Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

My understanding is the owners had wanted to go to an 18 game season for some time.

SixtiesFan wrote:My understanding is the owners had wanted to go to an 18 game season for some time.

That's because they never played the game (with one exception).
Let them suit up for a few weekends and see how they feel about playing extra games while trying to recuperate...

With 32 teams, the league is perfectly balanced for a 16-game season. It's served us perfectly fine for 42 years now. I don't see the need, point or benefit in a 17-game campaign. Doesn't this mean half the teams in the league are going to get the unfair advantage of an extra home game?

Todd Pence wrote:With 32 teams, the league is perfectly balanced for a 16-game season. It's served us perfectly fine for 42 years now. I don't see the need, point or benefit in a 17-game campaign. Doesn't this mean half the teams in the league are going to get the unfair advantage of an extra home game?

Yes, very valid point. Unless, every team plays one "neutral" site game. Whether that be in Mexico City, London, etc. who knows for right now.

From a scheduling standpoint, who is that 17th game against? Will it be another conference opponent?

Todd Pence wrote:With 32 teams, the league is perfectly balanced for a 16-game season. It's served us perfectly fine for 42 years now. I don't see the need, point or benefit in a 17-game campaign. Doesn't this mean half the teams in the league are going to get the unfair advantage of an extra home game?

All AFC teams would play nine road games one season and nine home games the next.

sluggermatt15 wrote:

Todd Pence wrote:With 32 teams, the league is perfectly balanced for a 16-game season. It's served us perfectly fine for 42 years now. I don't see the need, point or benefit in a 17-game campaign. Doesn't this mean half the teams in the league are going to get the unfair advantage of an extra home game?

Yes, very valid point. Unless, every team plays one "neutral" site game. Whether that be in Mexico City, London, etc. who knows for right now.

From a scheduling standpoint, who is that 17th game against? Will it be another conference opponent?

The neutral site idea is a crappy one. A couple games in London and one in Mexico City is one thing but consistently playing 16 neutral sites games per season is another. Would London be able to handle 12 per year and Mexico City the other four? Or are we considering neutral sites in America? Rams vs Ravens at Notre Dame? Broncos vs Browns in Oklahoma? 49ers vs Saints in Portland? Good grief. What purpose would American neutral sites serve at this time? The sport's been grown in the US already.

So then will other countries be considered? Germany, Canada, Scotland, Australia, Japan? Do we have to do this?

I have not seen anything yet on how the schedule would be handled but I did hear about how the league would want all teams in one conference to have nine road games one season and nine home games the next so that there is some fairness when teams are fighting for playoff spots. The simplest way to do this is to keep the current scheduling system and add a 5th interconference game. My idea? A designated rival from the other conference.

Designated rivals could include-
Jets-Giants
Ravens-Redskins
Rams-Chargers
Falcons-Jaguars
Eagles-Steelers
Panthers-Titans
Dolphins-Buccaneers
Raiders-Cardinals
Texans-Cowboys

Those are the obvious ones. After that are a bunch of reaches.


It could be done that this game happens every year even when the two teams in question would meet under the current scheduling setup. In other words, if it was the year where the AFC East teams play the NFC East teams, then the Jets and Giants would meet twice that particular season. Otherwise, it gets too messy. The Cowboys designated rival would likely be the Texans and the other two NFC East teams would have their rivals likely coming from the AFC North. If it was set up so that the Jets and Giants could never meet twice in a regular season, then who would the Jets 17th game be against? It would be some random other NFC team but that leads to a mess elsewhere.

Or the 17th game can just be a random interconference matchup.

Other problems with neutral site games-

This is not the 1930s. The sport does not need to be grown. Sure, "in" teams such as the Chiefs and Ravens meeting at Notre Dame might be a fun novelty but the Browns vs the Jets in Portland is not going to be a hot ticket.

If the neutral sites are all in other countries, Mexico City and Canada would not present huge problems but overseas locations would. Teams have been given a week off after a London game. Well, if there are 10+ games in Europe each season, they will have to be staggered throughout the season unless half the league has a bye in October. Are we going to have five London games on one particular October week? Maybe, because otherwise it would mean neutral site games in December. Oh, would that be great. The 3-11 Lions vs the 4-10 Giants in London with each team then having a bye the week before Christmas.

Yeah, I think the answer is keeping the current scheduling setup and simply adding a fifth interconference game.

Now, when the league moves to an 18-game schedule? Totally different story there. It may have to involve radical realignment and complete restructuring of the total number of divisions.

I like the designated rivals idea. I think it provides the opportunity for infrequent rivalry match ups fans want to see happen more often. Sort of like what MLB does for giving each club a designated interleague rival.

SixtiesFan wrote:My understanding is the owners had wanted to go to an 18 game season for some time.

That is just brutal.

JohnR wrote:

SixtiesFan wrote:My understanding is the owners had wanted to go to an 18 game season for some time.

That is just brutal.

What if there was only two preseason games and 18 regular season games with two byes? That is still 20 games. Right now four preseason games and 16 regular season games.