Roger Goodell met with owners of Super Bowl weekend and they are thinking that by 10 years from now 40 teams will be playing a 20-game schedule.
1) 8 divisions of 5 teams each.
2) Play all teams in your division twice (8 games)
3) Play all teams in one division of same conference (5 games)
4) Play one team from each of 2 other divisions (2 games)
5) Play all teams from division in other conference (5 games)
Total - 40 teams playing 20 games.
Your thoughts?
2007-02-05 09:04:44 · 12 answers · asked by ABC 3 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Geez, talk about diluting the talent of the league. If they do that, the best team will have like 6 good players. It's not bad enough that all teams now already have weaknesses. The Super Bowl Champion Colts were dead last against the run. Every team in the NFC sucks.
20 game schedule? That would lead to more injuries, and further dilute the quality of play on the field
One thing is for sure, the '72 Dolphins would continue to reign as the only undefeated team ever.
2007-02-05 09:12:20 · answer #1 · answered by d b 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why would it matter one bit, all it would do is put 8 more teams at the bottom of the cellar. 20 games a season they might be able to make it 2 more games a season but not 4. Wont happen not ever not at all they might add a team to L.A, and possibly one in Oklahoma. Where would the other teams go, Kentucky, Alabama, Nevada, Montana, Oregon, who knows. How could it happen it couldnt.
2007-02-05 09:17:56 · answer #2 · answered by Kenneth W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2 Problems:
1) Diluting the talent level of the league would effect the level of play.
2) A 20 game regular schedule would be to physically tough on the players leading to more injuries and shorter careers.
2007-02-05 09:29:11 · answer #3 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only reason I don't like your idea is because that might just be a little too much all in all. Too many games and too many teams to complete such a season.
I do like how you have thought this out though. It really would work if it needed to, but a 16 game schedule is already grueling enough not to mention playoffs and such.
2007-02-05 09:49:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no! yet while they could be stupid in the event that they did not. right this is the way it may flow: raiders to l. a. reason Al Davis died and the raiders suck. Plus l. a. has no group and the raiders could slot in super reason it may nonetheless be like l. a. did not have a collection! someplace interior the bay to take the area of lowly raiders? Portland could get a collection to end the west. San Antonio could get a collection reason the cowboys and the Texans suck so texas could have a collection they might definitely be pleased with. Plus Texas is loopy for soccer. the different cities could the two be Little Rock, Albuquerque or o.ok.C. for the different southern branch. Salt Lake city and Toronto could super possibilities for the north divisions alongside with Omaha. The east divisions are a sprint harder. Orlando consistent with probability yet that would desire to be too on the fringe of Miami. consistent with probability Louisville or Richmond. we are going to see the way it performs out!
2016-09-28 11:24:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
personally, i don't agree with it. i like the way how it sets up, but i think that the nfl has it perfect already. it would be tough to add 8 more teams. with the system, they would have to find 8 host cities with big enough stadiums very soon. they would have to find them all at the same time to implement the schedule. i don't think that could happen. its a good thought, but i don't think its practical
2007-02-05 09:12:25 · answer #6 · answered by coltsfan3874 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way. The talent pool would be way to diluted. Just like Baseball. Guys are pitching now that would have been in AA 30 Years ago and up up up go the HR's (at least one reason).
2007-02-05 09:20:27 · answer #7 · answered by Hoosier 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It might be a nice idea but I think that the system now is pretty good. I think they wouldn't be able to find enough teams and there would be too many expansion teams (usually suck).
2007-02-05 09:46:39 · answer #8 · answered by Austin B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too many teams and too many games. There are already too many teams though. It isn't that the games won't sell, it is that they won't have the talent. The game is already getting watered down, yeah some blame the salary cap and "parity" but truth is it is TOO MANY TEAMS.
2007-02-05 09:31:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like it how it is now. I'd rather just shorten the preaseason to 2 or 3 games.
2007-02-05 09:11:42 · answer #10 · answered by Sixteen and Oh 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