Fan ideas on how to improve the NFL -- Peter King's latest FMIA column

[eball]

4 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

I’ve actually always like that idea. 16 game records kept intact, player safety accounted for and a newly added dimension of strategy in terms of roster management.
 

But the biggest downside is the very last sentence that the writer points out. Can’t have fans purchasing  airfare, hotel and game tickets in July for a game in November flying through three time zones to see their team play only to find out 5 days prior the star quarterback and receiver are going to be sitting for the week.

 

Many of you seem to be missing the point.  An 18-game schedule with two bye weeks is coming, sooner or later.  That's not the point.  It's the moronic idea of putting a "cap" on how many games a player can play when every game matters.  This isn't MLB, the NBA, or the NHL with their 80+ game schedules.

 

This isn't creating some intriguing "chess match" between coaches, it's a freaking disastrous idea.

 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

1 minute ago, JoPoy88 said:

those 16-game records are already tainted by last year. Who really gives a ****

I’m not sure any single seasonal passing record was broken last year so I don’t necessarily agree that they’re already tainted. And same for single-season rushing records.

 

I think very few seasonal records were broken last year. Perhaps only Cooper Kupp?

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

5 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Many of you seem to be missing the point.  An 18-game schedule with two bye weeks is coming, sooner or later.  That's not the point.  It's the moronic idea of putting a "cap" on how many games a player can play when every game matters.  This isn't MLB, the NBA, or the NHL with their 80+ game schedules.

 

This isn't creating some intriguing "chess match" between coaches, it's a freaking disastrous idea.

 

The reason it will never work is fans shelling out a lot of money only to find out the week before the B team is playing.
 

Otherwise , the fairness of the game  is still in tact. Every team has to go through the same adversity. Many players already miss two games due to injury so for those cases it would be a moot point.

 

you could make an argument that the teams with a higher level quarterbacks, the top five top 10 quarterbacks in the league are probably handicapped a greater amount than those teams with average to below average quarterbacks. Those teams whose starting quarterbacks are closer to the level of a back up.

[eball]

14 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

The reason it will never work is fans shelling out a lot of money only to find out the week before the B team is playing.
 

Otherwise , the fairness of the game  is still in tact. Every team has to go through the same adversity. Many players already miss two games due to injury so for those cases it would be a moot point.

 

you could make an argument that the teams with a higher level quarterbacks, the top five top 10 quarterbacks in the league are probably handicapped a greater amount than those teams with average to below average quarterbacks. Those teams whose starting quarterbacks are closer to the level of a back up.

 

There's no "fairness of the game" in this proposal.  You're legislating to teams that they must remove their starters from two meaningful games.  I can't believe anyone thinks this is in any way feasible.  Blows my mind, really.

 

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, eball said:

 

Please don’t tell me you’re comparing an 80-game season league with a 17-game one and implying “it’s the same thing.”

 

I’ve got nothing against adding another game and another bye week, while reducing the preseason by a game.  It makes sense.  The idea of limiting how many games a player can suit up, however, is ludicrous, preposterous, egregious, and stupendous.

 

 

Clearly, I did not do that. 

 

I'm saying the NBA has been sitting players that fans paid full price to see play for some time now.  They didn't do so during the NBA's heyday in the 80's-90's. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

Just now, eball said:

 

There's no "fairness of the game" in this proposal.  You're legislating to teams that they must remove their starters from two meaningful games.  I can't believe anyone thinks this is in any way feasible.  Blows my mind, really.

 

Every team dealing with the same set of rules is the definition of fairness I thought.

 

Not like previous year playoff teams have to sit their players for a minimum of three games and non-playoff teams only one game.

[LeGOATski]

21 hours ago, boater said:

With ownership changes, often comes a team moving. I think we might have lost the drought Bills.

Yeah, that one is a stupid idea. I would like some sort of relegation, though, like the Premier League does in soccer.

 

I'm fine if the NFL creates more teams or partners with one of the Spring leagues, then the worst teams get relegated to the lower league.

[pennstate10]

22 hours ago, eball said:

 

King actually selected and published this?  It has got to be the most moronic idea I've ever seen, and I'm trying to be kind.

 

Actually I saw this idea floated a year or two ago. 
 

An argument against this idea is what happens when you bench a healthy dion Dawkins and put in some scrub. And then Josh Allen gets hammered. Wasn’t such a good idea for player safety then right?

[Billy Claude]

22 hours ago, Logic said:

17th Game Ideas

Tim DeLaney, Tempe, Ariz.

My idea is twofold: grow the game domestically/internationally and create a consistent and fair way to allocate the recently added 17th game.

Every team plays one neutral-site game (so eight home, eight road, one neutral-site).

Continue to schedule several international games: London, Mexico City, Munich, and let’s mix in some new locations each year such as Dublin, Barcelona, Sydney, Rio de Janeiro, Toronto.

