Expanded Playoffs: Good or Bad?

[RiverDog]

I say bad. I am quite comfortable with the current setup. Nearly 3/4 of the league is already still in the playoff race going into the last few weeks of the season, and the teams that have had the most consistent season is rewarded with HFA and a first round bye. I do not see a pattern of deserving teams being left out of the playoffs. I see some teams already having difficulty selling playoff tickets, something that's bound to become more of an issue if they add a couple of marginal teams to the playoff mix. IMO like the 18 game regular season, there is no ground swell, grass roots demand from fans for expanded playoffs and that it's nothing more than a money grab by the owners looking to squeeze every possible penny out of us consumers.

Bottom line is that if it's not broke, don't fix it.

[c_hawkbob]

I like it fine the way it is too, but I might like the new format just as well ... we'll see.

[kalibane]

I'm against it but it's not like they care what I think with another couple hundred millions in TV revenue at stake.

They'll point to teams like Arizona last year or the 11-5 Patriot team who missed the playoffs as a reason to expand them but more often what we're going to see is the 8-8 Steelers team that missed the playoffs last year. As far as I'm concerned the whole point of the playoffs is that now the good teams have been identified, let's see who's the best of them. Adding a mediocre team to the mix doesn't help that process. And given the whole "Any given Sunday" thing, will probably muck something up more often than making it more interesting.

[HumanCockroach]

I also don't like it. I dislike the idea of the second seed also having to play an additional playoff game. There are some pretty stout teams rolling into the second seed spot, and IMHO they deserve that first round bye.In a playoff format, it seems to me that creating a longer road, just because owners want a few more billions isn't necessarily in the fans best interest, and creates an environment where teams that were abysmal the first third or half of the season, yet get "hot" the second half, can indeed knock teams that are better out of the playoffs.

for me, I want to see the BEST teams win the SB not the hottest, I understand that the hot team can indeed still win ( and have if the Giants two trophies showed anything it was that) but mitigating it to teams that actually play well enough to be there in the first place seems like a good idea to me.

[NorthHawk]

Bad.
It lessens the importance of winning the Division as (I'm assuming) there won't be the bye week.
Teams would still get HFA, but that week can be real helpful for teams to get healthier.
Stats might not bear it out that getting an extra bye week before the playoffs helps in wins - I haven't looked it up, but for teams that are marginally healthy it can really help.

[RiverDog]

Wow. I can tell this thread isn't going to last very long. Too much agreement. I agree with all of the points made against the expansion. But like Kal said, it's not as if they give a rip about what us fans think. If they can turn an extra buck, they're going to do it even if 80 or 90% of the fans are against it.

North Hawk, I think the current 14 game proposal would still include a bye week, just that it would be reduced from 4 teams getting byes to 2. It's the only way they can make a 14 team playoff work out.

[HumanCockroach]

They did have a poll yesterday on the NFL network about this it was 60/40 in favor, which makes me wonder how many times the owners and Dallas fans voted......

also makes me wonder if those fans of Dallas realised their team would have STILL missed the playoffs the last four years....

[NorthHawk]

Wow. I can tell this thread isn't going to last very long. Too much agreement. I agree with all of the points made against the expansion. But like Kal said, it's not as if they give a rip about what us fans think. If they can turn an extra buck, they're going to do it even if 80 or 90% of the fans are against it.

North Hawk, I think the current 14 game proposal would still include a bye week, just that it would be reduced from 4 teams getting byes to 2. It's the only way they can make a 14 team playoff work out.

Thanks for the info, RD. Glad that part might still be in place.
I think the players would go for it. It's more players getting playoff money, but I worry about the dilution of the product with too many teams getting into the playoffs.
Where would it end - will they then want to add more teams a few years later in their quest for the $?

Maybe Cuban is on to something.

[kalibane]

I don't trust any fan polls from media outlets owned by the NFL. If you listen to Roger Goodell they claim that people want an 18 game season which I just flat out can't believe.

Yes it's completely anecdotal but while I suppose there are several people I've encountered who are indifferent to an 18 game schedule, I've never encountered a fellow football fan who, when the subject came up, argued that they SHOULD go to an 18 game schedule. More often than not people argue against it or just don't care one way or the other.

[RiverDog]

They did have a poll yesterday on the NFL network about this it was 60/40 in favor, which makes me wonder how many times the owners and Dallas fans voted......

also makes me wonder if those fans of Dallas realised their team would have STILL missed the playoffs the last four years....

