Your thoughts on the NFL putting Green bay and Detroit into the late slot?

[Screamin12th]

I don't think the league is out to get the Hawks I think they are out to sell tickets and what would sell more tickets a Seahawks/Lions play off game or a Packers play off game? So because of this they took away the even playing field. In the past they have ALWAYS scheduled these type games at the same time, hell as hawk fans we have seen them move a 10am game up to 1pm just so the outcome was not known till both games were over when this has happened to the Hawks before and the NFL stated it was to keep the competitive field even. Why change now? We know why, I know why.

 

[broncosmitty]

I don't think the league is out to get the Hawks I think they are out to sell tickets and what would sell more tickets a Seahawks/Lions play off game or a Packers play off game? So because of this they took away the even playing field. In the past they have ALWAYS scheduled these type games at the same time, hell as hawk fans we have seen them move a 10am game up to 1pm just so the outcome was not known till both games were over when this has happened to the Hawks before and the NFL stated it was to keep the competitive field even. Why change now? We know why, I know why.

If there are unsold tickets to the Rams/Hawks or Lions/Packers game I’d be shocked.

And everyone had better be selling their playoff tickets. Which none of the three teams vying for a spot need to worry about doing anyway. Whoever gets in, is a road team till they lose.

The move is TV ad revenue. NBC’s prime time is worth more and they pick first. The League didn’t chose the slots, the networks did. And they pay for that ability.

 

[Screamin12th]

If there are unsold tickets to the Rams/Hawks or Lions/Packers game I’d be shocked.

And everyone had better be selling their playoff tickets. Which none of the three teams vying for a spot need to worry about doing anyway. Whoever gets in, is a road team till they lose.

The move is TV ad revenue. NBC’s prime time is worth more and they pick first. The League didn’t chose the slots, the networks did. And they pay for that ability.

This

First off the Networks/TV Station do not get to choose what games they want flexed the NFL Does. In the past the NFL has ALWAYS put these games on at the same time when a team needs to win and another to lose to get in. So why change now?

Money

The NFL would rather Have the Pack in the play offs ( they are a higher TV Draw ) than either the Lions or the Hawks and if you think they don't care you are high. Also having the last game of the Season on primetime meaning one or the other team gets in is a playoff game and the only way that happens is if the Hawks lose.

If the Hawks win then this last game only matters to the packers, if they lose then it's Playoffs early as it turns into a win and you're in game.

Like i said the NFL has gone out of their way before to schedule these type games at the same time in the last week of the season thats why the last week schedule has been a TBD. This was done for and in their words to even the competitive field. They just unbalanced it for their own personal gain and ignored the whole reason the last week has been a TBD schedule.

 

[JMR]

Isn't the difference that the Seahawks are playing a suck team, and the Packers and Lions are each playing a .500 team with a reasonable equal chance of making the playoffs?

Well, it's true that the Lions-GB game has a matchup of 2 teams currently with a shot at the playoffs, but that is no longer true if Seattle beats LA before Lions-Pack even kick off.

 

[Coily1]

Well, it's true that the Lions-GB game has a matchup of 2 teams currently with a shot at the playoffs, but that is no longer true if Seattle beats LA before Lions-Pack even kick off.

…only because it’s 3 teams vying for the single spot. There are simply more of those “exciting” scenarios for viewership, by making Seattle play first:

1. Seahawks lose to the Rams, then it’s a straight head-to-head for the Lions and Packers for the last spot.

2. Seahawks beat the Rams, then gets in only if Lions beat Packers.

3. Though if Seahawks beat Rams and Packers beat Lions, then Seahawks still get eliminated.

Contrast that with if the Lions-Packers had played first:

4. Lions beat Packers and then Seahawks lose, giving Lions the final playoff spot.

5. Lions beat Packers and then Seahawks win, and then Seahawks make the playoffs.

6. Packers beat Lions, and then Seahawks-Rams game is meaningless as Seahawks were eliminated before game even begins.

(excluding all the scenarios where there are ties)

There’s simply more nail-biting, watchable action for fans, if the NFL flexed the Packers game. For Seattle fans, scenarios 2-3 and 4-5 are about equally thrilling, but casual viewers lose if #6 happens. If Seahawks win early, then the Lions can still play a spoiler game to keep the Packers out.

 

[Mebert]

Lions are going to go all out no matter what the result of the Seahawks game. Few reasons, I don't think Campbell is not capable of going easy. OC is in the running for some HC jobs this year, he will want to put his best foot forward. After we beat them earlier in the year Rodgers insulted the team. Lions have been dominated by the Packers for so long the chance to play spoiler for them is too appealing.

No matter what Lions are going to play hard on Sunday.

