17 game season might be here in 2021

[Corbin]

When I looked at the tweet thread and this was below it


View: https://twitter.com/seangentille/status/1364620489457610768

 

[Classic Rams]

Hate the idea of over 16 games.

Actually back after the 1977 season I didn't want to go to 16 games. I just feel that as good as it is I didn't want it to be over saturated. Not a fan of expansion teams either.

 

[RamDino]

Hate the idea of over 16 games.

Actually back after the 1977 I didn't want to go to 16 games. I just feel that as good as it is I didn't want it to be over saturated. Not a fan of expansion teams either.

I agree with this... it is tough already for players trying to get through 16 games. And 32 teams is plenty too. .. It's tough to win in this league.

 

[Karate61]

I still like my idea. 17 game schedule but players can only play 16 games - expand the roster and you have to make each player inactive for at least one game.

Only argument I've seen against this is people paying to go see someone like Mahomes play live - but almost every elite player (including Mahomes) has gotten hurt and missed games, so I don't get that.

I think it'd be fascinating to see which games coaches choose to sit their QB or other stars. It'd add another layer of strategy to the season.

Totally with you, but just mix in a 2nd bye week. Then, no one misses a game and some fans don't get screwed!

 

[Karate61]

WEll, like I said previously, In every sport there are really good players in practice who suck in real games, while conversely there are those who dont stand out in practice but slay it in games

Ok then. Meet me in the middle. Two Preseason games!

 

[FrantikRam]

The owners had suggested something along those lines and I think it was shot down, as it should be. Would we want Stafford playing a game without his starting tackles? Missing his best WR? The rosters arent deep enough to field a complete sub team. Needing 2 punters, 2 kickers?

Injuries cause teams to play without starters all the time. In this case I think it'd add another element of strategy - sit your LT when you play a team with a weaker pass rush, that type of thing.

You only have 22 starting players, and 17 games - you could easily sit one offensive and one defensive starter per week.

Can make an exception for kickers and punters or, sure, expand the roster enough that each team needs to have a second.

If people don't like the idea obviously that's fine, but given how many players don't play all 16 games due to injury anyways, I think having an issue with a player missing a game doesn't make much sense

 

[Riverumbbq]

Injuries cause teams to play without starters all the time. In this case I think it'd add another element of strategy - sit your LT when you play a team with a weaker pass rush, that type of thing.

You only have 22 starting players, and 17 games - you could easily sit one offensive and one defensive starter per week.

Can make an exception for kickers and punters or, sure, expand the roster enough that each team needs to have a second.

If people don't like the idea obviously that's fine, but given how many players don't play all 16 games due to injury anyways, I think having an issue with a player missing a game doesn't make much sense

If i'm a paying fan, whether it be for a seat in a stadium or for the right to stream the game on TV, I want to see the best players playing their hearts out, not waiting on some lottery system to kick out a player who might otherwise be a difference maker. jmo.

 

[FrantikRam]

If i'm a paying fan, whether it be for a seat in a stadium or for the right to stream the game on TV, I want to see the best players playing their hearts out, not waiting on some lottery system to kick out a player who might otherwise be a difference maker. jmo.

I mean, we all want that.

But injuries already prevent that from happening. Don't see how this is all that different, and actually could prevent injuries by strategically resting toward the middle of the season.

 

[Riverumbbq]

I mean, we all want that.

But injuries already prevent that from happening. Don't see how this is all that different, and actually could prevent injuries by strategically resting toward the middle of the season.

You could also find yourself in a must-win game where some of your best players are healthy, yet sidelined nonetheless.

 

[dieterbrock]

Injuries cause teams to play without starters all the time. In this case I think it'd add another element of strategy - sit your LT when you play a team with a weaker pass rush, that type of thing.

You only have 22 starting players, and 17 games - you could easily sit one offensive and one defensive starter per week.

Can make an exception for kickers and punters or, sure, expand the roster enough that each team needs to have a second.

If people don't like the idea obviously that's fine, but given how many players don't play all 16 games due to injury anyways, I think having an issue with a player missing a game doesn't make much sense

Injuries are prevented at all costs, so why intentionally place players in harm's way? Makes no sense. Football is fine the way it is. 16 games is more than enough. Heck, I'd argue that less games would make the product better. You have a franchise QB, he's playing with his top O-line, period

 

[PhillyRam]

Each team plays every team 1x every 4 years


But to further create rivalries I would go with
Eagles-Steelers
Giants-Jets
Cowboys-Texans
Tampa-Miami (Tamiami Trail)
KC-Chicago

Yeah, those seem obvious, but it hangs out others to dry in terms of a somewhat local game.

Only Pitt/Dallas was a mismatch in terms of geography, but they have a rich history.

If Eagles play Pitt, who do the Pats play from the NFC that's close?

Obviously I had a slow day when I did this.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I still like my idea. 17 game schedule but players can only play 16 games - expand the roster and you have to make each player inactive for at least one game.

Only argument I've seen against this is people paying to go see someone like Mahomes play live - but almost every elite player (including Mahomes) has gotten hurt and missed games, so I don't get that.

I think it'd be fascinating to see which games coaches choose to sit their QB or other stars. It'd add another layer of strategy to the season.

Injuries cause teams to play without starters all the time. In this case I think it'd add another element of strategy - sit your LT when you play a team with a weaker pass rush, that type of thing.

