Quote
AlbaNY_Ram
The networks pay the NFL based on an 18 week season, where they can broadcast a full slate of games each of the 18 weeks.
If you cut that down to 17 weeks the networks will pay less.
But if you bump that up to 19 weeks (or 20 weeks!) the networks will pay more. Hence the incentive to go to an 18 game schedule ... and if each team gets 2 bye weeks that's a 20 week season.
I'm riding RantoulRam coattails on this one (posted elsewhere in this thread). While there is still one bye give half the league a bye in week 9 and the other half a bye in week 10. No lost weeks of football and everyone gets a break mid-season.
I'd even have all the teams that have a bye week 9 play each other in week 10, and all the teams that have a bye in week 10 play each other in week 11. That would virtually eliminate any advantage teams have based on when their bye is and how many teams they face that are coming off their bye week.
If (when?) the league goes to an 18 game schedule you could do something similar if they want 2 bye weeks per team, maybe weeks 6 & 7 and then again in weeks 13 & 14?
So, you’re saying that NFL gets paid by networks by individual games broadcast and not by the season? That doesn’t feel right to me.
In a 17 games played but 18 game season the networks would get the identical amount at conclusion of the season by either method. So, if I’m right then the hypothetical additional bye week would not affect overall NFL income from the networks at all. Same number of total games played, same amount of money from networks to NFL overall.
