Goodell says there’s momentum for expanding the playoffs

AndyJohnson said:

You do understand his job is to make money for the owners right?
You do understand the players get about half the money too right?

Click to expand...

What's interesting about this from the playoff perspective is I'm not sure it represents a huge increase in revenue over risk for the players. I'm assuming that teams on a bye get paid for the bye week (like the other teams do, $23,000 or something like that.), I could be wrong about that. But in that case, you're getting two more teams into the playoffs (providing extra revenue to those players), but it also forces two other teams to play an extra game for no additional money.

The game check would likely go up a little based on the additional playoff revenue (I'm not sure how that gets calculated), but is it a huge boon to the players? An interesting discussion for sure.

KontradictioN said:

Between the rules changes and the shoddy officiating, it ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ has become like the NBA.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

Reading this thread, a lot of people sound like Luddites, when in fact the people who post on this board are a) early adopters of technology, and b) always interested in changing things and players to make the Patriots more competitive.

If there's a group of people that start squawking when the Patriots get predictable on offense or defense, its the same people screaming "Don't change a thing Mr. Commissioner!"

Adding a couple of teams to each conference playoff would be great, I think, since it's obviously going to be teams with the best remaining records. If they added two teams in each conference this year, it would some combination of the four 8-8 teams in AFC (Jets, Dolphins, Ravens, Steelers.) In the NFC it would be the Cardinals 10-6 and either the Bears or Cowboys at 8-8.)

If you have 8 teams from each conference, give them all a week off after the regular season to heal up a little and prepare like hell for their first round game and then seed the 4 division winners 1 through four and go 1 v 8, 2 v 7 etc and so on, with the division winners getting the home field.

I'd suggest they re-seed for week two of the playoffs to create the toughest path for the teams with the worst records coming in and to give the most advantage to the teams with the best records.

You'd still get 3 weekends of playoffs before the Super Bowl. That would be fine, and if everybody got a bye-week as a reward for making the playoffs they's all have the same rust or readiness opportunity.

The league would have to dump two pre-season games in exchange.

The most insidious problem is that it reduces the incentive to make the refereeing better. As an example, the Chargers likely wouldn't be in the playoffs if the refs had flagged them for an illegal formation against the Chiefs on the kick Succop missed. But if both they and the Steelers would have made the playoffs anyways, it makes it easier for the league to say "whatever."

I don't mind if they add teams, but i like the top 2 seeds getting an extra bye week. There's incentive for getting the 2 best records

Sicilian said:

What's interesting about this from the playoff perspective is I'm not sure it represents a huge increase in revenue over risk for the players. I'm assuming that teams on a bye get paid for the bye week (like the other teams do, $23,000 or something like that.), I could be wrong about that. But in that case, you're getting two more teams into the playoffs (providing extra revenue to those players), but it also forces two other teams to play an extra game for no additional money.

The game check would likely go up a little based on the additional playoff revenue (I'm not sure how that gets calculated), but is it a huge boon to the players? An interesting discussion for sure.

Click to expand...

Interesting point for sure, maybe someone with better knowledge on the impact of additional revenue from more PO games could explain how all this would impact the cap, which is what would benefit the players (if there's an increase).

On another note I'm pretty sure the injury concerns would raise, especially with the limited offseason workouts/practices; BB pointed this out in one of his last interviews and I'm sure his concerns would raise in that regard. Maybe you'd have to consider an expansion of the rosters, which on the other side would bring more costs for the teams. Seems like a vicious circle to me.

goheels22002 said:

Adding a couple of teams to each conference playoff would be great, I think, since it's obviously going to be teams with the best remaining records. If they added another round this year, it would some combination of the four 8-8 teams in AFC (Jets, Dolphins, Ravens, Steelers.) In the NFC it would be the Cardinals 10-6 and either the Bears or Cowboys at 8-8.)

Click to expand...

The counterargument to that is that, by definition, you're diluting the average talent level in the playoffs.

And you wouldn't have four weeks of playoff games unless you have more than eight teams per conference; moreover, reducing the number of preseason games comes with its own set of benefits and pitfalls.

my guess is if they think about increasing the number of playoff teams they will expand to LA and London

Tasco said:

Interesting point for sure, maybe someone with better knowledge on the impact of additional revenue from more PO games could explain how all this would impact the cap, which is what would benefit the players (if there's an increase).

On another note I'm pretty sure the injury concerns would raise, especially with the limited offseason workouts/practices; BB pointed this out in one of his last interviews and I'm sure his concerns would raise in that regard. Maybe you'd have to consider an expansion of the rosters, which on the other side would bring more costs for the teams. Seems like a vicious circle to me.

Click to expand...

The NFL provides stipends for players in the playoffs, which don't count against the cap, and have only a minimal effect on the cap numbers. The total salary paid to all playoff teams in a season is about $40M, compared to the regular cap total of $3B+ (i.e., on the order of 1%).

Oh, and to answer Andy's question from earlier: players do not get paid for the bye week.

I wonder what it will take for the NFl to figure out that if it aint broke dont fix it? Perhaps multiple losing record teams in the playoffs or a team going to England and it being a complete disaster.

