PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs 17th regular season game


38yrsfan
05-20-2008, 04:40 PM
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell raised the possibility of having a 17th regular-season game as an option to help settle some of the league's future labor problems.

"We are actually looking at that as one alternative," Goodell said Tuesday at the NFL owners meeting in Atlanta, the same day that the league's owners voted unanimously to opt out of their labor deal with the players' union two years early. "We think that may have an impact on some of the things we would want to talk to the players about. It's on the table."

The whole article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3405076

Mod; please delete if repost.

Deberg_1990
05-20-2008, 05:15 PM
Id actually be ok with that as long as they got rid of one or two pre-season games.

Rausch
05-20-2008, 05:34 PM
1 less preseason game and 1 more Regular season. The schedule could stay the same.

I like it. No 8-8, you're a winner or a loser...

ChiefsCountry
05-20-2008, 05:43 PM
Some teams are going to get 9 home games a year and some only 8.

Frazod
05-20-2008, 05:46 PM
Some teams are going to get 9 home games a year and some only 8.

Sounds like what Kansas does now.

Fruit Ninja
05-20-2008, 05:48 PM
As long as they alernate the home games every other year. Its ok.

Marco Polo
05-20-2008, 06:05 PM
1 less preseason game and 1 more Regular season. The schedule could stay the same.

I like it. No 8-8, you're a winner or a loser...

I think you are absolutely right. No need to post further on this thread.

bogey
05-20-2008, 06:08 PM
Whom among us wouldn't want more games?

Hydrae
05-20-2008, 06:09 PM
The schedule is a thing of balanced beauty now. Adding one more game will again unbalance the scheduling and in a short season (16 or 17 games to determine who is the best only helps the team that gets hot rather than the team that is consistent) it will lead to teams crying foul. The league has enjoyed the parity the last few years and this would destroy that parity. IMO, this is just an attempt to get another week worth of revenue just like adding the bye week did a few years ago.

Ultra Peanut
05-20-2008, 06:20 PM
If they go to 17, the extra games should be inter-conference and held at neutral sites. They don't have to necessarily be held in Mexico or overseas, but there should be neutral-site games.

Another option would be an extra week chock full of "rivalry games" held at neutral sites. Chiefs-Broncos in Lincoln, Cowboys-Eagles in Toronto, Titans-Jaguars in Birmingham, etc.

The only problem I have with a 17-game schedule is giving half the teams in the league an extra home game every year, which could be alleviated by using neutral sites and make those oh-so-lucrative games in England and Germany more feasible.

Rausch
05-20-2008, 06:22 PM
The only problem I have with this scenario is giving half the teams in the league an extra home game every year.

Let the team who finishes last in their division and worst in conference get the extra home games and make them all vs. the other conference.

HemiEd
05-20-2008, 06:26 PM
Sounds like what Kansas does now.

:LOL: You are consistent! Citrus baby, Citrus!

HemiEd
05-20-2008, 06:29 PM
The schedule is a thing of balanced beauty now. Adding one more game will again unbalance the scheduling and in a short season (16 or 17 games to determine who is the best only helps the team that gets hot rather than the team that is consistent) it will lead to teams crying foul. The league has enjoyed the parity the last few years and this would destroy that parity. IMO, this is just an attempt to get another week worth of revenue just like adding the bye week did a few years ago.

You could always make NE play all road games, as further punishment for cheating. Then any teams that don't sell out, would also play more road games. Just trying to help.

Spott
05-20-2008, 06:31 PM
Sounds like what Kansas does now.

Yeah, but Goodell would never allow NFL teams to put Longview Community College on their schedule.

Skip Towne
05-20-2008, 06:31 PM
You could always make NE play all road games, as further punishment for cheating. Then any teams that don't sell out, would also play more road games. Just trying to help.

Teams I don't like play more road games.

Rausch
05-20-2008, 06:32 PM
Yeah, but Goodell would never allow NFL teams to put Longview Community College on their schedule.

The Radiers are pretty damned close...

Spott
05-20-2008, 06:36 PM
The Radiers are pretty damned close...

Yet we still lost to them at home. :banghead:

HemiEd
05-20-2008, 06:40 PM
Teams I don't like play more road games.

That settles it, we have a plan.

Frazod
05-20-2008, 06:46 PM
:LOL: You are consistent! Citrus baby, Citrus!

:)

HemiEd
05-20-2008, 06:58 PM
:)

o:-)

philfree
05-20-2008, 07:13 PM
I don't have a problem with this. I'd even go for playoff expansion as well. Just one more team a conference. I'd a also like some full time officials too!

PhilFree:arrow:

BWillie
05-20-2008, 09:28 PM
Yeah, but Goodell would never allow NFL teams to put Longview Community College on their schedule.

Ohio State had just as easy of a schedule as KU did last year. Nobody talks shit about that, and they let them get schellacked in the title game too. I guess just a big name helps

Deberg_1990
05-20-2008, 09:28 PM
I'd even go for playoff expansion as well. Just one more team a conference.

