFL.

[Patler]

With 12 teams in the playoffs, every once in a while a team with a very good record feels left out because they didn't make the cut.. But if you expand it to 16 teams, most years every team with a winning record would make it, and even 8-8 teams some years.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me that a barely winning record should virtually guarantee a playoff spot.

To me, it is no more ridiculous than adding extra games in the regular season. Neither are necessary nor do the seem to be wanted by many of the fans. Bottom line, both have the potential to make them more money for the NFL.

Well, sure; but I wasn't referring to any financial reasons for doing it. Those aren't difficult to understand. As long as games are sell-outs, someone will think more would be better.

I do see a lot of difference between adding regular season games and increasing the number of playoff teams. With added regular season games the distinction between playoff teams and non-playoff teams might increase, which to me is a good thing. On the flip-side, it will just prolong the agony for the really bad teams.

I think diluting the significance of "making the playoffs" is detrimental. While the fans of a couple 8-8 or 9-7 teams might be excited for a while, overall I think some fans may be disinterested the first week of playoffs when 15-1 teams blow out some 8-8 teams. I like the format now, and the way it sort of builds just by the nature of the participants. It promotes competitive games by having wildcard weekend with the best having a bye.

[sharpe1027]

Well, sure; but I wasn't referring to any financial reasons for doing it. Those aren't difficult to understand. As long as games are sell-outs, someone will think more would be better.

I do see a lot of difference between adding regular season games and increasing the number of playoff teams. With added regular season games the distinction between playoff teams and non-playoff teams might increase, which to me is a good thing. On the flip-side, it will just prolong the agony for the really bad teams.

I think diluting the significance of "making the playoffs" is detrimental. While the fans of a couple 8-8 or 9-7 teams might be excited for a while, overall I think some fans may be disinterested the first week of playoffs when 15-1 teams blow out some 8-8 teams. I like the format now, and the way it sort of builds just by the nature of the participants. It promotes competitive games by having wildcard weekend with the best having a bye.

If I had to chose one or the other, I would agree with you - extra regular season games would be better than more teams in the playoffs; however, I really don't want either. Extra regular season games just mean more meaningless games, more money, and more dilution of the import of each game. No thanks. There are plenty of games as it is, at least for me.

[Patler]

If I had to chose one or the other, I would agree with you - extra regular season games would be better than more teams in the playoffs; however, I really don't want either. Extra regular season games just mean more meaningless games, more money, and more dilution of the import of each game. No thanks. There are plenty of games as it is, at least for me.

Ya, I don't need a longer season either. I'm satisfied with 14 games...oh wait...I mean 16! :lol: Actually, I was satisfied with 14, and with fewer teams in the league.

[packerbacker1234]

Well, sure; but I wasn't referring to any financial reasons for doing it. Those aren't difficult to understand. As long as games are sell-outs, someone will think more would be better.

I do see a lot of difference between adding regular season games and increasing the number of playoff teams. With added regular season games the distinction between playoff teams and non-playoff teams might increase, which to me is a good thing. On the flip-side, it will just prolong the agony for the really bad teams.

I think diluting the significance of "making the playoffs" is detrimental. While the fans of a couple 8-8 or 9-7 teams might be excited for a while, overall I think some fans may be disinterested the first week of playoffs when 15-1 teams blow out some 8-8 teams. I like the format now, and the way it sort of builds just by the nature of the participants. It promotes competitive games by having wildcard weekend with the best having a bye.

If I had to chose one or the other, I would agree with you - extra regular season games would be better than more teams in the playoffs; however, I really don't want either. Extra regular season games just mean more meaningless games, more money, and more dilution of the import of each game. No thanks. There are plenty of games as it is, at least for me.

Meaningless games are completely subjective. 2 extra games would of gave the vikings last year a chance to get the #1 seed back, and if the saints have to roll into the metrodome... chances are they lose, and were looking at the Vikings as super bowl champs.

I don't think ANY regular season game is meaningless unless you have nothing to play for. And, even if you have nothing to play for, you still could use the remaining games to evaluate players for next season.

Example: Lets say for some god aweful reason we are out of it after 10 games with some retard 2 and 8 record. It would be nice to put Burnett out there over Bigby, or toss JJ in the starting WR's, etc etc - just so you can figure out what you really have for next season. Those games would be used in much the same way the preseason already is - evaluation for next year.

