Would be kind of funny if in Week 17 they flip everyone's stadiums; Chiefs play Broncos in Carolina, Raiders play Chargers in Minnesota. Some teams would get hosed with the weather, but at least it would be a neutral site and a reason for local fans to see some players they normally wouldn't get a chance to see but every four years, etc.
[Reply]

Divisional games won’t be neutral site. Non-conference matchups make the most sense.
[Reply]

Wouldn't be shocked to see the 17th game be slated for an international location knowing the NFL
[Reply]

International or neutral city like Portland, St. Louis or San Diego
[Reply]

Seems like the most logical thing to do
[Reply]

LOL Portland.
Fuck no. Seattle fans will show up.
Besides, unless it's a dome, it's raining
[Reply]

I feel like they will need to be very selective about neutral site game locations & opponents for that to work. Could the Chiefs fill up a game in St Louis?.... Yes

Could the Seahawks fill it up in Portland?.... Yes, but those two scenarios will hardly be neutral games in reality because they would have 70%+ of the fans in attendance.

You can envision many nightmare scenarios for attendance if the teams aren’t right.

I don’t see how you could make Arizona vs Atlanta work many places for instance.
[Reply]

Rams vs Cardinals in St. Louis.

The Exodus Bowl.
[Reply]

I mean, it’ll be a novelty for a lot of places.

I remember someone pretty plugged in mentioning they wanted to do games at some famous college stadiums.

An NFL game at Notre Dame Stadium will sell out no matter who the teams are just for the novelty of it.
[Reply]

Yeah, you cant have us playing in St. Louis or the Packers in Chicago etc. other teams would scream home field advantage.
[Reply]

Seems to make the most sense to have the 17th game be non conference and alternate years when each conference hosts. Nothing else seems as fair.
[Reply]

17 games creates the possibility for teams getting fucked with uneven home-road matchups, unless they are planning for every team to play one neutral site game every year in Mexico and/or London.
[Reply]

A 17th game is adding six percent more advertising revenue while the players are only getting 1.5% more of the total pie. The owners are still coming out far ahead under this proposal, because they don't assume any extra risk.

Example: 10bn a year in TV contracts (for the sake of it being an even number)

Players get 4.7 billion

Owners get 5.3

Now, a 17th game adds an extra week

TV Contract 10.6 billion

Players get 10.6*0.485=5.141 billion

Owners get 10.6*0.515=5.459 billion

The players get 441 million more, the owners get 159. But for the owners, it's pure profit. A lot of these guys can't survive a 16 game schedule.
[Reply]

this has a way better chance than the 17 game season... The only way a 17 game season gets in is if the players get lifetime benefits, and maybe even a forced bye week.
[Reply]

Out of curiosity, has anyone gone back and checked to see what the playoff picture would've looked like had the new playoff structure been in place last year? Might be interesting to see how things would've worked out for the Chiefs in that scenario. Or even back the previous year.
[Reply]