NFL Playoffs Expansion with a Potential 17th Game

Do you like the expanded playoffs?


  • Total voters
    184

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
39,747
This deserves own thread, maybe a dope can move some of the posts in Offseason thread over.


EDIT: Added poll.
 
Last edited:

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,232
Have they said how many pre-season games there will be if there are 17 regular-season games? Will they drop to a three-game pre-season?
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,865
NH
dumb. The first round of the playoffs is usually a shitshow as it is. A 7th team would have had Pittsburgh and the Rams in this year.
Yawn.

An 8-7 Vikings team would have made it in last year.

There are just not 14 good enough teams each year and best record could really just come down to who plays in an easier division more often than not.

I hate how sports are changing just for the sake of capitalism. These changes and recent changes to baseball suck.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
10,603
These guys are going to be exhausted by the end of the playoffs with potentially two extra games for a team like the Packers/Chiefs. They really need to add an extra bye week or something.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
17,758
where I was last at
So other than, presumably an increase in pay reflecting the addition of a 17th game, does the NFLPA bargain for more roster spots (jobs) as the quid pro quo for more games?
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,314
This deserves own thread, maybe a dope can move some of the posts in Offseason thread over.


EDIT: Added poll.
I hate both of these ideas.

I think having 12 out of 32 teams making the playoffs is the exact right amount of teams.

Having teams play a 17th game is crazy to me. The players already take such a physical beating, to ask more of them seems ridiculous.

If the NFL wants an extra week of football, they should just add a second bye week for each team. They'd get their 18th week of football to sell to the networks, more money for everybody and actually be less physically demanding for the players. And I'd have every team playing on Thursday night to have one of their bye weeks before that game so no one plays on three days rest.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,983
Gallows Hill
These guys are going to be exhausted by the end of the playoffs with potentially two extra games for a team like the Packers/Chiefs. They really need to add an extra bye week or something.
I think we’ll end up seeing that. The logical play is for the league to eventually get the Super Bowl on Presidents’ Day weekend.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,232
I hate how sports are changing just for the sake of capitalism. These changes and recent changes to baseball suck.
I second this emotion. What Manfred is doing to the game of baseball makes me sick to my stomach. I'm less outraged by the NFL changes because the NFL seems to change the rules constantly anyway.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
The NFLPA has been against the 17th regular season game for a long time. I don't see anything to suggest they have changed their stance on that. All the report says is in terms of an expanded regular season is that the owners are proposing it, which we knew they would and there is no agreement on it.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I don't think the 17th regular-season game will happen. The players won't agree unless they get substantially all the incremental revenue, and at that point the owners won't want to run the risk of diluting the product. There are also competitive balance issues with having an odd number of games.

The two extra playoff teams could happen, and would be unfortunate. Agree with @mcpickl that the current system with 12 playoff teams out of 32 is perfect.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,139
Burrillville, RI
Cross posting this from the off season thread...
If they want to have more competitive games at the end of the regular season, why not go all in and add 2 teams to the playoffs (8total per conference)with the top 2 still getting byes?
youd still only be adding 2 playoff games and more teams would be in the hunt in week 18

edit: Florio jokes that this might be the long play for the owners

 

Helmet Head

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
2,565
Central Mass
First off, I am against the expansion of the playoffs to 14 teams. I think the current format works perfectly. It’s puts the right amount of emphasis on the regular season and makes its actually mean something. Even with the current format of 12 teams, over half the teams aren’t really all that good and don’t have a chance to win the Super Bowl. The last time a team that played on Wildcard Weekend even made the Super Bowl was the 2011 Giants I think. That is nearly a decade ago, which seems sort of ridiculous.

That said, if they are so hell bent on expanding the playoffs, why not just get rid of the bye all together and expand to 16 teams?
 

leftfieldlegacy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
700
North Jersey
I don't think the 17th regular-season game will happen. The players won't agree unless they get substantially all the incremental revenue, and at that point the owners won't want to run the risk of diluting the product. There are also competitive balance issues with having an odd number of games.

