Logic Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Limeaid said: Profootball talk has also published sketchy articles to try to get hits. Which gives more hits NFL is giving more football or NFL is going against fan wishes. I have heard repeatedly from people that they want more football, people with no financial incentive, especially playoffs. If I'm not supposed to listen to Profootballtalk's polls because they're not credible, then I'm DARN sure not going to listen to anecdotal evidence like "I have heard repeatedly from people...". No offense to you personally, but I'll take repeated polls of thousands of NFL fans on a majorly trafficked NFL website over one person's anecdotal evidence on a message board. I have yet to see a credible shred of evidence anywhere that fans are clamoring for a longer season or for more teams to make the playoffs. These moves are very clearly about money. EVERYTHING the NFL does these days is about money. That's the problem, and that's why I think that, over time, the league will destroy itself in the name of greed. 1 minute ago, leonbus23 said: It's called profit motive in capitalism. If you don't like it, go live in Russia! Lovely. The fact that I don't want the NFL making changes to what is an already great product means I should "go live in Russia". Super. Really great analysis there. Anyway, aside from your rude and overly simplistic "analysis", here's the thing with your "profit motive" argument: My position is that while added NFL games will certainly make the NFL more money in the SHORT TERM, the long term effects of ignoring player safety, watering down the on-field product, and watering down the playoffs, will be more and more early player retirements and increased fan alienation which, in the long term, I believe will lead to a LOSS of money for the NFL. But I suppose that, because my opinion is different than yours, I ought to just move to a different country, right? Sheesh. Edited February 20, 2020 by Logic
RalphWilson'sNewWar Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) This is beautiful. now the goal and the standards will FINALLY be on what it should be...CHAMPIONSHIPS! One of the more annoying things about football is when coaches or organizations point and say “Oh! we made the playoffs so we shouldn’t change anything even though we’re not really a serious contender to win the title” Anything that lessons simply making the playoffs that can be used for self-preservation by franchises and coaches is a good thing. It may take some time but eventually you’re going to see teams make changes at the top even after going to the playoffs three out of four four out of five times and always losing Edited February 20, 2020 by RalphWilson'sNewWar
Lurker Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 12 hours ago, Doc Brown said: They can be but you're rewarding mediocrity in the regular season. The 8-8 Steelers would've gotten in with Mason Rudolph as the quarterback if this playoff system was in place. The year before the 8-7-1 Vikings would've made it in the NFC. I don't want to see them in the playoffs. And yet...the Steelers were one of the best story lines in the NFL last year. They were far from mediocre (even Duck was interesting for a week or so) with their second half winning streak and would have provided a good game vs. Kansas City in the Wild Card round...
Gordio Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 14 hours ago, SirAndrew said: I’m also a fan of quality over quantity. The NFL just doesn’t have enough quality across the board to make every game interesting. Look at wild card games right now, you’ll see there are always several duds on wild card weekend. Several team always “sneak in”, and are nowhere close to the teams who have the bye week. I have no desire to watch additional lower quality football. Exactly, and that’s the issue with this cash grab. I’m glad I didn’t watch Mason Rudolph or that Duck clown in the playoffs. Funny you say that because this past season the wild card round was probably the most entertaining & highly contested of all three weekends of the playoffs. 1
row_33 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 gives hope to those teams starting out justly at 2-5
RiotAct Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 26 minutes ago, Logic said: If I'm not supposed to listen to Profootballtalk's polls because they're not credible, then I'm DARN sure not going to listen to anecdotal evidence like "I have heard repeatedly from people...". No offense to you personally, but I'll take repeated polls of thousands of NFL fans on a majorly trafficked NFL website over one person's anecdotal evidence on a message board. I have yet to see a credible shred of evidence anywhere that fans are clamoring for a longer season or for more teams to make the playoffs. These moves are very clearly about money. EVERYTHING the NFL does these days is about money. That's the problem, and that's why I think that, over time, the league will destroy itself in the name of greed. Lovely. The fact that I don't want the NFL making changes to what is an already great product means I should "go live in Russia". Super. Really great analysis there. Anyway, aside from your rude and overly simplistic "analysis", here's the thing with your "profit motive" argument: My position is that while added NFL games will certainly make the NFL more money in the SHORT TERM, the long term effects of ignoring player safety, watering down the on-field product, and watering down the playoffs, will be more and more early player retirements and increased fan alienation which, in the long term, I believe will lead to a LOSS of money for the NFL. But I suppose that, because my opinion is different than yours, I ought to just move to a different country, right? Sheesh. he was being sarcastic. At least, I hope...
Chicken Boo Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 14 hours ago, SCBills said: Seems like a bit of an overreaction to adding 2 more playoff teams, no? And the first time a 7-9 or 6-10 team wins the Super Bowl, the same fans who approve of this nonsense will be the first to complain. Pure greed on the part of the league, further watering down the product. This is just the beginning.
