The main advantage of 17 games is no more stupid 8-8 seasons. Either you had a winning record or a losing record.

The problem is they need to go to 17 (and players get almost all the new money), and then also add one more playoff round (which makes owners especially rich). I imagine 32 teams will also be going up incrementally, why not add some canadian teams and try to take the cfl out? Or start a canada-nfl like nfl europe was? Playing and living in Canada is a lot cheaper and closer to the US, and the nfl teams could use the larger rosters like before.

Is there anyone really running the nfl? All the owners look out for their own interests, no one has it to look after the nfl interests.

(Goodell is a joke. Intentional cheating is not worth much penalty, regardless of whether it potentially helped the pats. I always thought intent was significant. He is a joke. Why doesn't he make Belichick admit the truth: intentional and systematic breach of explicit nfl instructions)

It would be a shame for the nfl to leave buffalo (and no I've never been to buffalo). The owners have a privilege in owning teams, the whole idea of fat cats making big bucks off of stud athletes smashing the %%% out of each other is wrong. They are stupid because they value their teams more than the nfl itself. The nfl belongs to the fans, players and coaches.

If the nfl had a centralized leadership with smart people, it could be effectively run for all, and everybody would win. Even the dumb owners would make more money

Just food for thought

17 games ... why got the US cope with draws / level seasons..??? Sport is not always black and white..!!! [and yes I'm from the UK]. I sort of understand the stance on a 8-8 season, as you know where you are in a winning or losing season.

As for the Pats farce, I have to agree with Jeff ... Any player that steps out of line or breaks a NFL rule, is dealt with and suspended for at least a year ... why was Belichick allowed to coach last year, when he admit he was wrong and broke NFL rules. The fine though heavy didn't cut it for me, you can't have one rule for players and officials and one for the coaches and owners. Here in the UK Leeds Football club broke the rule and not only got fined but were also docked 15 points [5 games] ... why didn't the NFL do something similar ... The whole situation is a farce and I feel that the NFL have now lost the b#lls to deal with Coaches and Owners that they would once hit hard..!!!

17 will lead to 18...18 will lead to 20. That's the problem with 17 games. One of the great things about the NFL season (and the reason that people get so excited about it) is that it is only 4 short months long. 20 games would add an extra month to the season and put it in the same boat as baseball & basketball, where the game is omnipresent, so the start of the season isn't as big a deal. Also, the importance of each game would be decreased by adding games. I like the fact that if my team wins or loses a game, it feels like a big deal (and it is, from a season persepective). If the NFL isn't careful, the overexpansion (both in terms of the seaon as well as in terms of teams/countries) will lead to an oversaturation point (similar to what happened in basketball and hockey).

Great idea! Get rid of a useless preseason game. Have the 17th game played at neutral sites mostly in the US (Salt Lake, Lincoln, Portland, San Antonio, etc.) with a couple of international games a year. The neutral site games should be out of conference (AFC vs NFC). The opponents for the 17th games should be out of conference rivalry games (Giants-Jets, Rams-Chiefs, etc) played on a rotating basis between the two cities (therefore making up for the out of conference game send to a neutral site.

I think arguing that 17 will lead to 20 is a non sequitur. We are just talking about the difference between 16 and 17. I agree that 20 is too much, but adding one more game won't delute the importance of the entire season.

I think it is important too, because we need to have one more round of playoffs. There will be more interest from fans at the end of the year if just a few more teams could make the big show. Right now, fewer slots mean playoff teams are decided way too much in advance. By having 16 games, the strength of the opposing teams becomes even more of a determinate factor in who makes it to the playoffs.

Regarding oversaturation, maybe for casual fans, but what about people who don't give a hoot about baseball, basketball, hockey. And with growth of the coverage of the draft, it doesn't seem oversaturation is a big concern. The main issue re oversaturation is draft and camp coverage.

And don't forget, for many "oversaturation" is not a concern, but a potential dream come true.

Adding one more regular season game, and one more playoff game, will not lead to oversaturation, just 2-3 weeks more of the season.

And, the big idea is that by engaging in the whole 17 game discussion, the nfl could also fix the ridiculous salaries of the drafted players.

I agree veterans are getting screwed in the current system, but undrafted rookies are getting it even worse. And a lot of these guys are the future stars of the nfl.

I am just wondering if 17 is a bridge to even more games, so I do believe it's relevant. I just don't like de-emphasizing divisional games, having them make up a smaller percentage of a team's contests, and messing with the symmetry of 16 games that will lead the league to granting one conference nine home games one year and the other eight. Of course, it will alternate each year, but that could lead to some unfair advantages in my opinion.

I would hope that they would stay at 17, but don't give teams a ninth home game as I mentioned earlier. Use these games to first, give a taste of it to non-NFL US cities with the stadiums capable of handling it, gving many fans a chance to see a meaningful game live and secondly for a couple of international games to market the game.
Here's an off the wall thought. Give LA 8 of the neutral site games in a league owned stadium instead of robbing some poor cities loyal fans of their team. With the diverse LA market I'm sure every team has quite a few supporters in southern California.

I think you are right that 17 would put the schedule out of whack. Maybe it could be 8 home, 8 away and one foreign venue or non-NFL city in the states. One question we should think about is whether division games should count more than other games. You just end up with a demonstratively weak team in the playoffs.

The whole discussion is tricky. One big point is that as players get bigger, stronger and faster, maybe we should be talking about a 15 game season (vested interests aside). 16 is long and brutal right now as it is.

Or we can talk about 17 and larger rosters. Owners won't like larger rosters, but with the same size roster, and players getting bigger, stronger and faster every year, the reality is that effectively the roster is slowly shrinking over time. The NFL is tough, tougher than ever, and the season is a war of attrition, but we are reaching human limits regarding injury prevention and rehabilitation.

People need to understand simple physics: larger people running faster equals nastier. Don't tell me how tough the nfl in the 60's was. I am stronger and faster than a lot of those guys were. Great athletes, but not the freaks of nature the nfl has now. Have you ever met a modern nfl lineman?

I love Bronco Nagurski, but the NFL is tougher than ever. The peak of human competition. Give the modern players their due. A little larger rosters would make the game more interesting.

I like 17, an extra by-week during the season, one extra playoff round (maybe a wild card, wild card game) and larger rosters.

And fix those stupid rookie salaries!