HawkShack.com

In my opinion, the addition of the 17th regular season game represents a golden opportunity for the league to 'spread the wealth' by playing meaningful, regular season games in areas that do not have NFL football without having a team have to sacrifice a home game. Currently, it's very inequitably distributed, with some teams, like Jacksonville, donating home games so that the league can play games in London.

With the addition of Muich, Germany, there will be 5 games played in the international series in 2022. I see no reason why they can't double that number and play games in some cities like Tokyo, Sydney, Madrid, Rome, and other overseas areas. In addition, there's venues in Canada, including Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver, that could host a game.

In addition to expanding the international series, they could easily add another half dozen domestic venues in markets where the NFL does not have a franchise, such as Salt Lake City, Birmingham, Boise, Eugene, Lincoln NE, and Honolulu.

So...why not insist that each team that has 9 home games be responsible for scheduling one of their home games outside their market?

BTW, the first NFL game I attended in person was in the early 70's when we saw the 49'ers play the Broncos in an exhibition game held in Albi Stadium in Spokane. At the very least, the NFL could start holding preseason games in out of market cities.

I like it, River.

Thanks, ObS.

I wasn't a fan of the 17th game but now that it's here, they might as well use it to the maximum enjoyment of the fans, and that means bringing the game to areas of the country and the world that might appreciate it.

The first NFL game I ever saw in person was when my parents took us to an exhibition game between the 49'ers and Broncos, just before the merger in the early 70's, that was held in Albi Stadium in Spokane. That was a good 5 years before the Seahawks and the nearest NFL or AFL franchise was around 700 miles away. It was a real thrill for me to see the pros play and obviously something that stuck with me for a lifetime.

Opinions are all over the board . If that’s gonna happen it needs to be in place of a road game , not a home game . Not a huge fan of it personally. It’s the NFL not the WFL . That’s why they have TV.

I'm not a fan of the 17th game either because the attrition rate in the NFL is too high even without an extra game.
I can see why the owners pushed this because they don't lose the home game revenue and add foreign revenue from
what is usually a packed house. I'm not sure if there are some other financial incentives by the host organizers but
money is at the root of all of their decisions.

Hawktawk wrote:Opinions are all over the board . If that’s gonna happen it needs to be in place of a road game , not a home game . Not a huge fan of it personally. It’s the NFL not the WFL . That’s why they have TV.

With an odd number of games, half the league has 9 home games, the other half has 8, and it alternates each year. For example, last season our 17th game was a road game vs. Pittsburgh. This year, the 17th game will be a home game against the Jets. So the deal would likely be that the teams with the 9 home games would have to make arrangements to play that 9th game at a neutral site, whether it be part of the international series or an out of market domestic venue.

That would do several things: It would even out the home and away schedules for all teams so each team plays the same number of games in their home stadiums, and it would assure that all intradivision and intraconference games would be played without a team having to sacrifice a home game against one of those clubs as the odd or 17th game is always an interconference game. It would also even things out so that all teams donate home games on an evenly apportioned basis instead of some teams, like Jacksonville who has been playing one home game per season in London for a number of years, sacrificing more home games than a team like the Seahawks, who haven't sacrificed any.

I started out not being a big fan of the international series, but my experience in London when I traveled there in 2018 changed my opinion.

NorthHawk wrote:I'm not a fan of the 17th game either because the attrition rate in the NFL is too high even without an extra game.
I can see why the owners pushed this because they don't lose the home game revenue and add foreign revenue from
what is usually a packed house. I'm not sure if there are some other financial incentives by the host organizers but
money is at the root of all of their decisions.

I agree, and that's exactly the reason why I was against it when it was first proposed. I was also against the expansion of the playoffs from 12 to 14 teams and eliminating a first round bye in each conference. This season, the two games involving the 7th seeds were two of the most non competitive games during the entire playoffs, with the Bucs beating the Eagles 31-15 (it was 31-0 going into the 4th quarter) and the Chiefs beating the Steelers 42-21.

