Kansas Crimson

Almost factual, but not 100%. It is certainly logical.

However, it's nearly impossible to argue that this was done for any good reason outside of lining owners' pockets. This does not improve the game. Polling says the fans don't want it. The players' union certainly doesn't want it. There is no evidence whatsoever that leaving the 13th and 14th best teams in the NFL out of the playoffs is depriving us of the real Super Bowl champ. When is the last time a 6-seed won the SB? Ever? In essence, there is no demand at all for expanding the regular season and the playoffs.

This is akin to the NCAA expanding the NCAA tournament to 128 teams because 1. 2 more days of basketball on CBS! and 2. 2 more days of gambling in Vegas! The fans don't want that, but it's a huge boon for the NCAA and CBS. Just like the "First Four." 128 teams in the tournament means the regular season means nearly nothing because everyone makes it. Only Shaka Smart might like that because it means he gets to keep his job forever.

It is transparent why MLB and NFL want to reform their postseasons when no one else wants it. Both leagues are ran by boobs.

Contrast to the NBA that has a real problem with their regular season meaning nothing as is. The NBA's response is appropriate and for the fans: A midseason tournament gives fans something to watch during the season and gives the players something meaningful to play for. It also shrinks the amount of playoff spots available at the end of the regular season (opposite of NFL and MLB proposals), making the end of the regular season a bigger battle.

This is pure greed by NFL.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:18 am This is pure greed by NFL.

I mean, nothing else needs to be said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XL

But yes, it's rare ( and they were 11-5 ).

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:22 am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XL

But yes, it's rare ( and they were 11-5 ).

This would suggest and support what many have said for years: stop giving the division winners the automatic 1-4 seeds. 10-6 New England was the 4 that season.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:31 am

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:22 am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XL

But yes, it's rare ( and they were 11-5 ).

This would suggest and support what many have said for years: stop giving the division winners the automatic 1-4 seeds. 10-6 New England was the 4 that season.

I am fine with not giving division winners automatic 1-4 seeds, but otherwise I think the NFL postseason is perfect as it is.

The 70% or so of players that would have benefited 1:1 with the pay increase the owners were proposing should be very happy the higher paid players pumped the brakes on what owners were hoping to steamroll last union.

I think players salaries are ridiculous, but the 250k cap ‘extra’ for 17th game is crazy. I haven’t seen a stat on it, but I’m curious how much money that would have actually earned the owners. They were trying some new math shit on the players, and it almost worked. Because, like with all things in life involving the ‘masses’, the masses are generally easily moved without interference.

I’m in the camp that I hoper he players actually stand up for themselves this CBA cycle, and not get rolled. It’s hard, though, I know, because people do have to eat.

Not going to go Illy and respond to multiple posts, but here is my general response.

Of course, the answer to all your questions is money. There is absolutely no way the NFL, the owners, the players, the radio people, the tv people, etc would even think about adding more games if it didn't mean more money. I'm not sure why this is even being discussed. Anytime you consume anything, you're putting money in someone else's pocket. What is confusing about this?

So, moving on from THE MONEY!

I think the extra playoff spot will put more value on the regular season games. More teams will be competing for a playoff spot and the #1 seed is even more valuable, so again, teams will be trying harder for that spot as well.

As for the 17th game? 16 is just an arbitrary number, there is no perfection to that number other than that is what you're used to. You'll get over it, probably fairly quickly. 17 will lead to 18. More games is great for me as a consumer. It's also great for the NFL players who don't make generational money. They're going to vote for this and it's going to pass.

The money side of this is so dubious on the owners part at this time, though, yuck.

More games aren’t necessarily great if they lead to more injury or ‘load management’ of players. Imagine going to any city USA to watch Mahomes play, and he’s being reated that day. It hasn’t happened yet, but what if it did? Viewing more is better in a vacuum is a fine stance, and maybe it’s that simple. But does product remain same, competition remain same, schedule balance remain same, and so on.

Load management is not going to happen with Game 17, most players already play 17-18 games every year anyways with preseason games.

Plus, this 17th game will be a neutral site game. I love that. Go spend 10 days in Europe and watch the Chiefs play in Frankfurt? Hell, yes!

I hate the neutral game.
Everything about this is bad except if it moves the Super Bowl to Presidents Day weekend.

So Burrow only has 9”. The smallest among all quarterbacks drafted in the first round since 2008. Even after old age shrinkage, I still have 10".

Mahomes hands aren't much bigger than Burrows.

Should the Chiefs go for Brady as a backup?

ah no

Can you think of a better backup?

I can think of a lot of cheaper ones.

I have no problem with Brady riding the pine for 17 games

Folks up here sure are nervous.

NE fans should be happy to see Brady leave and every other NFL team should prefer he stays in NE. Belichick is the catalyst for all their success.

One of Cascadia's biggest fails right there.
What QB is going to take the Pats deep into the playoffs in the next few years?
Certainly not AndyfuckingDalton.