How to reduce meaningless end of season games

[floydnimrod]

I think that you just have to cope with the idea that some games are going to be a bit meaningless at the end of the season, except for hoping that draft order is some kind of thing to play for.

The real issue here is with season ticket holders. Season ticket holders in Indy were basically forced to pay for what amounted to be 4 exhibition games this season. It's bad enough being forced to pay for the actual exhibition games and this season they were forced to pay for two more. From what I've read, Roger Goodell is not happy about this and the league is looking for a solution.

BBTV is definitely on the right track. It could help lower the number of meaningless games but there's no way to eliminate them.

But they get the other side of the coin in watching the best team in the league, and get home field advantage, with its ticketing advantages through the playoffs. A couple of meaningless regular season games balanced against home games in the playoffs seems a decent balance.

Honest to God, there are times when I wonder why I even bother replying to you. No offense, but it's like trying to explain something unpleasant to Pollyanna.

Good, bad, or indifferent, it's not fair to ask people to pay for something and then deliver much less than the advertised product. The Colts aren't marketing their tickets by saying "hey, there's a good chance you're buying 8 games of NFL football but you might only end up with 5. But that's OK because you'll get the privilege of watching a really good team for those 5 games. We can't promise you we'll be that good but there is always a chance. So please don't be upset when we screw you with a couple more exhibition games in December."

But with the Cleveland Browns, it's more like 1 or 2.

I actually like the idea of detailing the schedule this way. Wrapping up the season against Division opponents is a good idea. I hated how this year the Bengals had played all of their divisional opponents by t like the 12th or 13th week.

[infrared41]

I suspect the NFL is more likely to use this "problem" as an excuse to expand the playoffs all the way to 16 teams, ostensibly to more teams in the playoff hunt through the end of the season and eliminate the first-round bye as an incentive altogether. (Their real motives being, of course, to rake in that much more cash from the added first-round games, and maybe even give NFL Network a couple of playoff games to televise.) Indeed, considering how many recent Super Bowl teams played and won in the first round, one must wonder how much of an incentive a bye really is to begin with.

I was thinking 8 teams and eliminate the bye as a solution but then it occurred to me that more playoff teams might actually increase the likelihood of more meaningless games. The truth is that there really is no solution.

I didn't say this was a solution to the "problem" (or is that a "solution" in search of a problem?), merely a pretext for ulterior motives.

Relax dude. I understand that. I was just pointing out that I thought of adding playoff teams as a solution. Your post reminded me of it that's all.

[infrared41]

I think that you just have to cope with the idea that some games are going to be a bit meaningless at the end of the season, except for hoping that draft order is some kind of thing to play for.

The real issue here is with season ticket holders. Season ticket holders in Indy were basically forced to pay for what amounted to be 4 exhibition games this season. It's bad enough being forced to pay for the actual exhibition games and this season they were forced to pay for two more. From what I've read, Roger Goodell is not happy about this and the league is looking for a solution.

BBTV is definitely on the right track. It could help lower the number of meaningless games but there's no way to eliminate them.

But they get the other side of the coin in watching the best team in the league, and get home field advantage, with its ticketing advantages through the playoffs. A couple of meaningless regular season games balanced against home games in the playoffs seems a decent balance.

Honest to God, there are times when I wonder why I even bother replying to you. No offense, but it's like trying to explain something unpleasant to Pollyanna.

Good, bad, or indifferent, it's not fair to ask people to pay for something and then deliver much less than the advertised product. The Colts aren't marketing their tickets by saying "hey, there's a good chance you're buying 8 games of NFL football but you might only end up with 5. But that's OK because you'll get the privilege of watching a really good team for those 5 games. We can't promise you we'll be that good but there is always a chance. So please don't be upset when we screw you with a couple more exhibition games in December."

But with the Cleveland Browns, it's more like 1 or 2.

I actually like the idea of detailing the schedule this way. Wrapping up the season against Division opponents is a good idea. I hated how this year the Bengals had played all of their divisional opponents by t like the 12th or 13th week.

