NFL: Fine, no 18 games.....But how about more playoffs?

[Rook05]

There's been some buzz over the last few days about the NFL expanding the playoffs to 14 teams. While it was tabled for 2014, it looks likely to be added for the 2015 season. The main difference would be that only the top seed would get a bye.

Net/net, I can't say that I'm too worked up over it, but it's obviously a money grab. I think it slightly cheapens the regular season, and may lead to more teams resting starters once the one seed is locked up.

Thoughts?

 

[ifmanis5]

I guess telling Jerry Jones 'more isn't automatically better' isn't really resonating.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

I think your instinct is correct.  It'll lead to more important/exciting games for mediocre teams while making for less important/exciting games for the highest tier of teams.

 

[dbn]

I don't like it. I think 6/16 playoff teams per conference is perfect. Enough to keep it interesting for a bunch of teams, but few enough that playoffs is indeed a reward. 7/16 is too close to 50%. Teams with 0.500 or sub-0.500 records making the playoffs would become too common, as well.

 

[Vinho Tinto]

The NFL has dropped the charade that it isn't piggish in its lust to grow revenue. I love the sport, but I've come to really detest everyone involved in running the league. 

 

[Dan Murfman]

Since the 2000 season the record of the extra playoff teams would have been:
 
9-7  15 times
8-8    7 times
10-6  5 times
11-5  1 time

 

[dbn]

Since the 2000 season the record of the extra playoff teams would have been:
 
9-7  15 times
8-8    7 times
10-6  5 times
11-5  1 time

 
Too soon.
 
Thanks for looking that up - I should have before posting.
 
Still, 44% of the teams making the playoffs is too much for my taste.

 

[Morning Woodhead]

Unfortunately, I think this inevitable.  And while I think the 6/16 format is perfect, I'm not going to complain about more football either. 
 
The one change I would make is go from 7 to 8.  I think 7 is stupid, with only 1 team getting a bye week.  No more bye weeks, everyone plays wildcard weekend. 

 

[Toe Nash]

Well, I haven't quite figured out the tiebreakers, but you would have had two of Miami, NYJ, Baltimore and Pittsburgh in the playoffs last year (all were 8-8), none of whom really "deserved" it as they were all pretty poor (though maybe the last week or two of results would have been different if teams had something to play for). 
 
In the NFC, ARI would be in, so good as they were a very good team, and then Chicago by virtue of the tiebreaker over Dallas. 
 
On the other side, it could be interesting strategy, but my feeling is that the #1 overall seed is in doubt late no more often than the top 2 are. And you'd still have the #2-7 seeds playing for seeding and HFA.
 
I tend to think the system as it is now is pretty perfect and the more you can avoid 8-8 or 9-7 teams getting hot or getting good matchups for a few weeks and advancing far into the playoffs, the better. So I don't like it because it lets more dreck in. Right now it's rare that a mediocre team is in the playoffs and that makes every matchup interesting. You probably wouldn't get that with a New England - Pittsburgh game last year or a Carolina - Chicago matchup. I also feel that the bye is a good reward for the top 2 of 6 teams, and then that plus HFA through the championship game is a good reward for the #1 team. Giving nothing extra to the #2 seed seems wrong somehow.

 

[Toe Nash]

I think the numbers posted above look good on first glance but the reality is that 9-7 teams are usually pretty mediocre. IIRC only three have made it to the Super Bowl ever (We don't have to go through those :barf:  ). If they make it in now they have usually won the division, which I think is an accomplishment.

 

[trekfan55]

Well, I haven't quite figured out the tiebreakers, but you would have had two of Miami, NYJ, Baltimore and Pittsburgh in the playoffs last year (all were 8-8), none of whom really "deserved" it as they were all pretty poor (though maybe the last week or two of results would have been different if teams had something to play for). 
 
In the NFC, ARI would be in, so good as they were a very good team, and then Chicago by virtue of the tiebreaker over Dallas. 
 
On the other side, it could be interesting strategy, but my feeling is that the #1 overall seed is in doubt late no more often than the top 2 are. And you'd still have the #2-7 seeds playing for seeding and HFA.
 
