CBA & 18 Game Schedule

[Jrudi]

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!

[chiefnut]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.