Goodell says there’s momentum for expanding the playoffs

[mgteich]

It is has been a long time since I read such unrealistic nonsense.

Of course Goodell deals with more than economic interests. In fact most folks here complain about every decision he makes in other areas.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that losing one of the byes would compromise the integrity of the game. That could only be written by a fan of a team who would lose the bye.

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.

 

[mgteich]

It certainly is clear that many on this board simply object to anything that Goodell does. We simply ignore the job that he does with regard to economics. The teams and the players who share the revenues are fine with his leadership. Obviously, we can each have our opinions regard the CBA and the deal with networks. Personally, I think that the way these were handled and the results were a huge gain for the NFL (and yes, Kraft is a major reason for the success of Goodell's efforts). I think that we forget just how much Kraft is a supporter of Goodell. I would think that it would be difficult to make any major change if Kraft strongly objected.

Adding one more playoff team in each league would add one more game on "wildcard" weekend (on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday). Kraft who saw us lose out with an 11-5 team would probably vote for this. I see absolutely ZERO problem with us adding the likes of PITT or ARIZ to the playoffs. OF COURSE, the reason we are so animated is that it is the patriots who have the #2 seed this year. Of course, we should also note that many have argued that the bye often is of no help at all.

CONCLUSION- Adding one playoff team in each conference is a minor issue with almost no effect. And just BTW, the idea that any change is bad is just plain silly. I suppose you guys opposed the AFL-NFL merger and a dozen other changes over the years.
========================
There are several REAL issues that the league is dealing with.
========================
1) INJURIES
Obviously reducing the number of practices and changing the rules hasn't helped much. There have been unintended consequences to the rules changes.
2) QUALITY OF OFFICIATING
3) NUMBER OF GAMES IN THE REGULAR SEASON
This is an obvious revenue issue. Fans are clearly paying for two useless preseason games.
The obvious answer is to increase the number of games to 16. The number of games has changed before. It will change again. The alternative of reducing the number of preseason games and losing the revenue is a non-starter for the teams and players. Player want money as much as the owners.
4) SEEDING IN THE PLAYOFFS AND HOMEFIELD
This is an open issue. I favor division winners getting one home game. However, there are other alternatives. In any case, there should either be complete reseeding after wildcard weekend or having the winners get the loser's seed after the wildcard weekend. If #6 beats #3, they should become the #3 seed.
======================
NONSTARTER
Getting rid of divisions is a non-starter. There is much too much money that comes in from having the divisional rivalries. The system of tie-breakers would really well BECAUSE there are divisions. Also, playing each NFC division ever four years is a good idea.
======================
BOTTOM LINE
We are talking about the money. There are many other issues. We could go back to having only 8 teams in the playoffs. However, i think the wildcard idea has worked with 1, and then 2 wildcard teams. It will also work with 3 or even 4. As far as fan interest, there would have been as much interest if ARIZ and PITT ended up in the playoffs. We don't like the idea because we would have been playing an extra game (against PITT). However, we won't always be the division winner; it just seems that way. Playing for seeds is important, even without the bye. After all, home field IS an advantage.

 

[Sicilian]

It is has been a long time since I read such unrealistic nonsense.

Of course Goodell deals with more than economic interests. In fact most folks here complain about every decision he makes in other areas.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that losing one of the byes would compromise the integrity of the game. That could only be written by a fan of a team who would lose the bye.

Agreed. Let's not go overboard here and act like suddenly the NFL is going to fold or become the XFL due to this. I don't like the change, I don't think it IMPROVES the NFL at all, but I'm certainly not going to stop watching, and I actually doubt I'll enjoy it that much less. There will just be a few moments over the years where I'll go, "Those guys shouldn't be in the playoffs."

 

[mgteich]

Curiously, this sometimes happens when we guarantee a division winner a place in the playoffs and a home game (a policy that I happen to favor). Adding a wildcard would almost always add a team who is at least 8-8. BTW, I think that I would be fine with PITT and ARIZ in the playoffs this year.

There will just be a few moments over the years where I'll go, "Those guys shouldn't be in the playoffs."

 

[Sicilian]

Curiously, this sometimes happens when we guarantee a division winner a place in the playoffs and a home game (a policy that I happen to favor). Adding a wildcard would almost always add a team who is at least 8-8. BTW, I think that I would be fine with PITT and ARIZ in the playoffs this year.

I think I'm with you, I would be fine with it. I do prefer the current system, but like I said, I don't think it's going to disrupt my enjoyment of the game, and it certainly doesn't disrupt the integrity of the game.

 

[Ring 6]

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

I didn't say solely, that is your word.

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.

Well clearly there are other considerations, but that is because a bad decsion to make more money today can cost money in the future.
The idea of giving a damn about the game is simply that he must also do whatever he can to increase fanship, attendance and viewership.
The owners would not want him making a decision that costs them money in the name of keep things the way the purists want it.
This doesn't mean his decisions are good ones, but it does mean the 'he's just a greedy sob' mentality is obtuse, because that is what he is paid to be.

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

100% disagree here. Decisions like that are made SOLELY to enhance or protect the image of the league which is a profit motivated mentality.

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.

Its not a matter of good commissioner or bad.
And its not a matter of what is in the bylaws. The owners hire and fire him, and give him authority to affect their bottom line.
There is a major gray area in your approach that also (inadvertantly I believe) creates a strawman. Your argument implies profit motivation only applies to today, while in reality, of course there are decisions that reduce short term profit for the sake of long term profit (the concussion issue is a good one).

My point is simply that the statement about greed is misplaced because his job is to be greedy on the owners behalf. I'm not sure how there is suprise that he is operating with profit in mind.

Also, truth be told, it was even more ignorant because Goodell can't expand the playoffs its up to a vote of the owners.