You only have 22 starting players, and 17 games - you could easily sit one offensive and one defensive starter per week.

Can make an exception for kickers and punters or, sure, expand the roster enough that each team needs to have a second.

If people don't like the idea obviously that's fine, but given how many players don't play all 16 games due to injury anyways, I think having an issue with a player missing a game doesn't make much sense

I love strategy. So I like your idea.

 

[CGI_Ram]

One thing about 17 games, or 18 games...

This past season, the Rams limped into the playoffs. Not the same team from a few weeks prior to the playoffs.

Does another game make that sort of thing worse?

Does extra games lead to “playoff teams that really aren’t the same team by the time they reach the playoffs”?

That is a concern of mine.

 

[FrantikRam]

Injuries are prevented at all costs, so why intentionally place players in harm's way? Makes no sense. Football is fine the way it is. 16 games is more than enough. Heck, I'd argue that less games would make the product better. You have a franchise QB, he's playing with his top O-line, period

I'd agree with this if the league was going to stay at 16 games, but that decision has already been made.

 

[Psycho_X]

When I looked at the tweet thread and this was below it


View: https://twitter.com/seangentille/status/1364620489457610768

The freakin hat lmao.

 

[Riverumbbq]

One thing about 17 games, or 18 games...

This past season, the Rams limped into the playoffs. Not the same team from a few weeks prior to the playoffs.

Does another game make that sort of thing worse?

Does extra games lead to “playoff teams that really aren’t the same team by the time they reach the playoffs”?

That is a concern of mine.

While this is a concern, i'm afraid that the owners really have only one goal, and that's about increasing revenue & profits. Nothing new here. BYn weeks can't prevent injuries, but they can give players some extra recovery time. The league can also allow more players to suit up on game days.n

 

[Corbin]

The freakin hat lmao.

Lol right? Just can’t imagine the force of that airbag to throw his hat like that!

 

[Mackeyser]

I think it's been proven. It was a good overall season. Throughout all teams and games weeks 1-4, I didn't notice any substantially subpar play. I don't see why that wouldn't repeat again in another season without a preseason.

Having said that, I'd be up for a 2 game preseason, as you mention, I do like to watch the new players.

Maybe 2 preseason games and a 17 or 18 game schedule!

Problem is that we don't know how much talent was missed due to teams having to go with what they know. How many UDFAs that would have been filler or starter material in the league got passed over this off-season due to a lack of reps?

Couple that with the lower cap this year and we're looking at some serious depth problem for some teams.

4 games is excessive, but 2-3 games is the sweet spot where teams can either focus on depth/new additions and/or focus on scheme installation.

No pre-season also has its pitfalls.

 

[CGI_Ram]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/22/nfl-17-game-schedule-2021/

NFL owners working to implement 17-game schedule for 2021 season

The NFL and team owners are attempting to complete arrangements to put a 17-game regular season into effect beginning with the 2021 season, probably accompanied by a three-game preseason.

The deliberations about when to implement the 17-game season are tied in part to the completion of new broadcasting contracts with the television networks, according to people familiar with the planning of the league and owners. It’s not yet certain that the longer regular season will take effect this fall, but that’s what owners appear to be targeting, with the corresponding preseason reduction.

“I don’t think anything is definite, but I think it will be 17 and three,” one of those people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the NFL has not given a precise timetable about when the 17-game season will take effect.

The collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association ratified in March authorizes the owners to implement a 17-game regular season as soon as 2021 but does not specify a starting date.

The NFLPA secured financial concessions from the owners in exchange for the season being lengthened from 16 to 17 games per team. It has been widely expected that the owners will put the 17-game season into effect in 2021, wasting no time in capitalizing on the revenue-enhancing opportunity that comes with a longer regular season.

Owners voted in December to ratify a scheduling formula for a 17-game season. The 17th game will be an out-of-conference game based on teams’ order of finish within their divisions the previous season. NFC and AFC teams are expected to alternate annually between having nine home games in a season vs. eight home games.

The league also has not specified how long the preseason will be if the switch to a 17-game regular season is made. A three-game preseason would keep the total number of preseason and regular season games at 20 per team.

There has been speculation about a two-game preseason. Last year’s preseason was eliminated entirely as the league navigated the coronavirus pandemic.

The league’s new TV contracts, now being negotiated, are expected to reflect the addition of regular season games. The league and owners are anticipating a significant increase to the rights fees being paid for TV and streaming rights.

The NFL and NFLPA could use that promise of increased revenue from future broadcasting rights fees to smooth over the drop in next season’s salary cap by, in effect, borrowing against future salary caps. The league and union have agreed that the salary cap for the 2021 season will be no lower than $180 million.

That’s down significantly from the salary cap of $198.2 million for the 2020 season. But it’s not as low as it could be, given the steep revenue decline suffered during a pandemic-affected season in which games were played in empty or partially filled stadiums. The NFL and NFLPA calculate the salary cap annually based on a percentage of revenue and, under these unique circumstances, have negotiated to keep the decline in the 2021 cap from being too pronounced.

The sides already implemented a revenue-boosting measure by putting an expanded playoff format into effect for the 2020 season. The playoff field was increased from 12 to 14 teams, making for two additional opening-round postseason games (after one first-round bye in each conference was eliminated). The expanded playoffs, like the 17-game season, were a part of last year’s CBA.