Carl Peterson?? Is that you?

Guru
05-20-2008, 10:24 PM
1 less preseason game and 1 more Regular season. The schedule could stay the same.

I like it. No 8-8, you're a winner or a loser...

Unless there is one tie during the season. 8-8-1 heh

tk13
05-20-2008, 10:48 PM
I don't like this idea at all... you'd really have an unbalanced schedule. People would have a giant cow when they lost a playoff spot by one game to a team that had an extra home game. Plus the schedule is perfectly balanced now so you play your division twice, an NFC division, an AFC division, and two other equal-placed teams from the previous year. Where in the formula would you put the 17th game? Just some random team? That would create even more problems when one team had to play the Raiders and another played the Patriots for that extra game.

I honestly don't know what the NFL thinks they're doing. Almost every big idea you hear out of these meetings right now sounds bad... just to tinker with things that are balanced and working fine now.

Buck
05-21-2008, 12:39 AM
Maybe for the extra game they could do this.

Lets take the Chargers for example.

They finished 1st in the AFC West last year, so they play all 1st place teams plus 1 other division.

So, this year they get the Steelers (away) and the Colts (home). They also get the AFC East, and play the Patriots at home. They could make you play the same place team from the division you already play twice, and the 2nd game would be at the other persons home.

This would mean the Chargers would play the Patriots twice, the Chiefs would play the Jets twice, etc.

milkman
05-21-2008, 07:17 AM
I don't have a problem with this. I'd even go for playoff expansion as well. Just one more team a conference. I'd a also like some full time officials too!

PhilFree:arrow:

There are already too many teams in the playoffs.

The NFL wants to add games, then make it 2 games, add another bye week, and leave the palyoffs alone, unless you want to contract the number of teams.

milkman
05-21-2008, 07:20 AM
Id actually be ok with that as long as they got rid of one or two pre-season games.

For teams like the Patiots, Colts and Steelers, those preseason games aren't all that important.

For the Chiefs, right now, 4 preseason games isn't enough.

Amnorix
05-21-2008, 07:44 AM
I really like the balanced schedule. It is perfect and logical. I also don't like how long the season goes now.

But I suppose if they axed the final preseason game it could work.

The longer the season goes, the more of a problem injuries may be, of course, but I guess that can't be helped.

Amnorix
05-21-2008, 07:45 AM
There are already too many teams in the playoffs.

The NFL wants to add games, then make it 2 games, add another bye week, and leave the palyoffs alone, unless you want to contract the number of teams.


You're thinking of playing the Super Bowl when? St. Patrick's Day? Have it coincide with the Boston Marathon...?

Amnorix
05-21-2008, 07:47 AM
Maybe for the extra game they could do this.

Lets take the Chargers for example.

They finished 1st in the AFC West last year, so they play all 1st place teams plus 1 other division.

So, this year they get the Steelers (away) and the Colts (home). They also get the AFC East, and play the Patriots at home. They could make you play the same place team from the division you already play twice, and the 2nd game would be at the other persons home.

This would mean the Chargers would play the Patriots twice, the Chiefs would play the Jets twice, etc.


That's actually a very logical solution. It also bumps up the penalty/reward for your last year's result -- which currently is a difference of only 2 games (out of 16, so it's still 12% of your schedule that's "harder" or "easier" based on last year's result).

Chiefnj2
05-21-2008, 07:51 AM
How does adding a game help the labor issues? Aren't players going to want more money for playing more games?

Deberg_1990
05-21-2008, 08:12 AM
For teams like the Patiots, Colts and Steelers, those preseason games aren't all that important.

For the Chiefs, right now, 4 preseason games isn't enough.

I disagree. I think Pro teams really only need 2 preseason games. At the most 3.

If you had two preseason games, the starters could play most of the 1st game and rest the 2nd one.

With three you could play the backups most of the 1st, starters most of the 2nd and scrubs most of the 3rd.

It would obviously effect the cut dates of alot of these players.

Reerun_KC
05-21-2008, 08:18 AM
I don't have a problem with this. I'd even go for playoff expansion as well. Just one more team a conference. I'd a also like some full time officials too!

PhilFree:arrow:

Not until Carl leaves KC forever will this be a good idea....The year after he leaves, then expand the playoffs, but that piece of shit doesnt deserve rewards for his mediocrity...

StcChief
05-21-2008, 08:24 AM
17th game conference game (not division). determined by last years rank run it on rotation like the rest of conf games.
1 - a preview of a 'next year game' in inter-conf. play
2 - figures into playoff implications as a tie breaker
3 - rotate home/away

1 less pre-season game

milkman
05-21-2008, 08:34 AM
You're thinking of playing the Super Bowl when? St. Patrick's Day? Have it coincide with the Boston Marathon...?

Start everything two weeks earlier.

Or, hell, have it coincide with the Boston Marathon.

Who the **** cares about a bunch of dumbasses running 26 miles anyway?

kepp
05-21-2008, 08:38 AM
Nah...the BCS will never allow it.

