League source: "Expanding playoffs to 14 teams WILL happen"

TriplecHamp · Mar 24, 2014

hooray for a watered down regular season and drawn out playoffs! Great Job Goodell!

Sicilian · Mar 24, 2014

So, for fun, I looked up what the record of the 7th seed in each conference (NFC, AFC) would be since 2002 if this format were in place. I didn't list the team names because I didn't feel like breaking down all the tie breakers:

2013: 10-6, 8-8
2012: 10-6, 8-8
2011: 8-8, 9-7
2010: 10-6, 9-7
2009: 9-7, 9-7
2008: 9-7, 11-5
2007: 8-8, 10-6
2006: 8-8, 9-7
2005: 9-7, 10-6
2004: 8-8, 9-7
2003: 9-7, 10-6
2002: 9-7, 9-7

Three observations: One, there would never have been a 7-9 or worse team making it, which is something that can't be said for the current divisional system. Two, 7 of the 12 years have denied a 10 win team from the playoffs. Three, the average win total for these 7th seeds is a little over 9 wins.

I still don't like the idea, but this was more quality than I was expecting to find. Just a devil's advocate post, to rile people up some more

brdmaverick · Mar 24, 2014

RelocatedPatFan said:
Having lived through a season (as a Fan) and having my team go 11-5 and miss the playoffs really sucks. But, if the alternative is to get more mediocre teams into the Post Season because of that outlier in the probability chain, then I can only claim that this is a terrible idea.

I understand, some #6 ranked teams have won the SB, but what makes them think the #7 will fair as well?

Well, more than "will they fair as well?" we should be asking ourselves "do we want them to fair as well?'

I think most of us would say the answer is 'no'. It was bad for the league when the 9-7 Giants won it all in 2011. We want the regular season to mean something.

Right now it has the perfect balance. Sure, oddities will happen in which a 9-7 team wins it all or an 11-5 team will miss out, but all in all the current balance is great.

YearbookCurfew · Mar 24, 2014

So, there is really no reward for getting the #2 seed. Okay.

willdeespats · Mar 24, 2014

I've had this thought about an 8 team in each conference playoff. To get into the playoffs a team must either 1) win its division, or 2) have a season record equal to or better than any division winner, or 3) win a wild card game. The number of wild card game(s) would be a function of how many teams qualified in 1) and 2) above - could be a minimum of 0 and a max of 4. This past year in the AFC there were 5 teams that would have qualified. So there would have been 3 wild card games to fill the last 3 playoff spots. All wild card/playoff games would by season record seeding (conference record and strength of schedule tie breakers) with all home fields going to the top seeds. The wild card games would be the first week after the season ends and all 1) and 2) teams would have that week as a bye week. This essentially makes the season one week longer which can easily be handled by either dropping a pre-season game or starting the season labor day weekend.

I'm sure there are some refinements but I think this basic plan fairly puts an emphasis on winning the division, winning intra-conference games, and an overall winning record.

Boogs · Mar 24, 2014

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

PATS16N0 · Mar 24, 2014

It's going to lower the value and quality of the play offs by allowing inferior teams in. It's also going to increase risk of injury to the really good teams.

Lose lose.

The play off record of guys like Tom and Joe Montana will also be minimized by future years of good quarterbacks being able to play teams that aren't post season caliber by our current definition.

Just horrible.

PatsWickedPissah · Mar 24, 2014

willdeespats said:
I've had this thought about an 8 team in each conference playoff. To get into the playoffs a team must either 1) win its division, or 2) have a season record equal to or better than any division winner, or 3) win a wild card game. The number of wild card game(s) would be a function of how many teams qualified in 1) and 2) above - could be a minimum of 0 and a max of 4. This past year in the AFC there were 5 teams that would have qualified. So there would have been 3 wild card games to fill the last 3 playoff spots. All wild card/playoff games would by season record seeding (conference record and strength of schedule tie breakers) with all home fields going to the top seeds. The wild card games would be the first week after the season ends and all 1) and 2) teams would have that week as a bye week. This essentially makes the season one week longer which can easily be handled by either dropping a pre-season game or starting the season labor day weekend.

I'm sure there are some refinements but I think this basic plan fairly puts an emphasis on winning the division, winning intra-conference games, and an overall winning record.

Don't understand how the 5 teams play the 3 WC games

oldrover · Mar 24, 2014

willdeespats said:
I've had this thought about an 8 team in each conference playoff. To get into the playoffs a team must either 1) win its division, or 2) have a season record equal to or better than any division winner, or 3) win a wild card game. The number of wild card game(s) would be a function of how many teams qualified in 1) and 2) above - could be a minimum of 0 and a max of 4. This past year in the AFC there were 5 teams that would have qualified. So there would have been 3 wild card games to fill the last 3 playoff spots. All wild card/playoff games would by season record seeding (conference record and strength of schedule tie breakers) with all home fields going to the top seeds. The wild card games would be the first week after the season ends and all 1) and 2) teams would have that week as a bye week. This essentially makes the season one week longer which can easily be handled by either dropping a pre-season game or starting the season labor day weekend.

