Would the 17 game plan be to have one international game per round all of the regular season then? Maybe that's how Spurs "get a franchise" if they get eight games a year
I reckon a 17th game could also take the NFL to rugby markets such as Melbourne, Sydney, Tokyo, Paris, Dublin, Edinburgh and Cardiff. This probably would mean permanent fixtures of Toronto and Mexico City as well. For Stockholm to get one would seem like utopia, but it'd be interesting to attend it.
As for the playoffs, I think it works fine as it is, but if it would be eight I'd prefer it to be absolutely tied to the division and not to conference. As in, the top two teams of any division make the playoffs - period. Teams #7 and #8 wouldn't matter much either way. They'd just prolong their suffering one more game.
As the Ravens' and Chiefs' early goings proved, a bye-week for the playoffs is not the end-all-be all when it comes to the playoffs. I doubt losing it would make that much a difference.
Playing the Super Bowl one week later also wouldn't do anyone no harm if that's their call. It feels a bit forced to play it in the very early February. The broadcasters wouldn't want a clash with the Daytona 500, but one week later is entirely doable, thus fitting in the extra game of the regular season without forcing players to play in too extreme heat in September.
Personally, I think they might as well play the Pro Bowl either before the new season or a couple of weeks after the Super Bowl, so all top players can participate. For this year, one of Mahomes and Henry won't be around for example. It's not a proper all-star game when the best two teams' players are ineligible. I can understand the rationale of having people tune in during the bye-week, but might as well play the national college championship final that weekend instead.