I tend to think the system as it is now is pretty perfect and the more you can avoid 8-8 or 9-7 teams getting hot or getting good matchups for a few weeks and advancing far into the playoffs, the better. So I don't like it because it lets more dreck in. Right now it's rare that a mediocre team is in the playoffs and that makes every matchup interesting. You probably wouldn't get that with a New England - Pittsburgh game last year or a Carolina - Chicago matchup. I also feel that the bye is a good reward for the top 2 of 6 teams, and then that plus HFA through the championship game is a good reward for the #1 team. Giving nothing extra to the #2 seed seems wrong somehow.

 
Nitpicking here, but only one team per conference would be allowed in.  That means Arizona and whoever won the tiebreaker among those teams in the AFC.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I think the NFL playoff formula is pretty much perfect as-is, but the bottom line is I'll watch however much playoff football they put on TV.  More games means more TV dollars, so something like this will probably happen.

 

[Dgilpin]

 
Too soon.
 
Thanks for looking that up - I should have before posting.
 
Still, 44% of the teams making the playoffs is too much for my taste.

 
Still less than the NBA & NHL , who lets 53% of their teams in the playoffs. As a fan of a team that hasn't been near the top of the NFL ever (Lions), I like anything that increases their playoff chances.  Kevin Seifert at ESPN wrote a really good write up about the possible playoff expansion (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10946640/examining-biggest-questions-surrounding-impending-nfl-playoff-expansion ). I think the most surprising thing was how much the general public seems to be against it, 2/3 in a recent ESPN poll were opposed.

 

[Kliq]

I think the playoffs are perfect the way they are right now, and I think adding an extra, potentially undeserving team devalues the regular season a little bit, but the fact of the matter is that nobody in the league is going to say no to more money, not the owners, coaches or the players. Also, us fans can complain right now about the move to an extra playoff game, but we will be the first people in January getting excited about the extra games.

 

[tims4wins]

I think the playoffs are perfect the way they are right now, and I think adding an extra, potentially undeserving team devalues the regular season a little bit, but the fact of the matter is that nobody in the league is going to say no to more money, not the owners, coaches or the players. Also, us fans can complain right now about the move to an extra playoff game, but we will be the first people in January getting excited about the extra games.

 
The team may be potentially undeserving, but considering how many 6 seeds have won it all recently, I'd argue that most 7 seeds will be perfectly capable of winning it all as well.
 
I do kind of like the extra importance of getting the 1 seed in this scenario.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

I like it. As mentioned above, it is easy for a bunch of Pats fans to scoff at inviting some 7th seed peasants into their playoff fun, but when you root for a team that has not been there in 12 seasons, the additional spots sounds attractive. Plus, I think you will get a scenario like the 2010 Packers every few years where injuries decimate the best team during a long stretch of the regular season, but they get healthy around playoff time and win the whole thing. 
 
I don't think it really hurts week 17 that much, relative to what we have right now. It makes the 1 seed much more valuable than the 2 with the bye week and home field advantage if they ever meet, meaning very good teams will play hard to avoid the 2, just like they work hard to avoid the 3 or 4 now. Also, with the significant disparity between the 5 and the 7, I think the 3 becomes that much more valuable than the 4 seed, thus giving more incentive to play starters and top strategies in week 17, even if the division is sowed up early. 
 
One thing I would like to see is the 5 seed getting home field over the 4 if they have a superior record, both overall and in conference. 
 
 
In terms of a longer season, I would like to see 17 games, with an inter conference  "rivalry" game every year  (Raiders - 49ers, Jets - Giants, Cowboys - Texans) and the extra game played on a neutral site (like London, or LA) for each team, thus still leaving each team at 8 home and 8 road games. I think the NFL would love to have 6-8 LA games and 6-8 London games every year with the occasional Mexico City or San Antonio game thrown in. 

 

[54thMA]

It's a stupid idea, essentially rewarding mediocrity and sports in general has enough of that already.
 
Just what the NFL needs, more 9-7 teams getting to the playoffs.
 
That said, they'll do it no doubt as in the end, it's all about keeping fans of fringe teams interested longer; aka, it's all about money.

 

[Kliq]

 
The team may be potentially undeserving, but considering how many 6 seeds have won it all recently, I'd argue that most 7 seeds will be perfectly capable of winning it all as well.
 
I do kind of like the extra importance of getting the 1 seed in this scenario.

 
My counter of that should be that if a team is good enough to win a SB, then they should be good enough to get themselves into the playoffs. We should reward teams that play well for 19-20 games, not teams that play .500 and then get hot for a four game stretch.

 

[dbn]

 
Still less than the NBA & NHL , who lets 53% of their teams in the playoffs. As a fan of a team that hasn't been near the top of the NFL ever (Lions), I like anything that increases their playoff chances.  Kevin Seifert at ESPN wrote a really good write up about the possible playoff expansion (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10946640/examining-biggest-questions-surrounding-impending-nfl-playoff-expansion ). I think the most surprising thing was how much the general public seems to be against it, 2/3 in a recent ESPN poll were opposed.

 
I figured someone would mention that.
 
First: too many teams do make the NHL and especially the NBA playoffs, IMO, so that model isn't worth mimicking. 
 
Second: there is a big difference between the NFL playoffs and those of the NBA and NHL: in the latter two, they play 7 game series, not one winner moves on, loser goes home game. The multi-game series make it less likely an "undeserving" team beats the "most deserving" team. Perhaps more importantly, however, with multi-game series you really need the number of playoff teams to be a power of 2 so you don't have any byes. Byes would lead to one team being tired and the other rusty.
 
edit: also, with regard to wanting your Lions to make the playoffs, it becomes less special/exciting to make the playoffs the more teams get in. I mean, would you be excited for the Lions to make the playoffs if 50% of teams were invited each year? What about 75%?

 

[Tito's Pullover]

The big winner here to me seems to be the 3 seed. Under the old format they would have to host a wild card game and, if they advance, have to go on the road to play a team coming off a bye. Now, they can do no worse than playing a team that also had to win a wild card game - and in the best case scenario (3 beats 6 and 7 upsets 2) they actually have a chance to host the divisional round (against the winner of 4 vs 5).

 

[dbn]

I'm still against expanded playoffs for all of the reasons I've already stated, as well as some of the reasons stated by others. However, the more I think about it, the more it grows on me. Here are a couple of the reasons.
 
* It really is a minor change. In conference-years when the #2 beats the #7, it turns out to be the exact same as it would have been with a 6 team/conf playoffs, except that the only team that got the reward of the bye was what we'd probably start to refer to as the "Regular Season Conference Champion". Right now the team with the 2nd best record gets the exact same reward and the team with the best record (and no, I don't consider home-field-throughout to be a "reward" - that's just how seeding works).
 
Building on that thought, it would seem fit that teams get one reward for winning their division in the regular season (i.e., guaranteed spot in the top 4 seeds in the playoffs), and an additional reward for winning their conference in the regular season (i.e., the coveted bye). 
 
* That more 9-7 and 8-8 teams make the playoffs would just be the price to pay for less 10-6 and 11-5 teams missing them. Now I don't care at all that the number of wins necessary to make the playoffs varies from year to year - that is a function of the changing distribution of talent in the league plus luck. It does kind of bother me, though, when team A has 2+ more wins than team B, but team B makes the playoffs and team A does not.
 
edit: Also, while my first choice is 6 playoff teams per conference, 7 would be at least better than 5. While it would be kind of be interesting to have, in each conference, the worst division winner have to play the best non-division winner to make the conference final 4, that's just too little playoff football.

 

[luckiestman]

I like that all sports are going the way of the joke that is NCAA basketball
 
just call the regular season the seeding season and then let every team in the playoffs
 
TV DOLLAZ Y'ALL

 

[Otis Foster]

Horrible idea, not unlike the junior sports ethos that everyone's a winner. Well, every team is not a (potential) winner. If the team is mediocre during the RS, there's no reason other than sheer greed to expand the playoff rosters. An 8-8 team belongs on the links, not the playoffs.
 
I've been a pro football fan since 1947 (seriously - Cleveland Browns, AAFC, pre-Bradshaw Steelers and Bill S's. original Patsies) but between the horrendous - and concealed - injury risks, the ballooning of the Super Bowl into a private club for fat cats and now the expansion of the draft into 3 (or is it 4?) days, I've just about had enough. 
 
God, I hate it when the suits take over.
 
(Takes 2 Valium, practices square breathing.)

 

[dbn]

I like that all sports are going the way of the joke that is NCAA basketball
 
just call the regular season the seeding season and then let every team in the playoffs
 
TV DOLLAZ Y'ALL

 
You do realize that < 20% of Div-I NCAA men's basketball teams make the NCAA tournament, right?
 
edit: unless you're referring to the conference tournaments...

 

[soxfan121]

Since the 2000 season the record of the extra playoff teams would have been:
 
9-7  15 times
8-8    7 times
10-6  5 times
11-5  1 time

 
Based on this, I would support the added playoff team IF they add the 8 win rule. Less than 8 wins? No playoffs, the #2 seed gets a BYE. Etc.
 
This way, no 7-9 team makes the playoffs, ever. If only 5 teams finish at 8-8 or above, only five teams make the playoffs; the #2 & #3 seeds get BYEs. Prevents the Seattle 7-9 scenario from ever happening. 
 
The TV guys don't want to hype a 7-9 team in the playoffs. The network affected by a missing playoff game would get a compensatory 4PM game between division winners the next season in sweeps.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

 
Based on this, I would support the added playoff team IF they add the 8 win rule. Less than 8 wins? No playoffs, the #2 seed gets a BYE. Etc.
 
This way, no 7-9 team makes the playoffs, ever. If only 5 teams finish at 8-8 or above, only five teams make the playoffs; the #2 & #3 seeds get BYEs. Prevents the Seattle 7-9 scenario from ever happening. 
 
The TV guys don't want to hype a 7-9 team in the playoffs. The network affected by a missing playoff game would get a compensatory 4PM game between division winners the next season in sweeps.

 
I'd actually up that to 8-8.  I think being a winning team (rather than simply not being a losing team) should be the hurdle to clear.  Then again, I'd also like to see division winner playoff spots also only be guaranteed if they're over .500 too.
 
Regardless, they'd never eliminate a planned playoff game because the TV networks will have paid an assload for that game and won't want to give it up.  

 

[tims4wins]

 
My counter of that should be that if a team is good enough to win a SB, then they should be good enough to get themselves into the playoffs. We should reward teams that play well for 19-20 games, not teams that play .500 and then get hot for a four game stretch.

Under this logic the Packer and Giant Super Bowl championship teams shouldn't have made the playoffs. Should we limit the playoffs to only teams that win at least 10 games? 11?

 

[Dgilpin]

 
Based on this, I would support the added playoff team IF they add the 8 win rule. Less than 8 wins? No playoffs, the #2 seed gets a BYE. Etc.
 
This way, no 7-9 team makes the playoffs, ever. If only 5 teams finish at 8-8 or above, only five teams make the playoffs; the #2 & #3 seeds get BYEs. Prevents the Seattle 7-9 scenario from ever happening. 
 
The TV guys don't want to hype a 7-9 team in the playoffs. The network affected by a missing playoff game would get a compensatory 4PM game between division winners the next season in sweeps.

The 7-9 Seahawks were a division winner

 

[DanoooME]

 
You do realize that < 20% of Div-I NCAA men's basketball teams make the NCAA tournament, right?
 
edit: unless you're referring to the conference tournaments...

 
I think he's referring to all of those other shitty tournaments like the NIT, CAA and whatever else is in the alphabet soup.

 

[Infield Infidel]

If it includes dropping a week of boring ass pre-season games, I'm in.
 
I'd like to see a week with no games between the pre-season and regular season, so teams can be closer to 100% on opening day. 

 

[dynomite]

I think the NFL playoff formula is pretty much perfect as-is, but the bottom line is I'll watch however much playoff football they put on TV.  More games means more TV dollars, so something like this will probably happen.

Get out of my head!

