PDA

View Full Version : CBA & 18 Game Schedule



Jrudi
02-10-2011, 11:43 AM
With the talks of a possible 18 game schedule happening within the next season, does anyone know how the league will go about scheduling the 2 additional games.

For Example; now a teams schedule is made up of:

- Each Team in it's Division twice (6 games)
- Yearly rotation of Inter Conference Divisional games (4 games) (Next season we play AFC East)
- Yearly rotation of Cross Conference Divisional games ( 4 games) (Next season we play NFC North)
- Inter Conference Divisional Standings (2 Games)
(For example we play the AFC East next year and we won the AFC West we will play the Divisional winners of the AFC South
and North since they finished the same rank in their division as us)

= 16 Total Games

Anyone have news on how they will determine who teams play the remaining 2 games?

My Brother and I were talking about Possibly Cross Conference Divisional Standings, so we would play the Division winners of each NFC Division which we weren't already playing (So the NFC South, East, & West). But there would be 3 Divisions and they are only adding 2 games so they would have to rotate this as well.

Any ideas or news? Thanks!

OPLookn
02-10-2011, 12:51 PM
If they did go to a 18 game season my hope would be that they'd pick up another inter conference division and play them or pick two teams out of each remaining inter conference division. That way you'd get the best of the best out of each division come playoff time. Just my two cents, I'll take my change now.

As for when they'd schedule them my suggestion would be to take the two of the preseason games away so that you have a game to get the starters up to speed in the first half then play everyone else the second half. The second game play them for three quarters and then everyone else that last quarter. That leaves two weeks that would have been pre season games. You take one of those and make it a regular season game and the other and make it a bye week at some point in the season. That leaves one game left to take care of that you remove the week between the last playoff game and the super bowl. The pro bowl is meaningless and has been so play it the week after the super bowl. Again, just my thoughts.

Three7s
02-11-2011, 03:37 AM
I'd hope that they do the same thing as the AFC. As the scheduling stands right now, it's one AFC and NFC divisional rotation, and the conference match up based on where you end up in the division.

I'd like to see that formula kept, only add it to the NFC. The problem is a division match would be left out for each team. I think the only way it's balanced is to set it up as a rotation as well. Let's say the Chiefs play the Steelers this year, as well as the Colts. Instead of facing the Colts, we play the Falcons, as well as the set NFC North.

After that, it rotates like everything else. That's about the only solution I have.

4everchiefsfan25
02-11-2011, 12:25 PM
I hope that they really dont go to an 18 game schedule because I think it will hurt the game. If there is an 18 game season and say a team locks up their division in week 16 then there are three weeks that dont mean anything to a team that has their division locked up. What that team will probably do is play their starters for a half for week 17 and then a quarter in week 18 and then not play their starters at all in week 19. I think the move to 18 game schedule will just be a bad move.

kckidd8870
02-11-2011, 09:57 PM
I love my football and I could watch it year round.18 games is just to much.These guys put a beating on each other.Adding two more games,will just shorten the players careers and seroius injury's do to fatigue.The league will do anything to make that money.Leaving things alone.It is just fine the way it is.Even though I'm already missing football but i'll survive.

Hayvern
02-12-2011, 01:04 AM
I love my football and I could watch it year round.18 games is just to much.These guys put a beating on each other.Adding two more games,will just shorten the players careers and seroius injury's do to fatigue.The league will do anything to make that money.Leaving things alone.It is just fine the way it is.Even though I'm already missing football but i'll survive.

You see, I still don't get this. Everyone says that these two extra games would be too much. I say BS. They play those games anyway, and injury can happen as easily in a preseason game as it can in a regular season game.

An extra 2 games would potentially make your bench more important and give under utilized players a chance to play throughout the season instead of warming the bench all season.

Anyway, I like the idea. It is all going to come down to who wants there side more.