416BillsFan Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 I like this. Games will mean more in December, and we still don't cross the NBA/NHL threshold of half the teams or more making it to the post season. As for the 17th regular season game, I hope the league holds off a bit then goes right to 18. The scheduling symmetry is close to perfect as it is.
row_33 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 3 minutes ago, 416BillsFan said: I like this. Games will mean more in December, and we still don't cross the NBA/NHL threshold of half the teams or more making it to the post season. As for the 17th regular season game, I hope the league holds off a bit then goes right to 18. The scheduling symmetry is close to perfect as it is. then 20 games, then 22, then 25 1
Chicken Boo Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 19 minutes ago, 416BillsFan said: As for the 17th regular season game, I hope the league holds off a bit then goes right to 18. The scheduling symmetry is close to perfect as it is. You must be a fan of "star player" early retirements. These are living, breathing human beings. They're not machines. They can barely stay healthy for a 16 game schedule as is.
badassgixxer05 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 13 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said: And the first time a 7-9 or 6-10 team wins the Super Bowl, the same fans who approve of this nonsense will be the first to complain. Pure greed on the part of the league, further watering down the product. This is just the beginning. Why would it? Would just mean they had a ***** regular season but where the best team in the playoffs. I see no problem with this. The flip side of a 12-4 team demolishing a 6-10 team while my 10-6 team loses to another 10-6 team would piss me off a bit though. lol
row_33 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 10 minutes ago, badassgixxer05 said: Why would it? Would just mean they had a ***** regular season but where the best team in the playoffs. I see no problem with this. The flip side of a 12-4 team demolishing a 6-10 team while my 10-6 team loses to another 10-6 team would piss me off a bit though. lol i can barely bother to care about any game the Bills aren't playing in these days and there you are all hopped up on the thrill of a horrible team maybe getting to the playoffs and winning it all!!!
416BillsFan Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 7 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said: You must be a fan of "star player" early retirements. These are living, breathing human beings. They're not machines. They can barely stay healthy for a 16 game schedule as is. I'm not disagreeing with you but 18 games is the league's end game. In the past they always added 2 games, keeping it an even number. I'd be happy to keep it at 16, but if they do expand I'd rather they go right to 18 (with 2 bye weeks) rather than doing it in steps.
badassgixxer05 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, row_33 said: i can barely bother to care about any game the Bills aren't playing in these days and there you are all hopped up on the thrill of a horrible team maybe getting to the playoffs and winning it all!!! But how are they a horrible team if they ripped through everyone in the playoffs and won the superbowl(sorry, like a true Buffalonian I love the underdog haha)!??? The winner isn't chosen at random. They have to go out and play football. If they were the best team in the playoffs they were the best team at that time period and well deserving. The regular season doesn't matter stuff is bs too because 18 other teams will still be home on the couch for the first round. Like i said the only argument i can see that is valid is having to watch a 6-10 team get smashed first round and left thinking why the F are they even playing. Edited February 20, 2020 by badassgixxer05
DCOrange Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 7 hours ago, nucci said: it will be 17 How would it be 17 extra regular season games?
bbb Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 17 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Mine as well go eight playoff teams and go full ###### (NHL, NBA) to further devalue the regular season. You're going to see more resting of starters at end of year for playoff teams as that 2nd seed bye is now out of play. Just love the NFL fixing something that wasn't broken for a cash grab. Exactly. 1 hour ago, 416BillsFan said: I like this. Games will mean more in December, and we still don't cross the NBA/NHL threshold of half the teams or more making it to the post season. As for the 17th regular season game, I hope the league holds off a bit then goes right to 18. The scheduling symmetry is close to perfect as it is. And, games will mean less in September. Baseball and football had the most meaningful regular seasons, and now they're both attempting to ruin it..................Do they not see how bad the NBA's rankings are tanking right now? Do they not know that only diehards care about the NBA now before the playoffs?
Nextmanup Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 17 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Mine as well go eight playoff teams and go full ###### (NHL, NBA) to further devalue the regular season. You're going to see more resting of starters at end of year for playoff teams as that 2nd seed bye is now out of play. Just love the NFL fixing something that wasn't broken for a cash grab. The NFL only made about $15 billion in revenue last year! They need to find a way to make ends meet! In all seriousness, I am all in favor of more playoff games and couldn't care less about "devaluing" the regular season. With only 16 games (or even 17) wins are going to remain very important.
ColoradoBills Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 1 hour ago, 416BillsFan said: I'm not disagreeing with you but 18 games is the league's end game. In the past they always added 2 games, keeping it an even number. I'd be happy to keep it at 16, but if they do expand I'd rather they go right to 18 (with 2 bye weeks) rather than doing it in steps. The issue with this is it adds 3 weeks to the season. It's too much for the players as @Chicken Boo has stated earlier. Rookies can barely get through an NFL season now compared to college and teams IR lists will just get longer. I agree with the fans that think this is just a money grab. For my two cents it dilutes the product. Question for anyone who knows. Has there been any talk about increasing roster size (lets say up to 55 from 53) in these talks. I haven't heard anything about that.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 So the way I understand it, if a new CBA isn't agreed to by the beginning of the new year March 18th, teams can then use both a transition and franchise tag on two separate players. So I'm hoping it's all signed sealed and delivered prior as would make more potential FA's available. Dallas couldn't protect both Dak and Cooper.
ColoradoBills Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 1 minute ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said: So the way I understand it, if a new CBA isn't agreed to by the beginning of the new year March 18th, teams can then use both a transition and franchise tag on two separate players. So I'm hoping it's all signed sealed and delivered prior as would make more potential FA's available. Dallas couldn't protect both Dak and Cooper. Yes. Also a lot of other things kick in such as no cap carry over into 2021 and no June 1st designations.
Recommended Posts