 

[blstoker]

…only because it’s 3 teams vying for the single spot. There are simply more of those “exciting” scenarios for viewership, by making Seattle play first:

1. Seahawks lose to the Rams, then it’s a straight head-to-head for the Lions and Packers for the last spot.

2. Seahawks beat the Rams, then gets in only if Lions beat Packers.

3. Though if Seahawks beat Rams and Packers beat Lions, then Seahawks still get eliminated.

Contrast that with if the Lions-Packers had played first:

4. Lions beat Packers and then Seahawks lose, giving Lions the final playoff spot.

5. Lions beat Packers and then Seahawks win, and then Seahawks make the playoffs.

6. Packers beat Lions, and then Seahawks-Rams game is meaningless as Seahawks were eliminated before game even begins.

(excluding all the scenarios where there are ties)

There’s simply more nail-biting, watchable action for fans, if the NFL flexed the Packers game. For Seattle fans, scenarios 2-3 and 4-5 are about equally thrilling, but casual viewers lose if #6 happens. If Seahawks win early, then the Lions can still play a spoiler game to keep the Packers out.

This post is completely meaningless for the topic at hand. You seem to be trying to justify this move so much that you've missed the point. No one is asking that Seattle play the late prime time game. They want both games played at the same time, so no team will know what has happened in the other game before their game even starts. So why would it matter what could happen if the Packers played first, since that scenario shouldn't happen either?

The argument is that the Seattle/Rams and Lions/Packers games be played at the same time and flex the Titans/Jaguars game to the late Prime Time slot (as that game also has playoff implications). There was clearly a better way to do this that keeps the competitive balance in place without lessening the stakes for the teams involved in the late game, as the Jags/Titans game is win and in no matter what happens anywhere else.

 

[Coily1]

This post is completely meaningless for the topic at hand. You seem to be trying to justify this move so much that you've missed the point. No one is asking that Seattle play the late prime time game. They want both games played at the same time, so no team will know what has happened in the other game before their game even starts. So why would it matter what could happen if the Packers played first, since that scenario shouldn't happen either?

The argument is that the Seattle/Rams and Lions/Packers games be played at the same time and flex the Titans/Jaguars game to the late Prime Time slot (as that game also has playoff implications). There was clearly a better way to do this that keeps the competitive balance in place without lessening the stakes for the teams involved in the late game, as the Jags/Titans game is win and in no matter what happens anywhere else.

There's no "competitive balance" - if any of the three teams had played more decisively during the previous 16 games, they wouldn't be nursing 8-8 records now. I'm just saying the NFL is trying to deliver a better product to viewers. Per my last post, they're better able to do that by moving the Lions-Packers game to primetime.

There's no better game for viewership, unless you think anyone gives a damn who wins the AFC North (between two playoff teams).

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Your thoughts on this topic please.

See in my mind they needed this game and the Seahawks/Rams game to be played at the same time. If Seattle wins then No matter what happens the Lions are out of the Playoffs and have really NOTHING to play for other than the spoiler role. Having the Lions and Seahawks play at the same time both teams are fighting for a Playoff spot but because now the Hawks game will be well over before Green bay and the Lions get on the field it removes any and all excitement in the game for even the fans of other teams as they will know before the game starts who is going in unless the Hawks lose. Hmm ... unless the Hawks lose........ ok now i am seeing even something more fishy. Having the Hawks LOSE would be the best case outcome making the Sunday night game have HUGE implications ... oh god if that happens i will start being on the "fixed games" bandwagon.

Just lose and get a better draft choice fook the NFL lol.

IMO doesn't matter.

The Lions are going to try hard against the Packers because they want to keep the Packers out of the playoffs. It's pride.... and as I've said for years, winning is more important than a draft pick being a couple slots higher (the Lions already are drafting top 10 thanks to the Rams). It's more important to have a winning culture/locker room, especially with the Lions and their younger players. Going 3-14 (or something equivalent, just pulling that # out of my ass) means you get unproven players early and have to spend a ton in free agency or give a bundle of money to sub-par coaches... it CAN work, but it's a long shot.

Non factor, doesn't matter... Lions will try regardless. Lions also have a pretty good relationship with Seattle's FO from a couple sources I have. And that really doesn't matter much, but the Packers are a division rival. Seattle would also do the same to try everything to keep the 9ers/Rams out of the playoffs...

 

[jayfan]

This is all completely overblown.

The Lions are going to play hard on Sunday night regardless of what the Seahawks are going to do. First off, Dan Campbell needs to show ownership that the team is going in the right direction. If they were to lose badly to the Packers on Sunday night, that could lead to him getting fired. I'll give two recent examples of why this is true. Doug Pederson was fired, in large measure, because he half-assed the last game of the season. Adam Gase and the Jets simply needed to lose the last game of the season 2 years ago and the Jets would have got the 1st pick and Trevor Lawrence. Gase and the Jets played hard and won that game, despite Gase being a dead man walking.

