Expanded playoffs?

[RockThatBlue]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25542207/roger-goodell-expanded-nfl-playoffs-will-likely-happen

 

Count me as someone that doesn't want that to happen.

[2006Coltsbestever]

The league should keep everything the same. If I was to change something I would change a WildCard team having HFA over a Division winner if they have a better record but 6 teams making the Playoffs is enough

[bayone]

7 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The league should keep everything the same. If I was to change something I would change a WildCard team having HFA over a Division winner if they have a better record but 6 teams making the Playoffs is enough

 

leave it as is - the easier it is to get in the less importance is the regular season which right now is competitive fighting to the last day for getting into playoffs

 

more teams in whittles down the level of competition that gets in and can alter the SB outcome as a team , depending on how things are structured / scheduled , well the bye team may have to play an extra game and even if against a# 7 & 8 seed someone may get injured & ruin the run of a top seed team

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, bayone said:

 

leave it as is - the easier it is to get in the less importance is the regular season which right now is competitive fighting to the last day for getting into playoffs

 

more teams in whittles down the level of competition that gets in and can alter the SB outcome as a team , depending on how things are structured / scheduled , well the bye team may have to play an extra game and even if against a# 7 & 8 seed someone may get injured & ruin the run of a top seed team

I agree. 6 teams is perfect.

[MPStack]

It really all boils down to more Benjamins$$$$$$$. More playoff games, FB in  China and London. The Commissioner sure knows how to **** up a perfectly good thing, because its not about the product, its about the money.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

I haven't made my mind up yet. I need to see how are draft goes and how much our division has improved.

[WarGhost21]

It's perfect as it is. An expansion to 14 would only help lengthen the playoffs, which in my opinion isn't as exciting as the regular season and the suspense of getting in or not! 

[bayone]

1 hour ago, MPStack said:

It really all boils down to more Benjamins$$$$$$$. More playoff games, FB in  China and London. The Commissioner sure knows how to **** up a perfectly good thing, because its not about the product, its about the money.

 

AGREED

 

JUST LIKE 18 GAMES A SEASON,  this is another way to exploit TV rights , playoff sponsorship, high demand Money spending games & promotions etc etc etc 

 

consult the players 1st also though teams that are consistently just missing may vote for it, dont consult owners who may gain  more pocket change  ,they got enough already with cost of tickets etc

[shakedownstreet]

don't add teams & don't change the seeding

[Narcosys]

12 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25542207/roger-goodell-expanded-nfl-playoffs-will-likely-happen

 

Count me as someone that doesn't want that to happen.

Reason? 

[Narcosys]

4 hours ago, bayone said:

 

leave it as is - the easier it is to get in the less importance is the regular season which right now is competitive fighting to the last day for getting into playoffs

 

more teams in whittles down the level of competition that gets in and can alter the SB outcome as a team , depending on how things are structured / scheduled , well the bye team may have to play an extra game and even if against a# 7 & 8 seed someone may get injured & ruin the run of a top seed team

More teams means more competition wouldn't it?

[ColtRider]

 

Just as the article states, if the NFL is going to expand the Playoffs by 2 teams, it should stand to reason the only way to achieve this would be cutting the preseason back, as the NFLPA most likely will suggest.

 

The goal is of course, money. Always has, always will be. It's quite conceivable by expanding the Playoff teams by 2 & chopping the preseason would, in all likelihood, lead down a path of quicker franchise expansion & the possibility of more regular season games as well. Which in turn, again, leads to more money. 

 

I highly doubt the NFL has plans to sit on the system in place as of right now. Otherwise, there would be no talk of it at all. Changes are going to happen. No doubt about that. Just hope they can emulate or come close to the status quo structure of viability. A lot of problems need to be addressed before they add or takeaway preseason/regular season games, Playoff structure, player durability, travel, times, and all the concerns that go along with expansion anything for the sake of more money.

[aaron11]

2 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

I haven't made my mind up yet. I need to see how are draft goes and how much our division has improved.

be careful what you ask for right?

 

remember the patriots were one of the biggest proponents of moving back extra points.  

[bayone]

16 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

More teams means more competition wouldn't it?

 

True, I never meant to say less competition in sense that obviously one has to compete longer if are more games

I was saying it can water down the level of quality from top to bottom of all the seeds when u add 2 more lower ones 

 

and as noted a chance for increased injures by top tiers depending on how structured if they dont get an extra week off from the teams below them, that is if all teams play an = # of games, thus if top seeds play same # of games , I am saying though of course seeding is important for home field advantage, its also important to earn an extra week of rest as benefit for being a top 1 & 2 seed

 

How exactly the playoffs will be scheduled I didnt read so again who knows how that will impact the above

[21isSuperman]

I'm against this.  You already have 12 teams making the playoffs.  If you expand, you'd have to add at least 2 teams to each conference, meaning 12 + 2 + 2 = 16 teams make the playoffs.  The playoffs should only be for the best teams in the league.  If you're 15th or 16th, you're average.  You don't deserve to make the playoffs.  Instead of a change in playoff format, can we get a change in commissioner?

[BOTT]

9 hours ago, MPStack said:

It really all boils down to more Benjamins$$$$$$$. More playoff games, FB in  China and London. The Commissioner sure knows how to **** up a perfectly good thing, because its not about the product, its about the money.

Goodell is just representing the owners.

[ColtsBlueFL]

9 hours ago, MPStack said:

It really all boils down to more Benjamins$$$$$$$. More playoff games, FB in  China and London. The Commissioner sure knows how to **** up a perfectly good thing, because its not about the product, its about the money.

 

Of course it is about the money!  NFL is entertainment.  The team owners are shrewd businessmen (usually much better than football smart) that always have an eye on the bottom line.  Increase revenues.  For themselves and the league (their co-owners) as a whole.  Any time a change is made that does not appear to increase safety, or drops revenues will get dropped in short order.  If the product isn't good, then people will not pay or watch (in person or TV) and then changes will promptly occur.  It's all about the money. $$$$$

[Narcosys]

5 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

I'm against this.  You already have 12 teams making the playoffs.  If you expand, you'd have to add at least 2 teams to each conference, meaning 12 + 2 + 2 = 16 teams make the playoffs.  The playoffs should only be for the best teams in the league.  If you're 15th or 16th, you're average.  You don't deserve to make the playoffs.  Instead of a change in playoff format, can we get a change in commissioner?

No you don't.  You add 1 team to each conference and only the #1 seed gets the bye. The lowest winning seed faces the #1, the other two would face each other.  8 on each side allows for no byes

[southwest1]

6 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

I'm against this.  You already have 12 teams making the playoffs.  If you expand, you'd have to add at least 2 teams to each conference, meaning 12 + 2 + 2 = 16 teams make the playoffs.  The playoffs should only be for the best teams in the league.  If you're 15th or 16th, you're average.  You don't deserve to make the playoffs.  Instead of a change in playoff format, can we get a change in commissioner?

Uh huh. More teams in the playoffs weakens the significance of the playoffs or it cheapens reaching that feat as a team milestone anyway. I agree 100% 21. 

[Narcosys]

8 hours ago, bayone said:

 

True, I never meant to say less competition in sense that obviously one has to compete longer if are more games

I was saying it can water down the level of quality from top to bottom of all the seeds when u add 2 more lower ones 

 

and as noted a chance for increased injures by top tiers depending on how structured if they dont get an extra week off from the teams below them, that is if all teams play an = # of games, thus if top seeds play same # of games , I am saying though of course seeding is important for home field advantage, its also important to earn an extra week of rest as benefit for being a top 1 & 2 seed

 

How exactly the playoffs will be scheduled I didnt read so again who knows how that will impact the above

I disagree that it would lessen the quality. Go back the past 10 years and pick 1 more team from each conference.  I can guarantee you that you would see very few 8-8 and 9-7 teams making it.  

 

This was brought up a year or two ago and i did exactly what I suggested for you to do.  All in all there were no more than six or seven 9-7 and below teams out of the 20 that would have been in the playoffs.  Most were 10-6 teams.

 

How is that lessening the quality? Seems like those are quality teams to me. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

13 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

I disagree that it would let the quality. Go back the past 10 years and pick 1 more team from each conference.  I can guarantee you that you would see very few 8-8 and 9-7 teams making it.  

 

This was brought up a year or two ago and i did exactly what I suggested for you to do.  All in all there were no more than six or seven 9-7 and below teams out of the 20 that would have been in the playoffs.  Most were 10-6 teams.

 

How is that lessening the quality? Seems like those are quality teams to me. 

Here is a favorite of mine- 

 

2008 AFC Playoffs

AFC East                                                
Miami Dolphins*            11     5    
    
AFC North                                                
Pittsburgh Steelers*     12     4    
Baltimore Ravens+       11     5
    
AFC South                                                
Tennessee Titans*       13     3    
Indianapolis Colts+      12     4

 

AFC West                                                
San Diego Chargers*     8      8

**************************************
Left out-

New England Patriots    11     5

 

So adding the Pats in would lessen the quality of the playoffs?  Seems to me it would have created some extra discomfort in prospective opponents...

[RockThatBlue]

10 hours ago, Narcosys said:

Reason? 

More games = more injuries.

 

Not only that, there's no reason to do it. You can't fix something if its not broken.

[ColtsBlueFL]

5 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

More games = more injuries.

 

Not only that, there's no reason to do it. You can't fix something if its not broken.

 

An extra (2) playoff game(s) is the fastest way for the NFL to generate more money.  Follow the dollars.  Besides, many 'football guys' feel only the #1 seed should get the playoff bye, not the top 2 teams, just like Narcosys mentions above. And it typically doesn't weaken the 'pool'.  A crappy record division winner usually takes that slot, along with HFA in their playoff game.

[bayone]

5 hours ago, Narcosys said:

I disagree that it would lessen the quality. Go back the past 10 years and pick 1 more team from each conference.  I can guarantee you that you would see very few 8-8 and 9-7 teams making it.  

 

This was brought up a year or two ago and i did exactly what I suggested for you to do.  All in all there were no more than six or seven 9-7 and below teams out of the 20 that would have been in the playoffs.  Most were 10-6 teams.

 

How is that lessening the quality? Seems like those are quality teams to me. 

 

I respect your opinion , in general i disagree, maybe i am not explaining myself right, maybe i am just quite happy with way things are now & yes some teams 1st get it together for 2nd half of season and overall record may not reflect superior play towards the playoffs so record doesnt show that

 

again i would want to see exactly what the playoff schedule would be like, i want to make sure a 1 & 2 seed earn not just a bye but an extra week offf

 

agree to disagree here I literally dont have time to go back & forth on this , thats why i stopped commenting for a year or 2  and just read  -

[Jason_]

18 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

I'm against this.  You already have 12 teams making the playoffs.  If you expand, you'd have to add at least 2 teams to each conference, 

 

No you don't.  In fact I believe the proposal is to add 2 more teams total...one more per conference.  I actually like the idea because that would mean that only the #1 seed gets the first round bye.

[Jason_]

9 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:

More games = more injuries.

 

Not only that, there's no reason to do it. You can't fix something if its not broken.

 

No, but you can improve on something that isn't necessarily broken to make it better.

 

 

[bayone]

45 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

No you don't.  In fact I believe the proposal is to add 2 more teams total...one more per conference.  I actually like the idea because that would mean that only the #1 seed gets the first round bye.

 

all i know u add more teams , man the draft process takes long enough  ( LOL )

[Valpo2004]

I'm pretty neutral.  I don't think this will be the disaster some people put it as (a lot of the teams making it will be 10-6)  But I don't think it will be all that helpful for the fans either.

 

It would however increase the importance of that #1 seed.  

[ColtsBlueFL]

I think if they add 1 game per conference, it will settle in with everyone in a short period of time.  It will become the new normal without much issue. The #1 seed will gain considerable importance, maybe keeping teams already locked into the playoffs competing hard to the end.  I also think they should still award HFA to division winners, though, should this happen.

 

If they don't add this extra playoff game, then I think they should remove HFA from a division winner that has the lowest W/L percentage, but all division winners will still get a ticket into the playoffs.

[B~Town]

Would like to see the proposed bracket and tie breakers assume this would be the 7 team format

 

[21isSuperman]

21 hours ago, Narcosys said:

No you don't.  You add 1 team to each conference and only the #1 seed gets the bye. The lowest winning seed faces the #1, the other two would face each other.  8 on each side allows for no byes

 

8 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

No you don't.  In fact I believe the proposal is to add 2 more teams total...one more per conference.  I actually like the idea because that would mean that only the #1 seed gets the first round bye.

You're both right.  I don't know what I was thinking when I posted that . I dunno, I'm still against this.  4 division winners + 3 wild cards seems like too much.  4 + 2 seems like a good amount.  If the system isn't broken, don't change anything.

[BOTT]

21 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Here is a favorite of mine- 

 

2008 AFC Playoffs

AFC East                                                
Miami Dolphins*            11     5    
    
AFC North                                                
Pittsburgh Steelers*     12     4    
Baltimore Ravens+       11     5
    
AFC South                                                
Tennessee Titans*       13     3    
Indianapolis Colts+      12     4

 

AFC West                                                
San Diego Chargers*     8      8

**************************************
Left out-

New England Patriots    11     5

 

So adding the Pats in would lessen the quality of the playoffs?  Seems to me it would have created some extra discomfort in prospective opponents...

The pats couldn't beat out a mediocre team in the Dolphins to win the mediocre East.  They should have been left out.

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 hours ago, BOTT said:

The pats couldn't beat out a mediocre team in the Dolphins to win the mediocre East.  They should have been left out.

 

Maybe so, but during the 2008 regular season those mediocre Dolphins did complete the greatest single-season turnaround in NFL history going from a 1–15 regular season record in 2007 to an 11–5 record in 2008. The previous standard for improvement one year after a 1–15 season had belonged to our 1992 Indianapolis Colts, who went 9–7. And the 1999 Indianapolis Colts were the only other team to accomplish a 10-game turnaround, winning 13 games after winning 3 in 1998. Additionally, Miami won the AFC East, becoming the first team in NFL history to win their division after only having one win the previous season.  And the Patriots had Matt Cassel at QB, and still won as many games as the Dolphins and split the series with them that year. But they lost the division title on the 4th tie breaker- conference record.

[BOTT]

11 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Maybe so, but during the 2008 regular season those mediocre Dolphins did complete the greatest single-season turnaround in NFL history going from a 1–15 regular season record in 2007 to an 11–5 record in 2008. The previous standard for improvement one year after a 1–15 season had belonged to our 1992 Indianapolis Colts, who went 9–7. And the 1999 Indianapolis Colts were the only other team to accomplish a 10-game turnaround, winning 13 games after winning 3 in 1998. Additionally, Miami won the AFC East, becoming the first team in NFL history to win their division after only having one win the previous season.  And the Patriots had Matt Cassel at QB, and still won as many games as the Dolphins and split the series with them that year. But they lost the division title on the 4th tie breaker- conference record.

And the Dolphins went right back to being a below average team for the next decade.  They werent really that good and neither were the patriots.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Like I posted earlier I think it's fine the way it is but I wouldn't mind a WildCard team getting HFA in Round 1 over a Division winner if that WildCard team has a better record like in 3 vs 6/4 vs 5 matchups. I remember back in 2008 we were 12-4 (a 5) and the Chargers were 8-8 (a 4) but they had HFA in Round 1 because they won their Division. Of course we lost the game in OT.