I'm not sure I would trust a poll run by the NFL. It's a little like trusting the fox to guard the chicken coop. Just this informal "poll" of ours here in this forum is decidedly against the notion, and I don't get the sense it's because we've made the playoffs the last two years.

Had the 14 team playoff been in effect last season, Arizona with a 10-6 would have been the NFC's extra team and IMO they were deserving, but in the AFC, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Miami, and the Jets all had 8-8 records and none of those 4 teams IMO were deserving.

I also want to point to the fact that there were several teams that had quite a bit of difficulty selling playoff tickets for the opening round last season. If I remember right, Cincy had something like 7-8,000 unsold tickets with a few days remaining before the game. Indy and even Green Bay had a hard time selling playoff tickets. If those folks are having a hard time selling playoff tickets, just think what difficulty teams like Oakland, St. Louis, Jacksonville, and other places where interest in their teams is low would have.

[c_hawkbob]

I think the current 14 game proposal would still include a bye week, just that it would be reduced from 4 teams getting byes to 2. It's the only way they can make a 14 team playoff work out.

As far as the bye weeks, I kinda like that effect. I think it should just be the best team in each Conference that gets rewarded with a week off to begin the playoffs.

[kalibane]

The reason why I don't like that Bob is part of the reason Denver cruised to 13-3 in at least some part thanks to a completely cake schedule. Meanwhile NE went 12-4 and beat Denver head to head. Now I'm not saying Denver doesn't deserve a bye but I don't think that compared to New England they were the one team that deserved it in the conference.

If Denver played Seattle's schedule they definitely go at least 12-4 and NE wins the tie breaker. I like the two top seeds having a bye to help compensate for this kind of scheduling quirk.

[Zorn76]

Nay vote for me on expanded playoffs (and for an 18 game regular season). Unfortunately, both are likely going to happen in the near future.

Between the the two, I say the 18 game season is worse. 16 games is plenty. There is such a thing as a limit, and it's no accident that the current season length has remained the same for 36 years or so. That's because it works.

The league's money grab is gonna backfire if they go to 18, and adding more playoff teams to the mix is a waste of time.

[PasadenaHawk]

I too like things the way they are set now.

[RiverDog]

I think the current 14 game proposal would still include a bye week, just that it would be reduced from 4 teams getting byes to 2. It's the only way they can make a 14 team playoff work out.

As far as the bye weeks, I kinda like that effect. I think it should just be the best team in each Conference that gets rewarded with a week off to begin the playoffs.

Keeping available two byes per conference keeps the last few week's regular season games relevant. If one team, like Indy and NE, run out to a 14-0 or 13-1 and sews up the only bye, it takes away some incentive for several other teams to play hard in the last couple of games.

[HumanCockroach]

Personally I prefer the "push" at the end to grab one of those two byes Sometimes the second seed had a much tougher road to hoe as well. I don't like the idea of creating a situation where the two seed , three seed and four seed becomes only relevant later in the playoffs, or possibly not at all, creating less emphasis on winning games in the regular season. Any of the three now play on WC weekend at home, so ultimately until later in the playoffs it doesn't matter which seed you grab:

[RiverDog]

Personally I prefer the "push" at the end to grab one of those two byes Sometimes the second seed had a much tougher road to hoe as well. I don't like the idea of creating a situation where the two seed , three seed and four seed becomes only relevant later in the playoffs, or possibly not at all, creating less emphasis on winning games in the regular season. Any of the three now play on WC weekend at home, so ultimately until later in the playoffs it doesn't matter which seed you grab:

Gezus, more agreement. This ain't no fun. Let's shoot the S.O.B. that started this boring thread.

[briwas101]

The idea of having more do-or-die games is appealing because of the excitement, but letting half the league into the playoffs severely diminishes the importance of the regular season.

Right now, for the most part, teams have to compete for at least 13 games before they can even think about resting key players and taking it easy on others.

If playoffs are expanded then the season becomes a game of trying to rest players and keep/get others healthy while being in the top half of the league. That isnt nfl football.

[monkey]

It doesn't matter because if the NFL thinks there is more money to be made by extending the number of playoff teams/games/whatever, they will do it.
My opinion is that it is stupid, just like all those Thursday games are stupid, and having games in London is stupid, and etc...
My opinion doesn't matter in the slightest.

[NorthHawk]

It doesn't matter because if the NFL thinks there is more money to be made by extending the number of playoff teams/games/whatever, they will do it.
My opinion is that it is stupid, just like all those Thursday games are stupid, and having games in London is stupid, and etc...
My opinion doesn't matter in the slightest.

