Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States:
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”
My guess is that these are actually packaged as Walnut Halves, but the manufacturer is hedging its bets. (Taken with Instagram at Downtown Binghamton)
Why an 18-Game NFL Season Makes Sense. To Me.
I hate interconference play.
In the interest of full-disclosure, before I go any further, I need to get that out of the way. I hate interleague play, too. I grew up outside of New York City, so I understand that my home market is one of the reasons that these games exist at all. Still, I never liked the fact that I could see the Giants play the Jets during the regular season and, since ‘93, the Yankees play the Mets 18 times before the playoffs ever began. It takes away excitement from a potential cross-town (read: same stadium) SuperBowl and it made the 2000 World Series that less interesting because we’d already seen it so many times that year. We knew who was going to win.
That said, I understand about surprsing outcomes. A few years ago, we saw the Giants get beaten by the Patriots twice before the playoffs only to have Eli Manning lead a ridiculous game-winning drive in the Superbowl. They beat the odds that game, but how often does that really happen? The Giants and Jets only play eachother every four years, so an argument can be made that it’s worth the rivalry hype compared to the small potential of them meeting in that last game of the playoffs. But that argument, I think, just isn’t good enough when stacked up against the potential (and increasingly unlikely) 18-game NFL Season.
I understand the safety issue, given the violent nature of the game. For that reason, and that reason alone, I can accept that this expanded season may never happen. But if they somehow came to an agreement on an 18-game season, they would set up the table to establish the perfect circumstances for teams competing for the post-season. As long as they get rid of interconference play.
My “proposal” (for lack of a better word) isn’t complex. It’s simple math and, I believe, fairness (read: sportsmanship…anyone?). The logic of this idea is so obvious to me that not only does it frustrate me I’ve not heard anyone talk about it, but it just makes me hate interconference play that much more for what it actually does to the validity of a team’s struggle to be the best in the NFL.
Ideally, the two teams who make it to the Superbowl have proven themselves to be the two best teams in their conference. Even with the playoff system as it is (and I think it works just fine, despite there’s no re-seeding after week 17) it’s hard to argue that a team is the best out of 16 in the AFC if it doesn’t even play all the 15 other teams *in* the AFC.
An 18 game season would solve this problem, simply, all while keeping the Division rivalries intact.:
There are 16 Teams in AFC/16 Teams in NFC. There would be 20 Weeks of regular season football (18 Games, 2 Bye Weeks for each team seems to make sense). Each team would play 6 Division games (same as now). That leaves 12 games left in the regular season and 12 teams left for each team any team’s conference.
Think about that. Each team gets to play every other team in their conference once, as opposed to the current set up, where each team only plays 6 teams outside of their division in the regular season. That leaves 6 other teams that they don’t even compete against. More than a third of the conference!
You can sell me statistics all you want, but the fact that every team that gets to the Superbowl - the supposed final showdown between the two best teams in their conference - doesn’t compete directly against more than a third of their own conference (playoff matchups notwithstanding) seems absolutely ludicrous to me.
Sure, there’s an argument that the best team in the regular season was the Green Bay Packers, and they lost their first playoff game. They won’t be going to the Superbowl. But this is exactly why we keep the playoff system intact. I would at least like to be confident that the teams making it to the post-season have proven themselves against their own conference, earning themselves the chance to now play again against other teams who have proven the same. Not other teams that have proven their good against the other conference!
Even if they weren’t to expand the season, which seems extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future, this surely is an argument to remove interconference play from the schedule, no matter how many decades it’s been a part of the NFL. Longevity isn’t necessarily a reason to stick to an antiquated rule.
Of course, I’m no expert. I’m just a fan. I’m sure there are plenty of holes that can be poked in this idea. I’m also sure that I’m not the first person to think of this. Maybe I just haven’t looked hard enough to find a similar (and better articulated) take on the same idea. On it’s face, though, it makes a whole lot of sense to me, and even if the same teams end up making it to the post-season than would have without this system, at least they’d be able to make it there knowing they’ve proven themselves as the “best in the conference”, not “better than 10-out-of-16 in the conference”.
Just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
I just reorganized my iPhone Home screen and thought I’d post it. You’re welcome.