The two extra playoff teams could happen, and would be unfortunate. Agree with @mcpickl that the current system with 12 playoff teams out of 32 is perfect.
What leverage would the NFLPA have to prevent the 17th game or to demand all the incremental revenue? If the owners want this they will get it. NFL players careers are too short to lose even part of a season to a strike. The union will negotiate an extra bye week and maybe an extra roster spot or two and the owner's will accept this in the name of player safety.
 

Number45forever

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
1,965
Vermont
I can't believe there aren't more calls for that extra bye week, even if the season stays at 16 games. The extra TV revenue possible from another week of regular season play just from that would be enormous. Plus the players get more rest. This part seems like an absolute no-brainer, especially if the playoffs expand too.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
43,034
deep inside Guido territory
I don't think the 17th regular-season game will happen. The players won't agree unless they get substantially all the incremental revenue, and at that point the owners won't want to run the risk of diluting the product. There are also competitive balance issues with having an odd number of games.

The two extra playoff teams could happen, and would be unfortunate. Agree with @mcpickl that the current system with 12 playoff teams out of 32 is perfect.
View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1230302975857504257
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
What leverage would the NFLPA have to prevent the 17th game or to demand all the incremental revenue? If the owners want this they will get it. NFL players careers are too short to lose even part of a season to a strike. The union will negotiate an extra bye week and maybe an extra roster spot or two and the owner's will accept this in the name of player safety.
Good point about the players' unwillingness to endure a work stoppage, which certainly strengthens the owners' hand. But DeMaurice Smith did a good job last time manufacturing some leverage -- he'll do much better than trading an extra regular-season game for a paltry 0.5% increase in the players' take.


Great illustration of how stacked the media deck is in the owners' favor. There's not much to be gained from being the NFLPA's mouthpiece, so press coverage will be chock full of pro-ownership views like this one. "Transformational," my ass -- does Schefter even pretend to be a journalist??
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,040
Portsmouth, NH
Cross posting this from the off season thread...
If they want to have more competitive games at the end of the regular season, why not go all in and add 2 teams to the playoffs (8total per conference)with the top 2 still getting byes?
youd still only be adding 2 playoff games and more teams would be in the hunt in week 18

edit: Florio jokes that this might be the long play for the owners

Because, as noted in the other thread you mentioned it in, that leaves you with 5 teams in round two.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
38,551
Rotten Apple
I hate both of these ideas.

I think having 12 out of 32 teams making the playoffs is the exact right amount of teams.

Having teams play a 17th game is crazy to me. The players already take such a physical beating, to ask more of them seems ridiculous.

If the NFL wants an extra week of football, they should just add a second bye week for each team. They'd get their 18th week of football to sell to the networks, more money for everybody and actually be less physically demanding for the players. And I'd have every team playing on Thursday night to have one of their bye weeks before that game so no one plays on three days rest.
Exactly this. And I think most fans feel the same.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,038
Melbourne, Australia
To me it’s clear that as a side benefit, the expanded playoffs proposal would prevent extended dominance going forward. Sounds like a “celebrating what is” opportunity.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
7,502
KPWT
I love the idea, and after a few years of space from Brady / Belichick you guys will love it too.

The number 1 seed should be a huge advantage. A six game wild card weekend would be spectacular.

From purely the fan / season ticket holder perspective, I would almost be just as excited to get the #2 seed and thus be guaranteed two playoff games with a first round win. It would even be possible for the #2 to get three home playoff games, something that was previously an impossibility, if the number one seed screwed up, like the Ravens this year.


The NFLPA is going to counter offer with a second bye and another .5% (up to 49%) for the 17th game, right?
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
I think it will take an extended work stoppage for a 17th game. The players I've seen on this are pretty adamantly against the idea.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
2,771
Didn't they do 2 bye weeks a few years ago? Resulting in a bunch of weeks with some pretty dreadful matchups on national TV due to the few games being played?
Lasted just one year, 1993. Teams hated it and ratings dropped. One bye is enough.

