NFL: NFL proposes 14-team playoffs, 17-game season, 3-game preseason (CBA approved)

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,602
2,922
NW Burbs
If it still goes-

6 vs your 3 divisional buddies
4 vs another division in conference
4 vs another division out of conference
2 vs other same finish team in conference divisions you don’t play

Where does your 17th game come from?

Maybe a non-conference game against a same finish team, with the divisions rotating so you'd play a team from a division you played 2 years prior.
 

b1e9a8r5s

Registered User
Feb 16, 2015
12,904
4,039
Chicago, IL
I'd almost rather see them go to 8 per. If you're going to water it down to the point of #2 not getting a bye, take away 1st's too. The advantage is too great for something that comes down to a tiebreaker about half of the time.

That's likely to be less often to some degree with the extra game.

I like the idea of only rewarding 1 team instead of 2. I don't like the idea of adding another slightly above average team though.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
187,078
39,109


This doesn’t seem like something that was an agreement between owners and players. Feels more like they were close on a lot of things and now the owners voted on something that the players weren’t even privy to.
 

Shockmaster

Registered User
Sep 11, 2012
16,010
3,380
Reading social media and comments on certain websites, it seems like a lot of fans are really quick to side with the owners on CBA negotiations. I'm not suggesting they should all side with the players instead, I just find it odd.
 

Troy McClure

Suter will never be scratched
Mar 12, 2002
47,809
15,669
South of Heaven
Reading social media and comments on certain websites, it seems like a lot of fans are really quick to side with the owners on CBA negotiations. I'm not suggesting they should all side with the players instead, I just find it odd.
Fans almost always side with owners in these things. I think it's usually jealousy-driven.
 

Shockmaster

Registered User
Sep 11, 2012
16,010
3,380
I'm just offering the best reasoning I have for why so many thousandaires side with a handful of billionaires over a group of thousandaires/millionaires.

I think it's more likely they just want their fix of football on Sundays like a junkie wants a fix. The owners offer a CBA, and knee-jerk fans go "OMG AGREE TO IT NOW SO I CAN WATCH FOOTBALL!!!!!" regardless of how bad that proposed CBA actually is for the players.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,091
9,680
I think it's more likely they just want their fix of football on Sundays like a junkie wants a fix. The owners offer a CBA, and knee-jerk fans go "OMG AGREE TO IT NOW SO I CAN WATCH FOOTBALL!!!!!" regardless of how bad that proposed CBA actually is for the players.
The big carrot that the owners put forth in the CBA is increasing the league minimum salary by 22-25% from what I have heard. Trying to gain support of the vast majority of players.

When you factor in that 28/53 man rosters are not starters, (D & O, and the 3 Special teams guys) that’s a big deal to those guys who get cycled through pretty quick. They would want to get that money knowing they could get cut at any time.

but for the starters, this does not sound like a good deal for them.
 

Babe Ruth

Don't leave me hangin' on the telephone..
Feb 2, 2016
1,425
613
I think it's more likely they just want their fix of football on Sundays like a junkie wants a fix. The owners offer a CBA, and knee-jerk fans go "OMG AGREE TO IT NOW SO I CAN WATCH FOOTBALL!!!!!" regardless of how bad that proposed CBA actually is for the players.

Amen, good post.
When the schedule went from 14 to 16 games it did absolutely nothing in terms of improving game quality, or clarity (as to who the best teams are). NFL could play a 12 game schedule, and everything would be the same in terms of game quality & which teams would be winners & losers; even tho NFL power structure might self-interestedly suggest otherwise..
Expanding the season is solely about selling more tickets, expanded TV money, etc.. it's a business, it makes sense. But it is pathetic how excited some of the superfans get over the prospect of one more meaningless game.. where they can go out in idiotic costumes & foam fingers..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shockmaster

Vegas07

Registered User
Dec 6, 2018
2,700
1,863
Seems like another step towards eventually having a 20 game season. The owners pushed for 18 games before and fans were making similar comments about wanting more football.

If 17 games are okay, then why not 18? If 18 is fine, then what’s 2 more games? Why not 20?

More football, more money for billionaire owners, more concussions, more injuries, shorter careers and more CTE.
 
Last edited:

Vegas07

Registered User
Dec 6, 2018
2,700
1,863
Why not just let everyone in the playoffs so the playoffs could stop expanding?

How will they seed the teams in this new system? What if a division winner is 8-8 or 7-9? Do they get to avoid playing the 2 seed because they won a terrible division? If that’s the case the 2 seed wouldn’t always be playing the team with the worst record.
 

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,602
2,922
NW Burbs
Yeah, it only makes sense if they're having every team play 1 neutral site game. This lets them give London 8 games, a full season, without giving them a team. I think this effectively kills off the idea of London expansion, which is a positive.

Give London 8 games, Mexico City 1-2, put 1 in Germany, I know Brazil has been talked about.

I'd also love to see some college stadiums used. Put games halfway between teams and make it an event like the NHL outdoor games. Lots of merchandising opportunities there.
 
Last edited:

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,880
14,843
Pat McAfee says it right, the NFLPA and players do a very bad job of saying why it's a bad deal, while the owners do a great job of feeding info to the media of why it is a good deal.

Fans don't know why it's a bad deal, but they see the good aspects based on the info fed to the media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shockmaster

Shockmaster

Registered User
Sep 11, 2012
16,010
3,380
Pat McAfee says it right, the NFLPA and players do a very bad job of saying why it's a bad deal, while the owners do a great job of feeding info to the media of why it is a good deal.

Fans don't know why it's a bad deal, but they see the good aspects based on the info fed to the media.

The players do themselves no favor by continuing to blindly support Demaurice Smith.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,880
14,843
And fans should be in support of a deal that benefits the players at the bottom of the roster. Those players have a pretty short career on average, don't make huge money, and still put their bodies through a ton of pain.

It's why the NFL raising the minimum salary by $100,000 is a smart way for them to get players to vote Yes.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad