A solution to the "sitting starters" in Week 16/17?
 

I think the draft pick idea is ridiculous, and could never work.

How can you reward good teams with extra draft picks, and widen the balance between the haves and the have nots?

I heard this proposal by a listener to Sirius NFL Radio:

Schedule all non-conference and non-division games at the beginning of the year, and backload all the division games over the last 6 weeks of the season.

Division titles would likely still be on the line, and teams would have much more to play for at the end of the season.

Thoughts?

Works for me.

Reward them with a Home game to begin and end the next season.

Yep I read that suggestion last week sometime. Damn good idea.

That may or may not work.

If a team is 13-0 or 14-0, it wouldn't matter a bit. If a team has the division locked up early, which happens every year, I don't think it would matter.

There is no simple solution.

That's the best option I've heard so far.

I've never known whether or not it was intentional, but it always seems like the NHL does this at least informally. Division games seem to be mostly in the beginning and end of the season. Seems to keep things exciting.

Good teams often start at home the next season anyway.

And honestly, that's not much of an incentive.

Hey, Jim Caldwell - play Peyton Manning in Week 17 and we'll let you open at home next year.

I think he'd have to try damn hard not to laugh.

That's probably the best idea I've heard of in terms of making weeks 16 and 17 more competitive.

Hey, Jim Caldwell - play Peyton Manning in Week 17 or we'll make you sit him Week 1.

Good point.

**** it I say take away their first round draft choice for the next year :D

True, but that's an exception, and certainly not the rule.

Unless you expect there to be 2-3 teams every year that go on a Colts/Saints-like run.

In theory, wouldn't a team have to have at least a 6 game lead in the division for the last 6 games, all in the division, not to matter?

What are the odds of a team being 10-0 and the other 3 teams being 4-6 or worse?

The Fantasyfootballification of the NFL continues...

That's the thing:

You can't force coaches to play these guys, but you sure as hell can make the decision to sit them tougher.

Or better yet if they decide to sit their players the worst team in the league gets to pick 1 player off that team in the offseason

I don't like backloading ALL of the division games at the end. That would make the beginning of the season boring and the end too brutal. Teams do say that division games are harder and more hard hitting so putting them 6 weeks in a row is asking for injuries and a more worn down team come playoffs.
Posted via Mobile Device

The only problem with that is the NFLPA would throw a fit.

The only other solution is that the NFL makes a rule stating that if a player starts for the team for more than 14 games throughout the season...and you sit him when he's healthy.....he is required to sit for a minimum of 2 games.

Okay how about this. This is pretty drastic, but I think it would work to have teams want to win.

-Change each Conference to 8 teams in the playoffs.

-Backload the Schedule w/ Division Games

-Team w/ best Division Record (regardless of W/L record) makes the playoffs.

-Next best 4 records in Conference Make the Playoffs as well

- Best division record among 4 teams with most wins get 1-4 seeds

- Best overall record determines 5-8 seeds

I say do nothing at all. If a coach thinks that resting players gives his teams the best chance to win the SB, then that's his choice.

Losing in the post-season because you've lost rhythm and momentum is incentive enough to play through.

Apparently not, as some of these coaches haven't learned their lesson.

They years the Colts have rested starters, they've been knocked out.

The one year they played it out, they won the SB.

I'll be curious to see what happens with Cincinnati this year, as the last time they rested players (against us at Arrowhead) they were a one-and-done.

Just two examples.

All I'm stating is that it's highly possible that teams have their playoff berths wrapped up, regardless of the final two weeks.

It happens nearly every year.

Difference being that this season a team forfeited a chance at an undefeated season to rest starters. The stakes are much higher this time around. It'll be hard for the Colts brass to live this one down if they don't win out in the post-season. Be that criticism fair or unfair.

In theory, it sounds like a fairly reasonable idea... but, there's always going to be "something". Dane brought up a scenario that would present an opportunity where a team could still be in the situation they're trying to avoid in the final week or two.

Rewarding teams with home games? I don't see how that works... let's say it becomes impossible to schedule that one, what's the process for determining which team gets screwed?

I think the "sitting starters" discussion is ridiculous. Perhaps that's because I'm also a fan of the only team (Patriots) that took a serious hit by playing starters. Wes Welker's career might be over, and the Patriots' playoff hopes have certainly dimmed.

Here's the thing: the only teams who complain about it, are the teams on the bubble looking for help. Hey! Steelers, Texans, and Broncos... may I have your attention please? You don't want to have to worry about teams lying down for the Jets and handing them a playoff spot? I have a solution.






















WIN YOUR OWN F**KING GAMES!!

You could also just make the final 3 games of the year Division games w/ the other 3 spread out. Every year you would flip flop which teams get 2 home games and 1 away to end the season.