AndyJohnson said:

You do understand his job is to make
money for the owners right?

Click to expand...

If Goodell is focused solely on making more money for the NFL, then he is not doing a good job as commissioner.

Overall, his job is to look after the NFL by protecting the integrity of the game, acting as enforcer and protector when anyone acts against the best interests of the league (this includes, but is not limited to, economic interests). Sure, there are broadcasting rights and such, but he is not meant to narrowly focus on doing whatever he can to maximize the profits of the league. He is supposed to give a damn about the game, not just lining the pockets of the owners/players.

Sometimes this will mean making decisions that will likely lose money for teams and league. E.g., suspending Rapistburger.

If you look at the NFL Bylaws, you will find his job description starting on page 28, and it says the "League shall select and employ a person of unquestioned integrity" whose job is to:
1. Help resolve disputes among management, players, officials, and employees of the NFL.
2. Discipline employees for misconduct (the disciplinary action can include fines and suspensions).
3. Maintain facilities needed to conduct the business of the NFL (e.g., the league office).
4. Take legal action against people who are engaging in behavior detrimental to the NFL.
5. Select, manage, and pay officiating crews.
6. Run a public relations department, and oversee the broadcasting rights to games.

The commissioner is a kind of overseer of the league, who wants the league to make money and must protect its economic interests, of course. But it is much more than that. If he starts to focus narrowly and exclusively on economic interests, to the point where the integrity of the game is compromised, then he has stopped being a good comissioner for the NFL.

meatface said:

I wonder what it will take for the NFl to figure out that if it aint broke dont fix it? Perhaps multiple losing record teams in the playoffs or a team going to England and it being a complete disaster.

Click to expand...

That's Goodell for you, I hate that smug ahole

For Goodell, 'momentum' means 'Less opposition than when I first brought up the idea.' There is a difference, a-hole. There is zero enthusiasm for this idea, except among people that just missed out on the playoffs, and they are not in a rational frame of mind.

Coincidence that he brings this up now, when he can trade on these emotions people have, when they are least likely to be rational about it?

Despicable manipulative man.

A good commissioner is invisible. This one is a media wh0re. He should only be allowed to run the PR department of the NFL, should not be trusted to oversee officiating or other responsibilities like scheduling games.

Just like the 18 game season i hate it, and it is pretty clear that the vast majority of fans see both ideas the same way, as much as they love football they don't want to keep expanding the play-offs and season. Just more greedy bullsh.t from Goodell and the owners.

TheBostonStraggler said:

Echoing what everyone else is saying, what an F'd up idea. While I don't take issue with the NFL considering ways to increase revenue, this is $$$ tunnel vision. Just a total disregard of anything but $$$$

So if passed by the owners: 7 playoff teams, seeding is now purely by record, only 1 team gets a bye. Super....
For god's sake, if they are going to change then just get the inevitable over with and expand it to 8 playoff teams now! IMHO having only one single team have a bye is intolerably stupid as well as competitively warped. Again if "they" are determined to change it, just change it to 8 teams now, get rid of the bye, then leave it the F alone (and while there at it they can go choke on their caviar and glass of chateau lafite rothschild).

Click to expand...

There is such a thing as too much caviar...

The local drunk in my town could run the NFL better then this clown

ctpatsfan77 said:

The counterargument to that is that, by definition, you're diluting the average talent level in the playoffs.

And you wouldn't have four weeks of playoff games unless you have more than eight teams per conference; moreover, reducing the number of preseason games comes with its own set of benefits and pitfalls.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Fixed earlier post about the number of weeks. Diluting quality? Maybe so, but the weakest record in the playoffs is Green Bay's 8-7-1 as a division winner and would still be with an expanded format.

Loss of pre-season games would matter more in talent evaluation than anything, and I think Belichick is setting a standard by having his team practice with another team to get a better look at players against different opponents under controlled circumstances.

A few thoughts:

• Jerry Jones should be removed from the conversation on the topic. With his team being eliminated on the last game of the season in three consecutive years, it is obvious why he is for this idea. If his club had performed a bit better and made it each time, would he still be all-in on for an additional playoff team? I think we all know the answer to that question.
  
  
• Of course owners like Dan Snyder are for it as well; that's what happens when the team you run has made the playoffs three times in 14 years, and four times in the last 21 seasons.
  
  
• If it does come to pass, can we at least stay away from additional days (i.e., Monday and Friday) please? You can have three games on both Saturday and Sunday, 1:00, 4:30 and 8:00 pm ET - just like on Thanksgiving, or on New Year's Day with college football bowl games. Adding another day sets up situations where a team will be playing the next week on four or five days rest. Having one fewer day is enough of a disadvantage, there's no need to make it worse.
  