Edit: I also agree with II's thoughts about eliminating a week of preseason, although very few starters get real reps in the 4th preseason game.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
Still less than the NBA & NHL , who lets 53% of their teams in the playoffs. As a fan of a team that hasn't been near the top of the NFL ever (Lions), I like anything that increases their playoff chances.  Kevin Seifert at ESPN wrote a really good write up about the possible playoff expansion (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10946640/examining-biggest-questions-surrounding-impending-nfl-playoff-expansion ). I think the most surprising thing was how much the general public seems to be against it, 2/3 in a recent ESPN poll were opposed.

 
 

I like it. As mentioned above, it is easy for a bunch of Pats fans to scoff at inviting some 7th seed peasants into their playoff fun, but when you root for a team that has not been there in 12 seasons, the additional spots sounds attractive. Plus, I think you will get a scenario like the 2010 Packers every few years where injuries decimate the best team during a long stretch of the regular season, but they get healthy around playoff time and win the whole thing. 
 

 
I think formulating your opinion on something like this based on "how good or crappy my team is at this very moment" is not a sound way to evaluate whether this is good or bad for the sport (although I recognize that Gunfighter includes other reasons).  I am old enough to remember when a Patriots playoff spot was unfathomable, and I recognize that someday that will probably be the case again.  My opinion on this proposed change has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that to me the NFL has struck the perfect balance that both maximizes the importance of the regular season, and minimizes the number of mediocre teams that are in the playoffs.  Injuries are a huge part of football, and having depth to overcome them is a big part of effective roster construction and management.  If injuries keep an otherwise good to great team out of the playoffs, that to me is preferable to having an 8-8 or even 7-9 team get in on an annual or semi-annual basis.  That is just rewarding mediocrity.  A playoff spot should be about being more than just mediocre.
 
It is actually encouraging that 2/3 of the fans voting on that ESPN poll agree.  I am assuming the they were not only accepting votes from fans of perennial playoff teams.

 

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

http://www.solecismic.com/frontierblog/?p=671

The most interesting ramification people don't discuss is that we're going to lose quite a few 2-seeds to these 2/7 games over time. No playoff game is a done deal.

Personally, I think 12 is enough. I worry that owners are too easily convinced to water down the game by the promise of Friday night playoff games to add to their wallets.

I don't agree with limiting playoff teams based on record. While in-division schedules are overwhelmingly similar, out-of-division schedules are not - especially with teams not in your paired division.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Isn't Friday the night of lowest ratings of any night of the week? I'd imagine we'd see 3 games each Sat & Sun vs a Friday night game. 

 

[Super Nomario]

An extra playoff team starts creeping the curve down where it gets flat. I remember in 2002 when the Pats missed out on the playoffs at 9-7 to two other 9-7 teams and how unfair and arbitrary that felt. There's just going to be more of that with a third wildcard. Last year the NFC would have been pretty clean (the 10-6 Cardinals would have been in), but the AFC would have been messy, with four 8-8 teams decided by tiebreakers. The closer you get to that flat part of the talent curve, with a lot of 8-8 and 9-7 teams clustered, the more seemingly random results.

 

[Rook05]

http://www.solecismic.com/frontierblog/?p=671

The most interesting ramification people don't discuss is that we're going to lose quite a few 2-seeds to these 2/7 games over time. No playoff game is a done deal.

This is a good point, and what is driving my annoyance at the change. Yes, a number 1 seed won last year, but dispersion of winning seeds will only continue to grow. I'd rather see a greater reward for performing during the regular season so it's harder for the "hot" teams to succeed.

 

[tims4wins]

This is a good point, and what is driving my annoyance at the change. Yes, a number 1 seed won last year, but dispersion of winning seeds will only continue to grow. I'd rather see a greater reward for performing during the regular season so it's harder for the "hot" teams to succeed.

 
But so many lesser seeds have won recently despite byes for the 1 and 2 seeds - I don't see how you could provide even more of an advantage than currently exists. I mean, it's a HUGE advantage to get a bye + a home game. Now being the 1 seed will have even more of an advantage.
 
But also, let's not forget that no team had ever won 3 straight road playoff games and then won the Super Bowl until about 6 years ago. It's not like 6 seeds have been consistently winning titles for 20 years.