Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,537
    Quote Originally Posted by johntbronco View Post
    I am sure this means there will be an expansion team in London and we will be watching a Bronco game in the middle of the night.
    There won't be a London team, but there could well be more London games. Fortunately for you we are 7 hours ahead of Denver time, so you will never have to stay up late to watch a London based Broncos game!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    I am a bit old school, and am fine with the current playoffs. But sure, as long as they do not expand further, and only 1 bye team, I'm cool. My belief is that less than 1/2 the teams should make the playoffs, so 14 of 32 works.

    However....not into 17 regular season games. The home and away part alone is not wise. And they claim they are big on safety, but want to add games. As I mentioned earlier, The NFL is really the Nice (BIG) Revenue League.
    I agree - I think the current playoff configuration is fine. The best teams are rewarded with a playoff spot...which is how it should be. It's irritating to me to see the NFL making changes for no other reason, sans crack or flaw. Greed is a particularly sinister poison.
    To infinity...and beyond.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumiere View Post
    I agree - I think the current playoff configuration is fine. The best teams are rewarded with a playoff spot...which is how it should be. It's irritating to me to see the NFL making changes for no other reason, sans crack or flaw. Greed is a particularly sinister poison.
    I am sure that this movie was based on Roger and The Owners...…


  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,883
    You guys know that this is just leading to an 18 game season the next year. Currently with a 17 game schedule not every team will have the same number of home games. I guarantee you there will be some grumbling going on when team X has 9 home games and team Z only has 8. Unless they are going to use those odd numbered home games and issue them to the "home team" in London. That way every team in the US has the same amount of home land games

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,020
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    I am a bit old school, and am fine with the current playoffs. But sure, as long as they do not expand further, and only 1 bye team, I'm cool. My belief is that less than 1/2 the teams should make the playoffs, so 14 of 32 works.

    However....not into 17 regular season games. The home and away part alone is not wise. And they claim they are big on safety, but want to add games. As I mentioned earlier, The NFL is really the Nice (BIG) Revenue League.
    Agreed.

    To the second portion. Having everyone somehow play one game in London or Mexico would eliminate the home/away conundrum, while also tapping the international market. When you find out that a conflictingly opinionated political tweet from an NBA owner collectively cost the NBA 150 to 200 million in revenue, you really start to realize how lucrative it is to globalize a sports league. Experts ballpark the NBA's annual China revenue around 500 million PUBLICIZED. This money trickles down to player salaries. Then you get your player marketing. Nike went global with Kobe Bryant in the early 2000's, and money Kobe made through that channel dwarfed his NBA salary. Last year Nike made 6 Billion (that's not a typo) in greater China, and this revenue grows by 20% annually. If everybody plays ball figuratively and literally, everybody wins.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad.../#5c8e6cec6d36

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    16,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumiere View Post
    I agree - I think the current playoff configuration is fine. The best teams are rewarded with a playoff spot...which is how it should be. It's irritating to me to see the NFL making changes for no other reason, sans crack or flaw. Greed is a particularly sinister poison.
    It may be greed but I do think it also has to do with 8-8 teams that win their divisions while a 10-6 or 9-7 team misses out because they played in a tougher division and couldn’t get a tiebreaker over 2 other teams in tough divisions.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,581
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    You guys know that this is just leading to an 18 game season the next year. Currently with a 17 game schedule not every team will have the same number of home games. I guarantee you there will be some grumbling going on when team X has 9 home games and team Z only has 8. Unless they are going to use those odd numbered home games and issue them to the "home team" in London. That way every team in the US has the same amount of home land games
    I think 17 games it too many, so 18 makes me wonder. Having said that, I live in a country where the league has 18 games.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spice 1 View Post
    Agreed.

    To the second portion. Having everyone somehow play one game in London or Mexico would eliminate the home/away conundrum, while also tapping the international market. When you find out that a conflictingly opinionated political tweet from an NBA owner collectively cost the NBA 150 to 200 million in revenue, you really start to realize how lucrative it is to globalize a sports league. Experts ballpark the NBA's annual China revenue around 500 million PUBLICIZED. This money trickles down to player salaries. Then you get your player marketing. Nike went global with Kobe Bryant in the early 2000's, and money Kobe made through that channel dwarfed his NBA salary. Last year Nike made 6 Billion (that's not a typo) in greater China, and this revenue grows by 20% annually. If everybody plays ball figuratively and literally, everybody wins.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad.../#5c8e6cec6d36
    If the extra game is played away, and both teams are literally "away"....it is more palatable. And given what you say, about revenues in other countries, it makes perfect sense for the money grabbers. I have to be honest, I have not enjoyed the foreign games that much. I still think they are part "gimmicky". Not that they are poorly played, but something always seems a bit different.