+1

[RiverDog]

It doesn't matter because if the NFL thinks there is more money to be made by extending the number of playoff teams/games/whatever, they will do it.
My opinion is that it is stupid, just like all those Thursday games are stupid, and having games in London is stupid, and etc...
My opinion doesn't matter in the slightest.

Take out the Thursday games and insert the proposed 18 game schedule and we're in complete agreement.

[HumanCockroach]

It's weird, but I am for an expanded roster ( maybe 3-5 more active, with an additional PS guy) abolishing two pre season games, and extending to 18 games, but am wholheatedly against expanding the playoffs ( and most people I know are for that move, or at least not vehemently opposed to it) which IMHO would make the money up, if they didn't move forward with the playoffs ( though to be fair, I'm sure they plan on doing BOTH).

[RiverDog]

It's weird, but I am for an expanded roster ( maybe 3-5 more active, with an additional PS guy) abolishing two pre season games, and extending to 18 games, but am wholheatedly against expanding the playoffs ( and most people I know are for that move, or at least not vehemently opposed to it) which IMHO would make the money up, if they didn't move forward with the playoffs ( though to be fair, I'm sure they plan on doing BOTH).

What I'd like to see them do with the preseason games is to require each team to play one home game away from their home field somewhere else in their region and not force season ticket holders to buy that game. Places like Boise and Fresno would love to host a preseason game. But of course, that means giving up some revenue. Banish the thought!

[obiken]

I am fine with it with the caveat that no one with a with less than a 9-7 record can get into the playoffs.

[c_hawkbob]

I am fine with it with the caveat that no one with a with less than a 9-7 record can get into the playoffs.

We're the team that killed that notion by beating the defending champs even though we got in with a losing record.

[obiken]

I agree but there was no defend that to my friends, even though I predicted we would win, but it gave us a false hope too early in our development.

[RiverDog]

I am fine with it with the caveat that no one with a with less than a 9-7 record can get into the playoffs.

We're the team that killed that notion by beating the defending champs even though we got in with a losing record.

That's true, but we also had the home field advantage in that game, no small consideration for teams like us and the Saints. There were a lot of people that felt strongly that based on our record, we should not have been playing that game at home. I don't think the discussion is dead. All it will take is for another 8-8 or 7-9 team to qualify and it will be deja vu all over again.

[HumanCockroach]

I am fine with it with the caveat that no one with a with less than a 9-7 record can get into the playoffs.

We're the team that killed that notion by beating the defending champs even though we got in with a losing record.

That's true, but we also had the home field advantage in that game, no small consideration for teams like us and the Saints. There were a lot of people that felt strongly that based on our record, we should not have been playing that game at home. I don't think the discussion is dead. All it will take is for another 8-8 or 7-9 team to qualify and it will be deja vu all over again.

And win. Plenty of 8-8 teams have made the playoffs, and a few have indeed won in the playoffs. IMHO it was more that the "champions" Saints had to play against a "team that didn't deserve to be in the post season" Seahawks, that then had the audacity to not only play like a playoff team, but win the game..

Couple teams have won the division at 8-8, no team has ever appeared at 7-9 until Seattle did, that .500 Number is "acceptable" to most fans, while the other isn't.

[RiverDog]

The 7-9 season was a true anomlay, one that has to be accepted if they are to give due importance to winning your division, a feature that I think we can all agree on is desireable. The wild card spots do not have such a justification, and expanding the playoffs to include two more wild card teams increases the possibility that a sub .500 team will qualify.

Had the 14 team playoff been in effect in 2013 and assuming that they would have used conference record as the tie breaker, the 7th seed in the AFC would have been the 8-8 Miami Dolphins. No way do I think that they were playoff-quality.

[Futureite]

Expanded draft to May. Expanded season from September 4th to February of the following yr. Expanded playoffs? Why doesn't the NFL just blend everything together into one, neverending season that extends indefinitely. No beginnng and no end. For yrs. I cannot complain too much though because I am an addict just like everyone else posting here. But the current number of playoff participants is perfect IMO.

[Futureite]

I am fine with it with the caveat that no one with a with less than a 9-7 record can get into the playoffs.

We're the team that killed that notion by beating the defending champs even though we got in with a losing record.