For others, those 2 games ar ethe difference in what seeding you get, if you can still win your division, if you can grab a WC spot. There are advantages to 18 game schedules. And money wise, at least for the teams that seem to always have sell outs (such as Green Bay) it makes complete logical sense. Our franchise would make more money.

The big downside is of course, injuries, disinterested players, etc etc.

Thats a risk you take every time you step on the field. I don't think this diminishes the playoffs, I think it makes it more intriguing. Said 8-8 team (or 9-7) gets in over other "hot" 9-7 team because of tie breakers? Throw on two more weeks and lets see what sort of tie breakers there really are.


Dunno, I wouldn't mind, as a fan, more football. I love watching football. I could see players opposed and franchises that loose money being opposed, but as a fan, I would love to see 2 more MEANINGFUL games on the schedule.

[sharpe1027]

Meaningless games are completely subjective. 2 extra games would of gave the vikings last year a chance to get the #1 seed back, and if the saints have to roll into the metrodome... chances are they lose, and were looking at the Vikings as super bowl champs.

I don't think ANY regular season game is meaningless unless you have nothing to play for. And, even if you have nothing to play for, you still could use the remaining games to evaluate players for next season.

Example: Lets say for some god aweful reason we are out of it after 10 games with some retard 2 and 8 record. It would be nice to put Burnett out there over Bigby, or toss JJ in the starting WR's, etc etc - just so you can figure out what you really have for next season. Those games would be used in much the same way the preseason already is - evaluation for next year.

For others, those 2 games ar ethe difference in what seeding you get, if you can still win your division, if you can grab a WC spot. There are advantages to 18 game schedules. And money wise, at least for the teams that seem to always have sell outs (such as Green Bay) it makes complete logical sense. Our franchise would make more money.

The big downside is of course, injuries, disinterested players, etc etc.

Thats a risk you take every time you step on the field. I don't think this diminishes the playoffs, I think it makes it more intriguing. Said 8-8 team (or 9-7) gets in over other "hot" 9-7 team because of tie breakers? Throw on two more weeks and lets see what sort of tie breakers there really are.


Dunno, I wouldn't mind, as a fan, more football. I love watching football. I could see players opposed and franchises that loose money being opposed, but as a fan, I would love to see 2 more MEANINGFUL games on the schedule.

Well, but your standard, preseason games are not meaningless either since they are used to evaluate players for the season. ;) I did not mean meaningless in the most absolute sense, just in my subjective "the game is not that important" sense.

I am not in favor of adding games because in my subjective opinion, there would be more meaningless games AND because it dilutes the importance of each game AND because it will probably end up costing me more money AND because it restarts all the records AND because I don't see enough upside. Sure teams would make more money overall, but it would further the income gap between the bottom teams and the top teams (not a good thing in my opinion).

Just my opinion. I can see your point about wanting more games to enjoy and I would be OK with them doing it. I just don't prefer it. :)

[woodbuck27]

Sounds like the NFL is actually trying to push for this:
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/n-f-l-brings-expanded-season-proposal-to-union/

This sucks for the fans. You play too many games, you end up watering down the quality of the games. Look at the NBA regular season. 16 games plus postseason is already pushing it.

I also enjoy having 4 preseason games, it takes that long to figure out what the new players can do.

Nahh! 16 games is enough. The injury factor should be the top consideration. Then there is the impact a longer schedule will have on current record holders.

Well then again, records are made to be broken and records will often be forgotten anyway. The player seldom won*t among the real fans. So sleeping on this question... yes to more games in the schedule. :D

[retailguy]

Sounds like the NFL is actually trying to push for this:
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/n-f-l-brings-expanded-season-proposal-to-union/

This sucks for the fans. You play too many games, you end up watering down the quality of the games. Look at the NBA regular season. 16 games plus postseason is already pushing it.

I also enjoy having 4 preseason games, it takes that long to figure out what the new players can do.

Nahh! 16 games is enough. The injury factor should be to top consideration.

We have the BEST DEPTH IN THE LEAGUE! I'm in for 20 games. Fuck the 18. 20!!!!! Football until MARCH!

[Tarlam!]