Don't like the expanding playoffs. Not a fan of adding mediocre teams. They'll have more teams in it but likely also have more teams resting players.
Seems like they have pretty good balance now.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
4,506
President’s Day weekend Super Bowl?
Moving the game up to Saturday would be just as good. The only disadvantages I can see would be that the teams lose a day of practice, but it’s still an extended break. I can’t imagine there would be any hit to the ratings.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
37,263
Didn't they do 2 bye weeks a few years ago? Resulting in a bunch of weeks with some pretty dreadful matchups on national TV due to the few games being played?
Does this have the same impact today at a time when the league specifically isolates many of the worst matchups of the season for a national TV game every week on a night where no other games are on?
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
26,279
I'm not a big fan of having prime numbers for # of games. Just have some balls and propose 18/2
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
5,212
Overland Park, KS
I am always amazed when I see that the players get less than 50% of the revenue. The owners never tear an ACL or get a concussion. And it is not like buying an NFL team is a risk. They are a license to print money. Of course, the players could never strike long enough to hurt the owners. I seem to remember at the last renewal of the collective bargaining agreement, the owners were going to be paid by the networks even if the players struck.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
17,758
where I was last at
With the addition of a 17th game, would that mean that half the teams have an additional home game, which seems an unfair advantage, or that all teams would play a neutral field game in Mexico, London, San Diego, or wherever the NFL next wants to expand its global reaches?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,902
I am always amazed when I see that the players get less than 50% of the revenue. The owners never tear an ACL or get a concussion. And it is not like buying an NFL team is a risk. They are a license to print money. Of course, the players could never strike long enough to hurt the owners. I seem to remember at the last renewal of the collective bargaining agreement, the owners were going to be paid by the networks even if the players struck.
And there are far fewer owners than players, obviously. So 50% of the NFL money pie going to 32 people, versus 50% of the NFL money pie going to some 2,000 people, is a big difference. I get that's how ownership/labor works in virtually every industry.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
10,278
South Boston
With the addition of a 17th game, would that mean that half the teams have an additional home game, which seems an unfair advantage, or that all teams would play a neutral field game in Mexico, London, San Diego, or wherever the NFL next wants to expand its global reaches?
2 in Mexico, 4 in London, 4 in Canada, 2 in Germany, 1 in China (doubt this will happen now), a Hall of Fame game (?)...and now I am stretching...
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,139
Burrillville, RI
2 in Mexico, 4 in London, 4 in Canada, 2 in Germany, 1 in China (doubt this will happen now), a Hall of Fame game (?)...and now I am stretching...
On the radio, whenever talking about the possibility of a 17 game schedule, they've also tossed around the idea of a "Stadium Series" type thing. games at Notre Dame Stadium, Ann Arbor, etc.
 

tmracht

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
455
With the addition of a 17th game, would that mean that half the teams have an additional home game, which seems an unfair advantage, or that all teams would play a neutral field game in Mexico, London, San Diego, or wherever the NFL next wants to expand its global reaches?
Have they showed they care about 7 vs 8 home games? They had 5 neutral site games in 2019 so 5 teams already had 1 less home game.

On the radio, whenever talking about the possibility of a 17 game schedule, they've also tossed around the idea of a "Stadium Series" type thing. games at Notre Dame Stadium, Ann Arbor, etc.
Maybe they do end up doing stadium series type games, but I wouldn't be shocked if they did that during a 16 game schedule either.

Would fun to see the reaction of the fans one of the teams that gets 2 preseason home games so you get 8 regular season home games vs 1 preseason home game so 9 regular season home games and yet you pay the same price for both setups!
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,902
It's just so dumb from an everything-but-money perspective. Sadly, the money perspective is ALL that matters to these guys.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
26,279
On the radio, whenever talking about the possibility of a 17 game schedule, they've also tossed around the idea of a "Stadium Series" type thing. games at Notre Dame Stadium, Ann Arbor, etc.
I guess a Lions/Colts in south Bend would be somewhat neutral, but it' a stretch for fairness for the most part.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,776
NFLPA should go with a big request, such as 52.5% share of the revenues to the players, to end the 17th game discussion quickly.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,902
The NFL earned about $8.1 billion in revenue in 2018. Let's say there are 32 owners and roughly 1,700 players to split that revenue somehow.