I don't have a problem with a team winning its div getting an automatic birth, but there should be a minimum record to qualify. At least 8-8 (and no that is not an indirect shot at the 2010 Hawks, but was my opinion when the 49ers were still alive late in that yr).. And teams should be reseaded once they qualify. If you win your div at 8-8 your div sucks. Period. A div winning record like that destroys the idea that the div's teams "beat up on each other". I think an automatic birth keeps the integrity of the Div structure in place. The reseeding prevents a team like the Ravens of 2012 from resting people in the final week, as they'd have to win to keep their homefield advantage despite winning their div.

[HumanCockroach]

Or your division is brutal. Not that the 2010 Hawks were, that division sucked, but there has indeed been brutal schedules and divisions that can cause poor records. Rewarding a team like NE for the last 10 yrs, while punishing teams that competition was fierce isn't much of a solution IMHO.

[Futureite]

Or your division is brutal. Not that the 2010 Hawks were, that division sucked, but there has indeed been brutal schedules and divisions that can cause poor records. Rewarding a team like NE for the last 10 yrs, while punishing teams that competition was fierce isn't much of a solution IMHO.

Ya that is true. But at the same time under the current system NE is already rewarded with a#1 or#2 seed almost every yr. To me the one stat that is subject to the least amount of debate is wins. But like you posted, even the quality of those can.be scrutinized.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't have a problem with a team winning its div getting an automatic birth, but there should be a minimum record to qualify. At least 8-8

Can't have it both ways, either a Division Championship guarantees you an automatic birth or it doesn't (in which case you may as well scrap Divisions altogether). No way you can put a minimum record qualifier on Div. Champs and still maintain divisional integrity.

As for reseeding the playoffs based on record; while I see it as unnecessary I'd be fine with it. The automatic birth a Division Championship must come with needn't guarantee a home playoff game to maintain divisional integrity.

[RiverDog]

I don't have a problem with a team winning its div getting an automatic birth, but there should be a minimum record to qualify. At least 8-8

Can't have it both ways, either a Division Championship guarantees you an automatic birth or it doesn't (in which case you may as well scrap Divisions altogether). No way you can put a minimum record qualifier on Div. Champs and still maintain divisional integrity.

As for reseeding the playoffs based on record; while I see it as unnecessary I'd be fine with it. The automatic birth a Division Championship must come with needn't guarantee a home playoff game to maintain divisional integrity.

I still like the idea of the divisional champs getting seeds 1-4 and not re-seeding. I like to see as much of a premium placed on winning your division as possible.

[NorthHawk]

It's weird, but I am for an expanded roster ( maybe 3-5 more active, with an additional PS guy) abolishing two pre season games, and extending to 18 games, but am wholheatedly against expanding the playoffs ( and most people I know are for that move, or at least not vehemently opposed to it) which IMHO would make the money up, if they didn't move forward with the playoffs ( though to be fair, I'm sure they plan on doing BOTH).

I think you're on to something with expanding the roster if they move to 18 games.
I almost think they should do it now, but with 2 more regulation games, they will pretty much have to.

[Futureite]

I don't have a problem with a team winning its div getting an automatic birth, but there should be a minimum record to qualify. At least 8-8

Can't have it both ways, either a Division Championship guarantees you an automatic birth or it doesn't (in which case you may as well scrap Divisions altogether). No way you can put a minimum record qualifier on Div. Champs and still maintain divisional integrity.

As for reseeding the playoffs based on record; while I see it as unnecessary I'd be fine with it. The automatic birth a Division Championship must come with needn't guarantee a home playoff game to maintain divisional integrity.

Ya I don't really have a good reason for a minimum win total to guarantee a playoff birth. But it just feels like there should be some point where winning a div is meaningless - especially if it keeps a real contender from participating in the postseason. If a 6-10 team wins a div, what have they really won. But I guess people could point to the 9-7 Giants as SB champs despite their mediocore record as proof that a team cannot be proven less "worthy" than another team until the postseason is complete.

[HumanCockroach]

A whole lot of stars had to align for Seattle to win that division, not expecting to see it again in my life time to be honest. They were the first and only team to do so, which is crazy when you think about it, been a lot of years that football has had the same playoff formula ( at least in regards to making the post season when a team wins a division), I suspect it will be a lot of years before it's done again.

[RiverDog]

A whole lot of stars had to align for Seattle to win that division, not expecting to see it again in my life time to be honest. They were the first and only team to do so, which is crazy when you think about it, been a lot of years that football has had the same playoff formula ( at least in regards to making the post season when a team wins a division), I suspect it will be a lot of years before it's done again.

Yea, 2010 was an anomaly if there ever was one. Not only were we 7-9, but 7 of those 9 losses were by 17+ points. We were pretty bad.