What?s worse expanded playoffs or 18 game season?

Share this page

rivshark86

rivshark86

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,884
Reaction score
1,059
Points
113
What’s worse expanded playoffs or 18 game season?

It’s looking like one of these will happen with new CBA. I hate the idea of either, but I’m realistic. There’s just too much money for it not to happen. Every party involved in the decision would probably benefit it it gets worked out. I think For me an expanded playoff would be less bad, but I’m not sure.
 
Both are terrible ideas. But I'd go for 18 game season I think, with 2 less preseason games.
 
I think expanded playoffs is slightly worse. Why should over half of the league make the postseason? Do we really need .500 teams or teams with losing records in the playoffs?
source.gif
 
With all the injury complaints,. How can season get longer? Thursday football already over taxes the players.

What I think should be propoed is second bye week for all teams and let the computer schedule figure out how all Thursday games are preceded by a bye week for both teams. Then talk about another game or 2.
 
I'm sure if pressed, the league would prefer the 18 games and the players would prefer the expanded playoffs.

Assuming the most common scenario for the expanded playoffs, they would add 1 team in each conference and the #1 seed would be the only bye. That would add just 2 games and no extra weeks and only benefits 2 owners. Not enough cash to go around for all 32 billionaires. But the players are not experiencing the extra wear and tear and they have a slightly higher chance to experience the playoffs.

An 18 game schedule adds a full slate of games, 32 to be exact. One more home game per owner, adjustments made to the TV contracts, all owners share in the extra cash. The players would only agree if contracts were adjusted for the extra 2 games. All current contracts are based on 16 paychecks. The players are not giving the owners 2 free weeks. I could also see a demand for expanded rosters to account for the higher rate of attrition over 18 games.

From a fan perspective, the 18 game schedule would be better.
 
18 game season is worse...because every team would have to deal with it.

---------- Post added at 11:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------
bideau said:
I'm sure if pressed, the league would prefer the 18 games and the players would prefer the expanded playoffs.

Assuming the most common scenario for the expanded playoffs, they would add 1 team in each conference and the #1 seed would be the only bye. That would add just 2 games and no extra weeks and only benefits 2 owners. Not enough cash to go around for all 32 billionaires. But the players are not experiencing the extra wear and tear and they have a slightly higher chance to experience the playoffs.

An 18 game schedule adds a full slate of games, 32 to be exact. One more home game per owner, adjustments made to the TV contracts, all owners share in the extra cash. The players would only agree if contracts were adjusted for the extra 2 games. All current contracts are based on 16 paychecks. The players are not giving the owners 2 free weeks. I could also see a demand for expanded rosters to account for the higher rate of attrition over 18 games.

From a fan perspective, the 18 game schedule would be better.
Click to expand...

Agreed...and just imagine if both eventually happen. :coffee:

Greed...pure and simple.
 
Put the foot down.

Neither.

Stop giving these greedy pricks what they desire. Thursday’s already blow.
 
Absolutely hate the idea of 18 games. If they’re going to do anything, add two teams to the playoffs and get rid of the Thursday game while they’re at it.
 
Both are terrible. I also heard that in the 18 game scenario, that a player would only allowed to play 16, so for 2 games you would have backups playing. WTF?
 
Patriots71 said:
Both are terrible. I also heard that in the 18 game scenario, that a player would only allowed to play 16, so for 2 games you would have backups playing. WTF?
Click to expand...

That was something that NFL shill and all around idiot, Peter King, mentioned in an article a couple months ago. No reasonable person thinks its a good idea which is why the NFL may just try to implement it.
 
They used to have 14 reg. season games, and 12 before that. It's been 16 since 1978 (I had to look that up to remember the exact year). The game has changed since then- it's not quite as brutal. I asked John Hannah once 'how did the rules change throughout your career'? He thought about it and said 'When I started, if a safety was blitzing on me, I'd stretch out my arm, and the safety would run full speed into it, and sometimes neck first! And that would thus stop the safety blitz! But then they had to change the rule because of me (Hannah). No more clotheslining'.

I think adding a couple of games wouldn't be any big deal. There's always going to be injuries. Some guys are just meant to be injured. The guys that go above and beyond every game. A Gronk. A Fred Lynn in the outfield. Change happens-like they finally lengthened the xtra point. The American League added the designated hitter in 1973. People said 'now there's gonna be more more batters getting thrown at, because the pitcher doesn't have to bat and take his medicine'. Didn't happen.

Really, you think two more NFL games is going to make that much difference in injuries? Okay, then increase the gameday roster from 45 to say 55. But they'll have to increase player pay by 2/16, plus pay more players, plus start the games earlier (August) or end in the third week of February. As far as having 2 games where the starters don't play, they already have that! It's called preseason!

And don't use Gronk as an example of unnecessary injuries and punishment. As we all know, yeah he's bigger and stronger that most of the players, but he got hit So much harder than 95% of the players, god love him. And he hit the other players extra hard too. Andrew Luck? Always put himself in harm's way. Brady, on the other hand, doesn't get hurt as much, because of his intellegence, and the quick toss system, which is also intelligent. Guys like Luck, a Ben R, an A Rodgers, they're talented, but dumb.

2 more games? No big deal. Unless you have to pay for all 18 regular season games as a fan. 18+ including (expanded?) playoffs. And I don't think they'll make the preseason free.
 
I don't like either. You can make arguments for/against, but really, is there anything wrong with how it is now? I like the months they play (Sept - Dec), Playoffs in January and SB in early Feb. Just greed on the owners part. They are over milking this cash cow.


now get off my lawn :coffee:
 
Steve1 said:
They used to have 14 reg. season games, and 12 before that. It's been 16 since 1978 (I had to look that up to remember the exact year). The game has changed since then- it's not quite as brutal. I asked John Hannah once 'how did the rules change throughout your career'? He thought about it and said 'When I started, if a safety was blitzing on me, I'd stretch out my arm, and the safety would run full speed into it, and sometimes neck first! And that would thus stop the safety blitz! But then they had to change the rule because of me (Hannah). No more clotheslining'.

I think adding a couple of games wouldn't be any big deal. There's always going to be injuries. Some guys are just meant to be injured. The guys that go above and beyond every game. A Gronk. A Fred Lynn in the outfield. Change happens-like they finally lengthened the xtra point. The American League added the designated hitter in 1973. People said 'now there's gonna be more more batters getting thrown at, because the pitcher doesn't have to bat and take his medicine'. Didn't happen.

Really, you think two more NFL games is going to make that much difference in injuries? Okay, then increase the gameday roster from 45 to say 55. But they'll have to increase player pay by 2/16, plus pay more players, plus start the games earlier (August) or end in the third week of February. As far as having 2 games where the starters don't play, they already have that! It's called preseason!

And don't use Gronk as an example of unnecessary injuries and punishment. As we all know, yeah he's bigger and stronger that most of the players, but he got hit So much harder than 95% of the players, god love him. And he hit the other players extra hard too. Andrew Luck? Always put himself in harm's way. Brady, on the other hand, doesn't get hurt as much, because of his intellegence, and the quick toss system, which is also intelligent. Guys like Luck, a Ben R, an A Rodgers, they're talented, but dumb.

2 more games? No big deal. Unless you have to pay for all 18 regular season games as a fan. 18+ including (expanded?) playoffs. And I don't think they'll make the preseason free.
Click to expand...

Disagree entirely.

6’5” 320+ lbers are running as fast today as LBs of yesterday. Size, speed, and athleticism is light years ahead. The subsequent forces dwarf what you refer to.
 
I don’t like either either, but the next cba one is coming. There is too much money involved. The players will hold strong as long as they can, but eventually the owners will make an offer they can’t refuse. I don’t like diluted playoffs, but I do think that’s better than an 18 game season. Jeez right now we are on the verge of worthless games towards the end. 18 would be shifting the preseason to the backend of the season.
 
AnOldTroll said:
I think there has to be a rule in the book about this.
Click to expand...

Just following the rules.. as long as they don't invent them to try and screw with our dynasty. Love the rule how Brady can take less money to help the team sign other players. That's almost as good as the non injury rule and the chip on the shoulder from being drafted in the 6th round rule. Have a nice day:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top