What's that got to do with anything?

[crashcarson15]

I think that you just have to cope with the idea that some games are going to be a bit meaningless at the end of the season, except for hoping that draft order is some kind of thing to play for.

The real issue here is with season ticket holders. Season ticket holders in Indy were basically forced to pay for what amounted to be 4 exhibition games this season. It's bad enough being forced to pay for the actual exhibition games and this season they were forced to pay for two more. From what I've read, Roger Goodell is not happy about this and the league is looking for a solution.

BBTV is definitely on the right track. It could help lower the number of meaningless games but there's no way to eliminate them.

But they get the other side of the coin in watching the best team in the league, and get home field advantage, with its ticketing advantages through the playoffs. A couple of meaningless regular season games balanced against home games in the playoffs seems a decent balance.

Honest to God, there are times when I wonder why I even bother replying to you. No offense, but it's like trying to explain something unpleasant to Pollyanna.

Good, bad, or indifferent, it's not fair to ask people to pay for something and then deliver much less than the advertised product. The Colts aren't marketing their tickets by saying "hey, there's a good chance you're buying 8 games of NFL football but you might only end up with 5. But that's OK because you'll get the privilege of watching a really good team for those 5 games. We can't promise you we'll be that good but there is always a chance. So please don't be upset when we screw you with a couple more exhibition games in December."

But with the Cleveland Browns, it's more like 1 or 2.

I actually like the idea of detailing the schedule this way. Wrapping up the season against Division opponents is a good idea. I hated how this year the Bengals had played all of their divisional opponents by t like the 12th or 13th week.

What's that got to do with anything?

Yeah, we know when we buy Browns tickets we're seeing a crappy team

[BBTV]

The NFL already tried one strategy...the salary cap. That levels the playing field a lot more than anything else the NFL can possibly do.

Ethically, what can the NFL do? Teams have shown in the past that they're willing to rest players in the 15th and 16th games, regardless of the opponent...whether they be a divisional foe or interconference. The NFL can't tell teams who to play or take away draft picks.

Teams will do what they feel is in their best interests for success in the playoffs. Some teams will rest their players, some will play them.

Right, but the point here is that there's (at least a little bit) less of a chance that they'd have the division / conference wrapped up if more division games are reserved for the end of the season. The top team won't get the chance to build a huge lead by sweeping division foes. Of course it doesn't mean that there still won't be meaningless games if a team is really that much better than anyone, but that's just something everyone has to accept.

Benefits of this plan:

1. "warm up" games against the other conference. Inter-conference record is further down the list of tie breakers (of course overall record is number one, but in case of ties, losses against the other conference aren't a huge deal)

2. The first "division round" - a chance to take on your division, after you've tuned up against the other conference, and while your team is presumably healthy. For the east-coast teams, this is also a chance to play your divison foes in decent conditions.

3. All the intra-conference games. By this point, you are focusing on building up a good conference record, and therefore every game really counts here.

4. Final "division round". The last three weeks is when most divisions would be clinched, since the best team won't have pummeled each of the other teams twice already. Also, since they're conference games, they definitely count toward playoff tie breakers and positioning. The networks would love this too, since there would be so many de facto division championship games late in the year.

It's certainly not perfect, but I think it's better than the current system.

[-kj]

I suspect the NFL is more likely to use this "problem" as an excuse to expand the playoffs all the way to 16 teams, ostensibly to more teams in the playoff hunt through the end of the season and eliminate the first-round bye as an incentive altogether. (Their real motives being, of course, to rake in that much more cash from the added first-round games, and maybe even give NFL Network a couple of playoff games to televise.) Indeed, considering how many recent Super Bowl teams played and won in the first round, one must wonder how much of an incentive a bye really is to begin with.

I was thinking 8 teams and eliminate the bye as a solution but then it occurred to me that more playoff teams might actually increase the likelihood of more meaningless games. The truth is that there really is no solution.

