I want more football like anyone else, but I think altering the current league is a bad thing. I think the number of games is fine for player health and our attention span. Plus, as it stands every single game and point is important and that would lessen with more playoff teams or more games.

I'd rather see the NFL fund a secondary league. An idea I had before was that it would 16 teams. Each team is located in a regional area near two other teams and those two teams are partners in the new team.

For example, you could have a team in Orlando, and its sponsored by the Dolphins and the Bucs. Both teams store and sign players and coaches to that team. That way they get development and medium markets get some love.

The NFL2 league would have all the same rules as the NFL and be on after the NFL season.

***I'm not saying this would work, just what I'd like to see.******

 

The League has to sell this idea of expanded season and/or playoff expansion with the promise of expanded roster, expanded cap and floor spending limits. I think in addition to the expanded roster, there would also have to be some modifications with the IR rules... A roster of 60, two IRs designations that can be brought back mid-season, and adjustments to the cap could seal the deal for all parties. That could be a win-win-win-win for the NFLPA, the NFL the players and the fans.


I can see an issue with the bye week tho... A team wouldn't want to have your bye on week 3 in a nineteen week season... Teams like us, that traditionally get our bye early in the year, might have more issues as the season wore on... To me, the fairest thing would be for the bye week to be the same for everyone, but shutting down the entire league for a week probably isn't wise either... Even if they could consolidate it to a 2-4 week period (like, weeks 7-10) for EVERY team to have their bye in that period, instead of some teams having it in week 3 and some in week 10...

 

If bye weeks are an issue in an 18 game season, then they should just have 2 byes for everyone at the same time. One after week 6 and one after week 12. that's what they should now anyway, have the one bye week after game 8 for everyone.

 

I would have to think the idea of a D-league has to have been floated around.

 

Yeah, but that means no football for two weeks of the season and the NFL doesn't want to shut down the entire operation like that, or at least that's how I perceive them as feeling...

 

I like the idea of a B-League as well. They tried it with NFL Europe, but I think it would be more successful in the States than in Europe...

Hard to say and a whole other bag of problems (CBA, television, financing, etc).

 

They could talk it up and sell it as a break to spend time with your family and because of that, they may get more viewers overall. Plus they could make the weeks after the bye, rivals week.

 

The mistake they make is not making it associated with the original team, has to be directly connected, logo, colors and all, a real minor league system, just like triple A baseball.

 

Don't think the NFL is serious about this. I don't see how this increases revenues enough. IMO this entire idea has been a negotiating tactic.

 

I know that the goal of the new USFL is to act as a D-League for the NFL.

 

I'm sorry but I hope it never happens.

Call it overexposure, expanded rosters, and increased teams in my mind only lead to watered down and inferior player preformance. Then you add into that the increased chance of injury to quality players and we end up with replacement player football. jm2c

 

I think the majority of fans agree with you. I know I do. I think the NFL is misreading the public if it thinks fans want more games -- or even an expanded playoff.

 

Keep a 16-game sked but expand the playoffs by one team in each conference. Then only the top seed in the AFC and NFC get byes.
The best part? Triple headers on Saturday and Sunday for Wildcard Weekend.

 

Expanded playoffs I can get behind. There have been times that teams that are 10-6 don't make it to the playoffs, which I think is weird.

I also believe the USFL is trying to be a d-league for the NFL. But if the NFL does make a d-league of their own, I believe that it should be an 8 or 16 team league.

 

IMO an 18 game season is almost inevitable. The TV contracts alone will add significant revenue so the league wants it. The union is going to want the expanded roster to add to their revenue/power as well. And the vast majority of fans won't complain about adding real games and losing two preseason games.

 

You don't? It increases the TV money by hundreds of millions which is why this keeps coming up. Live sporting events are the only things that draw in the ratings like it used to be before everyone downloaded their tv shows ;p

Only reason it hasn't gone through is because they are trying to get it without giving the players much in return. Once they offer the players enough incentive...they'll go for it (increased salary cap #'s, expanded rosters, double bye's...whatever it takes).

 

Increasing the season length caters to teams that have a finesse based philosophy. If they changing it I doubt we see many more ground and pound offensive teams with stellar defenses win the Super Bowl. The human body can only take punishment for so long.

I also wonder if it would cause the average NFL career length to decline.

 

I think the big thing against it would be player safety and all the press concussions are getting, not too mention the mess with the older players and their class action lawsuit. I just think the NFLPA is going to fight this.

 

You've just gotten used to the offseason. After the Super Bowl, we were all complaining that it seems like forever 'till training camps and preseason. So we've adapted and ya know, we don't need to have NFL games this weekend. Except, we do- that's why we are here.

