Japan’s Central and Pacific Leagues do the same one DH the other not.
The NFL and CFL used to play some exhibition games with mixed rules.
Back a century ago, the western hockey leagues used 7 players a side while in the East the NHL used 6. They mixed it up in the Stanley Cup.
Before that I suppose Ruby Union and Ruby League might fit before they completely separated.
Rugby?
Bumping this because the new CBA for the NFL was approved by player vote today.
So there will now be a 17 game regular season, only 3 instead of 4 preseason games, teams will go from a roster of 53 to 55 players, and there will be 3 rather than 2 wild card teams from each conference in the playoffs (7 total teams in the postseason per conference, and only the top seed in each conference gets a bye).
Is increasing the active roster size on game day from 46 to 48 a significant change? It feels like a big change to me, like it greatly reduces some of the coach’s tough decisions. Am I reading too much into that? Expanding the roster to 55 doesn’t seem to change much, but I kind of thought that having to choose which 46 dress was a non-trivial element of football strategy.
I guess the idea is to help distribute the extra load of the 17th game. It would be weird and awkward to give a starter a whole game off, but if you could dress one more defensive lineman, say, you could lower a starter’s plays per game from 40 to 37 and end up with the same 640 plays per season in terms of injury risk. (Those numbers obviously made up.)
It makes sense, I guess, but I don’t love it.
EDIT: Nice, practice squad players get 30% raise to $10,500 per week. That’s not a bad deal if that means $178,500 for a 17-week season. Good on them, that’s actual money.
Between the increase in roster size and raising the minimum salaries, teams are seeing a reduction in their cap space.
They’re trying to get more eyeballs on their product and remain relevant during the offseason and slow parts of the regular season. Looking kind of picture, the NFL is now a “year round” sport if you consider the combine, free agency, and the NFL draft. Adding one more game and more teams making the playoffs makes fans tune in for one more week and offers more playoff hopes to fans of teams that don’t win their division. The NBA has really struggled to keep fans watching recently since the regular season almost doesn’t seem to matter. Good teams need a star player to compete and those teams always make the playoffs so why bother. They need people watching to get fat tv contracts and revenue from advertisers.
I find the idea of an odd-number-of-games season bizarre. Does ANY other league do this?
Not any of the major North American sports leagues (MLB 162, NHL and NBA 82, MLS 34). And, I agree, it feels asymetrical and strange, especially since the scheduling system which the NFL has used since its 2002 realignment is a thing of beauty.
The NFL has deseprately wanted to add additional regular-season games for several years (since more games = more viewers = more money), but previous pushes for an 18-game season were a non-starter for the union. I suspect that the 17-game season was a compromise, arrived at by sweetening the pot for players with larger roster size and higher salary caps in trade for the extra game.
It also means that the idea of the .500 team will be close to extinct, unless we get a team that finishes 8-8-1.
Agreed, but there is an elegant way to handle 17 games with 32 teams. I figured it out this season, lemme see if I can find it…[post=21903653]here[/post] it is, but I just enumerate a functional example instead of explaining how it works.
Same as the schedule we have now. The 17th game is a third strength of schedule game, where you play the “offset” team in one of your strength of schedule divisions. (Same conference, but not the division where you play everyone.)
“Offset” strength of schedule matchups:
1st plays 1st and 2nd instead of just 1st
2nd plays 1st and 2nd instead of just 2nd
3rd plays 3rd and 4th instead of just 3rd
4th plays 4rd and 4th instead of just 4th
This does work out properly, as the enumerated example in the linked post shows.
Nice! I hadn’t thought of that before, but I love it.
I’d rather add one strength of schedule game with an out-of-conference rotating division.
4 of 17 games out of conference is more than plenty. Honestly, 4 of 16 was already almost too much.
The reason people say the baseball season is too long say it because it is true. In my memory, the season started on the second Tuesday in April and the regular season was over by the end of September. The world series took maybe ten days and it was over by Oct. 10, say. Now it can start in late March and extend till the end of October. And in those good old days, Sundays and major holidays always had doubleheaders so there were lots of days off. With 162 game seasons and no doubleheaders, there are hardly any days off. Can you imagine playing a world series game in Minneapolis at the end of October? How did the allow them to replace their covered stadium with an open-air one? Baseball cannot be played in a snowstorm.