05-29-2018, 10:10 AM
I saw this list of five ways to improve the NFL, and they're at least interesting:
I've thought about that one, too, but then the problem comes in for the teams that play in a tougher division, like us, that might get in with a 9-7 record, and have the second place team be 9-7, but be better than a team that wins their weak division and has a 13-3 record. We'd be punished for playing a tougher schedule. It uses the NCAA tournament as an example, but that's done with the eye test, so, unless we want to have a group of people deciding playoff seeding, I don't think that that one works too well.
That could be interesting, but would the final three weeks just be teams beating the hell out of each other so much that it makes for weaker postseason games?
That one does seem smart since they're pushing for safety in the NFL. What no one ever talks about, though, is that players get extra days to rest following the game. I guess they get enough rest as-is, but this does seem like a logical move.
Once again, they're pushing for safety, and think about how much more money it would make for the owners and the league? It almost seems stupid NOT to do it. I wonder if they think that they should add a game at the start or the end of the season?
That's another interesting one, and I agree that it would help some players, but is it really fair? I guess they're not saying do it for the stars, and maybe only do it in the second half of the season, but I like the idea of finally making players earn what they're being paid for. The only problem comes in when players start refusing to go to shitty teams, but I guess those teams could give the players higher base salaries, plus a player is always playing as an audition for his next job.
Do you like any of those ideas?
Quote:1. Seed playoffs based on overall records
Divisional winners do not necessarily deserve the top four seeds. Why should a team that managed to win a soft division automatically host a wild card playoff game against an opponent with more wins? What should matter more in seeding – having a record slightly above .500 or worse, along with the fortune of competing against three perceivably weaker teams, or having more wins in total?
And this is not a theoretical problem either. In 2002, the NFL split into four four-team divisions. Since then there has been a wild card tem with a better record that has played at a divisional champion in 13 of 15 seasons. The only times this did not occur is 2004 and ’06. In fact, in eight of the past 10 seasons two or more wild card teams have had a better record than the division champion they faced.
To address this disparity, I suggest the NFL model an approach similar to that which the NCAA uses for its postseason tournament. Champions of perceived weaker conferences are often seeded below at-large selections with superior records in the NCAA Tournament. This way, an NFL divisional champion is assured of an automatic berth in the playoffs, but not guaranteed one of the top four seeds. If a wild card team has a better record, that team should be seeded accordingly.
I've thought about that one, too, but then the problem comes in for the teams that play in a tougher division, like us, that might get in with a 9-7 record, and have the second place team be 9-7, but be better than a team that wins their weak division and has a 13-3 record. We'd be punished for playing a tougher schedule. It uses the NCAA tournament as an example, but that's done with the eye test, so, unless we want to have a group of people deciding playoff seeding, I don't think that that one works too well.
Quote:2. Schedule divisional games for every team over the final three weeks of the regular season
If the NFL wants to sustain interest among the fans of as many teams as possible through December, the league needs extend the drama of the playoff race. One obvious way is push half of everyone’s divisional games to the last three weeks. Playing those crucial games as late as possible is more likely to delay teams from being able to clinch divisional championships.
Therefore, a first-place team after Thanksgiving weekend could still be caught by one of those only a few games behind. If the divisional leader were to stumble in those final three regular season games, another in the division could sneak past the leader to claim the crown.
That could be interesting, but would the final three weeks just be teams beating the hell out of each other so much that it makes for weaker postseason games?
Quote:3. Change scheduling related to Thursday night games
Teams playing on Thursdays should have the weekend beforehand without a game. Football players need multiple days to both recuperate from the previous game and prepare for the next. Expecting a team to play on Sunday then play four days later is cruelly absurd. It is especially hard for the visiting team.
Also, there should be no Thursday night game in Weeks 2, 3, 17 or 18 (more on that in a moment). Every team will be able to play its required Thursday game during the other 14 weeks with three playing on Thanksgiving Day. To make this possible and to keep the regular season ending around the end of the calendar year, it will be necessary to start the season on Labor Day weekend with an additional week of regular season games. Which brings me too…
That one does seem smart since they're pushing for safety in the NFL. What no one ever talks about, though, is that players get extra days to rest following the game. I guess they get enough rest as-is, but this does seem like a logical move.
Quote:4. Give every team two bye weeks
This will be necessary partially due to giving the previous week off to those teams playing on Thursday. It would be grossly unfair to teams playing on Thursday night in September to have only one bye week and not having a break later in the season as most teams would have. This suggestion is not a new concept for the NFL since every team had two bye weeks during the 1993 season.
An exception would apply to those playing in the season opener. Every team finishes its final preseason game on a Thursday. Therefore, those playing in the regular season opener will have seven days between games anyway.
Additionally, the networks that broadcast games should love this idea. A second bye would add an extra week to the season. Therefore, they would have the additional revenue from sponsors for one more week. This move also allays pressure from the networks requesting more football to broadcast without actually adding more games to the 16-game schedule.
Once again, they're pushing for safety, and think about how much more money it would make for the owners and the league? It almost seems stupid NOT to do it. I wonder if they think that they should add a game at the start or the end of the season?
Quote:5. Pay a bonus to winners of every regular season game
What would motivate players to give an honest effort to win games despite having no chance at the postseason? What would keep players from claiming dubious injuries coinciding with their elimination from the playoff race? Simply put, money talks.
The NFL already pays players for participating in each postseason game, in effect, giving them a bonus for winning and advancing to the next round.
This reward would go to every player on the active roster of the victorious team. It would likely mean reducing base salaries. However, it would give a tangible incentive to players to continue to suit up when previously they only have pride on the line. The league needs to give them a reason to play and actually care about the outcome.
That's another interesting one, and I agree that it would help some players, but is it really fair? I guess they're not saying do it for the stars, and maybe only do it in the second half of the season, but I like the idea of finally making players earn what they're being paid for. The only problem comes in when players start refusing to go to shitty teams, but I guess those teams could give the players higher base salaries, plus a player is always playing as an audition for his next job.
Do you like any of those ideas?