Signs point toward interconference matchups for 17th game

[ROD-BOT]

Signs point toward interconference matchups for 17th game

The NFL hasn't provided the NFL Players Association with many/any details regarding how a 17th regular-season game would be implemented.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

Signs point toward interconference matchups for 17th game

The NFL hasn’t provided the NFL Players Association with many/any details regarding how a 17th regular-season game would be implemented. On Monday, Packers CEO Mark Murphy shared one very important aspect of the extra game with Mark Maske of the Washington Post.

Via Maske, Murphy said that all teams in one conference would have nine home games one season and then eight home games the next season. This points directly to the 17th game pitting each of the 16 teams from one conference against the 16 teams from the other conference, pushing the total interconference games played each year by every team from four to five.

As explained in October, the league crafted the perfect formula in 2002, when the Texans joined the league and the number of teams hit an even 32. Currently, each team plays: (1) the other three teams in its own division twice; (2) all four teams from one of the other divisions in its conference, on a three-year rotating basis; (3) all four teams from one of the divisions in the other conference, on a four-year rotating basis; and (4) the teams from the other two divisions in its own conference that finished in the same position during the prior year.

Currently, schedule weighting based on the outcome from the prior season comes only from the fourth category, with the four teams in a given division having only two games tied to where each team finished in the prior season. A 17th game could inject more parity into the schedule.

With every team already playing four teams from one division in the other conference, the 17th game would entail facing a team from one of the other three divisions in the other conference, based on where teams finished in those divisions in the prior year. It would rotate each year, allowing for example the four teams of the AFC North to play the four teams of the NFC East and then one more team from the NFC North, with the first-place AFC North team from the prior year playing the first-place NFC North team from the prior year, and so on.

While some (like Big Cat on Friday’s PFT Live) would like to see the 17th game entail an annual contest against a geographic rival, teams like the Jets and Giants already play once every four years when all teams of the AFC East play all teams of the NFC East. Would the Jets and Giants play once every year and twice every four years?

And what if, for example, the Rams and Chargers play every year but the Rams are great every year and the Chargers stink every year? That would be horribly unfair for the other three teams in the NFC West (who may be playing tougher geographi rivals from the AFC), and for the Chargers (who would be getting curb stomped by the Rams every year).

There are other problems with setting up geographic rivalries. Put simply, there will be odd teams out. (Go ahead, try to find a geographic rival from the AFC for the Cardinals after tying the Chargers to the Rams and the Raiders to the 49ers and the Broncos to the Seahawks and the Texans to the Cowboys.)

The better approach would entail an annual division-vs.-division matchup with first-place team playing first-place team from divisions in opposing conferences and second-place team playing second-place team from those same two divisions, and so on.

With the NFL also determined to add one more playoff team per conference, in turn putting even greater importance on the No. 1 seed, requiring the first-place teams from each division to play one more first-place team per year (pushing the annual total to five first-place teams in a 17-game slate) would tend to inject a little more parity into the annual scrum for that top seed.

 

[yrba1]

With every team already playing four teams from one division in the other conference, the 17th game would entail facing a team from one of the other three divisions in the other conference, based on where teams finished in those divisions in the prior year. It would rotate each year, allowing for example the four teams of the AFC North to play the four teams of the NFC East and then one more team from the NFC North, with the first-place AFC North team from the prior year playing the first-place NFC North team from the prior year, and so on.

I speculated this but with each team facing last season's interconference opponent (i.e. Rams faced the AFC North in 2019 and would face the Browns based on same rankings)

I don't mind expanding to a 17-game season with this format; just hoping CBA negotiations expand to 2 bye weeks along with a 60-man roster. The interconference games can be the international series ones to ensure that every teams get 8-home games and 8-away (save for the Jaguars)

 

[Akrasian]

The interconference games can be the international series ones to ensure that every teams get 8-home games and 8-away

See, that's what I'd heard initially, now it sounds like one year teams have 8 home games, the next year 9. Which is stupid. IF they're going to have 17 games (which I oppose) the 17th game should be international or at least played on a neutral site. You know, San Antonio or El Paso. Albuquerque. Portland - either one. Expand so that people all over the US can see NFL games live. Heck, Anchorage in September. Build the tv audience that way. Boise, etc. Mississippi - whatever. Places that are hours from other sites.

 

[XXXIVwin]

See, that's what I'd heard initially, now it sounds like one year teams have 8 home games, the next year 9. Which is stupid. IF they're going to have 17 games (which I oppose) the 17th game should be international or at least played on a neutral site. You know, San Antonio or El Paso. Albuquerque. Portland - either one. Expand so that people all over the US can see NFL games live. Heck, Anchorage in September. Build the tv audience that way. Boise, etc. Mississippi - whatever. Places that are hours from other sites.

Yeah, I thought the “neutral site” idea for 17th game was going to win out also, so I wonder what prevented that from happening. There are only about 4 or 5 international games per year, was the NFL concerned about the logistics of expanding to a full 16 neutral-site games? And I hear what u are saying about expanding to neutral site games in the USA... why not that as an option?
As usual, I’m sure the debate came down to $... probably the owners said, “nah, I don’t want a neutral site game, I can make more money from a 9th home game.”

 

[MadGoat]

Yeah, I thought the “neutral site” idea for 17th game was going to win out also, so I wonder what prevented that from happening. There are only about 4 or 5 international games per year, was the NFL concerned about the logistics of expanding to a full 16 neutral-site games? And I hear what u are saying about expanding to neutral site games in the USA... why not that as an option?
As usual, I’m sure the debate came down to $... probably the owners said, “nah, I don’t want a neutral site game, I can make more money from a 9th home game.”

I'm guessing some teams don't feel like they'd draw as well at neutral sites, so they'd basically play an extra away game every year. The Rams probably fall into that category.

 

[tomas]

In my perfect NFL world, there would be
1.18 game regular season
2. 2 preseason games
3. 60 man roster/game day
4. 15 man practice squad - team has 5 year contract rights

 

[OldSchool]

Divisions are on a rotation so let’s say we played the AFC north this year and the East next year. Do a similar rotation. In 2021 when this is rumored to go in affect you play the the division from 2019 and u
its like we do with the NFC teams it’s the team that finished the same in division standings. Then you put it on the same cycle as the whole division schedule just keep it two years behind.

 

[Deac]

I think if they are going to be almost random interconference, I say make them as close to each other with w/l record depending on the prior year record. This is obviously not failsafe as teams go from good to bad in subsequent seasons at a not insignificant basis, but could make the games more competitive than not on a average basis.

 

[OldSchool]

Exactly! So take this site:

Future Los Angeles Rams Football Schedules | FBSchedules.com

View future Los Angeles Rams schedules and opponents at FBSchedules.com.

fbschedules.com

2019 we played the AFC North 2020 the East 2021 the South and 2022 the West. In 2021 when this is rumored to start we'd play the team that finished in say 1st in the AFC North in addition to the entire AFC South. 2022 it wold move to the East 2023 the South 2024 the West. You want to go the same rotation so you don't run into years when you'd end up playing a team in the AFC twice. Plus one of the first tiebreakers for playoffs is conference record so by making it an other conference team everybody has the same amount of games vs each conference.