Good or Bad idea : Best of 3 SB

[thenepatsrule]

I was wondering how would the NFL be if they had a best of 3 games SB championship. The only advantage which i can see is that the best team ends up winning the SB and you don't have teams like the 2011 Giants/2012 Ravens who squeak into the Playoffs winning the SB. Some might argue that the best team of the year should win the SB rather than the better/Lucky team that day. Like for example MLB we know that the Pirates may beat the Cardinals in a one game playoff scenario but they for sure aren't beating the Cards in a best of 5 or 7 scenario. Same goes for the NBA the Knicks are not winning a 7 game series with a team like the Heat.

The disadvantage would be people would lose interest in the game (Like i have lost interest in the NBA), I mean you know that Mark Sanchez is not beating Brady in the Playoffs 2 out of 3 times. So basically the fans of the underdog have hardly any hope of winning the series.

What do you guys think?

 

[doesntmatter1]

Honestly, this is a horrible idea. The one game eliminations is what makes football special. I think you secretly wish we had lost against "the greatest show on turf" 2001 Rams lol.

 

[thenepatsrule]

Honestly, this is a horrible idea. The one game eliminations is what makes football special. I think you secretly wish we had lost against "the greatest show on turf" 2001 Rams lol.

Actually i dont, but i would gladly trade that one SB for the 2007 and 2011 ones

 

[RayClay]

You'd need to drive through home depot parking lot to pick up bodies so you could field replacements for game three.

Plus, nothing would be gained by it.

I wouldn't trade 2001 for anything, myself.

 

[MassPats38]

That would turn the Super Bowl into a more familiar match-up than division rivals. How does one game plan for 3 consecutive meetings? What happens to coaching when the foes are completely familiar after game 1?

And clashing three times for the largest prize in football would destroy the two teams. Most teams limp into the final game. Add two more and you will be adding people to the roster in the parking lot. And how would you schedule these games - weekly? Every other day (not happening - players indicate the Sunday to Thursday scheduling leaves them in bed all day Friday to recover from the damage)? It would likely become Super Bowl month, and the first game would be of significantly reduced importance.

Football is not baseball or basketball. You physically cannot do a "best of" series. It is hard enough to do the 3 or so games in the post-season as it is.

 

[DarrylS]

Bad idea on many different levels and for about a 100 different reasons....

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Plus, nothing would be gained by it.

I wouldn't trade 2001 for anything, myself.

+1 +2

After all the years being beaten down, abused, ridiculed as a team and a fanbase, 2001 was redemption for (40 years of wandering in the proverbial AFL/NFL desert). That one was and always will be the best....There are what 17 teams that have NEVER won a Super Bowl so 2001 marked a turning point..

 

[Froob]

That would be really dumb. The reason NBA has long series is because the regular season is so long. You can't do single game elimination after an 82 game season. While on the other hand, doing 3 game series after a 16 game season doesn't make sense. Football is ment to be single game elimination. And that's what makes it so great. You don't get a do-over. That bad snap or costly interception is what you get.

 

[olschool]

You'd need to drive through home depot parking lot to pick up bodies so you could field replacements for game three.

Plus, nothing would be gained by it.

I wouldn't trade 2001 for anything, myself.

SB 36 was, still is, and always will be, the best.

 

[sb1]

Bad idea for many reasons.

Including the fact the league would have nothing to gain and lots to lose from turning the Super Bowl from the spectacle it is to just another championship series like any other sport.

 

[Observer]

The fairest way to choose "the best team in the league" would be to have every team play every other team in the league once and crown the one with the best overall record but that would require 31 games per team.

The second fairest would be to have every conference team play every other conference team once and decide the conference champion by best overall record. The two conference champions can then play a best of three to decide the overall winner. This gives you 15 games per team and then 3 games, maybe not enough for the NFL.

At the end of the day the league needs to balance between finding the best team in the league and delivering an entertaining product. Fans tend to like the elimination format (as long as the elimination portion is relatively short) so I think they have a pretty good setup right now.

 

[Bertil]

Bad idea on many different levels and for about a 100 different reasons....

THIS!

Football is a different animal than every other sport...and BETTER!
(at least until Roger Goodell has his way with our beloved pastime)

 

[Wax Frog]

I wouldn't trade 2001 for anything, myself.

SB 36 was, still is, and always will be, the best.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This is a topic that keeps coming up.

My view requires holding two contradictory ideas in my head at the same time.

Idea one: Yes, it would be better to have the best teams in each Conference squaring off in the SB with Wild Card, Divisional and Conference Championship winners all settled in several (completely impractical), best of three series, culminating in a best of three SB where the better team would be more likely to come out on top. It would be great if we could do that.

Idea two: Yes, the tension, randomness and excitement generated by winner take all, single game, Playoffs and Super Bowls is one of the best things about the NFL. It should not be changed.

Bottom line: it ain't gonna change. And, it shouldn't.

 

[Ring 6]

I was wondering how would the NFL be if they had a best of 3 games SB championship. The only advantage which i can see is that the best team ends up winning the SB and you don't have teams like the 2011 Giants/2012 Ravens who squeak into the Playoffs winning the SB. Some might argue that the best team of the year should win the SB rather than the better/Lucky team that day. Like for example MLB we know that the Pirates may beat the Cardinals in a one game playoff scenario but they for sure aren't beating the Cards in a best of 5 or 7 scenario. Same goes for the NBA the Knicks are not winning a 7 game series with a team like the Heat.

The disadvantage would be people would lose interest in the game (Like i have lost interest in the NBA), I mean you know that Mark Sanchez is not beating Brady in the Playoffs 2 out of 3 times. So basically the fans of the underdog have hardly any hope of winning the series.

What do you guys think?

I think the best team wins in either case.
All 32 teams play for a Championship. Whoever is best at whatever is necessary to achieve that goal is best. The team that is perceived as better for 19 weeks but can't finish the job to achieve the goal is not the best in the only area that matters, winning a Championship.
IMO, if you compete on an even playing field (this eliminates the voting facet of college football) for a Championship, there is no subjective determination of best because there is a defined process in determining best.

 

[Ring 6]

The fairest way to choose "the best team in the league" would be to have every team play every other team in the league once and crown the one with the best overall record but that would require 31 games per team.

The second fairest would be to have every conference team play every other conference team once and decide the conference champion by best overall record. The two conference champions can then play a best of three to decide the overall winner. This gives you 15 games per team and then 3 games, maybe not enough for the NFL.

At the end of the day the league needs to balance between finding the best team in the league and delivering an entertaining product. Fans tend to like the elimination format (as long as the elimination portion is relatively short) so I think they have a pretty good setup right now.

I think winning in a win or go home scenario as the definition of best is just fine.

 

[fourhour]

Beautiful half-time show too! I remember the banner of all the 9/11 victim names and Bono's Stars and Stripes jacket, and of course the song, Beautiful Day. Thanks for stirring that memory up.

 

[thenepatsrule]

Well, i gotta admit all of you have made very good points . Thanks to all for changing my perspective on this topic

 

[Ivan]

One is fine with me.

 

[Observer]

I think winning in a win or go home scenario as the definition of best is just fine.

I don't agree with that definition but that is another topic entirely.