Adding another bye week

[xmenehune]

I know, I know - add another week to the season, this should garner a lot of detractors, but the league owners are interested in increasing income.

We've all noticed, media outlet spreading "the expand the season to 18 games and/or expand the playoffs", but what if the league just added another bye week?

The players would like it, you know rest and such, or maybe not
The owners may/may not like it, as there's no direct correlation to increasing profits
The fans may/may not like it, another bye week? (kill momentum or give your wounded team a chance to heal)
Coaches - I'm unsure what they would think, but another bye week extending the season, just may give them time to get another player back from IR. (BTW I think they should expand it to at least 3 players as designated to return later in the season).

How would that work out? (numbers wise during the season), I'm unsure but here's my proposal...

week 1
0 teams on bye, 16 games
week 2
0 teams on bye, 16 games
week 3
0 teams on bye, 16 games
week 4
0 teams on bye, 16 games
week 5
0 teams on bye, 16 games

week 6
8 teams on bye, 12 games
week 7
8 teams on bye, 12 games
week 8
8 teams on bye, 12 games
week 9
8 teams on bye, 12 games

week 10
0 teams on bye, 16 games

week 11
8 teams on bye, 12 games
week 12
8 teams on bye, 12 games
week 13
8 teams on bye, 12 games
week 14
8 teams on bye, 12 games

week 15
0 teams on bye, 16 games
week 16
0 teams on bye, 16 games
week 17
0 teams on bye, 16 games
week 18
0 teams on bye, 16 games


Each team would follow the format below:

Games played, bye, Games played, bye, Games played
========================================
5 bye 4 bye 7 -ranked #1 in their division LY
6 bye 4 bye 6 -ranked #2 in their division LY
7 bye 4 bye 5 -ranked #3 in their division LY
8 bye 4 bye 4 -ranked #4 in their division LY

for example next year:
DEN, NE, HOU, BAL would play 5 games, rest(bye), play 4 games, rest(bye), play 7 games

My thinking is that to increase parity for the league, that you could give the division winners a tougher schedule in the latter half of the season by not having a bye as late as the weaker teams. Playing more games in a row late in the season is that harder to do (to get a W).

I don't know if this would dovetail with the existing schedule or format that the NFL uses, but extending the season in the name of rest for the players would be a win for the league (they would be looking out for player safety) and during the bye weeks I'm sure owners/tv broadcasters can generate even more fan interest, fairly easy with winning teams and "on the cusp teams". Its the perennial losers that may at this time take a chance on an interim coach (during/after 2nd bye week) and to keep fan interest or try something else.





oh I had toyed with the idea using a similiar format:

# of games played, bye, # of games played, bye, # of games played
4 bye 5 bye 6
5 bye 6 bye 4
6 bye 4 bye 5

do you really need me to spell out which week is which?

how many teams on bye - game to be played - during 3wk interval
10 teams on bye, 11 games

12 teams on bye, 10 games

10 teams on bye, 11 games

but who would be on bye doesn't easily divide and choosing which teams, wasn't so easily thought of, well at least by me....

just a few thoughts

[hobbes27]

I'm not sure who would be against another bye. Its good for the players because of the rest. Its good for the league because that means one more week of Thursday Night games, Monday Night games, Sunday Night games and Sunday games they can sell to their tv partners. The fans are probably indifferent about it. I'm not sure it generates interest one way or another.

What you need to consider is when you do the byes. The league doesn't want byes in November because that is sweeps week. And they aren't going to do it in December because its the end of the year and seems odd to do the byes then. So basically you are looking at roughly week 3-9 to do 2 byes. Maybe they could extend it to week 3-10 for 2 byes and have eight teams off each week. Not sure if this works logistically as now you aren't having as many games in a given week. 12 games a week and so its probably worth the same to Fox as it is CBS.

[FrzzerBwler]

Think the league did double byes once before, did not work well.
Teams found they lost some intrest from the casual fan.

[packa7x]

Bye weeks are horrible for fans.

[wxwax]

hobbes makes great points about the calendar issues. From a fan perspective, it really dilutes the number of games being played. Please don't force me to watch Jacksonville-Tennessee again.

Personally, I wish they'd go back to a single off-week before the Super Bowl.

[hobbes27]

Think the league did double byes once before, did not work well.
Teams found they lost some intrest from the casual fan.

Yeah it happened one year. I don't remember the specifics as to why it was just an one year thing, but I think it had to do with tv ratings.

[hobbes27]

I still think if the league was concerned about player safety, they still could make sure that teams that play on a Thursday get a bye the week before. They couldn't do ti for all the Thursday night games, but at least you are improving the quality of the thursday games and putting players less at risk.

[wxwax]

I still think if the league was concerned about player safety, they still could make sure that teams that play on a Thursday get a bye the week before. They couldn't do ti for all the Thursday night games, but at least you are improving the quality of the thursday games and putting players less at risk.

I like it.

[Trumpetbdw]

They tried the 2 bye weeks in 1993. According to the {highly official} Wikipedia page, the NFL hoped it would generate more revenue, but teams complained about it being too disruptive to their routine, and the NFL immediately disbanded the 2 bye week idea in 1994.

And hobbes is 100% correct. The bye week should happen around a team's Thursday night game, if at all possible. In essence, it would give a team 2 mini-byes, with 11 days to prepare for Thursday, then 10 to prepare for their next game.

As to the comment that the NFL doesn't want teams sitting out in November... While this theory seems like common sense, this year, they expanded the byes to week 11, which meant that teams were off all the way through November 18, the week before Thanksgiving, and if I'm not mistaken, the finish of sweeps week. Included among the teams with a week off in either week 10 or week 11 were the Packers (week 10) and Giants (week 11), so it doesn't seem on the surface that the NFL is too concerned with teams having off during the November sweeps.

[hobbes27]

As to the comment that the NFL doesn't want teams sitting out in November... While this theory seems like common sense, this year, they expanded the byes to week 11, which meant that teams were off all the way through November 18, the week before Thanksgiving, and if I'm not mistaken, the finish of sweeps week. Included among the teams with a week off in either week 10 or week 11 were the Packers (week 10) and Giants (week 11), so it doesn't seem on the surface that the NFL is too concerned with teams having off during the November sweeps.

I guess the NFL has changed here. It wasn't that long ago that byes would go through like week 8 or 9 because they didn't want teams off in November because of sweeps. I guess they are less concerned about that now.