At 53/47:
- Owners (53%): $4.293 billion = $134.2 million per owner
- Players (47%): $3.807 billion = $2.2 million per player

At 52/48:
- Owners (52%): $4.212 billion = $131.6 million per owner
- Players (48%): $3.888 billion = $2.3 million per player

At 51/49:
- Owners (51%): $4.131 billion = $129.1 million per owner
- Players (49%): $3.969 billion = $2.3 million per player

At 50/50:
- Owners (50%): $4.050 billion = $126.6 million per owner
- Players (50%): $4.050 billion = $2.4 million per player

At 49/51:
- Owners (49%): $3.969 billion = $124.0 million per owner
- Players (51%): $4.131 billion = $2.4 million per player

So per owner, the change is more drastic (several million per jump in percentage point of the pie lost), but since the average NFL team is worth $2.86 billion, the average NFL owner has to be worth much much more than that (because they all have other business and personal investments outside the NFL). So to a guy worth $4 billion, the loss of $2-3 million for each percentage point of "control" they give up is almost nothing. But to a guy worth maybe just a million or two, an additional couple hundred thousand is enormous.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
17,758
where I was last at
Will Hartford finally get a game?

Giants or Pats? or Both?

Throwing fans outside of an easy commute to the team's home field, with a "neutral" home game might be a possible solution. A Pat's game in Springfield Ma, or Portland Me. wouldn't have the ticket revs of a game in Foxboro or London, but its a give-back to fans who otherwise would never see their favorite team live, and its about TV money anyway.

I imagine most every NFL team has satellite cities outside easy commute, and with some of the additional TV money, the stadiums could be prepped for a NFL game.

Not to date myself, but it would be like the circus coming to town.
 

shoosh77

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,427
New Canaan, CT
17 neutral site games:
7 in London
2 in Mexico
1 in Toronto
1 in Montreal
1 at Michigan Stadium (Ann Arbor)
1 at Notre Dame
1 in Barcelona (Camp Nou)
1 in Paris (Stade de France)
1 in Germany (Munich or Berlin)
1 in Rome

It's Euro heavy, but fill the biggest stadiums possible. It's hard to do interesting US sites that have the capacity and don't give unfair home field to potential teams.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,232
Great illustration of how stacked the media deck is in the owners' favor. There's not much to be gained from being the NFLPA's mouthpiece, so press coverage will be chock full of pro-ownership views like this one. "Transformational," my ass -- does Schefter even pretend to be a journalist??
This tweet is even worse:
View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1230596485932343296


It's both a message to fans -- "lots of action coming, fans -- just need those pesky players to approve the deal!" and to players -- "you free agents may have new deals incoming -- just need to approve the CBA!"
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
13,872
This tweet is even worse:
View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1230596485932343296


It's both a message to fans -- "lots of action coming, fans -- just need those pesky players to approve the deal!" and to players -- "you free agents may have new deals incoming -- just need to approve the CBA!"
This has been talked about here and there for a few weeks. If they extend the CBA, there's a number of changes to how extensions, tags and FA's are handled under the cap due to it no longer being the last year of the CBA.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
17 neutral site games:
7 in London
2 in Mexico
1 in Toronto
1 in Montreal
1 at Michigan Stadium (Ann Arbor)
1 at Notre Dame
1 in Barcelona (Camp Nou)
1 in Paris (Stade de France)
1 in Germany (Munich or Berlin)
1 in Rome

It's Euro heavy, but fill the biggest stadiums possible. It's hard to do interesting US sites that have the capacity and don't give unfair home field to potential teams.
Don't you just need 16? So each team plays in one. Weeks 17 and 18 or 1 and 18 would have no neutral games.

And I think the domestic ones would try hard to have two distant teams, so no one is getting a "bonus" home away from home game