 

For one thing, currently the team gets any revenue from the preseason games. Granted, as PS games the attention and revenue are less, but if those last 2 PS games became regular season games, they would become part of the league television revenue where all the teams share the revenue. It's a significant difference for league revenues.

 

They'll get to charge for broadcast rights to two more games vs preseason gates.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

 

I don't think the TV contracts would increase enough to make it worthwhile for the owners. First, TV contracts aren't necessarily based on how much each game is generating. There is an inherent value to simply broadcasting the games, whether it be 16 or 18. DirecTV is most affected by this. They actually lose some money solely on broadcasting the NFL. It still benefits them overall, because people are subscribing in order to see the NFL. Would someone be more likely to subscribe to DirecTV if the NFL has an 18 game regular season? I doubt it. Would people pay more for 18 games of Sunday Ticket than 16 games of Sunday Ticket? I'm not sure they'd retain all their subscribers if they increased the price by 12.5%. This brand value also applies to ESPN. NFL fans have to subscribe to ESPN if they want to watch MNF, but those subscriptions aren't necessarily going to increase with 2 more games. So a lot of the money these networks are paying are for the brand value the NFL brings them, not necessarily the revenue from ads on every game.

So that leaves us with FOX and CBS. Their contracts pay for the following every year:

-26 regular season games
- 1 WC card
- 2 Division games
- 1 Conf championship game
- 1/3 of a SB (they get the SB every third year)

On average, every regular season game draws 15M viewers. WC games are around 25M, divisional games 30M, conf champ games 60M and SB 90M. (These number are based off estimates from a few years back. They are likely higher today, but that actually strengthens my point).

If the regular season is expanded, each network would broadcast an extra 3 games (one double-header, one single game). That is an additional 45M viewers CBS or FOX is gaining. Thats an 8.2% increase in viewership.

For FOX, CBS, and NBC, there is a 8.2% increase. For DirecTV and ESPN, there likely will be less of an increase. But the important thing to remember is that your labor costs are going up 12.5%. Is a 6.5% increase in revenue worth it if you're labor costs go up 12.5%? I'm not sure thats a worthwhile thing for the NFL.

(Keep in mind these are numbers that are based off estimates, and may not necessarily be 100% accurate)

 

There is a very easy solution to this and they should be doing this with the current format.

Give the whole AFC a bye on week 6 and the whole NFC on week 7 and then alternate the weeks each season that follows.

The NFL is suggesting this for a way to increase revenues by extending the season. Fans want it because it gives them a longer football season. Players are going to mixed on it because it will most likely result in bigger contracts but more injuries and shorter careers on avg. The best compromise to this, IMO is to add 1 week of football into the schedule by using the above bye week formula but add a 2nd one to the season.

AFC week 4 and week 9 byes
NFC week 5 and week 10 byes

That would result in longer season
bigger TV contracts
More revenue to share
less injuries
No need to eliminate preseason games

 

All this talk about the players saftey and we get this. 16 game season is perfect. Playoff model is perfect. If its not broke, don't fix it

 

And yet there have been multiple stories that broadcasters would step up with huge money back when the NFL Network only showed a handful of games on Thursdays if the NFL would let them have it.

The NFL gets $6 billion a year from CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN, and DirecTV. So if your right about the 8.2% that's an extra $492 million. That's nothing to sneeze at.

NFL network's slate of games brought them $99.6 million in 2011. Adding 5 games was expected to bring their ad rates to over $200 million. Factor in that having the games has got them on more cable networks at a higher carriage rate and the average per game revenue for NFL network is roughly $20 million.

It's ALL about the money and the networks will pay for live viewers because the advertisers will pay to get in front of more people. Look at the NFL draft and what they have done to it just to make more money. Now they are moving it to May just to make more money by having it during the May sweeps ratings.

 

Sure, the networks would pay more money, as I illustrated they would gain 8.2% more viewers. But the NFL's costs for players would increase as well. The NFL is paying $3.9B to the players. A 12.5% increase would be ~$480 million. So you're spending $480M to make what, $500M? Is that really worth it?

 

If there's more money involved with the NFL of course they will do it. The math has to be off in some way though as more money coming into the NFL shouldn't equate money lost.

 

I don't know if I would say it's perfect. Speaking from a viewer standpoint, 4 pre-season games is too much. I know coaches like it to allow them more time to evaluate players, but I'd much rather watch regular season games than pre-season.

We used to have less games in the regular season, and less teams making the playoffs, as well as having 5-team divisions...all of which I'm sure people at the time would have said was fine and didn't need changed. Change is going to happen again whether we want, or like, it.

 

The Networks would never agree to that.

 

More revenue doesn't mean more profit. The reality is that playoff games make a lot more than regular season games. In order to gain 8.2% more revenue, the NFL needs to increase its labor costs by 12.5%. I don't see anywhere the math could be off.