17th Game (inter-conference) on the table for 2021

[DaFace]

I know that I'm a weird numbers guy, but I think my main issue with it is having it be 17 games, which is going to always be weird and uneven. The 16-game season is so elegant:

Division (x2) - 6
Rotating opposite-conference division - 4
Rotating same-conference division - 4
Same-ranked teams from the other same-conference divisions - 2

And the result is that every team plays four #1 teams, four #2 teams, four #3 teams, and four #4 teams (based on division rank).

Playing 17 games is always going to result in some inequality among teams in the division. Even 18 would be better.

[tyecopeland]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I know that I'm a weird numbers guy, but I think my main issue with it is having it be 17 games, which is going to always be weird and uneven. The 16-game season is so elegant:

Division (x2) - 6
Rotating opposite-conference division - 4
Rotating same-conference division - 4
Same-ranked teams from the other same-conference divisions - 2

And the result is that every team plays four #1 teams, four #2 teams, four #3 teams, and four #4 teams (based on division rank).

Playing 17 games is always going to result in some inequality among teams in the division. Even 18 would be better.

I'm with you here. But, there was already a difference between us having to play the nfc south this year and the steelers/ravens etc only having to play the nfc east.

[Jewish Rabbi]

Originally Posted by tyecopeland

I'm with you here. But, there was already a difference between us having to play the nfc east this year and the steelers/ravens etc only having to play the nfc east.

Us playing the south, you mean.

[tyecopeland]

Originally Posted by Jewish Rabbi

Us playing the south, you mean.

Yes. Thank you.

[mililo4cpa]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I know that I'm a weird numbers guy, but I think my main issue with it is having it be 17 games, which is going to always be weird and uneven. The 16-game season is so elegant:

Division (x2) - 6
Rotating opposite-conference division - 4
Rotating same-conference division - 4
Same-ranked teams from the other same-conference divisions - 2

And the result is that every team plays four #1 teams, four #2 teams, four #3 teams, and four #4 teams (based on division rank).

Playing 17 games is always going to result in some inequality among teams in the division. Even 18 would be better.

In Rainman's Chiefs Logo thread, I voted that having the two different logos always bothered me, because I'm a very "symmetrical" person....obviously, I understand why the logo has to be different, but I just don't like it.

And for that reason, I hate the concept of 17 game schedules: uneven amounts of home games v. away, the elimination of the beauty of the scheduling now totally diminished, and quite honestly, it's not needed.....there's nothing to like about it at all. I'd almost prefer they addd more playoff teams (I don't really, I'm being facetious) rather than this bull crap

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I know that I'm a weird numbers guy, but I think my main issue with it is having it be 17 games, which is going to always be weird and uneven. The 16-game season is so elegant:

Division (x2) - 6
Rotating opposite-conference division - 4
Rotating same-conference division - 4
Same-ranked teams from the other same-conference divisions - 2

And the result is that every team plays four #1 teams, four #2 teams, four #3 teams, and four #4 teams (based on division rank).

Playing 17 games is always going to result in some inequality among teams in the division. Even 18 would be better.

Ok, so, this is going to sound ridiculous, but it would keep the 16 game schedule that works so well intact.

And this is just spit balling, off the top of my highly medicated head.

What if the 17th game wasn't predetermined?

Say you play the 16 game regular season, and the schedule for those 16 games is determined exactly like it is now.

But, the 17th game is fluid, and could include any team from the opposing conference. I am not sure on the details, like how the teams would be chosen, but geographical location, overall record, or even fan voting could be determining factors. The goal would be to make these "Regular Season Wild Card" or RSWC games for short, a match up between either very good teams, or teams that have a compelling storyline. Examples would be the Chiefs versus the Packers, which would feature the two leading candidates for MVP, etc.

I think having one wild card game like this could bring a lot of fun, interesting scenarios, and could generate really great matchups for football fans. And it could put games on TV that fans want to see, instead of watching a random game like the Jets vs the Lions.