Football is too intense a game to half ass and the 46 guys that are dressed every Sunday are only focused on keeping their jobs or getting their next contract.

The NFL doesn't really care about any of this. They just want maximum ratings.

Regardless I'm pretty sure it is NBC that decides what the prime time game is anyway.

Fired? Newsflash - The Lions have exceeded expectations and won 8 games after starting the season 1-6. There is zero chance of Campbell getting fired. His seat is ice cold. Nothing that happens in the GB game is going to change that. They love him.

 

[flyerhawk]

Fired? Newsflash - The Lions have exceeded expectations and won 8 games after starting the season 1-6. There is zero chance of Campbell getting fired. His seat is ice cold. Nothing that happens in the GB game is going to change that. They love him.

I don't think he is going to be fired either. But coaches lived a very tenuous existence in the NFL.

No one would have thought that Doug Pederson was going to be fired. The guy had won a Super Bowl 2 years earlier.

 

[jayfan]

I don't think he is going to be fired either. But coaches lived a very tenuous existence in the NFL.

No one would have thought that Doug Pederson was going to be fired. The guy had won a Super Bowl 2 years earlier.

Pederson and Lurie were at odds, to say the least. There was much more to that firing than W's and L's.

 

[broncosmitty]

I don't think he is going to be fired either. But coaches lived a very tenuous existence in the NFL.

No one would have thought that Doug Pederson was going to be fired. The guy had won a Super Bowl 2 years earlier.

Pederson should have been fired mid game.

 

[flyerhawk]

Pederson and Lurie were at odds, to say the least. There was much more to that firing than W's and L's.

My point isn't that Campbell is going to get fired. He isn't. My point is that coaches are always trying to win. Every game. The only exception is if they are in the playoffs.

Now a team might sit players in a game if it doesn't matter and they are banged up. But they will still do everything they can to win.

 

[FirebreathingMonkey]

8 Teams? One Solution to Bills-Bengals Suspended Game Could Help Steelers Playoff Chances

The idea of an eight-team AFC playoff has been touted as a possible solution to the NFL not having time to finish the suspended Bills-Bengals Week 17 game, which would obviously have a huge impact for the Pittsburgh Steelers. The AFC’s No. 1 seed and home-field advantage between division winners...

steelersnow.com

 

[flyerhawk]

8 Teams? One Solution to Bills-Bengals Suspended Game Could Help Steelers Playoff Chances

The idea of an eight-team AFC playoff has been touted as a possible solution to the NFL not having time to finish the suspended Bills-Bengals Week 17 game, which would obviously have a huge impact for the Pittsburgh Steelers. The AFC’s No. 1 seed and home-field advantage between division winners...

steelersnow.com

Well that at least makes sense.

 

[returnofjakedog]

I don't think the league is out to get the Hawks I think they are out to sell tickets and what would sell more tickets a Seahawks/Lions play off game or a Packers play off game? So because of this they took away the even playing field. In the past they have ALWAYS scheduled these type games at the same time, hell as hawk fans we have seen them move a 10am game up to 1pm just so the outcome was not known till both games were over when this has happened to the Hawks before and the NFL stated it was to keep the competitive field even. Why change now? We know why, I know why.

I completely agree on this one. A precedent has been established for years that games involving possible overlapping playoff implications be played at the same time. To change that now is just stupid.

 

[Anointed One]

Lions are going to go all out no matter what the result of the Seahawks game. Few reasons, I don't think Campbell is not capable of going easy. OC is in the running for some HC jobs this year, he will want to put his best foot forward. After we beat them earlier in the year Rodgers insulted the team. Lions have been dominated by the Packers for so long the chance to play spoiler for them is too appealing.

No matter what Lions are going to play hard on Sunday.

Plus, it would be the first time the Lions would be over .500 in five years... Going from 3-13-1 to 9-8 gives the FO hope that Campbell is indeed the right man for the job moving forward... Like you said, Campbell isn't the type that will just concede this game... You can't tell me that he'd love to finish the year above .500

 

[Screamin12th]

I completely agree on this one. A precedent has been established for years that games involving possible overlapping playoff implications be played at the same time. To change that now is just stupid.

Im glad someone see's/understands what I was meaning. I thought I was talking gibberish and couldn't get my point across.

 

[flyerhawk]

Im glad someone see's/understands what I was meaning. I thought I was talking gibberish and couldn't get my point across.

We all understood what you were saying. I just don't think that A) It's that big of a deal and B) it's unprecedented.

This happens more often that you realize because NBC is always going to grab the biggest ratings game it can get.