I am actually liking this idea except for the fact that we could potentially see a 4-12 team make the playoffs.

I hope to god fantasy football isn't weighing into this decision in any way.

while i think its cheap for the fans to have to pay to see backups, they get to see their team in the playoffs.

i dont think you should HAVE to play your players if you want to rest them.

I don't see how this is really that big of a problem. At most a few games are affected by this at the end of the season, big freaking deal.

You could say if you sit a player with X number of games left this season, then you have to sit the same player with X number of games next year. That should do it.

Well then you just have them fake an injury.

It's never been a problem before. This has been going on for decades and nobody gave a shit about it. Let's move on to the next manufactured problem.

Who cares? There is no problem.

I can't help but think that a big part of the outrage this time is rooted in fantasy football, it probably affected a lot of people's seasons. Not that I give a shit, I don't play it, but a lot of people do and many take it very seriously.

So what rules can we put in to make sure teams stop taking knees with the game in hand?

The only rule that makes sense to "solve" this "problem" is to reimburse ticket holders a certain pecentage of what they paid depending on if a team doesn't play a predetermined number of starters for a predetermined amount of time. Then again, I think this problem is overblown to bgin with.

I don't think it has anything to do with FF.

I think the Commish is concerned about the integrity of the game.

Are teams resting starters because they genuinely want to reduce the risk of injury, or are they doing so knowing that a loss will keep a team they don't want to face out of the playoffs?

FTR, I don't give a shit, because it's been forever since we've been in that position.

I'm just posting a possible solution - and for all of those saying it's a non-issue, the NFL disagrees.

Yep. The Colts are probably now in a more pressure situation than if they were 16-0 right now. But they only have themselves to blame. (the players aren't to blame)

With 8 teams, you're taking away the byes, which is one of the incentives to keep playing.


I think it's overblown, and like Bugeater said, a lot of it has to do with FF as well as gambling. Teams earn the right to do whatever they want/need to do in order to prepare for the playoffs by clinching early. If the season ticket holders don't like it, sell your tickets that week.... and boo-f***ing-hoo, it means you get to watch one of the best teams in the league in the playoffs.

That said, dropping the first round playoff ticket prices in half or having free concessions during the playoffs or something like that would be a good way for teams to keep their fans happy in a situation like that.... but since when is the NFL about the fans?

My concern lies with why the NFL feels it's an issue, if it's really because of the integrity of the game, then that's fine. As far as the scenario you mentioned, I don't see anything wrong with a team doing something like that if they're in the position to do so. Shit like that happens to teams when they leave their destinies in the hands of other teams.

On Sully's point, I would make the clock stop on a kneeldown. Make it like a spike. I hate kneeldowns.

On the sitting issue, you can never define a rule for it just because you can't always be sure why a player is sitting. Some players are legitimately questionable, and if they aren't, the coach will tell them to have back spasms during warmups. The only way you can address it is via either the schedule or via the playoff seeding system.

Options might include:

- the backweighting of division games, which I like. There's no need to put all of the games at the back.

- possibly having a couple of float games where in weeks 13 through 16 you switch games and have the playoff teams play tougher teams in the last two weeks. That would be difficult or impossible to pull off logistically.

I'm not even sure seeding differently would have an impact, because it's the teams at the very top that are sitting people, and they're sitting people because they've got the seeding under control. You'd have to make a radical change to have an impact. Maybe a BCS-type formula for seeding that dramatically impacts a team if they lose to a weaker team. Instead of wins, maybe you get 1 point for each win your opponent has at the end of the season. That'd be radically cool.

Perhaps the league should simply embrace it as a way to make games competitive against those top teams and groom younger players. Or as JD mentioned, teams should try to get good so their playoff hopes aren't impacted by other teams sitting players.

I would think the players union would be working hardest to fix this. I wonder if guys lose bonus money by not meeting yardage incentives.

This could do it.

Oh, or you could follow the NBA route. Playoff seedings are by lottery, and you get one ball per win. Maybe with a bonus ball for each win about 11 and two bonus balls for each win above 13.

I actually kind of like the lotto approach. That way, it'd make the fight for the last wild card spot more competitive because if you're in there's a chance you could draw home field.

Maybe you'd expand to eight teams so a wildcard wouldn't get a bye. But that's good marketing too.

I say if they are eligible to play in the final 2 weeks and the coach sits them. Then they should be ineligible for the playoffs. Of course injury is a whole nother story.

Some of these ideas are pretty ridiculous..... we all complain when the government wants to interfere with how we choose to live, yet letting the NFL tell teams who to start is okay? It would just cause more problems.

I've been pondering whether the last playoff spot should be reserved for the team that's gone the longest without being in the playoffs. Kind of a mercy rule for the fans that would keep marketing interest alive in the comatose franchises.

And yes, I'm not serious about that.