I will say that if these changes make the difference financially for us to keep Jones, I’ll gladly take it.

If you were going to do that, make the 17th game a bye for the division winners and have the next 8 teams in each conference play each other to position them to play the division leaders the next week. You would still get that 17th week and have three weeks of playoffs before the Superbowl.

Exactly. Adds some intrigue. I think more often than not, the 7th seed will be a team with a late surge and/or getting some key player(s) back from injury. So one cant assume they will get throttled although THIS year that might have been the case.

Let's just let everyone in the playoffs. That way every fan can feel good about their teams and buy merchandise.

If this happens, you’ll see so many more trades in the draft. In that new format, you can’t have 5 or 6 draft picks. With 2 extra games, you need to be accruing capitol for depth on your team bc you will have more injuries.

In a 16 game season, only 7 Chiefs played every game. Basically your back ups will be more important than ever.

They’re going to need to increase the size of rosters and active players on game day.

2 extra games?

We’re only talking one more here. And in that case, I don’t see them changing their approach a whole lot for that.

should they do away with divisions and just do 2 conferences and have 2 byes during the season?

each team plays everyone in their respective conference, then take the top 8 records from each conference, seed each conference teams , then go about that playoffs that way? top see from each gets a bye? (if they're going to do this stupid 7 teams / 1 bye bs).


I'm reaching here....trying to make the 7 team format seem more attractive than it is. (isn't)

Chiefs will be a playoff team every year. It’s not statistically likely for us to get a bye every year. Only one team would.

Have to count that extra WC game

That’s not extra unless they are the 2 seed.

Just raise ticket prices and concession prices by 1/8th and leave things as they are.
People will pay the higher prices to make up for the loss of revenue from the extra games.

Everyone in the NBA thinks this is a good idea.

I would rather have 8 teams make it, and keep the 2 byes. That is still stupid too, but not as stupid.

I'd rather have 18 games instead of 17 games to make the home and away equal for all teams.

Still, stay with what works in this case.

You think just raising concessions is going to offset the extra $10 BILLION in revenue over the length of the deal? Not even $300 beers can make up that kind of money.

Last I heard ticket sales at all NFL games was about 20% of revenue. Could be wrong on the % but I'm not wrong that TV money is why all this exists.

If the players want the $5 BILLION in extra pay(they fully know the additional risks to them and their careers), then we as fans should be okay with the plan.

The extra game will be in other countries.

Their plan is for every team to play once outside the country each year.

yep, its the only way to grow the NFL. Once people globally understand huddles, why the action stopped etc. they will give it a chance.

We have a chance to be the 1 or 2 seed consistently for years to come. I want that first round bye. Not a fan of this.

I hadn't thought about this but with 17 games that creates an advantage for half the league who will get more home games.


https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2020/2/20/21145464/nfl-cba-new-scheduling-proposal-pros-con

The problem is, expanding to 8 teams still doesn’t allow you to have the 2 byes. That would create 3 WC games which of course would give you 3 winner to play the 2 bye teams. You’d have to go all the way to 14 teams to get an even number for the 2nd round.

I get that the owners are greedy ****s, but I can't see a reason anyone else would want this. 16 games is enough.

Nobody else does want it. But it doesn’t matter. NFL owners know they can do whatever they want and while we’ll bitch about it, our assess will be glued to that couch the first Sunday(Thursday in our case this year)of the season and remain there through early February.

They are seeing the complete dead month that occurs after the SB...that is a lot of money that is sitting there for them to take by expanding the season.

Just think of the outcry when a team loses the #1 seed because they have to play an extra road game compared to the team that doesn't and gets the #1 seed. Talk about ****ed up.

Injuries certainly become more likely. I wonder if we'll see players sitting, a la the NBA.

Well the last talk I heard was they were going to try to do it where the entire conference had the same and they were going to alternate between AFC/NFC on the extra home game. This way what you just said wouldn't happen.

Interesting I hadn't heard that.

I think every team must play one neutral site game.

