Nobody else does want it. But it doesn’t matter. NFL owners know they can do whatever they want and while we’ll bitch about it, our assess will be glued to that couch the first Sunday(Thursday in our case this year)of the season and remain there through early February.
[Reply]

They are seeing the complete dead month that occurs after the SB...that is a lot of money that is sitting there for them to take by expanding the season.
[Reply]

Just think of the outcry when a team loses the #1 seed because they have to play an extra road game compared to the team that doesn't and gets the #1 seed. Talk about fucked up.
[Reply]

Injuries certainly become more likely. I wonder if we'll see players sitting, a la the NBA.
[Reply]

Well the last talk I heard was they were going to try to do it where the entire conference had the same and they were going to alternate between AFC/NFC on the extra home game. This way what you just said wouldn't happen.
[Reply]

Interesting I hadn't heard that.
[Reply]

I think every team must play one neutral site game.

We already have Mexico City, London, get ready for more locations. And who knows, I think they could do domestic neutral site games. Oklahoma City, Omaha, Orlando, Hawaii, San Diego, San Antonio, who knows
[Reply]

They might do that for the next several years to try to pinpoint expansion areas. I think anyone who doesn't see this as an eventual lean to expansion is fooling themselves.
[Reply]

Rumor is that every team will play an international game every year. If true, there is your still balanced schedule of 8/8 Home/Road games.
[Reply]

They’re going to get over that by making every team play a game overseas. Now it’s neither a home or an away game.
[Reply]

If that extra game is meant to be played overseas, then there is no real home field advantage, so it really doesn't make any difference. As I understand someone else said that the idea is for each team to play one international game per season. So...no it doesn't give anyone any real advantage.

edit: Franchise beat me to it.
EDIT EDIT: Everyone beat me to it...
[Reply]

The players want this too or they wouldn't be agreeing to the new deal.

There is no talk of a lockout or anything like that unless the players go to a 17 game schedule. There is no pressure. The players are just a "greedy" as the owners if this is agreed to. $5 BILLION over 10 years. Thats a helluva raise on top of their % of the cap also going up.
[Reply]

16 games between London and Mexico. I imagine most will go to London.

I too think this eventually leads to expansion, and then an 18 game schedule with two byes.
[Reply]

I have long been interested in something like this. I would also do it for the NBA and March Madness.

I would allow the top seed to the extent practicable to choose their opponent every round.
[Reply]

If it's all domestic neutral sites, I'd go with Richmond, Charleston (SC), Birmingham, Memphis, Columbus (OH), San Antonio, El Paso, Omaha, Salt Lake City, Portland (OR), Sacramento, Albuquerque, Honolulu, Hartford, Little Rock, and Tucson. Maybe Denver since we no longer have an NFL team.

If it's all international, I would initially want the Broncos and Patriots to play in Wuhan. But if it's still under quarantine (and assuming a non-compete with Canada), I'd go with Shanghai, Kolkata, Hamburg, London, Stockholm, Rome, Paris, Barcelona, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Lima, Johannesburg, Sydney, Seoul, Bangkok, and Tokyo. I'd avoid any countries with totalitarian governments and/or terrorists.
[Reply]