10-24-2016, 12:17 PM
(10-24-2016, 11:05 AM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. Scheduling-wise it makes a lot more sense. And it would be better received by fans, locals and (I'm guessing) ownership. You get all the participation/revenue from your local games.
Doesn't work mathematically I'm afraid. There have to be 256 matches over an NFL season for each team to end up playing 16 games each (32 teams*16 games played=512. Every match counts as a game played for two different teams so divide by two and we have 256). If every team has 8 matches in their home stadium then there are, not coincidently, 256 matches played over a season in the USA. As there used to be until NFL greed for $$$$$$$ came in.
As soon at the NFL sends games to London, Mexico and wherever else either some teams have to lose games from their home stadiums to keep the total number of matches in the season as 256 (as happens now) or you have to add extra matches to the season which would mean some teams playing 17 games whilst others still only play 16 which obviously can't happen at the moment.
I completely agree the system at the moment is unfair. Although this Sunday I'll be benefiting from it as it will allow me to see the Bengals up close and personal i really don't think it is right overall and if it was up to me either the NFL wouldn't have overseas games or there would be some kind of fair rotation put in place so all teams are effected evenly over a mult-year period.
The thing is the NFL is technically owned by the 32 team owners. The majority of those owners, like our very own Mike Brown, are interested in the most $$$$$$$$ option. If an unfair system, like the current one, makes more money for the NFL and therefore them they'll take it - "and to hell with sporting fairness" they'll say whilst sunning themselves on their yacht in the Caribbean.