I'm sure there are some refinements but I think this basic plan fairly puts an emphasis on winning the division, winning intra-conference games, and an overall winning record.

I gotta say... I'm not big on 14, let alone 16... but that's a pretty solid plan.

I'm a little fuzzy on how the wild card games work...

Deus Irae · Mar 24, 2014

I hope this is as much of a sure thing as an 18 game season was a couple of years ago.

Joker · Mar 24, 2014

The Scrizz · Mar 24, 2014

They've already ruined hockey and basketball and are working on baseball, so why not.

Pretty soon everyone will get a trophy at the end of the year just like little kids now.

Everyone's a winner!

:bricks:

QuantumMechanic · Mar 24, 2014

Galeb said:
That is a poor analogy. A better analogy, though still far from perfect, would be a CEO to major investors. People who rise to the level of CEO or Commissioner of a major sports league are always very ambitious. Believing ambitious men simply carry out direct orders of their superiors is naive at best.

It's not that he is "simply carry(ing) out direct orders of (his) superiors". Sure, he's doing things on his own initiative.

However...

It's that if the owners actually thought any of the stuff Goodell was doing was "bad for the game" they could easily reverse it/make it not happen. Heck, for a lot of Goodell's changes the owners had to explicitly vote in favor of them!

If these things you don't like do happen, the vast majority of the blame lies with the owners. Goodell may have thought them up (either on his own or following the owners' instructions), but the owners approved them/allowed them to take effect.

SB39 · Mar 24, 2014

Galeb said:
That is a poor analogy. A better analogy, though still far from perfect, would be a CEO to major investors. People who rise to the level of CEO or Commissioner of a major sports league are always very ambitious. Believing ambitious men simply carry out direct orders of their superiors is naive at best.

It is possible that you are unaware of the leniency Goodell has shown vs some teams vs. the clear prejudice he has shown towards others. That said, such ignorance would mean you know almost nothing of Goodell's actions and history and should not be taking part in any such discussion, nevermind calling others out on the subject.

ohhhhhhhhh you're one of these "Goodell hates us but loves everyone else" people.

I'm sorry, I thought we were having a serious discussion. My bad.

Joker · Mar 24, 2014

hey, you get paid 45 million a year, YOU get to take the brunt of the fans hatred...the owners are positively ecstatic to have this monocular, brain cell challenged bull out front, as they work to tweak more billions into their coffers. If I was an owner ,he is EXACTLY who I'd want walking point.

SB39 · Mar 24, 2014

KontradictioN said:
Another awful rules change by an awful commissioner. This guy, unless something drastic happens, is going to be in office for a very, very long time. If crap like this keeps happening, he's going to completely ruin the game. People can only take so much when it comes to watering down and changing the game for the sake of greed.

LOL..!!!! The above post is a great Yogi Berra-ism..!!

"He is such an horrible horrible commissioner that he is going to keep making his bosses happy by generating truckloads of revenues and getting his contract renewed over and over and over!! What an arse!!"

SB39 · Mar 24, 2014

PatsWickedPissah said:
Yes but this CEO's incentive bonus $ to grow revenue (see post #19) as always comes from his Board of Directors, the owners. Some owners are against this expansion, but Goodie has carte blanch to lobby against them.

What kind of ridiculous criticism is this? Of course he is allowed to lobby for or against certain ideas. It's called consensus building and compromise.

How dare he actually have an opinion on a major issue facing the league and discuss his opinions with the owners! Who does he think he is??!?

SB39 · Mar 24, 2014

Bravo777 said:
So, there is really no reward for getting the #2 seed. Okay.

I suppose this is true is you don't consider HFA in any given game a reward. Personally I think HFA in a playoff game is a big advantage, so I would sure much rather be #2 than #7. In fact, I'd much rather be #2 than #3.

SB39 · Mar 24, 2014

The Scrizz said:
They've already ruined hockey and basketball and are working on baseball, so why not.

Pretty soon everyone will get a trophy at the end of the year just like little kids now.

Everyone's a winner!

:bricks:

Really? Everyone is going to get a trophy? I don't see anything in this new proposal that gives more Vince Lombardi Trophies than the current system, so I am not sure how you see this.

Jlaff · Mar 24, 2014

SB39 said:
Really? Everyone is going to get a trophy? I don't see anything in this new proposal that gives more Vince Lombardi Trophies than the current system, so I am not sure how you see this.

The point is that making the playoffs under the current system is an accomplishment.

This is the wrong move for so many different reasons...

League source: "Expanding playoffs to 14 teams WILL happen"

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Practice Squad Player

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

"You're gonna have to serve somebody..."

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Burn it all down!

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Early Bird Specials

Similar threads