Haven't been reading much lately, so maybe someone can shed light on how the schedule will be affected; Currently, there are:

a) - 6 Division games
b) - 4 Intra-Conference games with rototing divisions
c) - 4 Inter - " -
d) - 2 Intra conference games based on strength of schedule (rotational).

My guess is that the additional two games with be 2 Inter conference games based on strength of schedule (rotational). I'll label these "e)" games for reasons below.

Perhaps it's just my imagination, but the games that are currently least attractive/ competitive/ nail-biting are the 2 Intra conference games based on strength of schedule (rotational) games, because the parity phenomonon in the NFL has a way of making SOS matchups (that would be fair in the previous season) go all skewy in the season they are actually played.

So, adding two more unbalanced SOS contests will make the NFL and the owners more money, but I see quality issues.

If it is inevitable, then here's my two cents on how it might work:

Vital, IMHO, is a balanced Common Schedule including common bye weeks(2, labelled F)) for at least Division, preferrably Conferences. This example schedule is for an NFC Team:

Week: Type of) Game

1: e) Game (AFC Conf. SOS)
2: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)
3: d) Game (NFC Conf. SOS)
4: b) Game (Conf. Div)
5: a) Game (Div)
6: a) Game (Div)

(N.B.
* The first two games count the least by way of tie breakers
* Teams can still find their form before a conference game.
* The first bye weeks approach
* 2 of Six divisional games are locked up
* 4 of 12 confernce matchups have been played
* 2/3 of the season remains)

7a: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)(8 Teams, two complete Disions per conference)
7b: F) BYE(8 Teams, two complete Disions per conference)
8a: F) BYE(8 Teams, two complete Disions per conference)
8b:) c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)(8 Teams, two complete Disions per conference)

(N.B. This bye schedule reapeats after a further six/seven) weeks. There is no advantage or disadvantage by scheduling common byes)

9: e) Game (AFC Conf. SOS)
10: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)
11: b) Game (Conf. Div)
12: a) Game (Div)
13: a) Game (Div)
14a: BYE(8 Teams, two complete Divions per conference (etc.)
14b: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)
15a: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)
15b: BYE
16: d) Game (NFC Conf. SOS)
17: d) Game (Conf. Div)
18: b) Game (Conf. Div)
19: a) Game (Div)
20: a) Game (Div)

(N.B. The final Tertial is 100% Intra Conference, hopefully minimizing lame duck games)

Other posters have reflected upon the need to increase the roster. I would suggest increasing the size of the Practice Squad, also.

The other suggestion that I would try and employ is stronger homefield advantage opportunities. It makes no difference at what time of year the Packers play in the Metrodome. That environment clearly favours the home team. So, it surely must be considered reasonable for the Vikings to play outside in cold weather and compenstate for that advantage.

The opposite is true if the play outside in, say, Dallas. Then, playing earlier in the season when it's hot would add to the parity.

My scheduling thoughts don't only apply to a 20 week regular season. Obviously, a balanced schedule would be in the interest of the current 17 week regular season.

Any thoughts?

[ThunderDan]

Meaningless games are completely subjective. 2 extra games would of gave the vikings last year a chance to get the #1 seed back, and if the saints have to roll into the metrodome... chances are they lose, and were looking at the Vikings as super bowl champs.

I don't think ANY regular season game is meaningless unless you have nothing to play for. And, even if you have nothing to play for, you still could use the remaining games to evaluate players for next season.

Example: Lets say for some god aweful reason we are out of it after 10 games with some retard 2 and 8 record. It would be nice to put Burnett out there over Bigby, or toss JJ in the starting WR's, etc etc - just so you can figure out what you really have for next season. Those games would be used in much the same way the preseason already is - evaluation for next year.

For others, those 2 games ar ethe difference in what seeding you get, if you can still win your division, if you can grab a WC spot. There are advantages to 18 game schedules. And money wise, at least for the teams that seem to always have sell outs (such as Green Bay) it makes complete logical sense. Our franchise would make more money.

The big downside is of course, injuries, disinterested players, etc etc.

Thats a risk you take every time you step on the field. I don't think this diminishes the playoffs, I think it makes it more intriguing. Said 8-8 team (or 9-7) gets in over other "hot" 9-7 team because of tie breakers? Throw on two more weeks and lets see what sort of tie breakers there really are.


