Expand the Playoffs?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Va_Pats_Fan, Jan 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Va_Pats_Fan

    Va_Pats_Fan Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    #95 Jersey

    I heard some rumbling on one of the talking heads sports shows that some teams want to expand the playoff pool. The obvious attraction is $$$$, as there would be more ticket revenue, and more TV monies.
    One obvious path to this would be to pick up two more wildcard teams, and forgo the bye. This would result in 4 more teams, and 2 more games. It would dimish the need for teams to want to finish top 2, to get the bye, so I think would make for a less interesting end of the season.
    Another less desirable (in my opinion) way would be to give the 4 division winners all byes, and having 8 wild card spots. This would make the NFL more like the NHL, in that only 8 teams would miss the playoffs. It would diminish, in my eyes anyway, the accomplishment of making the playoffs, but would make being a division champ a little more valuable.

    What do you think?

    expand (and how) or not....?
  2. mcbee

    mcbee Banned

    It would make the regular season pretty worthless. You'd be best off playing alot of players to avoid starters getting injured and just barely making the playoffs. Then you start your starters and they are rested.

  3. not......it is fine the way it is.......in your scenario, there would be teams who would clinch by week 10
  4. Murphys95

    Murphys95 Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    This has been discussed at the owner's meetings. Using this year as an example, adding 1 or 2 more teams into the playoff mix would mean adding at least two more with a .500 record. Does that enhance or minimize the value of the playoffs?

    I'd say the latter.
  5. JoePats

    JoePats In the Starting Line-Up

    The only reason to expand it is because deserving teams get left out. It happens occassionally. But look at this year's NFC. And while it looked like it could happen in the AFC this year, one wild-card is 9-7. Don't expand.
  6. Va_Pats_Fan

    Va_Pats_Fan Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    #95 Jersey

    This is something that I find interesting. I always thought the wild card teams should be the best 4 teams, regardless of conference.

    That sets up the possibility of an all AFC or NFC superbowl, not sure how that would fly....
  7. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    I really do NOT like expanding them...It is fine the way it is 12/32.....what is wrong with that?? Four teams with byes?? Why not?? If it is extended more..than I agree..why waste starters during the season?? I like the way it is..PLEASE NO expansion....
  8. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    No I'd contract the Playoffs.

    One WC club per conference. If you remember the WC came about because there was a Team (which one?) that was probably the second best club in the League and yet it played in the same division as the best club, so it didn't get into the playoffs, while much lesser clubs did. They created a single exception to be called to wild Card that was created to prevent such miscarriages of justice.

    That is how and why the first Wild Card was created. Then they added another and added a bunch of divisions, so everyone could be a division champ. There was the real possibility of having a LOSING club in the playoffs this season. Thankfully it didn't come to pass, but it COULD have happened easily.

    Enough Already!!

    Contract the playoffs back to a single real Wild Card and let the #4 club have to play them as before.

    There is another change that is more likely to be adopted. I would not let two clubs from the same division play in the WC game. if that means the #3 seed plays the #6 seed, so be it. Otherwise it devalues divisional championships to have the first and second place clubs in a division enter the playoffs by playing themselves immediately. (Actually, I think that was the original WC rule)

    But even as it is, its much bettere than the other sports.

    The real absurdity is Baseball and Hockey. Virtually Everyone make the playoffs in hockey and they play 80 games to eliminate only a handful of truly dreadful clubs.

    But the ultimate absurdity is Baseball.

    They play 40 or so "spring time" games to get ready for the extended "preseason schedule" of 162 games, so that they can play a three game "Wild Card" elimination for the right to play off for the World Series. Over 200 nonsense games for a playoffs that can be as short as eight games. And the fans wonder why the guaranteed contract players loaf?

    R-I-D-C-U-L-O-U-S !
  9. PatsFanSince74

    PatsFanSince74 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    The bottom line is that any system will be flawed and no one would argue that we don't have all of the four or five best teams playing for the Lombardi, so I say don't change things.