I didn't say this was a solution to the "problem" (or is that a "solution" in search of a problem?), merely a pretext for ulterior motives.

Relax dude. I understand that. I was just pointing out that I thought of adding playoff teams as a solution. Your post reminded me of it that's all.

I didn't see where he was vaguely un-relaxed with what he said.

Also, I think you both also said the same thing in different ways: He meant sixteen total, where you meant eight in each conference (if I'm reading you right, unless you mean going from the current twelve-team playoffs to eight).

[HedleyLamarr]

The NFL already tried one strategy...the salary cap. That levels the playing field a lot more than anything else the NFL can possibly do.

Ethically, what can the NFL do? Teams have shown in the past that they're willing to rest players in the 15th and 16th games, regardless of the opponent...whether they be a divisional foe or interconference. The NFL can't tell teams who to play or take away draft picks.

Teams will do what they feel is in their best interests for success in the playoffs. Some teams will rest their players, some will play them.

Right, but the point here is that there's (at least a little bit) less of a chance that they'd have the division / conference wrapped up if more division games are reserved for the end of the season. The top team won't get the chance to build a huge lead by sweeping division foes. Of course it doesn't mean that there still won't be meaningless games if a team is really that much better than anyone, but that's just something everyone has to accept.

Benefits of this plan:

1. "warm up" games against the other conference. Inter-conference record is further down the list of tie breakers (of course overall record is number one, but in case of ties, losses against the other conference aren't a huge deal)

2. The first "division round" - a chance to take on your division, after you've tuned up against the other conference, and while your team is presumably healthy. For the east-coast teams, this is also a chance to play your divison foes in decent conditions.

3. All the intra-conference games. By this point, you are focusing on building up a good conference record, and therefore every game really counts here.

4. Final "division round". The last three weeks is when most divisions would be clinched, since the best team won't have pummeled each of the other teams twice already. Also, since they're conference games, they definitely count toward playoff tie breakers and positioning. The networks would love this too, since there would be so many de facto division championship games late in the year.

It's certainly not perfect, but I think it's better than the current system.

There are two issues I see with this:

1. The traditional Thanksgiving Day games. The night game aside, Fox and CBS are guarenteed one game each, and the NFL will never take the game away from Detroit and Dallas. Obviously, CBS will need an AFC team to play one of the two games.

2. The lack of Western time-zone teams. 26 of the 32 teams play in the Central or Eastern time zone, and the NFL tries to play a majority of these games in the 1pm ET slot. Therefore, they try to spread out these West coast games as evenly as possible, while maintaining East coast interest by having an East coast team playing out west.

[BBTV]

Well in my world, either:

1. Detroit and Dallas wouldn't be guaranteed Thanksgiving day games.

2. The Detroit game can be the NFLN game at night (since it will always forever suck and be painful to watch during the day) and the third game can be an AFC game during the day

3. Just write the new TV contracts so that it doesn't matter, and CBS just gets one of the Thanksgiving games, even if it's all NFL teams. They can certainly work out a trade.

As for your time zone argument, I admitted that I hadn't had time to consider logistics into this, so without giving it much time now (because I'm zonked out on Ambien), I'll just assume that you're right. But you'd still get the east coast team playing out west during the interconference and intraconference portions of the schedule. Certainly it could be done so that a favorable TV matchup exists each week. I'm not sure it's too much of an issue, as a lot of 1:00 PM east coast games just get flexed to 4:15 anyway. They could easily just work out the sched first, and then decide the times. I don't think it matters much if DAL vs. PHI is on at 4:00 PM, at the expense of STL at SEA.

[BJBerthiaume]

Here's how I look at it:

1. Regarding the season ticket holders: Obviously if these people are willing to spend the money to have a ticket to every game of the year at that stadium, then they are pretty passionate fans. They should love the game and that team and there shouldn't be that much of a problem if their stars don't play for one or two games. I know if the Twins played Jose Morales every game at catcher and Alexei Casilla every day at second, and started Francisco Liriano every day, and had Jessie Crain close games, I would still go to the games because I love baseball and watching the Twins. Sure they would probably lose a lot and the games would sometimes be embarrassing, but at least it is baseball. I don't care who is playing I want to watch it.

2. Regarding sitting stars to prevent injury: I will just leave you with this thought: Would you rather see Peyton Manning play the last game of the year and get hurt and leave Jim Sorgi to start in the playoffs, or watch Jim Sorgi play the last game of the year and have Peyton Manning start in the playoffs?

[Viper]

1. Regarding the season ticket holders: Obviously if these people are willing to spend the money to have a ticket to every game of the year at that stadium, then they are pretty passionate fans. They should love the game and that team and there shouldn't be that much of a problem if their stars don't play for one or two games. I know if the Twins played Jose Morales every game at catcher and Alexei Casilla every day at second, and started Francisco Liriano every day, and had Jessie Crain close games, I would still go to the games because I love baseball and watching the Twins. Sure they would probably lose a lot and the games would sometimes be embarrassing, but at least it is baseball. I don't care who is playing I want to watch it.

This side trip into baseball brings up another logistical problem with BBTV's original proposal: Potential scheduling conflicts with MLB teams in September and October, which could throw a wrench into BBTV's scheduling format by limiting the dates certain teams could play at home without competing with the local MLB club's home game on the same Sunday afternoon. Now, this isn't as great a problem as it would have been back in, say, the '80s when most NFL teams still shared stadiums with MLB clubs. Still, the Vikings (for example) aren't going to schedule home games on the same Sunday the Twins are also in town in the thick of a pennant race if they can at all avoid it, even though the Twins now have their own ballpark on the other side of downtown - it'll still hurt both teams' attendance and their TV ratings.

[infrared41]

I didn't see where he was vaguely un-relaxed with what he said.

Also, I think you both also said the same thing in different ways: He meant sixteen total, where you meant eight in each conference (if I'm reading you right, unless you mean going from the current twelve-team playoffs to eight).

It's entirely possible that I misread it. I thought maybe he was upset that I said there was no solution. I was concerned that he took offense to that statement.

[Saintsfan]

I think that you just have to cope with the idea that some games are going to be a bit meaningless at the end of the season, except for hoping that draft order is some kind of thing to play for.

The real issue here is with season ticket holders. Season ticket holders in Indy were basically forced to pay for what amounted to be 4 exhibition games this season. It's bad enough being forced to pay for the actual exhibition games and this season they were forced to pay for two more. From what I've read, Roger Goodell is not happy about this and the league is looking for a solution.

BBTV is definitely on the right track. It could help lower the number of meaningless games but there's no way to eliminate them.

But they get the other side of the coin in watching the best team in the league, and get home field advantage, with its ticketing advantages through the playoffs. A couple of meaningless regular season games balanced against home games in the playoffs seems a decent balance.

Honest to God, there are times when I wonder why I even bother replying to you. No offense, but it's like trying to explain something unpleasant to Pollyanna.

Good, bad, or indifferent, it's not fair to ask people to pay for something and then deliver much less than the advertised product. The Colts aren't marketing their tickets by saying "hey, there's a good chance you're buying 8 games of NFL football but you might only end up with 5. But that's OK because you'll get the privilege of watching a really good team for those 5 games. We can't promise you we'll be that good but there is always a chance. So please don't be upset when we screw you with a couple more exhibition games in December."

First off know sporting team guarantees the line up that they will field every week. The teams are not committing any kind of fraud here. You buy tickets to watch the Indianapolis Colts, not Peyton Manning. The Colts can field who they like, and anyone who doesn't understand that when buying there ticket is just plain dumb.

Secondly, it is 8 games of NFL football, there is no guarantee of a high level of football in the NFL. St Louis Rams fans you could argue not got what they paid for for 8 games.

Thirdly, ask a fan of a succesful team, what would you prefer your team do, 14-2 season, with a couple of weeks at the end of the season where we play some reserves, because we are already in the playoffs, or a 10-6 season where we don't quite make the playoffs but every game you pay for we are fielding our full team and playing hard all the way, and I know which the fans would choose. Add on the fact that the 14-2 team is vitrtually guaranteed at least 1 home playoff game, and would probably have 2 if they win.

To me the issue isn't the fans, they pay to support the team, and the team will do what it wants. That's sport. You want to be able to guarantee the level of entertainment you get for your entertainment buck, go buy tickets to a band you like.

If there is an issue its the integrity of the competition. Are the Colts being fair to other teams by fielding weaker teams against?

But as I say, I don't really see how you can end the idea of meaningless games. Even in BBTV's scenario, I don't see the Colts risking Manning when they are 4 games ahead of there division, and there are 3 games left. And its only the teams who are already qualified for the playoffs who rest players. I don't see that BBTV's schedule would have teams qualifying for the playoffs any later. Maybe a week later perhaps! It is only the tiebreakers that would be overly affected.

[BBTV]

Here's how I look at it:

1. Regarding the season ticket holders: Obviously if these people are willing to spend the money to have a ticket to every game of the year at that stadium, then they are pretty passionate fans. They should love the game and that team and there shouldn't be that much of a problem if their stars don't play for one or two games. I know if the Twins played Jose Morales every game at catcher and Alexei Casilla every day at second, and started Francisco Liriano every day, and had Jessie Crain close games, I would still go to the games because I love baseball and watching the Twins. Sure they would probably lose a lot and the games would sometimes be embarrassing, but at least it is baseball. I don't care who is playing I want to watch it.

I agree that as a ticket holder you take on the risk of seeing a meaningless game, but these games have gotten so expensive now that it is bordering on fraud. In most big markets, if you can even get season tickets (which is a big problem in a lot of cities), you're spending well over $100 / seat (and that's if you don't need a seat license.) In the section that I work in, a woman was telling me how she was "lucky" to get four tickets for the Eagles vs. Broncos game for $290 each. And it's not even in the club!

1. Regarding the season ticket holders: Obviously if these people are willing to spend the money to have a ticket to every game of the year at that stadium, then they are pretty passionate fans. They should love the game and that team and there shouldn't be that much of a problem if their stars don't play for one or two games. I know if the Twins played Jose Morales every game at catcher and Alexei Casilla every day at second, and started Francisco Liriano every day, and had Jessie Crain close games, I would still go to the games because I love baseball and watching the Twins. Sure they would probably lose a lot and the games would sometimes be embarrassing, but at least it is baseball. I don't care who is playing I want to watch it.

This side trip into baseball brings up another logistical problem with BBTV's original proposal: Potential scheduling conflicts with MLB teams in September and October, which could throw a wrench into BBTV's scheduling format by limiting the dates certain teams could play at home without competing with the local MLB club's home game on the same Sunday afternoon. Now, this isn't as great a problem as it would have been back in, say, the '80s when most NFL teams still shared stadiums with MLB clubs. Still, the Vikings (for example) aren't going to schedule home games on the same Sunday the Twins are also in town in the thick of a pennant race if they can at all avoid it, even though the Twins now have their own ballpark on the other side of downtown - it'll still hurt both teams' attendance and their TV ratings.

Even with separate stadiums, teams will always do whatever it takes to avoid conflicts, since so many of the ticket holders probably would have tickets to both events, and it creates a traffic / public transportation nightmare (in cities where the stadiums are located near each other.) That being said, we're only talking about three dates here, so I can't imagine that it couldn't be worked around. Even do what the Eagles/NFL and Phillies/MLB did for the world series, and have the Eagles game moved up to 1:00, and the Phillies vs. Yankees game start around 8:30 (which was it's regular time, but a regular-season game could start then too.)

But as I say, I don't really see how you can end the idea of meaningless games. Even in BBTV's scenario, I don't see the Colts risking Manning when they are 4 games ahead of there division, and there are 3 games left. And its only the teams who are already qualified for the playoffs who rest players. I don't see that BBTV's schedule would have teams qualifying for the playoffs any later. Maybe a week later perhaps! It is only the tiebreakers that would be overly affected.