Dunno, I wouldn't mind, as a fan, more football. I love watching football. I could see players opposed and franchises that loose money being opposed, but as a fan, I would love to see 2 more MEANINGFUL games on the schedule.

Or the Vikes could finish the season 2-5 instead of 2-3 drop to 2nd in the NFC North and have to play on the road the first week of the playoffs and never have a home game for the whole postseason.

The Packers than pick them off in Pack vs Vikes 3 and BF retires. :roll:

Why don't you find another scenario for the Vikes that wins them the Super Bowl while you are at it!!

Funny that a poster with the name PackerBacker adds 2 more games to 2009 and comes up with a scenario that the Vikings :oops: win the Super Bowl. Why wouldn't you come up with a 18 game scenario that the Packers make the Super Bowl?

[packerbacker1234]

Meaningless games are completely subjective. 2 extra games would of gave the vikings last year a chance to get the #1 seed back, and if the saints have to roll into the metrodome... chances are they lose, and were looking at the Vikings as super bowl champs.

I don't think ANY regular season game is meaningless unless you have nothing to play for. And, even if you have nothing to play for, you still could use the remaining games to evaluate players for next season.

Example: Lets say for some god aweful reason we are out of it after 10 games with some retard 2 and 8 record. It would be nice to put Burnett out there over Bigby, or toss JJ in the starting WR's, etc etc - just so you can figure out what you really have for next season. Those games would be used in much the same way the preseason already is - evaluation for next year.

For others, those 2 games ar ethe difference in what seeding you get, if you can still win your division, if you can grab a WC spot. There are advantages to 18 game schedules. And money wise, at least for the teams that seem to always have sell outs (such as Green Bay) it makes complete logical sense. Our franchise would make more money.

The big downside is of course, injuries, disinterested players, etc etc.

Thats a risk you take every time you step on the field. I don't think this diminishes the playoffs, I think it makes it more intriguing. Said 8-8 team (or 9-7) gets in over other "hot" 9-7 team because of tie breakers? Throw on two more weeks and lets see what sort of tie breakers there really are.


Dunno, I wouldn't mind, as a fan, more football. I love watching football. I could see players opposed and franchises that loose money being opposed, but as a fan, I would love to see 2 more MEANINGFUL games on the schedule.

Or the Vikes could finish the season 2-5 instead of 2-3 drop to 2nd in the NFC North and have to play on the road the first week of the playoffs and never have a home game for the whole postseason.

The Packers than pick them off in Pack vs Vikes 3 and BF retires. :roll:

Why don't you find another scenario for the Vikes that wins them the Super Bowl while you are at it!!

Funny that a poster with the name PackerBacker adds 2 more games to 2009 and comes up with a scenario that the Vikings :oops: win the Super Bowl. Why wouldn't you come up with a 18 game scenario that the Packers make the Super Bowl?

because the two additional games even if we win and they lose, they still take the division. We would end up with the exact same record (13-5) and they have 2 head-to-head wins over us.

As, even with two extra games, there was no chance for the packers to overtake the vikings last year, and pretty much little chance, even if they lost out, that they lose the #2 seed. The only thing that could of negatively happened to the vikings is injuries. So yes, the 2 games would most likely only gave the vikings hope.

[Patler]

because the two additional games even if we win and they lose, they still take the division. We would end up with the exact same record (13-5) and they have 2 head-to-head wins over us.

As, even with two extra games, there was no chance for the packers to overtake the vikings last year, and pretty much little chance, even if they lost out, that they lose the #2 seed. The only thing that could of negatively happened to the vikings is injuries. So yes, the 2 games would most likely only gave the vikings hope.

Weren't the Packers just 1 game behind the Vikings? 12-4 vs. 11-5? Two more wins for GB and two more losses for MN give the Packers the division.

[ThunderDan]

Meaningless games are completely subjective. 2 extra games would of gave the vikings last year a chance to get the #1 seed back, and if the saints have to roll into the metrodome... chances are they lose, and were looking at the Vikings as super bowl champs.

I don't think ANY regular season game is meaningless unless you have nothing to play for. And, even if you have nothing to play for, you still could use the remaining games to evaluate players for next season.

Example: Lets say for some god aweful reason we are out of it after 10 games with some retard 2 and 8 record. It would be nice to put Burnett out there over Bigby, or toss JJ in the starting WR's, etc etc - just so you can figure out what you really have for next season. Those games would be used in much the same way the preseason already is - evaluation for next year.