Boxermm187
02-12-2011, 01:23 AM
For the money they are getting paid, to do something that is considered recreational.... just do it. they are living the life, yeah there are consequences, but look at how many players wish they could play one game in the NFL. two more games is just that....two games. the only teams that it would affect are the teams that haven't played in the playoffs consistant . just play!!

chief31
02-12-2011, 01:52 AM
You see, I still don't get this. Everyone says that these two extra games would be too much. I say BS. They play those games anyway, and injury can happen as easily in a preseason game as it can in a regular season game.

You see an injury as just as likely if you play one or two possessions as if you played the whole game?




An extra 2 games would potentially make your bench more important and give under utilized players a chance to play throughout the season instead of warming the bench all season.

Yeah. The bench becomes more important because the starters suffer more injuries.

tornadospotter
02-12-2011, 06:16 AM
The teams, imo, will need to increase the size of regular season roster, so that players are rotated more, this lessens the overwork. If players are concerned about the added stress of playing two more games, then allow, or demand, the owners to increase the team roster size. The Union gets more members, Teams get more players that understand and know the teams system from the start of the season. Players, may have get less money because owners have more employees to spread out the budgeted payroll, but having more players on the team, means more rotation, and that much less chance of injuries due to fatigue.

matthewschiefs
02-13-2011, 07:42 PM
You see, I still don't get this. Everyone says that these two extra games would be too much. I say BS. They play those games anyway, and injury can happen as easily in a preseason game as it can in a regular season game.

An extra 2 games would potentially make your bench more important and give under utilized players a chance to play throughout the season instead of warming the bench all season.

Anyway, I like the idea. It is all going to come down to who wants there side more.

I agree with you

When it's all said and done it's not two whole games that are being added. You HAVE to take into account that they are takeing out two preseason games. The starters don't play much in the pre season but they do play some they do get hit in those plays and the hits still hurt like they do in the regular season. It's about 1 1/2 to 1 3/4 games added. I just think the whole thing is being overblown. Think about hockey. That is a very hard hitting game. Just look at a hockey players smile lol. They play more then 5 times the amount football players play. 18 games would not be a huge deal IMO.

The only reason that I am against the 18 game season is that records that some great players put up will fall easy. That's the only reason that I am against the 18 game season.

chiefnut
02-13-2011, 11:29 PM
most veterans don't play much in pre-season so adding 2 intense regular games WOULD increase the risk of injury to them. i think one thing that has made football so popular is the limited number of games to make it or break it in the season. basketball, hockey, baseball have so many games no single game or series really has much of an impact unlike football where you can sometimes point to that one game that turns/ or ruins the season. i'd hate to see the nfl head down that road.

Hayvern
02-14-2011, 03:43 AM
most veterans don't play much in pre-season so adding 2 intense regular games WOULD increase the risk of injury to them. i think one thing that has made football so popular is the limited number of games to make it or break it in the season. basketball, hockey, baseball have so many games no single game or series really has much of an impact unlike football where you can sometimes point to that one game that turns/ or ruins the season. i'd hate to see the nfl head down that road.

And I am sure they said the same thing when it went from 14 to 16 games. I wonder what all the excuses were for not joining the AFL and NFL? Oh, we can't do that, those AFL players just hit too hard, we would suffer more injuries.

Yeah, guys might get injured more, and then again, maybe they won't, they chose this profession though, if it is too hard on them, they can retire, and they can retire pretty well off as well. I have no love lost for either group in this thing, players or owners. They are both a bunch of whiny babies, but the players are doing a lot more whining about this particular thing.

What I was saying about the bench was that coaches and players themselves can alleviate a lot of the concern for injury as they can take more time off the field and let the backups play. I don't think there has to be any more injuries, if the argument is that the pre-season games are safer because the starters only play half the time on the field, then isn't the answer to give the starters more breaks during the regular season?

Bunch of cry babies, all of them. I would sure love to make 325K in one season for playing a game.

Jrudi
02-15-2011, 11:40 AM
The teams, imo, will need to increase the size of regular season roster, so that players are rotated more, this lessens the overwork. If players are concerned about the added stress of playing two more games, then allow, or demand, the owners to increase the team roster size. The Union gets more members, Teams get more players that understand and know the teams system from the start of the season. Players, may have get less money because owners have more employees to spread out the budgeted payroll, but having more players on the team, means more rotation, and that much less chance of injuries due to fatigue.

I'm pretty sure this is one of the arguing points the players are going to make. The only thing that they won't like about it is the owners won't want to increase the amount spread out for player salaries so the players slice of the pie will be divided even more than now.


And I am sure they said the same thing when it went from 14 to 16 games. I wonder what all the excuses were for not joining the AFL and NFL? Oh, we can't do that, those AFL players just hit too hard, we would suffer more injuries.

Yeah, guys might get injured more, and then again, maybe they won't, they chose this profession though, if it is too hard on them, they can retire, and they can retire pretty well off as well. I have no love lost for either group in this thing, players or owners. They are both a bunch of whiny babies, but the players are doing a lot more whining about this particular thing.

What I was saying about the bench was that coaches and players themselves can alleviate a lot of the concern for injury as they can take more time off the field and let the backups play. I don't think there has to be any more injuries, if the argument is that the pre-season games are safer because the starters only play half the time on the field, then isn't the answer to give the starters more breaks during the regular season?

Bunch of cry babies, all of them. I would sure love to make 325K in one season for playing a game.

I agree. I mean no I don't want the NFL to turn into the NBA or MLB where they play 100+ games all throughout the week, I like the fact that each game matters and that I know what day of the week games are played on.

These guys are getting payed big big bucks to play a game that they should love. I don't know one fan that if they possessed the skills wouldn't love to get paid millions to play football for 6-7 months and then get 2-3 months off for vacation (as long as they stay in shape). I do think the player's and owners are both greedy and this is why they can't agree, the big name players want to make as much as they can because they want to make enough to retire on when they are 35, but what they don't realize is if they continue to live the lifestyle, the money will fly after their career is over, the smart players plan for after they retire and continue to bring in money by other means.... anyway a little off subject but yes they get paid plenty well, and should just quit whining and play the 2 games.

Jrudi
03-02-2011, 05:53 PM
Just heard from a co-worker (said he saw it online but not sure of his source... but this makes sense)

If the NFL were to go to an 18 game schedule the two extra games would be determined the same as our cross-divisional games.

For example Next year the Chiefs play the entire AFC East, as well as the Division winners from the remaining AFC Divisions (AFC South and North or the Colts and the Steelers) The two extra games would be the 2nd place teams from these divisions as well (Baltimore and Jacksonville)

So if you Finish 1st or 2nd in your division your cross-divisional games will be both the 1st and 2nd place teams in the respective AFC division. If you were to finish 3rd or 4th you would play both the 3rd and 4th place teams in the respective AFC division.

Make sense?? haha

Yike's don't know if I like adding Baltimore to our schedule to make it any more brutal than it already is!

OPLookn
03-03-2011, 04:37 PM
Just heard from a co-worker (said he saw it online but not sure of his source... but this makes sense)

If the NFL were to go to an 18 game schedule the two extra games would be determined the same as our cross-divisional games.

For example Next year the Chiefs play the entire AFC East, as well as the Division winners from the remaining AFC Divisions (AFC South and North or the Colts and the Steelers) The two extra games would be the 2nd place teams from these divisions as well (Baltimore and Jacksonville)

So if you Finish 1st or 2nd in your division your cross-divisional games will be both the 1st and 2nd place teams in the respective AFC division. If you were to finish 3rd or 4th you would play both the 3rd and 4th place teams in the respective AFC division.

Make sense?? haha

Yike's don't know if I like adding Baltimore to our schedule to make it any more brutal than it already is!

It makes sense but I don't like it. It gives divisions where there were good teams in the entire division a leg up. Say that division A has 2 teams that finish 11-5, one that finishes 10-6 and the other that finishes 3-13. If you're team 3 you'd be playing 3 and 4 in another division that could be extremely weak. This would basically give you two powder puff games to pad your stats where the 1st and 2nd place teams will probably be decent. I know about any given Sunday blah, blah, blah. But about 5 or 6 games in almost everyone knew that playing Carolina was a win.