Here’s the twist, and a way to connect with casual U.S. fans who may be college football fans first:

Schedule the remainder of neutral-site games in traditional college markets (with behemoth stadiums)—Lincoln, State College, Clemson, Tuscaloosa, Tallahassee, Baton Rouge, Norman.

Think of what the “Winter Classic” has done to bring charm and nostalgia to the NHL. Imagine the Steelers and Eagles playing for bragging rights in front of 107,000 at Beaver Stadium. Let’s play a salute-to-service weekend matchup between the Bills and Giants in West Point.

 

 

This idea is the only one that has a real chance of being implemented..   You couldn't do it for all the 17th games but perhaps just for one division (which effectively is two divisions when you include the opponent).  If you don't have enough international games having one in a place like Beaver Stadium would be a great idea.   

 

There's a lot of advantages to the NFL.  First, it would be a spectacle so if there are only one or two of these games a year, it would generate big ratings just because it is different.  Secondly, the big universities have a lot of international students, so it would increase the NFL's global reach when the students go back home. Lastly, though I am sure the NFL doesn't care, it would be more fair to the teams in those divisions.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Billy Claude

[BillsShredder83]

I think he probably picked the most interesting ideas at some point over best ideas

Just now, BillsShredder83 said:

I think he probably picked the most interesting ideas at some point over best ideas

 

22 hours ago, eball said:

 

King actually selected and published this?  It has got to be the most moronic idea I've ever seen, and I'm trying to be kind.

 

 

[BillsShredder83]

21 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

SB on Saturday.  Give away tickets to kids who can't afford them.

 

The rest of the ideas are pretty dumb.  Playing in a college stadium to lure college ball fans (who won't watch the NFL??)---and yet these uninterested people ("107,000 of them") would fill the biggest stadiums in the country!  lol.

 

Have "the NFL" (i. e. "the owners") pick some other owner's GM?  I'm sure they would be very helpful!  Would that include only owners who have a history of picking good GMs?  What struggling team's owner wants Jimmy Haslam chiming in with GM suggestions?  Or Woody Johnson? 

 

Top seeds pick your opponent?  I would pick the Cowboys every time...

 

These were the "Top 30"?  I want to see the bottom 30 then.

It's not that they won't watch, they just don't have a natural rooting interest. Alabama is surrounded by Texas, Florida, Louisiana without having a team they can exactly identify with. 

If NFL picked a team and gave them games there a few years in a row it might give them a natural interest, and take an untapped (rabid football state) market, and give them a nudge towards someone

[Logic]

11 hours ago, chongli said:

 

 

Your name is (pronounced) the same as the Carolina coach?! You must get teased about that a lot. The name threw me off so much I didn't see the "[It's me!]" part. Also, I was also thinking why is this called the "Matthew Rule", sort of like the "Tuck Rule"?

 

Anyway, I also don't like your idea either [sorry...grin!!]. By having a Bufffalo-Green Bay matchup, for example, this would force us to play another good team. Or the Rams would have to play the Chargers, who are also good. I suppose it could work the other way in bad years, but then it wouldn't matter as much whom we play.

 

 

9 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

Respectfully, I truly hate the idea of FURTHER scheduling punishments for being good the year prior. The NFL already has plenty of parity-minded policies, and it's important that opponents are chosen impartially and equitably. Draft order (which is huge) plus 7 out of 17 opponents each season are currently weighted inversely against prior success.  No reason to tack on yet another inconsistent and subjective counterweight. 

Yeah, Chongli, it's weird to share a name with an NFL head coach, and have it be pronounced the same, too. I still haven't gotten used to hearing my name on TV so much during the NFL season 😆

As for the "upsetting the competitive balance" angle you both brought up...I can definitely understand and empathize with that perspective.

The way I see it is that the purpose of the NFL is ultimately to provide entertainment and to make money. The idea I proposed would help in both respects. Obviously, there IS a need for competitive fairness and balance, and the parity in the NFL is one of the things that makes it the best sports league in the country. That said, I think the NFL is always walking a fine line between entertainment and competitive balance.

Take prime time games, for example, or Thursday night games. No one can tell me that it's not a bit of a competitive disadvantage to have a bunch of prime time games, or three Thursday night games, as the Bills do this season. Teams accept it, though, because TV viewership and the "entertainment" and "revenue" angle to it all. It's a tightrope that the NFL ALREADY walks, and I don't feel that allowing the league to pick one matchup out of 17 is all that big a deal. 

I used to be much more concerned about all the aspects of whether a schedule was perfectly fair or not. I don't care so much any more. The schedules rotate anyway, and in the case of the idea I proposed, the opponents chosen would likely be different most years, meaning it would all sort of balance out over time. Not only that, but teams that look fierce when a game is scheduled are sometimes not so fierce when the game finally rolls around, due to injuries or what have you.