For others, those 2 games ar ethe difference in what seeding you get, if you can still win your division, if you can grab a WC spot. There are advantages to 18 game schedules. And money wise, at least for the teams that seem to always have sell outs (such as Green Bay) it makes complete logical sense. Our franchise would make more money.

The big downside is of course, injuries, disinterested players, etc etc.

Thats a risk you take every time you step on the field. I don't think this diminishes the playoffs, I think it makes it more intriguing. Said 8-8 team (or 9-7) gets in over other "hot" 9-7 team because of tie breakers? Throw on two more weeks and lets see what sort of tie breakers there really are.


Dunno, I wouldn't mind, as a fan, more football. I love watching football. I could see players opposed and franchises that loose money being opposed, but as a fan, I would love to see 2 more MEANINGFUL games on the schedule.

Or the Vikes could finish the season 2-5 instead of 2-3 drop to 2nd in the NFC North and have to play on the road the first week of the playoffs and never have a home game for the whole postseason.

The Packers than pick them off in Pack vs Vikes 3 and BF retires. :roll:

Why don't you find another scenario for the Vikes that wins them the Super Bowl while you are at it!!

Funny that a poster with the name PackerBacker adds 2 more games to 2009 and comes up with a scenario that the Vikings :oops: win the Super Bowl. Why wouldn't you come up with a 18 game scenario that the Packers make the Super Bowl?

because the two additional games even if we win and they lose, they still take the division. We would end up with the exact same record (13-5) and they have 2 head-to-head wins over us.

As, even with two extra games, there was no chance for the packers to overtake the vikings last year, and pretty much little chance, even if they lost out, that they lose the #2 seed. The only thing that could of negatively happened to the vikings is injuries. So yes, the 2 games would most likely only gave the vikings hope.

Huh???

12-4 and 11-5 becomes 12-6 and 13-5.

Once again coming up with an excuse, that doesn't even exist, not to pick the Packers and support the Vikings.

[ThunderDan]

because the two additional games even if we win and they lose, they still take the division. We would end up with the exact same record (13-5) and they have 2 head-to-head wins over us.

As, even with two extra games, there was no chance for the packers to overtake the vikings last year, and pretty much little chance, even if they lost out, that they lose the #2 seed. The only thing that could of negatively happened to the vikings is injuries. So yes, the 2 games would most likely only gave the vikings hope.

Weren't the Packers just 1 game behind the Vikings? 12-4 vs. 11-5? Two more wins for GB and two more losses for MN give the Packers the division.

I wish I knew how to post one of those Patlerized stamps.

[ThunderDan]

Haven't been reading much lately, so maybe someone can shed light on how the schedule will be affected; Currently, there are:

a) - 6 Division games
b) - 4 Intra-Conference games with rototing divisions
c) - 4 Inter - " -
d) - 2 Intra conference games based on strength of schedule (rotational).

My guess is that the additional two games with be 2 Inter conference games based on strength of schedule (rotational). I'll label these "e)" games for reasons below.

Perhaps it's just my imagination, but the games that are currently least attractive/ competitive/ nail-biting are the 2 Intra conference games based on strength of schedule (rotational) games, because the parity phenomonon in the NFL has a way of making SOS matchups (that would be fair in the previous season) go all skewy in the season they are actually played.

So, adding two more unbalanced SOS contests will make the NFL and the owners more money, but I see quality issues.

If it is inevitable, then here's my two cents on how it might work:

Vital, IMHO, is a balanced Common Schedule including common bye weeks(2, labelled F)) for at least Division, preferrably Conferences. This example schedule is for an NFC Team:

Week: Type of) Game

1: e) Game (AFC Conf. SOS)
2: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)
3: d) Game (NFC Conf. SOS)
4: b) Game (Conf. Div)
5: a) Game (Div)
6: a) Game (Div)

(N.B.
* The first two games count the least by way of tie breakers
* Teams can still find their form before a conference game.
* The first bye weeks approach
* 2 of Six divisional games are locked up
* 4 of 12 confernce matchups have been played
* 2/3 of the season remains)

7a: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)(8 Teams, two complete Disions per conference)
7b: F) BYE(8 Teams, two complete Disions per conference)
8a: F) BYE(8 Teams, two complete Disions per conference)
8b:) c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)(8 Teams, two complete Disions per conference)