  
• Here are the teams that would have made it with two (or four) additional teams for each of the last few years:

• 2013: 10-6 Arizona, 8-8 Steelers; (8-8 Bears, 8-8 Ravens)
• 2012: 10-6 Bears, 8-8 Steelers; (9-7 Giants, 7-9 Chargers)
• 2011: 8-8 Bears, 9-7 Titans; (8-8 Cardinals, 8-8 Jets)
• 2010: 10-6 Giants, 9-7 Chargers; (10-6 Bucs, 8-8 Jaguars)
• 2009: 9-7 Falcons, 9-7 Texans; (8-8 Panthers, 9-7 Steelers)
• 2008: 9-7 Bucs, 11-5 Patriots; (9-7 Cowboys, 9-7 Jets)
• 2007: 8-8 Vikings, 10-6 Browns; (8-8 Eagles, 8-8 Texans)
• 2006: 8-8 Packers, 9-7 Broncos; (8-8 Panthers, 8-8 Bengals)
• 2005: 9-7 Vikings, 10-6 Chiefs; (9-7 Cowboys, 9-7 Dolphins)
• 2004: 8-8 Saints, 9-7 Jaguars; (7-9 Panthers, 9-7 Ravens)
• 2003: 9-7 Vikings, 10-6 Dolphins; (8-8 Saints, 8-8 Bengals)
• 2002: 9-7 Saints, 9-7 Patriots; (7-9 Rams, 9-7 Jets)

One more pair of teams over the last 12 years would have added:

• (1) 11-5 team
• (6) 10-6 teams
• (11) 9-7 teams
• (6) 8-8 teams

A second pair of teams over the last 12 years would have added:

• (1) 10-6 team
• (8) 9-7 teams
• (12) 8-8 teams
• (3) 7-9 teams

Personally I feel that a team winning just 56% of their regular season games (9-7) doesn't deserve to automatically advance, and a team losing as often as they win has no business in the post-season.

jmt57 said:

A few thoughts:

• Jerry Jones should be removed from the conversation on the topic. With his team being eliminated on the last game of the season in three consecutive years, it is obvious why he is for this idea. If his club had performed a bit better and made it each time, would he still be all-in on for an additional playoff team? I think we all know the answer to that question.
  
  
• Of course owners like Dan Snyder are for it as well; that's what happens when the team you run has made the playoffs three times in 14 years, and four times in the last 21 seasons.
  
  
• If it does come to pass, can we at least stay away from additional days (i.e., Monday and Friday) please? You can have three games on both Saturday and Sunday, 1:00, 4:30 and 8:00 pm ET - just like on Thanksgiving, or on New Year's Day with college football bowl games. Adding another day sets up situations where a team will be playing the next week on four or five days rest. Having one fewer day is enough of a disadvantage, there's no need to make it worse.
  
  
• Here are the teams that would have made it with two (or four) additional teams for each of the last few years:

• 2013: 10-6 Arizona, 8-8 Steelers; (8-8 Bears, 8-8 Ravens)
• 2012: 10-6 Bears, 8-8 Steelers; (9-7 Giants, 7-9 Chargers)
• 2011: 8-8 Bears, 9-7 Titans; (8-8 Cardinals, 8-8 Jets)
• 2010: 10-6 Giants, 9-7 Chargers; (10-6 Bucs, 8-8 Jaguars)
• 2009: 9-7 Falcons, 9-7 Texans; (8-8 Panthers, 9-7 Steelers)
• 2008: 9-7 Bucs, 11-5 Patriots; (9-7 Cowboys, 9-7 Jets)
• 2007: 8-8 Vikings, 10-6 Browns; (8-8 Eagles, 8-8 Texans)
• 2006: 8-8 Packers, 9-7 Broncos; (8-8 Panthers, 8-8 Bengals)
• 2005: 9-7 Vikings, 10-6 Chiefs; (9-7 Cowboys, 9-7 Dolphins)
• 2004: 8-8 Saints, 9-7 Jaguars; (7-9 Panthers, 9-7 Ravens)
• 2003: 9-7 Vikings, 10-6 Dolphins; (8-8 Saints, 8-8 Bengals)
• 2002: 9-7 Saints, 9-7 Patriots; (7-9 Rams, 9-7 Jets)

One more pair of teams over the last 12 years would have added:

• (1) 11-5 team
• (6) 10-6 teams
• (11) 9-7 teams
• (6) 8-8 teams

A second pair of teams over the last 12 years would have added:

• (1) 10-6 team
• (8) 9-7 teams
• (12) 8-8 teams
• (3) 7-9 teams

Personally I feel that a team winning just 56% of their regular season games (9-7) doesn't deserve to automatically advance, and a team losing as often as they win has no business in the post-season.

Click to expand...

Good work. You'd have to add two more pairs of teams for it make sense unless you cut the number of byes to just one for the best record in each conference.

It's interesting that only three times in the last 12 years would a team with a losing record make the playoffs. 19 teams with 9-7 records would get in over that span and 18 teams with .500 records would make it.

In my estimation, a result would be that a lot more coaches wouldn't get canned and there'd be a lot more stability among the franchises. That would not be a bad byproduct of an expanded playoff format. So many of these teams have so much turmoil and new coordinators that they never develop a system or their quarterbacks.

goheels22002 said:

Good work. You'd have to add two more pairs of teams for it make sense unless you cut the number of byes to just one for the best record in each conference.

Click to expand...

I thought I saw that was the idea. To put in seven teams from each conference and only the #1 seed in each gets a bye.