We already have Mexico City, London, get ready for more locations. And who knows, I think they could do domestic neutral site games. Oklahoma City, Omaha, Orlando, Hawaii, San Diego, San Antonio, who knows

They might do that for the next several years to try to pinpoint expansion areas. I think anyone who doesn't see this as an eventual lean to expansion is fooling themselves.

Rumor is that every team will play an international game every year. If true, there is your still balanced schedule of 8/8 Home/Road games.

They’re going to get over that by making every team play a game overseas. Now it’s neither a home or an away game.

If that extra game is meant to be played overseas, then there is no real home field advantage, so it really doesn't make any difference. As I understand someone else said that the idea is for each team to play one international game per season. So...no it doesn't give anyone any real advantage.

edit: Franchise beat me to it.
EDIT EDIT: Everyone beat me to it...

The players want this too or they wouldn't be agreeing to the new deal.

There is no talk of a lockout or anything like that unless the players go to a 17 game schedule. There is no pressure. The players are just a "greedy" as the owners if this is agreed to. $5 BILLION over 10 years. Thats a helluva raise on top of their % of the cap also going up.

16 games between London and Mexico. I imagine most will go to London.

I too think this eventually leads to expansion, and then an 18 game schedule with two byes.

I have long been interested in something like this. I would also do it for the NBA and March Madness.

I would allow the top seed to the extent practicable to choose their opponent every round.

If it's all domestic neutral sites, I'd go with Richmond, Charleston (SC), Birmingham, Memphis, Columbus (OH), San Antonio, El Paso, Omaha, Salt Lake City, Portland (OR), Sacramento, Albuquerque, Honolulu, Hartford, Little Rock, and Tucson. Maybe Denver since we no longer have an NFL team.

If it's all international, I would initially want the Broncos and Patriots to play in Wuhan. But if it's still under quarantine (and assuming a non-compete with Canada), I'd go with Shanghai, Kolkata, Hamburg, London, Stockholm, Rome, Paris, Barcelona, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Lima, Johannesburg, Sydney, Seoul, Bangkok, and Tokyo. I'd avoid any countries with totalitarian governments and/or terrorists.

Eight playoff teams and no bye is a better idea

Do season ticket holders get charged for a ticket to the new venue?

Do they now when the game is in London or Mexico City?

There are a lot of huge college stadiums. Ann Arbor, Baton Rouge, Columbus, University Park, College Station, and Tuscaloosa, to name a few.

The tricky part would be scheduling a game between non division teams and have it be a neutral site for both teams. Carolina Panthers and Tennessee Titans might play in Knoxville? Also would need to be set up to sell lots of tickets.

It still sounds like a scheduling and fairness problem.

What about scheduling games in a neutral city such as New England and the Chiefs playing in Miami? That would be attractive to go to during cold weather months. If the Bears played Cowboys in Kansas City during the fall, during Chiefs bye week, they might get Bears fans, Cowboys fans, and Chiefs fans buying tickets.

Do division winners still apply or not? I don't see any thing that says it's gone

It matters in terms of seeding

Home game owners keep profit from concessions and box seats sales. It's the nfl rewarding it's owners with profit, even if they lose the game. No reason to give that up

Oh, so, if you win division at 8-8 , you'd still have to travel to a 9-7 wild card team?
OK lol that's cool

I hate the one bye addition.

So , now, The SB could be on like, Feb 15, 16,17..

Na, they're removing a preseason game, so the regular season will start a week earlier.

But if they add a playoff game with an additional season game?
Plus the extra bye week,if?

There isn't an added playoff round. Just more teams in the first round.

No, the 8-8 divisional champ would host the 9-7 wc team. Divisional winners are locked into homefield for the the 1st rd of the playoffs.

I'm coming around to the 7th playoff team. Mainly because there have been 5 teams miss the playoffs with a 10-6 record the last 10 years. 10-6 is deserving. I don't like the 8-8 teams getting in, but those teams should rarely win anyway.

I'm not sure about that. I bet that preseason starts a week later and the season starts the same time. They don't want the season starting labor day weekend. Ratings were always down when they did that before.

Regular season just became about 100 times more important.

I think they will stay with the Thursday night game right after Labor day because I doubt they will want to play on Labor day weekend.