Playoff positions would only use the original 16 game season, but whichever teams from the conference that has the edge in wins for the RSWC games would get 60% of the extra TV money, with the losing conference teams getting 40%. This would be the incentive to win these games instead of using it as a second bye week for starters.

Again, I didn't spend time working out the details, but I thought it might spur some interesting opinions and conversations.



Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[Why Not?]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

Ok, so, this is going to sound ridiculous, but it would keep the 16 game schedule that works so well intact.

And this is just spit balling, off the top of my highly medicated head.

What if the 17th game wasn't predetermined?

Say you play the 16 game regular season, and the schedule for those 16 games is determined exactly like it is now.

But, the 17th game is fluid, and could include any team from the opposing conference. I am not sure on the details, like how the teams would be chosen, but geographical location, overall record, or even fan voting could be determining factors. The goal would be to make these "Regular Season Wild Card" or RSWC games for short, a match up between either very good teams, or teams that have a compelling storyline. Examples would be the Chiefs versus the Packers, which would feature the two leading candidates for MVP, etc.

I think having one wild card game like this could bring a lot of fun, interesting scenarios, and could generate really great matchups for football fans. And it could put games on TV that fans want to see, instead of watching a random game like the Jets vs the Lions.

Playoff positions would only use the original 16 game season, but whichever teams from the conference that has the edge in wins for the RSWC games would get 60% of the extra TV money, with the losing conference teams getting 40%. This would be the incentive to win these games instead of using it as a second bye week for starters.

Again, I didn't spend time working out the details, but I thought it might spur some interesting opinions and conversations.



Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

That would be really fun. And it could be done. But, of course, the NFL would never do it for the same reason they’ll never really do much to eliminate some of the God awful matchups in prime time during the regular season, they simply don’t have to. Gambling and fantasy football (both things I love to partake in) have dictated that Jets vs Bengals is can’t miss television. That’s why the league never really addresses anything the fans really care about. They know we’re gonna be back no matter what.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by Why Not?

That would be really fun. And it could be done. But, of course, the NFL would never do it for the same reason they’ll never really do much to eliminate some of the God awful matchups in prime time during the regular season, they simply don’t have to. Gambling and fantasy football (both things I love to partake in) have dictated that Jets vs Bengals is can’t miss television. That’s why the league never really addresses anything the fans really care about. They know we’re gonna be back no matter what.

Yeah, I thought it could make for compelling games or storylines. I thought maybe since they have the options to flex certain games out of or into Prime Time slots, that they could take the same approach with that extra game.

Plus, it would keep the same playoff seeding system it uses now, making that 17th game just for the fans.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[Shaid]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

Yeah, I thought it could make for compelling games or storylines. I thought maybe since they have the options to flex certain games out of or into Prime Time slots, that they could take the same approach with that extra game.

Plus, it would keep the same playoff seeding system it uses now, making that 17th game just for the fans.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

You'd be asking teams with Superbowl aspirations to put their health on the line for what equates to a meaningless game. There's a reason you don't see Superbowl players in the Pro Bowl and I would 100% guarantee these would turn into rest your starters type games, especially towards the end of the season where people are a bit banged up.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I know that I'm a weird numbers guy, but I think my main issue with it is having it be 17 games, which is going to always be weird and uneven. The 16-game season is so elegant:

Division (x2) - 6
Rotating opposite-conference division - 4
Rotating same-conference division - 4
Same-ranked teams from the other same-conference divisions - 2

And the result is that every team plays four #1 teams, four #2 teams, four #3 teams, and four #4 teams (based on division rank).

Playing 17 games is always going to result in some inequality among teams in the division. Even 18 would be better.

First, I agree with this...I hate screwing with something that works so well.

Second, not that it matters, but Mahomes will crush all records - another game is like adding another season to his stats over his career. All the season and all-time records will fall with this change.

If you have to do this just stop pre-season and add two games.