I understand the perspective you both espoused, though, and I think it's ultimately why the NFL will never enact the idea I proposed. I stand by the notion, though, that it would add entertainment value, viewership, and bring in extra revenue for the league.

 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:

It's not that they won't watch, they just don't have a natural rooting interest. Alabama is surrounded by Texas, Florida, Louisiana without having a team they can exactly identify with. 

If NFL picked a team and gave them games there a few years in a row it might give them a natural interest, and take an untapped (rabid football state) market, and give them a nudge towards someone

 

Which team would have to play in Alabama "a few years in a row" to generate "natural interest" in this team from somewhere else?

 

Who in Alabama is not already aware enough of the NFL to have an interest?  "NFL?  Yeah, I don't know---I'd have to see a game in person before I decide to become a regular watcher of their televised games"...said no one.  Besides, Alabama's 2021 National Championship drew about as many viewers as the average NFL game on CBS. 

 

What would be the point of all this anyway? To bring the NFL more ratings?  There's no reason to believe this will boost the king of ratings any higher.  Big college football schools are loaded with kids who watch the NFL every sundae---same as every other school in this country.

[Gobills14094]

relax/abolish/redefine the taunting rules. The NFL's goal is to entertain the viewers, and the crap they've pulled over the last ten years in regards to taunting is just plain dumb.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Gobills14094

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, eball said:

 

Many of you seem to be missing the point.  An 18-game schedule with two bye weeks is coming, sooner or later.  That's not the point.  It's the moronic idea of putting a "cap" on how many games a player can play when every game matters.  This isn't MLB, the NBA, or the NHL with their 80+ game schedules.

 

This isn't creating some intriguing "chess match" between coaches, it's a freaking disastrous idea.

 

I agree but it would be fun to see how coaches navigate it.  The poor Jags would play everybody's backup QB and sill go 4-14.

[eball]

18 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I agree but it would be fun to see how coaches navigate it.  The poor Jags would play everybody's backup QB and sill go 4-14.

 

It wouldn't be fun at all.  It's like saying it would be fun for a preseason game to count in the standings.  Coaches would put out entire 2nd/3rd string units.  Just awful.

[sullim4]

22 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Just make President's day the Monday following the Super Bowl.  Win win.

 

It's not a win-win unfortunately.  This holiday is often attached to a longer mid-winter break for school-aged kids which results in travel during this weekend.  That will negatively impact ratings.

 

I don't particularly care for the Super Bowl's timing either, but there's a reason why it's in the dead of winter right after a major travel holiday (Christmas/New Years) and before another one (President's Day) on a Sunday night.  It's meant to draw as many eyeballs as possible to the TV.

[Doc Brown]

45 minutes ago, sullim4 said:

 

It's not a win-win unfortunately.  This holiday is often attached to a longer mid-winter break for school-aged kids which results in travel during this weekend.  That will negatively impact ratings.

 

I don't particularly care for the Super Bowl's timing either, but there's a reason why it's in the dead of winter right after a major travel holiday (Christmas/New Years) and before another one (President's Day) on a Sunday night.  It's meant to draw as many eyeballs as possible to the TV.

Damn.  You make a good point.  Something has to be done though as it's estimated businesses in totality across America lose about a billion dollars the day after the Super Bowl due to people calling in sick. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Doc Brown

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

6 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

Actually I saw this idea floated a year or two ago. 
 

An argument against this idea is what happens when you bench a healthy dion Dawkins and put in some scrub. And then Josh Allen gets hammered. Wasn’t such a good idea for player safety then right?

A coach could always choose to bench both the starting quarterback and the starting left tackle. That would probably be the smart move.

 

I imagine your better teams in the league would probably pretty much bench half their team or more when they go up against the worst teams in the league. Essentially try to beat a bad  teams starters with your back ups.

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

It wouldn't be fun at all.  It's like saying it would be fun for a preseason game to count in the standings.  Coaches would put out entire 2nd/3rd string units.  Just awful.

The bills fielded a preseason team for essentially 17 years. But we all watched and enjoyed the games because they counted. Preseason sucks because it doesn’t count.

 

I guarantee there would be plenty of interest in regular season games even with back ups that were forced to play.

[Ayjent]

7 hours ago, eball said:

 

Many of you seem to be missing the point.  An 18-game schedule with two bye weeks is coming, sooner or later.  That's not the point.  It's the moronic idea of putting a "cap" on how many games a player can play when every game matters.  This isn't MLB, the NBA, or the NHL with their 80+ game schedules.

 

This isn't creating some intriguing "chess match" between coaches, it's a freaking disastrous idea.

 

We don't need more games, and I really don't even like that they added a game last season.  Watered down roster management just makes watching a casual non-Bills game even less interesting or a game that looks great to tune into turn into meh.