But that debate is over. The 17th game is here to stay, so we might as well put it to good use and make the scheduling as fair as possible instead of granting half the teams an extra game on their home field while forcing the other half to travel for an extra game.

I love the 17th game. I'll love the 18th even more.

RiverDog wrote:In my opinion, the addition of the 17th regular season game represents a golden opportunity for the league to 'spread the wealth' by playing meaningful, regular season games in areas that do not have NFL football without having a team have to sacrifice a home game. Currently, it's very inequitably distributed, with some teams, like Jacksonville, donating home games so that the league can play games in London.

With the addition of Muich, Germany, there will be 5 games played in the international series in 2022. I see no reason why they can't double that number and play games in some cities like Tokyo, Sydney, Madrid, Rome, and other overseas areas. In addition, there's venues in Canada, including Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver, that could host a game.

In addition to expanding the international series, they could easily add another half dozen domestic venues in markets where the NFL does not have a franchise, such as Salt Lake City, Birmingham, Boise, Eugene, Lincoln NE, and Honolulu.

So...why not insist that each team that has 9 home games be responsible for scheduling one of their home games outside their market?

BTW, the first NFL game I attended in person was in the early 70's when we saw the 49'ers play the Broncos in an exhibition game held in Albi Stadium in Spokane. At the very least, the NFL could start holding preseason games in out of market cities.

I think this is a great idea. You need to pitch this to Roger Goodell. I'm in Spokane and a preseason game here would be fantastic. Not sure where it would be played now as Joe Albi is scheduled to be torn down soon.

Generally speaking, I hate the 17th game. The season is long enough for the players, such a grind, more injuries. Where does it end? 18 games? 20? 22?

RiverDog wrote:In my opinion, the addition of the 17th regular season game represents a golden opportunity for the league to 'spread the wealth' by playing meaningful, regular season games in areas that do not have NFL football without having a team have to sacrifice a home game. Currently, it's very inequitably distributed, with some teams, like Jacksonville, donating home games so that the league can play games in London.

With the addition of Muich, Germany, there will be 5 games played in the international series in 2022. I see no reason why they can't double that number and play games in some cities like Tokyo, Sydney, Madrid, Rome, and other overseas areas. In addition, there's venues in Canada, including Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver, that could host a game.

In addition to expanding the international series, they could easily add another half dozen domestic venues in markets where the NFL does not have a franchise, such as Salt Lake City, Birmingham, Boise, Eugene, Lincoln NE, and Honolulu.

So...why not insist that each team that has 9 home games be responsible for scheduling one of their home games outside their market?

BTW, the first NFL game I attended in person was in the early 70's when we saw the 49'ers play the Broncos in an exhibition game held in Albi Stadium in Spokane. At the very least, the NFL could start holding preseason games in out of market cities.

govandals wrote:I think this is a great idea. You need to pitch this to Roger Goodell. I'm in Spokane and a preseason game here would be fantastic. Not sure where it would be played now as Joe Albi is scheduled to be torn down soon.

Generally speaking, I hate the 17th game. The season is long enough for the players, such a grind, more injuries. Where does it end? 18 games? 20? 22?

Even the old Albi Stadium likely wouldn't come up to NFL standards as it only sat about 30,000. The only facility in eastern Washington that would come close would be Martin Stadium in Pullman, but even that field probably wouldn't cut it as I'd imagine they'd have to have at least 50k capacity. I'm not even sure if Boise's stadium would qualify. But there are plenty of places, ie Eugene, Salt Lake City, El Paso, et al, that are 150+ miles outside NFL markets with 50+k seating capacities along with several in Canada that could host an NFL game.

As a fan, I like the 17th game, but overall, I think it's a bad thing for the reasons you noted. But most of all, I don't like the expanded playoffs as it rewards mediocrity. There's no way a team like the Eagles deserved a playoff seed.