    As for the revenue part...I totally get it.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,372
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    7 teams on each side. Only 1 gets the bye, leaving 6 playoff teams playing 3 games on weekend one. That would leave 1 bye and 3 winners to carry on, which would work.
    thx, I wasn't doing the math correctly

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,581
    Quote Originally Posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    thx, I wasn't doing the math correctly
    No prob...I am often confused, so it is nice to be able to lend a little support whenever I can!!


  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anywhere I want on 18 wheels
    Posts
    8,784
    17 game season likely leads to 16 neutral site games. In other words, more international games.
    Negs are Cowardly Acts of Nonsense. I won’t Back Down.
    No Matter How Stupid Your Comments Are!
    Still Not Backing Down!!!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Johnstown , PA
    Posts
    7,098
    i like the idea of adding 1 playoff team per conference because it would go back to the old format of only the #1 seed gets the bye week...

    this is how it used to be when there were 5 playoffs teams per conference. i think the addition of a second team having a bye devalued the idea to get the #1 seed

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14,797
    Quote Originally Posted by BroncosFanInPA View Post
    i like the idea of adding 1 playoff team per conference because it would go back to the old format of only the #1 seed gets the bye week...

    this is how it used to be when there were 5 playoffs teams per conference. i think the addition of a second team having a bye devalued the idea to get the #1 seed
    I saw someone went back to 2002 realignment and found all the teams that would have gotten the 7 seed and it usually resulted in a 9-7 team getting in. 8-8 was the lowest record to get in which was as common as a 10 or 11 win team getting the 7 seed. Do the fear of putting teams with losing records in wouldn't be as common as people think and most likely result in 9-7 trans making it.

    Obviously the 17 game season will change that but I'm guessing they would most likely put those on neutral sites so it could be interesting to set what truly ends up being agreed upon.

    Adopted Broncos:
    (2011-2013) Eric Decker
    (2014-2018) Bradley Roby
    (2019-Current) Drew Lock
    Adopted posters:
    Everyone

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    15,320
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    You guys know that this is just leading to an 18 game season the next year. Currently with a 17 game schedule not every team will have the same number of home games. I guarantee you there will be some grumbling going on when team X has 9 home games and team Z only has 8. Unless they are going to use those odd numbered home games and issue them to the "home team" in London. That way every team in the US has the same amount of home land games
    Nah, they will just move to a two year cycle, with 16 teams being on cycle A and 16 teams being on cycle B. In 2021 the cycle A teams all get 9 home games. In 2022 cycle B gets 9 home games, and they keep flipping.

    It'll be similar to how they do out of conference games against another division, each division has 2 teams paired together, so when the AFC West plays the NFC South Atlanta/Carolina andNew Orleans/Tampa are paired together for AFC west team. In 2016 AFC west teams either hosted both Atlanta and Carolina, or they went to both Atlanta and Carolina. In 2020 the opposite happens.

    The more interesting aspect will be how they choose the opponent for the 17th game? The current formula works pretty well, so I'm not sure how they'll add to it?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    4,608
    Quote Originally Posted by #87Birdman View Post
    I saw someone went back to 2002 realignment and found all the teams that would have gotten the 7 seed and it usually resulted in a 9-7 team getting in. 8-8 was the lowest record to get in which was as common as a 10 or 11 win team getting the 7 seed. Do the fear of putting teams with losing records in wouldn't be as common as people think and most likely result in 9-7 trans making it.

    Obviously the 17 game season will change that but I'm guessing they would most likely put those on neutral sites so it could be interesting to set what truly ends up being agreed upon.
    This is my understanding and that this will allow for more games in other countries without taking away a home game from one of the teams.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Red 98 - Red 98
    Posts
    15,515
    Only one team should get a bye

    I like it
    Red 98

    Kareem rises to the top

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •