How to prevent NFL teams from tanking in the last weeks of the season

[BBTV]

IR, You keep saying that there's no solution, but do you deny that an adjustment to scheduling would help at least a little?

Maybe but each "help a little" solution seems to create a different set of problems. As my "65% rule" surely attests, I have no idea how to fix this.

What set of problems does the scheduling-tweak solution present?

[rams80]

IR, You keep saying that there's no solution, but do you deny that an adjustment to scheduling would help at least a little?

Maybe but each "help a little" solution seems to create a different set of problems. As my "65% rule" surely attests, I have no idea how to fix this.

What set of problems does the scheduling-tweak solution present?

Well, backloading the schedule with division games still doesn't work if the team in question has locked everything up. Let's be honest, the divisional rivalry doesn't appeal as much to the players as it does the fans. I also suspect the TV networks might become just slightly grouchy if they have to chose between multiple high profile divisional grudge matches in one week for national television, whilst having a whole lot of comparative nothing to show elsewhere in the season. Considering how much money the networks are paying into the league, its kind of more important for them to get their money's worth than even the people who bought tickets for the games.

[Saintsfan]

IR, You keep saying that there's no solution, but do you deny that an adjustment to scheduling would help at least a little?

Maybe but each "help a little" solution seems to create a different set of problems. As my "65% rule" surely attests, I have no idea how to fix this.

What set of problems does the scheduling-tweak solution present?

Well, backloading the schedule with division games still doesn't work if the team in question has locked everything up. Let's be honest, the divisional rivalry doesn't appeal as much to the players as it does the fans. I also suspect the TV networks might become just slightly grouchy if they have to chose between multiple high profile divisional grudge matches in one week for national television, whilst having a whole lot of comparative nothing to show elsewhere in the season. Considering how much money the networks are paying into the league, its kind of more important for them to get their money's worth than even the people who bought tickets for the games.

The point of the schedule rearranging solution, as I understand it, is the tie breakers may not have been confirmed until late in the season. That's fine but even from a fans perspective, is say a Jets/Patriots match up going to mean as much if the fates of either side are set in stone? I am not sure eben fans, over the long range would benefit from back loading division games.

Look it's a hard nosed decision, if your team is in the playoffs already you are more than likely to bench star players, at some time. In a hard physical tough game that's more or less inevitable.

[andrewharrington]

Why don't the coaches just play the games on Madden while fans watch it on the JumboTron once week 15 comes around? Seriously though, they are doing divisional games for the final week of the season this year to try and alleviate the problem, and I would love to see the last 3 weeks be divisional games. I can't stand it when a team makes or misses the playoffs because a juggernaut laid down late in the season. The Browns got ousted in '07 after winning 10 games because the Colts laid down for the Titans (coincidentally, a division opponent) in Week 17. Yes, if the Browns would have won the week before, they would have been locked in, but it still is a bad situation to find yourself in. The Colts didn't even try to win the game at the end (it was a one possession game and the Colts got the ball back with time on the clock and chose to run it out, with Jim Sorgi at quarterback).

[rams80]

Speaking as a fan of a team that has closed out with division games the last few seasons, its really not all that its cracked up to be.

Oh, and to the Browns fan....or you could have just beaten Pittsburgh once. That would have won the division right there. To reiterate, if you put yourself in a position where you "need help" you cannot complain when it doesn't come.

[BBTV]

IR, You keep saying that there's no solution, but do you deny that an adjustment to scheduling would help at least a little?

Maybe but each "help a little" solution seems to create a different set of problems. As my "65% rule" surely attests, I have no idea how to fix this.

What set of problems does the scheduling-tweak solution present?

Well, backloading the schedule with division games still doesn't work if the team in question has locked everything up. Let's be honest, the divisional rivalry doesn't appeal as much to the players as it does the fans. I also suspect the TV networks might become just slightly grouchy if they have to chose between multiple high profile divisional grudge matches in one week for national television, whilst having a whole lot of comparative nothing to show elsewhere in the season. Considering how much money the networks are paying into the league, its kind of more important for them to get their money's worth than even the people who bought tickets for the games.

Christ.

backloading the schedule with division games still doesn't work if the team in question has locked everything up.

Well yeah - I've said at least 3,000 times that there's no perfect solution. You can find a scenario to void any idea that anyone ever came up with in the history of the world (except that 2+2 will always = 4.)

Let's be honest, the divisional rivalry doesn't appeal as much to the players as it does the fans.

Nothing appeals as much to players as much as it does to fans. That's not the point. The point is that division games are 2-game swings, and if you hold them back until the end, there's less of a chance for a team (that's not simply incredibly dominant) to have pulled away from the pack enough to have made those games meaningless. Sure, one of them may be meaningless if the division contains a total crap team, but the chances are that at least two of the games will mean something.

[Saintsfan]

The point isn't the 2 game swing, because you can get that exact same 2 game swing if the teams are playing each other or both playing other teams. The point is that the virtual half game a team has for having the tie breaks in their favour will not be set in stone till late on.

But anyway say the Patriots are playing the Jets, needing to win to seal the division, 20 points up going into the final quarter, 3 weeks out from the playoffs. You think Brady takes any snaps in that quarter? Or more than a handful for the rest of the season?

To me the scheduling argument is a bit like saying play the 4th quarter first to avoid stars being benched at the end of the game. The stars still get benched, just now in the third quarter. To me the only real change to back ending divisional games is that it means that teams that are tanking all year long have something to look forward to, in the match up against the heated rival, and that might help keep attendences up a bit more. But then for 90% of teams ticket sales aren't a problem!

[BBTV]

The point isn't the 2 game swing, because you can get that exact same 2 game swing if the teams are playing each other or both playing other teams.

You could get the 2 game swing, or both teams win or both lose. With a division game, you guarantee a 2 game swing.

Honestly, your (and IR's) point is this - if it doesn't fix the problem 100%, then do nothing. I don't understand that line of thinking at all. There are plenty of valid arguments that could be made that modifying the schedule won't help. However, there are no valid arguments that can be made that modifying the schedule will hurt. Therefore, do it and see what happens.

[rams80]

IR, You keep saying that there's no solution, but do you deny that an adjustment to scheduling would help at least a little?

Maybe but each "help a little" solution seems to create a different set of problems. As my "65% rule" surely attests, I have no idea how to fix this.

What set of problems does the scheduling-tweak solution present?

Well, backloading the schedule with division games still doesn't work if the team in question has locked everything up. Let's be honest, the divisional rivalry doesn't appeal as much to the players as it does the fans. I also suspect the TV networks might become just slightly grouchy if they have to chose between multiple high profile divisional grudge matches in one week for national television, whilst having a whole lot of comparative nothing to show elsewhere in the season. Considering how much money the networks are paying into the league, its kind of more important for them to get their money's worth than even the people who bought tickets for the games.

Christ.

backloading the schedule with division games still doesn't work if the team in question has locked everything up.

Well yeah - I've said at least 3,000 times that there's no perfect solution. You can find a scenario to void any idea that anyone ever came up with in the history of the world (except that 2+2 will always = 4.)

Let's be honest, the divisional rivalry doesn't appeal as much to the players as it does the fans.

Nothing appeals as much to players as much as it does to fans. That's not the point. The point is that division games are 2-game swings, and if you hold them back until the end, there's less of a chance for a team (that's not simply incredibly dominant) to have pulled away from the pack enough to have made those games meaningless. Sure, one of them may be meaningless if the division contains a total crap team, but the chances are that at least two of the games will mean something.

But aren't the incredibly dominant teams the ones who pull the "sit starters the last few weeks of the season" thing? The gulf would have widened with or without the dominant team beating down its divisional foes twice in a season.

[BBTV]

IR, You keep saying that there's no solution, but do you deny that an adjustment to scheduling would help at least a little?

Maybe but each "help a little" solution seems to create a different set of problems. As my "65% rule" surely attests, I have no idea how to fix this.

What set of problems does the scheduling-tweak solution present?

Well, backloading the schedule with division games still doesn't work if the team in question has locked everything up. Let's be honest, the divisional rivalry doesn't appeal as much to the players as it does the fans. I also suspect the TV networks might become just slightly grouchy if they have to chose between multiple high profile divisional grudge matches in one week for national television, whilst having a whole lot of comparative nothing to show elsewhere in the season. Considering how much money the networks are paying into the league, its kind of more important for them to get their money's worth than even the people who bought tickets for the games.

Christ.

backloading the schedule with division games still doesn't work if the team in question has locked everything up.

Well yeah - I've said at least 3,000 times that there's no perfect solution. You can find a scenario to void any idea that anyone ever came up with in the history of the world (except that 2+2 will always = 4.)

Let's be honest, the divisional rivalry doesn't appeal as much to the players as it does the fans.

Nothing appeals as much to players as much as it does to fans. That's not the point. The point is that division games are 2-game swings, and if you hold them back until the end, there's less of a chance for a team (that's not simply incredibly dominant) to have pulled away from the pack enough to have made those games meaningless. Sure, one of them may be meaningless if the division contains a total crap team, but the chances are that at least two of the games will mean something.

But aren't the incredibly dominant teams the ones who pull the "sit starters the last few weeks of the season" thing? The gulf would have widened with or without the dominant team beating down its divisional foes twice in a season.

How many 13-0, 12-1, 10-2 teams are there at week 14? 2 maybe? Sometimes 1? If there's more than 2, then at least 2 are in the same conference and competing for home field advantage. If there's only 1 or 2 (and they're in opposite conferences) then they're just going to rest their players and there's nothing you can do about it. THere's no plan that can fix that, so I repeat, for the 400th time, there's no way to eliminate it, you can just reduce it. The point is that the good but not 13-0 teams won't have pulled away from their division rivals enough to have clinched and have nothing to play for, and if you backload the conference games too, then it's possible that even the byes wouldn't be clinched until week 16 or 17.

[Saintsfan]

The point isn't the 2 game swing, because you can get that exact same 2 game swing if the teams are playing each other or both playing other teams.

You could get the 2 game swing, or both teams win or both lose. With a division game, you guarantee a 2 game swing.

Honestly, your (and IR's) point is this - if it doesn't fix the problem 100%, then do nothing. I don't understand that line of thinking at all. There are plenty of valid arguments that could be made that modifying the schedule won't help. However, there are no valid arguments that can be made that modifying the schedule will hurt. Therefore, do it and see what happens.

Well that's not really my argument at all. My point is really that it will only make a marginal change to what is a marginal problem.

How would you react if the Eagles were in a position to rest starters? Pretty good because they would be in the playoffs already. Other teams might be upset, but really that's down to them not being good enough.

[BBTV]

The point isn't the 2 game swing, because you can get that exact same 2 game swing if the teams are playing each other or both playing other teams.

You could get the 2 game swing, or both teams win or both lose. With a division game, you guarantee a 2 game swing.

Honestly, your (and IR's) point is this - if it doesn't fix the problem 100%, then do nothing. I don't understand that line of thinking at all. There are plenty of valid arguments that could be made that modifying the schedule won't help. However, there are no valid arguments that can be made that modifying the schedule will hurt. Therefore, do it and see what happens.

Well that's not really my argument at all. My point is really that it will only make a marginal change to what is a marginal problem.

How would you react if the Eagles were in a position to rest starters? Pretty good because they would be in the playoffs already. Other teams might be upset, but really that's down to them not being good enough.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHER TEAMS. I CARE ABOUT FANS. There was an article that came out today that the Eagles are ranked #6 in terms of ticket sales on the secondary market with an average price of >$300 / ticket (may have been around $350, not sure - it was on the news I don't have a link yet.) So fans of 5 other teams actually pay more than that to get a ticket to a game due to the supply and demand. I couldn't care less if the Vikings miss the playoffs because some team beats the Saints who are resting everyone. I care about the people who pay a ton of money to go to what is essentially a preseason game. Is it a marginal problem? That's opinion. Even if we say that it is only marginal, then why not put an easy solution with no downside that at least chips away at the problem? There is no downside to it, so even if it has no effect, it doesn't cost anything. If it makes even one game more competitive, then it was worth it.

[Saintsfan]

The point isn't the 2 game swing, because you can get that exact same 2 game swing if the teams are playing each other or both playing other teams.

You could get the 2 game swing, or both teams win or both lose. With a division game, you guarantee a 2 game swing.

Honestly, your (and IR's) point is this - if it doesn't fix the problem 100%, then do nothing. I don't understand that line of thinking at all. There are plenty of valid arguments that could be made that modifying the schedule won't help. However, there are no valid arguments that can be made that modifying the schedule will hurt. Therefore, do it and see what happens.

Well that's not really my argument at all. My point is really that it will only make a marginal change to what is a marginal problem.

How would you react if the Eagles were in a position to rest starters? Pretty good because they would be in the playoffs already. Other teams might be upset, but really that's down to them not being good enough.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHER TEAMS. I CARE ABOUT FANS. There was an article that came out today that the Eagles are ranked #6 in terms of ticket sales on the secondary market with an average price of >$300 / ticket (may have been around $350, not sure - it was on the news I don't have a link yet.) So fans of 5 other teams actually pay more than that to get a ticket to a game due to the supply and demand. I couldn't care less if the Vikings miss the playoffs because some team beats the Saints who are resting everyone. I care about the people who pay a ton of money to go to what is essentially a preseason game. Is it a marginal problem? That's opinion. Even if we say that it is only marginal, then why not put an easy solution with no downside that at least chips away at the problem? There is no downside to it, so even if it has no effect, it doesn't cost anything. If it makes even one game more competitive, then it was worth it.

Ok, first off I am not saying that backending the division fixtures shouldn't happen. But I am saying that it really isn't go to do much of anything except for mean that the occasional vital game is played at the end of the season not tucked in the middle of the season. Teams will still get plenty of opportunities to rest starters if their team is good enough, and they will still do that. Its not a bad idea, but its not a great idea either.

Secondly, if you are a fan of a team who can rest players, you won't care if they do, becuase that means that your team is already in the playoffs. The fans I have some sympathy for are the ones that support home teams who see a visiting team resting starters. But then the pay off is you get to see your team being competitive against a team that they may not have been.

But anyway the point is that buying a ticket to a sporting event is not the same as for instance buying a ticket to a music concert. You are not guaranteed a great day out. Even your favourite team can let you down every now and again. Buying a ticket to a sports event comes with a larger amount of risk, and any sports fan that does not appreciate that gets what they deserve when they get disappointed.

[BaltimoreFan]

The point isn't the 2 game swing, because you can get that exact same 2 game swing if the teams are playing each other or both playing other teams.

You could get the 2 game swing, or both teams win or both lose. With a division game, you guarantee a 2 game swing.

Honestly, your (and IR's) point is this - if it doesn't fix the problem 100%, then do nothing. I don't understand that line of thinking at all. There are plenty of valid arguments that could be made that modifying the schedule won't help. However, there are no valid arguments that can be made that modifying the schedule will hurt. Therefore, do it and see what happens.

Well that's not really my argument at all. My point is really that it will only make a marginal change to what is a marginal problem.

How would you react if the Eagles were in a position to rest starters? Pretty good because they would be in the playoffs already. Other teams might be upset, but really that's down to them not being good enough.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHER TEAMS. I CARE ABOUT FANS. There was an article that came out today that the Eagles are ranked #6 in terms of ticket sales on the secondary market with an average price of >$300 / ticket (may have been around $350, not sure - it was on the news I don't have a link yet.) So fans of 5 other teams actually pay more than that to get a ticket to a game due to the supply and demand. I couldn't care less if the Vikings miss the playoffs because some team beats the Saints who are resting everyone. I care about the people who pay a ton of money to go to what is essentially a preseason game. Is it a marginal problem? That's opinion. Even if we say that it is only marginal, then why not put an easy solution with no downside that at least chips away at the problem? There is no downside to it, so even if it has no effect, it doesn't cost anything. If it makes even one game more competitive, then it was worth it.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't have much sympathy for someone that pays $300+ for football tickets. At that price I'd much rather watch the game from the comfort of my home (probably a reason why I haven't been to a Ravens game since 2005). Those fans have got to know that is a risk when buying tickets that late in the season. Plus its sort of a trade off, you're seeing a game equivalent to the pre-season, but your team is really good and has a real shot at the Super Bowl. I also think most fans may be paying for the experience of the game, more than the quality of the game itself. In short, I think most fans that would pay that much for tickets are too stupid to care about the quality of the game. Smarter fans would purchase tickets to game that will matter or not purchase tickets at all.

[tBBP]

I just find it funny that the powers-that-be in the NFL are now concerned with implementing measures to make end-of-season more games more "meaningful", even in the midst of said powers-that-be trying to institue a longer regular season schedule.

That's all.

[The_Admiral]

Ooh, you're going to get suspended for conduct detrimental to the league with that one.

[ESTONES6]

I am pretty torn on this subject. On one hand, its about money and winning championships. If your best players get hurt, you are losing money and probably not winning any championships. I understand the idea with fans and season tickets... but no where do they guarantee that the best players will play or for how long. That is a risk you take. For me, I would rather have a player healthy going into the play offs, than seeing him play the last 1 or 2 meaningless games and tearing his ACL/MCL.

Back loading the schedule doesn't help any either. It may prevent a couple cases here and there, but its not a long term solution. I am not sure there is a way you can enforce it without ruining the game. Can you imagine Manning or Brady being forced to play in the last 2 meaningless games of a season, then blowing out both knees and ending their careers. Not only does the NFL take a hit, but you set franchises back x amount of years too.

I just don't think there is a way to properly and fairly enforce anything.

[BBTV]

I am pretty torn on this subject. On one hand, its about money and winning championships. If your best players get hurt, you are losing money and probably not winning any championships. I understand the idea with fans and season tickets... but no where do they guarantee that the best players will play or for how long. That is a risk you take. For me, I would rather have a player healthy going into the play offs, than seeing him play the last 1 or 2 meaningless games and tearing his ACL/MCL.

Back loading the schedule doesn't help any either. It may prevent a couple cases here and there, but its not a long term solution. I am not sure there is a way you can enforce it without ruining the game. Can you imagine Manning or Brady being forced to play in the last 2 meaningless games of a season, then blowing out both knees and ending their careers. Not only does the NFL take a hit, but you set franchises back x amount of years too.

I just don't think there is a way to properly and fairly enforce anything.

This doesn't make any sense. You're not forcing Manning or Brady to play the last 2 meaningless games, because hopefully those last games won't be meaningless. If they just so happen to be so, then Manning and Brady don't play. It's that simple. You can't force guys to play, but you can put more potential playoff-deciding games at the end. I really don't see how this is that tough.

"It may prevent a couple cases here and there"

Well... yeah - that's kind of the point of the entire thing. You aren't going to fix it, but you can help by preventing a couple of cases here and there. And it doesn't cost anything. How is that tough to understand?

[HedleyLamarr]

BBTV's point is this: More often than not, the division leader usually has less than a 3-game lead entering Week 15.

In those last three games against divisional opponents, the possibility of the division leader losing their lead goes up, as they'll be playing their direct competition for the division championship. Keep in mind...when you're playing divisional games, you're playing the teams that are the most familiar with your game-planning and schemes. All it takes is a loss to a team you should have beaten, and a loss to the team chasing you....and suddenly Week 17 means your season.

[BBTV]

BBTV's point is this: More often than not, the division leader usually has less than a 3-game lead entering Week 15.

In those last three games against divisional opponents, the possibility of the division leader losing their lead goes up, as they'll be playing their direct competition for the division championship. Keep in mind...when you're playing divisional games, you're playing the teams that are the most familiar with your game-planning and schemes. All it takes is a loss to a team you should have beaten, and a loss to the team chasing you....and suddenly Week 17 means your season.

Thank you for summing up in 4 sentences what took me 34 posts and a headache to try and explain.