NFL playoff expansion? Please no....

[Brady_to_Moss]

Roger Goodell says league studying playoff expansion - NFL.com


why ruin a good thing? Why even consider it? All about the $$....:bricks:

 

[Joey007]

They might as well get rid of the playoffs if they do this and make the top 2 teams play in the SB. Making the playoffs wouln't even be an accomplishment.

 

[mgteich]

Almost all changes (and there have been many) are about the money. Football is a business.

My opinion is that expansion will not make the game any more money. HOWEVER, a sixteen team playoffs with no bye might make more money. I'm sure the owners will make the right business decision, (as they will with regard to the pro bowl).

Roger Goodell says league studying playoff expansion - NFL.com


why ruin a good thing? Why even consider it? All about the $$....:bricks:

 

[jmt57]

If the league insists on increasing its revenue stream, then which is preferential: two more playoff teams (no bye for the #2 seed, they would play the #7 seed), or a 17-game schedule? Four more playoff teams (1 vs. 8), or an 18-game schedule?

Assuming you cannot choose 'neither', which would most people prefer? If I had to pick one it would be two more playoff teams.

 

[Nikolai]

Roger Bett-dell

 

[DropKickFlutie]

worst commissioner ever.

total hypocrite on player safety trying to add more games

 

[ivanvamp]

If the league insists on increasing its revenue stream, then which is preferential: two more playoff teams (no bye for the #2 seed, they would play the #7 seed), or a 17-game schedule? Four more playoff teams (1 vs. 8), or an 18-game schedule?

Assuming you cannot choose 'neither', which would most people prefer? If I had to pick one it would be two more playoff teams.

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.

 

[Nikolai]

worst commissioner ever.

total hypocrite on player safety trying to add more games

I'd posit he's very consistent on player safety, at least if dollars is the ultimate goal. Pushing a "player safety" agenda, however disingenuous, helps keep fans feeling like they're watching a league that is at least somewhat safe and trying to help its players. Hence, they'll drop money on the league.

And adding games/playoff teams is probably considered a net gain where the cost of player safety is outpaced by the revenue generated from extra games.

Follow the money.

 

[mgteich]

If I had to choose, I would choose 2 more teams PLUS re-seeding. Being the top seed is awesome if there is re-seeding.

I would understand that eventually another two teams would be added.

If the league insists on increasing its revenue stream, then which is preferential: two more playoff teams (no bye for the #2 seed, they would play the #7 seed), or a 17-game schedule? Four more playoff teams (1 vs. 8), or an 18-game schedule?

Assuming you cannot choose 'neither', which would most people prefer? If I had to pick one it would be two more playoff teams.

 

[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.

 

[Zeus]

Roger's just trying to figure out how many playoff teams are needed to guarantee that the jets make it every year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Roger's just trying to figure out how many playoff teams are needed to guarantee that the jets make it every year.

I am adamantly opposed to a 32 team playoff.

 

[mgteich]

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.

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.

 

[Wolfpack]

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

 

[1960Pats]

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.

 

[mgteich]

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.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

 

[Wolfpack]

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.

 

[Wolfpack]

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.