ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
__________________
"And the anger and the yearning, like fever in my veins, set the fire burning ..." WZ
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
Adding two teams at a time, and continuing to increase playoff revenue, is NOT learning from hockey. When adding two teams does not increase revenue, they will stop. While I prefer
Perhaps we should go back to 8 teams.
My "preference" is ten teams, but that preference does not have any financial analysis to support it. Fourteen teams with re-seeding is probably an improvement, Re-seeding makes the seeds much more important. Sixteen teams removing the bye, which would probably be a mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Irae
They can either learn from hockey, or they can join its follies. They'll either figure out when they've reached a saturation point or they'll eventually overreach and damage the game. Sadly, they seem too greedy to make the smart decisions.
The NFL wants to reduce the preseason, but that's essentially flushing money down the toilet so they need to find some way to compensate for the lost revenue. I oppose expanding the playoffs, but if I had to choose between the status quo or dropping some preseason games with expanding the playoffs, I'd pick the latter.
Adding two teams at a time, and continuing to increase playoff revenue, is NOT learning from hockey. When adding two teams does not increase revenue, they will stop. While I prefer
Perhaps we should go back to 8 teams.
Stacking the league with too many teams and/or putting so many teams into the playoffs that the regular season is meaningless are two good ways to damage your league. You can claim that adding any particular number of teams isn't too many, and that's fine. The reality, however, is that it could be too many, at any time, and the league understands this.
That's the line the league doesn't want to cross.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
Honestly, I think the NFL is just about the most "perfect" pro sports league there is. 32 teams, scheduling is a snap, the right number of teams make the playoffs, with a nice reward for the top 2 seeds that the other seeds don't get. Yet it's balanced enough so that quite often a 3-6 seed makes the SB. There's enough intrigue so that in the last few weeks there's usually quite a few teams in the playoff mix, but it's not a complete free-for-all, and almost always the teams that are in there are pretty good.
But IF they are hell-bent on making a change, I'd start with adding just one more playoff team per conference and still give the #1 seed a bye. It's still well worth playing for. So the WC weekend would be:
2 v. 7
3 v. 6
4 v. 5
Then re-seed after that, with the 1 seed playing the worst remaining seed, etc. I think that would be ok. But what you don't want is a hockey-style playoff format where so many teams get in that you routinely have an 8-8 (or worse) make the playoffs.
We've already had that happen, and when it did the 11-5 Pats were sitting at home watching. It has happened before and will happen again, even if they don't expand the playoffs. As long as they continue this idiotic four division setup there will be less worthy teams in and more worthy teams out.
They might as well form sixteen two team divisions and let each division winner into the playoffs. We could be the AFCNE with the Bills. The Jets and Fins could be in the AFCSE. The Giants and Eagles could be the NFCNE and the Skins and Boys could be the NFCSE. Then they could have half the league teams "fighting" to make the playoffs.
Every year I get less excited about the NFL. The watering down of the playoffs is one of the main reasons.
__________________
.
The Pats may have a defense to go along with their offense.
I agree. However, adding 2 teams to the playoffs, re-seeding, and reducing the pre-season may be a net plus to the nil and to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Irae
Stacking the league with too many teams and/or putting so many teams into the playoffs that the regular season is meaningless are two good ways to damage your league. You can claim that adding any particular number of teams isn't too many, and that's fine. The reality, however, is that it could be too many, at any time, and the league understands this.
I agree. However, adding 2 teams to the playoffs, re-seeding, and reducing the pre-season may be a net plus to the nil and to us.
Well, it may be a plus for the NFL, and it may be a plus to you. It won't be a plus to me, and I'll lose more interest in the playoffs. And there lies the issue for the NFL, because it's all about the league figuring out how many there are of "you" v. how many there are of "me". In this case, further dilution of the playoffs may not be enough to drive enough people away to make it a net loss, and I suspect that's the case.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
We've already had that happen, and when it did the 11-5 Pats were sitting at home watching. It has happened before and will happen again, even if they don't expand the playoffs. As long as they continue this idiotic four division setup there will be less worthy teams in and more worthy teams out.
They might as well form sixteen two team divisions and let each division winner into the playoffs. We could be the AFCNE with the Bills. The Jets and Fins could be in the AFCSE. The Giants and Eagles could be the NFCNE and the Skins and Boys could be the NFCSE. Then they could have half the league teams "fighting" to make the playoffs.
Every year I get less excited about the NFL. The watering down of the playoffs is one of the main reasons.
Whuh-huh? The NFL has had 12 teams in the playoffs for about 20 years now, and the current division format has existed for about 10.
If you're feeling less interest in the league on a year-to-year basis, I think you should place the blame somewhere else because the playoffs haven't changed in quite some time.
Well, it may be a plus for the NFL, and it may be a plus to you. It won't be a plus to me, and I'll lose more interest in the playoffs. And there lies the issue for the NFL, because it's all about the league figuring out how many there are of "you" v. how many there are of "me". In this case, further dilution of the playoffs may not be enough to drive enough people away to make it a net loss, and I suspect that's the case.
That's because the NFL knows that people like you who say "I'll lose more interest in the playoffs if they do this" are full of mularkey. You'll follow football just as much if they do it as you would if they don't.
8Likes
Re: NFL playoff expansion? Please no....
Linear Mode
