18 regular season games?

[woodbuck27]

Re: 18 regular season games?

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.

[retailguy]

Re: 18 regular season games?

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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