(N.B. This bye schedule reapeats after a further six/seven) weeks. There is no advantage or disadvantage by scheduling common byes)

9: e) Game (AFC Conf. SOS)
10: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)
11: b) Game (Conf. Div)
12: a) Game (Div)
13: a) Game (Div)
14a: BYE(8 Teams, two complete Divions per conference (etc.)
14b: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)
15a: c) Game (AFC Conf. Div)
15b: BYE
16: d) Game (NFC Conf. SOS)
17: d) Game (Conf. Div)
18: b) Game (Conf. Div)
19: a) Game (Div)
20: a) Game (Div)

(N.B. The final Tertial is 100% Intra Conference, hopefully minimizing lame duck games)

Other posters have reflected upon the need to increase the roster. I would suggest increasing the size of the Practice Squad, also.

The other suggestion that I would try and employ is stronger homefield advantage opportunities. It makes no difference at what time of year the Packers play in the Metrodome. That environment clearly favours the home team. So, it surely must be considered reasonable for the Vikings to play outside in cold weather and compenstate for that advantage.

The opposite is true if the play outside in, say, Dallas. Then, playing earlier in the season when it's hot would add to the parity.

My scheduling thoughts don't only apply to a 20 week regular season. Obviously, a balanced schedule would be in the interest of the current 17 week regular season.

Any thoughts?

Good way to pick 2 extra games in my opinion. I just don't like the idea of 18 games.

[ThunderDan]

Meaningless games are completely subjective. 2 extra games would of gave the vikings last year a chance to get the #1 seed back, and if the saints have to roll into the metrodome... chances are they lose, and were looking at the Vikings as super bowl champs.

I don't think ANY regular season game is meaningless unless you have nothing to play for. And, even if you have nothing to play for, you still could use the remaining games to evaluate players for next season.

Example: Lets say for some god aweful reason we are out of it after 10 games with some retard 2 and 8 record. It would be nice to put Burnett out there over Bigby, or toss JJ in the starting WR's, etc etc - just so you can figure out what you really have for next season. Those games would be used in much the same way the preseason already is - evaluation for next year.

For others, those 2 games ar ethe difference in what seeding you get, if you can still win your division, if you can grab a WC spot. There are advantages to 18 game schedules. And money wise, at least for the teams that seem to always have sell outs (such as Green Bay) it makes complete logical sense. Our franchise would make more money.

The big downside is of course, injuries, disinterested players, etc etc.

Thats a risk you take every time you step on the field. I don't think this diminishes the playoffs, I think it makes it more intriguing. Said 8-8 team (or 9-7) gets in over other "hot" 9-7 team because of tie breakers? Throw on two more weeks and lets see what sort of tie breakers there really are.


Dunno, I wouldn't mind, as a fan, more football. I love watching football. I could see players opposed and franchises that loose money being opposed, but as a fan, I would love to see 2 more MEANINGFUL games on the schedule.

Or the Vikes could finish the season 2-5 instead of 2-3 drop to 2nd in the NFC North and have to play on the road the first week of the playoffs and never have a home game for the whole postseason.

The Packers than pick them off in Pack vs Vikes 3 and BF retires. :roll:

Why don't you find another scenario for the Vikes that wins them the Super Bowl while you are at it!!

Funny that a poster with the name PackerBacker adds 2 more games to 2009 and comes up with a scenario that the Vikings :oops: win the Super Bowl. Why wouldn't you come up with a 18 game scenario that the Packers make the Super Bowl?

because the two additional games even if we win and they lose, they still take the division. We would end up with the exact same record (13-5) and they have 2 head-to-head wins over us.

As, even with two extra games, there was no chance for the packers to overtake the vikings last year, and pretty much little chance, even if they lost out, that they lose the #2 seed. The only thing that could of negatively happened to the vikings is injuries. So yes, the 2 games would most likely only gave the vikings hope.

Hell, even if the Packers were 7-9, I would run every scenario for the Packers to finish 9-9 and make the playoffs as a wildcard if I was able to add 2 more games to the schedule.

[packerbacker1234]

Guys, the fact I didn't even know the vikings record should be a pretty good indicator about how much I pay attention to them.


lol