1. I never said you can end the idea of meaningless games, because you can't. All you can do is try to lower the risk.

2. It is extremely unlikely that the Colts would be "4 games ahead of there[sic] division" with 3 games left, unless they're in a division like the NFC West. There's always a chance, but not being able to bury your divisional opponents severely reduces that chance.

3. Even a week later is better than no later. It's very likely that there would still be a bunch of meaningless week 17 games, but if there's a few more week 16 games that count, then it's worth it.

I'm starting to agree with Infrared here... and that scares the living hell out of me.

[Saintsfan]

Take this season, the Colts at 13-0, with three games to go the next best would have to be 10-3 at best to still be in the hunt. That doesn't seem so likely. If we go to the next week, and a team on say 11-3, a divisional rival would have to be 9-5 to still be in catching distance. And how many playoff tiebreakers are ever between divisional rivals anyway? Especially if a team is a distance clear, the type of team who might otherwise rest players.

I am not against the idea of having fewer meaningless games, but my point is that it is impossible to stop, and I don't feel that this formula of organising the schedule actually does much to end the issue. The Colts won there division by 5 games, after losing there last 2 games. Know amount of fiddling with the schedule would stop the Colts resting players over the last game or two in that situation. The Saints lost there last 3 games and still won there division by 4. Every year a team or two have that kind of lead in there division. They are always going to rest players in that situation.

[BBTV]

Take this season, the Colts at 13-0, with three games to go the next best would have to be 10-3 at best to still be in the hunt. That doesn't seem so likely. If we go to the next week, and a team on say 11-3, a divisional rival would have to be 9-5 to still be in catching distance. And how many playoff tiebreakers are ever between divisional rivals anyway? Especially if a team is a distance clear, the type of team who might otherwise rest players.

I am not against the idea of having fewer meaningless games, but my point is that it is impossible to stop, and I don't feel that this formula of organising the schedule actually does much to end the issue. The Colts won there division by 5 games, after losing there last 2 games. Know amount of fiddling with the schedule would stop the Colts resting players over the last game or two in that situation. The Saints lost there last 3 games and still won there division by 4. Every year a team or two have that kind of lead in there division. They are always going to rest players in that situation.

Jeezus.

You're debunking a plan by picking one of the most extreme examples out there - a team that goes 14-0 in a relatively weak division.

For the last time I NEVER ARGUED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP. AGAIN - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP. SAYING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE A WAY TO LIMIT IT (even if my plan isn't the best, which it very well may not be.)

The Colts had only one division game in their last three. That means that they beat TN and HOU twice before week 15 (and JAX once). So yes, even if their schedule was adjusted this year, their final three games would have been meaningless. That's just going to happen. I don't get how you don't get how I'm not trying to eliminate this from happening, but simply reduce the chances. You can always find the most extreme circumstance to argue against it. When I have more time, I'll take a look at some of the other division races and see how they might have been changed.

And for crying out loud - there is NOT the same as their. They mean two different things.

[BaltimoreFan]

2. Regarding sitting stars to prevent injury: I will just leave you with this thought: Would you rather see Peyton Manning play the last game of the year and get hurt and leave Jim Sorgi to start in the playoffs, or watch Jim Sorgi play the last game of the year and have Peyton Manning start in the playoffs?

Well here's the way I look at that. Yes there is a chance that one of your key starters will get injured in a meaningless game, but its no guarantee. There is a guarantee, however, that you will get your starters out of a competitive mindset. This might not be a big deal if your a 3 or 4 seed and have already locked up your spot before the last game. But I think it could be very hard for a team like the Colts that will not be playing competive for 3 weeks.

I agree that as a ticket holder you take on the risk of seeing a meaningless game, but these games have gotten so expensive now that it is bordering on fraud. In most big markets, if you can even get season tickets (which is a big problem in a lot of cities), you're spending well over $100 / seat (and that's if you don't need a seat license.) In the section that I work in, a woman was telling me how she was "lucky" to get four tickets for the Eagles vs. Broncos game for $290 each. And it's not even in the club!