    IMHO, the only way to expand the Playoffs would be to go to some sort of a Seed Format (that preserves the bye week) but this would also thereby destroy the AFC-NFC breakdown, which I don't think should happen. You can't just allow more teams in from each Conference since that would require diluting the Playoffs even further by letting in even more awful teams from, this year, the NFC. But this year it would also have let the 9--7 Broncos and maybe one or so of the strong 8--8 AFC teams, who are better than just about anything the NFC has coughed up for the Playoffs, with the exception of the Saints and maybe the Bears.
  10. richpats

    richpats Banned

    I think the NFL has the perfect alignment as far as scheduling and playoff format goes. The one thing to consider in the offseason is the intra-division tiebreaker in determining wild-card seedings.

    Kansas City going in over Denver is very questionable. The Chiefs had a LOSING conference record of 5-7 but were bailed out by going 4-2 in the AFC West (over Denver's 3-3 AFCW record) . They didn't have a conference win outside the division until Week 17 against the Jags, and went 0-4 against the AFC North. Denver had an 8-4 conference record, while going 4-0 against the AFC North.

    Say the Bengals had finished 9-7, they would have gotten in over the Broncos (with a worse conference record AND a head-to-head loss to Denver in Week 16) because Denver could not jump KC in the wild-card standings.
  11. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    I think it would be an atrocious idea. I mean, we got lucky there weren't any 7-9 teams in the playoffs this year given the debacle that was the NFC.

    Expanding the playoffs would be a joke.
  12. edgecy

    edgecy Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Why do we love rewarding mediocrity?
  13. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    I agree with these comments. The right number now get in. Yes, the tie breakers should always be discussed and perhaps tweaked.

  14. VJCPatriot

    VJCPatriot Pro Bowl Player

    Adding more teams dilutes the meaning of the playoffs. You need to earn your way in to make it feel valuable. How does it look when a .500 team makes the playoffs, or in your scenario where a sub .500 team could make the playoffs? That would just make it a big joke.

    I do think however that they need to rethink the tiebreakers for the seeding and making it in. Also I think that the wild card teams should be selected irrespective of conference. I can think of several AFC teams who should be in the playoffs instead of their NFC counterparts for example.
  15. Isaac

    Isaac Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    I hate that our Bob Kraft is behind this. I heard him talk about it, his case is that the percentage of team's that make the playoffs is significantly lower in the NFL than in the NHL and NBA. Yes, Bob, that's why the regular season matters in the NFL!!!

    Getting rid of the byes, or just giving one team a bye, would also be disastrous. Think of this season, with no byes, all of the division clinchers would be playing largely meaningless games. A small flaw in our current system is how the 3 vs. 4 seed isn't too different, as can be evidenced by the Patriots season finale the past two years--losing any more byes would increase this problem dramatically.
  16. godef

    godef In the Starting Line-Up

    Actually, not quite...

    The wildcard was created when the NFL and AFL merged, and reformed as 3-division conferences, the NFC and the AFC. A single wildcard was necessary to round up to 4 seeds, otherwise you would have a 1-team bye, playing the winner of the 2nd and 3rd seed (which some might argue wouldn't be a bad thing).

    But there is some truth to what you say about a second best club being left out. After the merger but prior to the forming of the AFC and NFC, in 1967, the NFL had taken the form of four 4-team divisions, similar to today's conferences. The Baltimore Colts and the Los Angeles Rams were tied in the Coastal Division at 11-1-2, and the playoff seed was awarded to the Rams by tiebreaker (1 win and a tie vs the Colts). So the second best team by record the Colts was shut out of the playoffs. To their dismay, the Rams proceeded to lose immediately in the first round, to the 9-4-1 Packers who went on to win Super Bowl II.
  17. BruschiOnTap

    BruschiOnTap On the Game Day Roster

    I am all for an interconference wildcard pool, although there would have to be a formula devised to determine which teams will play cross-conference...

    Colin Cowherd on ESPNRadio endorses a seeded tournament but I think that's not in the spirit of American football.

    I think it would be cool to have a 6-team round-robin with the two best teams in each conference playoff pool contending for the Super Bowl, while the regular season would be condensed to 14 or 15 weeks, with division winners and inter-conference wild-card teams playing. Only problem with this is that winning division is less important and so is finishing with a #1 record. Home field would be the main incentive, I suppose
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page