 

[Ring 6]

Curiously, this sometimes happens when we guarantee a division winner a place in the playoffs and a home game (a policy that I happen to favor). Adding a wildcard would almost always add a team who is at least 8-8. BTW, I think that I would be fine with PITT and ARIZ in the playoffs this year.

Arizona had a good season. Pittsburgh has no place being anywhere near the playoffs.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Nothing in there to disagree with, but I must throw you a thank you for your tireless efforts to add quality to this board. :rocker:

 

[Ring 6]

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.

I'm not sure I understand.
"Momentum", support or dispproval of the idea has nothing to do with fans. Making the decision has nothing to do with Goodell. The owners would need to vote.
If you think the NFL is subject to making bad decisions becuase the owners are so flighty that one or 2 who missed the playoffs can get everyone to vote for expanding them, don't worry there won't be a league in 15 years.

Also not sure why the man hired to be the face of the league and representative of the owners should be invisible. That wouldn't help promote the league any.

It seems you have a unicorn and rainbow vision of the Commissioner being unrelated to the owners and working for the fans.

 

[neuronet]

It is has been a long time since I read such unrealistic nonsense.

Of course Goodell deals with more than economic interests. In fact most folks here complain about every decision he makes in other areas.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that losing one of the byes would compromise the integrity of the game. That could only be written by a fan of a team who would lose the bye.

Note I never actually said that adding teams to playoffs would hurt the integrity of the game. I am neutral about that, haven't thought it through enough to have a strong opinion. I merely pointed out that saying Goodell only cares about profits is either false, or if true then he is not doing his job.

That said, increasing playoff teams is likely partly motivated by profit. That doesn't make it bad unless it hurts the game of football and the league in other ways that aren't worth the money.

(Though I do think his claim that the idea is gaining momentum seems like BS...what data does he have for this, that there has been a significant increase in the number of people in support of the idea? The best time to have a rational discussion of the matter is not when the people that didn't make it are all hot and bothered because they feel their team deserved to be in the playoffs....ahem....Cowboys fans...cough...)

 

[Ring 6]

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.

I'm not talking about getting paid for the game. I'm talking about additional revenue being generated and the fact that the CBA has revenue split about 50/50.
In other words it isn't making the owners money only.

However, my point really had nothing to do with whether the decision is a good one, bad one or ugly one, just that its silly to express indignation that a guy hired to make money for the owners (and by extension players) would be motivated by greed. Of course he is, thats his job.

 

[Ring 6]

(Though I do think his claim that the idea is gaining momentum seems like BS...what data does he have for this, that there has been a significant increase in the number of people in support of the idea? The best time to have a rational discussion of the matter is not when the people that didn't make it are all hot and bothered because they feel their team deserved to be in the playoffs....ahem....Cowboys fans...cough...)

He means among the owners, who are the ones who make the decision.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

Opposing a really stupid idea, such as expanding the NFL regular season or opening up the playoffs to even more wild cards, does not make a person a Luddite.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm all for it. There is nothing wrong with the parity, it's the best out of any major sports, but it's kinda ridiculous that a team only have to win 2 games, and they are in the Superbowl, and the playoffs just goes so fast, compared to the season. Make it one more round/week longer.

I think it's great that the NFL league offices have an account here on Patsfans.com.

 

[JackBauer]

Maybe I'm just shell shocked given the injury situation this season, but given what we know about how the game is affecting the health of its players I categorically oppose any initiative to expand the schedule, be it regular season or playoffs.

 

[Ring 6]

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 didn't ask that question. I don't care what weeks they get paid, they have a contract for X amount per year.
The relevant point is that the revenue generated by having an extra game is split per the CBA roughly 50/50 among owners and players.
Whatever revenue that adds up to is probably a drop in the bucket but if we are calling Goodell or owners greedy we must recognize the players get as much as the owners do. Probably the real reason is to increase fan interest. There is no doubt that there is much more fan interest in teams that make the playoffs.
This move increases the amount of teams whose fans don't see the season as a total failure and puts the crappy team one step closer to the Cinderalla season before one and done.
Like everything else the NFL does, this is based on a long range approach.

 

[neuronet]

It seems you have a unicorn and rainbow vision of the Commissioner being unrelated to the owners and working for the fans.

If the owners don't like how he is doing his job, they can fire him, to be sure, but he is not some monkey doing whatever they say. He independently balances multiple factors into his decision-making, taking into account owners, players, employees, consumers (fans), and the law. Fiscal concerns enter into each of those dimensions, but are not the sole means of evaluation.

 

[Joker]

Goodell says......as most of you know, I feel as I have since 2007,that what follows should be "I plead guilty to all counts of racketeering and corporate misconduct, your honor.."

 

[OhExaulted1]

Sounds like a greedy, money hungry grub to even consider expansion. The playoff format is just fine.

If you posted this on this board in 2008 when we went 11-5 and missed out you would have been flamed mercilessly. I can sympathize with Cardinals fans this year.

Make it 8 teams each Conf. and screw the byes. Home field is enough of a reward. For the record I hate the regular season bye week to. Expand the roster limits to compensate. Name another profession where you get 35 weeks off if your company sucks.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you posted this on this board in 2008 when we went 11-5 and missed out you would have been flamed mercilessly. I can sympathize with Cardinals fans this year.

Make it 8 teams each Conf. and screw the byes. Home field is enough of a reward. For the record I hate the regular season bye week to. Expand the roster limits to compensate. Name another profession where you get 35 weeks off if your company sucks.

When you make it 8 teams, the calls begin for 10. It's the way it works. Sports history, both at the college and professional levels, shows this, conclusively.

6 is already 2 too many. Let's not make things even worse.