Depends what kind of team you are.

For Chiefs, yes. For middling teams, no. Easier to get to the playoffs now.

Carl Peterson would've LOVEd this set up.

Barely good enough to get in and just hope like hell you can get lucky and ruin a 2 seed's season. :banghead:

How will the 17th game be selected in terms of scheduling Formula?

It will be interesting to see if there is controversy over the following scenario. Only 1 playoff bye available. The #1 seed plays 9 home games in regular season while the #2 seed plays 9 road games in regular season. The 2 seed loses a close game to a good team on the road and it costs them the #1 seed, while the 1 seed wins a close game at home to clinch the top seed.

8 home
8 away
1 neutral site

That is a good idea. Have they said they intend to do that?

This really doesn't seem fair. They already have messed things up with the Thursday night games, teams giving away a home game to play in another country. The short NFL season means that whom you play has such a big impact on the results. Timing of teams bye week has a big impact as well. This really seems like a money grab. Possibly just a temporary solution until they get to 18 games and 8 playoff teams. Might as well let half of the league make it to the playoffs.

Yes.

London, Mexico City, etc.
Every team plays one.

Report on NFL website says there will be a cap on international games and not all teams will play internationally.

:cuss:

Chiefs coming to Tampa Bay and Miami this year. Not looking forward to watching them in the 105 degree heat again.

That makes the most sense. More so than teams currently losing a home game

Would be kind of funny if in Week 17 they flip everyone's stadiums; Chiefs play Broncos in Carolina, Raiders play Chargers in Minnesota. Some teams would get hosed with the weather, but at least it would be a neutral site and a reason for local fans to see some players they normally wouldn't get a chance to see but every four years, etc.

Divisional games won’t be neutral site. Non-conference matchups make the most sense.

Wouldn't be shocked to see the 17th game be slated for an international location knowing the NFL

International or neutral city like Portland, St. Louis or San Diego

Seems like the most logical thing to do

LOL Portland.
**** no. Seattle fans will show up.
Besides, unless it's a dome, it's raining

I feel like they will need to be very selective about neutral site game locations & opponents for that to work. Could the Chiefs fill up a game in St Louis?.... Yes

Could the Seahawks fill it up in Portland?.... Yes, but those two scenarios will hardly be neutral games in reality because they would have 70%+ of the fans in attendance.

You can envision many nightmare scenarios for attendance if the teams aren’t right.

I don’t see how you could make Arizona vs Atlanta work many places for instance.

Rams vs Cardinals in St. Louis.

The Exodus Bowl.

I mean, it’ll be a novelty for a lot of places.

I remember someone pretty plugged in mentioning they wanted to do games at some famous college stadiums.

An NFL game at Notre Dame Stadium will sell out no matter who the teams are just for the novelty of it.

Yeah, you cant have us playing in St. Louis or the Packers in Chicago etc. other teams would scream home field advantage.

Seems to make the most sense to have the 17th game be non conference and alternate years when each conference hosts. Nothing else seems as fair.

17 games creates the possibility for teams getting ****ed with uneven home-road matchups, unless they are planning for every team to play one neutral site game every year in Mexico and/or London.

A 17th game is adding six percent more advertising revenue while the players are only getting 1.5% more of the total pie. The owners are still coming out far ahead under this proposal, because they don't assume any extra risk.

Example: 10bn a year in TV contracts (for the sake of it being an even number)

Players get 4.7 billion

Owners get 5.3

Now, a 17th game adds an extra week

TV Contract 10.6 billion

Players get 10.6*0.485=5.141 billion

Owners get 10.6*0.515=5.459 billion

The players get 441 million more, the owners get 159. But for the owners, it's pure profit. A lot of these guys can't survive a 16 game schedule.

this has a way better chance than the 17 game season... The only way a 17 game season gets in is if the players get lifetime benefits, and maybe even a forced bye week.

Out of curiosity, has anyone gone back and checked to see what the playoff picture would've looked like had the new playoff structure been in place last year? Might be interesting to see how things would've worked out for the Chiefs in that scenario. Or even back the previous year.