It's not fraud, just supply and demand. Sports fans are crazy and willing to pay ridiculous prices just to see a game. Thats the reason why prices are so high. We have our fellow insane sports fans to thank for high prices. I remember hearing stories of people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina that literally had nothing, but were proud to still have their Saints season tickets. That woman you talked to was probably thrilled she got tickets and thinks the price was fair. Personally its way too much for me (probably the reason I haven't been to a Ravens game since 2005). But if people are willing to pay and the stadium still sells out (and in some cases there is a waiting list), why shouldn't teams charge such high prices?

[Saintsfan]

The teams who have deliberately played weakened teams in games, at least before week 17 this year, and correct me if I am wrong on this, are essentially the Colts and Saints (and maybe the Bengals?) You are never ever going to stop teams who have a big lead resting players. Some years teams are going to have a big lead in their division, that just happens, any team going in the region of 15-1 to 12-4 is likely to have at least 2 games when they have already guaranteed a playoff place and possibly homefield advantage. Those are the teams that field some back ups in games in the last 2 or 3 weeks of the season. Noone else really does it. Its likely that those teams are going to be far enough ahead that it doesn't matter if its a game within their division or not.

Perhaps a better way of sorting out the problem might be to change tie breaking procedures. But even still that just isn't going to stop 2 or 3 teams a year being say 4 games ahead with 3 to play or 3 games ahead with 2 to play. I don't see that your plan does anything really to make it less likely to happen. Some teams might rest more players in week 17, but again, how likely is it that a team will be playing against a team that the tiebreak is important against in week 17? How often is a wildcard tiebreaker against a divisional rival? (1 time in the last 3 years) How often is a divisional title won by a tiebreaker? (4 times in the last 3 years). So the most you are talking about is 2 games a season on average, and what chance then that the teams involved in the tiebreaker play in week 17?

I just don't think your idea actually would reduce the number of meaningless games for teams, really at all. And would be a huge logistical change for not much gain. As I say, maybe change the tie breaker to something like TDs scored or the difference between TDs scored and TDs conceeded or something of that nature, but this kind of scheduling change is going to have a very very minimal effect, if any.

[BBTV]

But if people are willing to pay and the stadium still sells out (and in some cases there is a waiting list), why shouldn't teams charge such high prices?

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.* If I'm running a business, I'm charging as much as anyone would pay also. A lot of teams could probably even raise prices, and still have a waiting list. Nothing wrong with that. I also don't feel that a team shouldn't rest players if they've clinched, nor should anyone force them to play a player that they don't want to put at risk. Therefore, the only solution (at least that I've thought of, I'm sure there may be more) is to try to arange things in a way to put some more (potentially) meaningful games at the end of the year.

*except for preseason games. It's criminal that they force season-ticket holders to pay full price for two "practices". That's a complete scam, and everyone associated with the team / league (because I think it's a league mandate, not sure though) should be ashamed of themselves.

[OnWis97]

[quote name='BringBackTheVet' date='January 5, 2010 - 14:52' timestamp='1262703177'

You're debunking a plan by picking one of the most extreme examples out there - a team that goes 14-0 in a relatively weak division.

Actually, there is still value in this extreme example. Not to the Colts ticket holder, but to the integrity of the playoff games. In this case, at least the colts would have finished with their three weak division opponents and would not have helped the Jets while resting their starters. The Jets likely would have been playing a team with less incentive to rest, leaving them to compete on a more level-playing field with all the other teams in the wild card race.

In cases where division rivals are in the wild card hunt, this would still be a problem, though.

[BBTV]

Good point... hadn't thought of that aspect of it. It'd maybe harm the tiebreakers if the Colts tanked against a divisional foe while the Jets were battling for a WC spot, but thems the breaks. It's still better than just handing a non-divisional intra-conference opponent a spot in the post season.