StcChief
05-21-2008, 08:40 AM
Start everything two weeks earlier.

Or, hell, have it coincide with the Boston Marathon.

Who the **** cares about a bunch of dumbasses running 26 miles anyway?
my thoughts too.... I guess only Boston cares about their marathon. Runners will run anyway/anytime, have that on Saturday....

milkman
05-21-2008, 08:42 AM
I disagree. I think Pro teams really only need 2 preseason games. At the most 3.

If you had two preseason games, the starters could play most of the 1st game and rest the 2nd one.

With three you could play the backups most of the 1st, starters most of the 2nd and scrubs most of the 3rd.

It would obviously effect the cut dates of alot of these players.

Back in the day when there were 6 preseason games, teams came out of the gate at the start of the regular season sharper and better prepared.

For fans, preseason games lack interest, but they really are important to building chemstry and getting teams prepared, and for evaluating talent in game settings.

And for teams like the Chiefs who are in the midst of rebuilding and looking at position battles, these preseason games are extremely important.

4 preseason games isn't enough as it is.

As much as most fans dislike preseason games, cutting it down is really a bad idea.

The one thing I would change is that I would call it a game at the end of regulation if it's tied.

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference who wins and loses these games.

milkman
05-21-2008, 08:45 AM
Not until Carl leaves KC forever will this be a good idea....The year after he leaves, then expand the playoffs, but that piece of shit doesnt deserve rewards for his mediocrity...

Yeah.

Let's expand the playoffs.

I mean we haven't seen a sub .500 team in yet, though we've come close.

We could ensure that teams that almost play .500 ball get rewarded.

Chiefnj2
05-21-2008, 09:07 AM
Back in the day when there were 6 preseason games, teams came out of the gate at the start of the regular season sharper and better prepared.

For fans, preseason games lack interest, but they really are important to building chemstry and getting teams prepared, and for evaluating talent in game settings.

And for teams like the Chiefs who are in the midst of rebuilding and looking at position battles, these preseason games are extremely important.

4 preseason games isn't enough as it is.

As much as most fans dislike preseason games, cutting it down is really a bad idea.

The one thing I would change is that I would call it a game at the end of regulation if it's tied.

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference who wins and loses these games.


I completely disagree that 4 isn't enough. The starters don't play as it is. Plus, the coaches know who they will keep and who they won't. They really don't need to play them any extra. 3 is more than enough.

philfree
05-21-2008, 09:13 AM
Not until Carl leaves KC forever will this be a good idea....The year after he leaves, then expand the playoffs, but that piece of shit doesnt deserve rewards for his mediocrity...

It has nothing to do with Carl but it has everything to do with the league and generating more excitement and more revenue.


PhilFree:arrow:

Demonpenz
05-21-2008, 09:19 AM
I don't like it because with 16 games sundays are an event. they become less sacred as more games are applied

milkman
05-21-2008, 09:19 AM
I completely disagree that 4 isn't enough. The starters don't play as it is. Plus, the coaches know who they will keep and who they won't. They really don't need to play them any extra. 3 is more than enough.

I expected that most would disagree with me.

I just know that I see a difference in how prepared to start the season teams are now, from the days when they had 6 games.

Demonpenz
05-21-2008, 09:22 AM
milkman free agency problably has alot to do with that too

Chiefnj2
05-21-2008, 09:23 AM
I expected that most would disagree with me.

I just know that I see a difference in how prepared to start the season teams are now, from the days when they had 6 games.

Teams would look prepared if they played the starters more than the 1st quarter the first two games, the first half of the third game and one series on the final game. Adding games doesn't necessarily mean the starters are going to play a lot more.

milkman
05-21-2008, 09:29 AM
Teams would look prepared if they played the starters more than the 1st quarter the first two games, the first half of the third game and one series on the final game. Adding games doesn't necessarily mean the starters are going to play a lot more.

You're right.

If they did play the starters more, then they would look more prepared to start the regular season.

But then, you don't get as much opportunity to look at kids battling for a roster spot, or guys battling to win jobs.

And for the Chiefs this year, building chemistry among the starters, and finding out who the starters are, should take all 4 of of those games.

But they've still got to find out if there are some chunks of coal that can be turned into diamonds some day.

Chiefnj2
05-21-2008, 09:32 AM
and finding out who the starters are, should take all 4 of of those games.

But they've still got to find out if there are some chunks of coal that can be turned into diamonds some day.

They will know that based on camp and the first two games. Every year they make it out as if there are some big training camp battles that will be decided in preseason games, but the reality is that the coaches have their minds made up anyway.

milkman
05-21-2008, 09:37 AM
They will know that based on camp and the first two games. Every year they make it out as if there are some big training camp battles that will be decided in preseason games, but the reality is that the coaches have their minds made up anyway.

Yes, there are some decisions made based on practice, but when they get in games and real hitting takes place, minds can be changed.

blueballs
05-21-2008, 10:00 AM
13-3 curse will be over
yee haw