OT: Hypothetical New Structure for the Super Bowl

[PatsFanSince74]

I didn't dodge it. I addressed it. And it's still there, although you didn't ask all of these questions. Obviously if you wanted it implemented this year, changes to the CBA might be necessary. If you wanted to keep everything exactly as is, it limits what you can do. As far as the actual breakdown of it, there's more than one way to skin a cat but I'm only going to do it for one conference because the other would work the same way. First you have to decide which playoff format to use and if you wanted to keep the Wildcard Week or not.

Example 1. Round robin.


Round Robin in theory, is the most fair of all playoffs system because, not only does it provide all teams with the same exact level of competition, same number of games, but also tends to produce the best teams, irrelevant of seeding or regular season records. Once you make Round Robin, your regular season record and seed is meaningless, except for home games.

- if you keep the wildcard round as is, applying round robin to the Divisional round only adds 2 extra weeks and 2 extra games, but you still have the possibility of two Divisional Champions being knocked out. The 2 wild cards teams could replace the 2 Divisional Champions in the first week. The best team or teams might still get knocked out during the Wild Card round.
-you could cut 2 preseason games, keep the Wildcard week, and keep the Super Bowl week if you wanted to and not have to extend the season. Just push all the dates back 2 weeks begining week 1 of the regular season.

So to break it down, say you keep the wildcard week, and you keep the preseason the same and same results from this year:

Jan 15th(higher seed gets home game):
Packers vs Giants
49ers vs Saints

Jan 22nd:
Packers vs Saints(teams that played away gets home game)
49ers vs Giants

Jan 29th:
Packers vs 49ers(higher seed gets home game)
Giants vs Saints

Seeding will only be used to decide home games and everyone still gets at least 1 home game. Higher seeds will end up with one additional home game. Tally them up. Best 2 teams with winning records move on to the NFC Championship game. Tiebreakers could be employed to break any ties.

Feb 5th:
NFC Championship(neutral ground or highest seed)
Winner 1 vs Winner 2 of Round Robin

FEb 12th:
Media week

Feb 19th:
Super Bowl
NFC Champion vs AFC Champion


Of course you could also move the bye week before the Championship games. I'm also willing to bet you could draw bigger ticket sales and raise the popularity and meaning of Championship games to where you could hold them on neutral ground. You risk being unable to play a player that suffered a concussion in the Super Bowl though if you move the bye week back.

I also believe any increase in viewership is also a result of football becoming more popular. Rate of growth has actually stagnated. There's no reason to believe an increase in championship caliber games would not increase popularity and viewer ratings in the playoffs, but more importantly, carry through to the Championship games and Super Bowl.

In addition in the event you have a strong underdog, from a smaller market, it would very much help this team become more popular by playing 3-4 playoff games. People would become more familiar with the players and personality of the team especially if they were to make the Championship or Super Bowl. There would be less incentives for the NFL to tinker with the refereeing to favor popular market teams that draws more viewers, because even smaller market teams would gain popularity during the playoffs and likely carry through to the regular season. Super Bowls and Championship games that include unkown teams would be far more exciting.

The result would be, theoretically, the best teams in the Championship games and Super Bowl, regardless of regular season seedings or winning records. A 9-7 team that would make it through this, would never be seen as a "weak" team if they ever made the Super Bowl. You would rarely have a team make the Super Bowl by being "lucky". It would be seen as one of the best teams. This turns an underdog into an equal competitor by the time that underdog makes the Super Bowl. Likewise a #1 seed due to an easy schedule would not survive as easily. Super Bowls would always have microscopical point spreads. No media selling required. The teams themselves and system sells the teams by winning.

Thank you for responding.

I'm not smart enough to address both Examples at once, so let's deal with Example I, the Round Robin, that you proposed before as well.

The first thing I note is that you keep the Wild Card round "One and Done." So, this year that means that eight of the 12 teams, including the Saints, Falcons, Steelers, Giants and Texans would still have faced a single elimination game, wherein presumably the risk would still remain of the "better" or "best" teams being eliminated in a single contest, subject to the vagaries that can afflict any single contest, which is exactly what I thought you wanted to avoid.

The second thing I note is that a Wild Card round team that reaches the Super Bowl would have played a 24 week season, including Exhibition Games.

The third thing I note is that the Super Bowl would be pushed to February 19th with fans watching the same group of teams playing each other over a three or four week week period.

It seems that you end up with the worst of all possible worlds:
--You keep the "single elimination" aspect for 75% of the contestants.
--You make already banged up players endure a 24 week season.
--You risk turning the playoffs into an NBA-like marathon with single digit ratings.

You aver by assertion, but without any proof, that this will increase the popularity of a sport that:
--Already produces the most successful annual championship tournament on the planet
--Has created multiple billion dollar franchises, some from initial investments of less than $1,000
--Comprises a multi-billion dollar annual enterprise.

I appreciate your explaining it in terms that can be understood by someone as slow as myself, but I respectfully disagree and think that you are indeed internally inconsistent in addition to, well, wrong.

Before you try to convince me again, please refer me to the focus groups and marketing surveys you have done to demonstrate that there is indeed a market for this approach that is greater than the market for the existing approach, which last week produced a contest, for an annual championship, that drew 112 million viewers in the US alone.

Thank you, though, for answering someone whom I know, from other comments you have made, you regard as intellectually challenged.

 

[ausbacker]

In a word, NO. There is nothing wrong with the current format.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Why not a 50 week season with 2 weeks off for the players to rest up for the following season?

You're not too far off. When you push him, he's suggesting a 25 week season with the "survivors" stumbling into the Super Bowl after as many as 24 games.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

In a word, NO. There is nothing wrong with the current format.

Yes. In one sentence you have pretty well summed it up. I made a point by point argument in the hope that he will just give this nonsense up. But, I doubt he will.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I hear ya on pretty much all of your points, but I think the playoff structure would remain intact, you keep the 1 and done intrigue there and only add 1 or 2 games to the Super Bowl, which has become so inaccessible for the average fan that it makes me sick. I don't see any other way to do that (make it more accessible).

I also think this scenario gives markets a shot at hosting a big game that they never would, like say Cleveland. Competition would grow towards being the team with the best record and infuse money into that franchise and city.

A round robin would be intriguing as well.

Thank you for your polite reply, but I'm afraid that my experience suggests that a lot of things that are "intriguing" don't stand up to serious analysis.

Please see my lengthy response to your apparently lone supporter.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

So, essentially, because we lost the Super Bowl, we should want it expanded to a three game series? What happens if we lose that? A five game series? The best thing about the NFL playoffs is that each game is essentially sudden death. It's one of the main reasons why the NFL playoffs are the highest rated out of every American sport. Why change that now?

Yeah, Kontra, you are spot on. This is an example of theory run amok.

Yes, there are weaknesses in the current system, but the NFL's weaknesses, as in any viable and successful system, are a function of its strengths.

It is no accident that the NFL is the most successful annual sports enterprise on earth. It is such because it builds suspense by introducing into the outcomes something that everyone lives with every day of their lives: the role of uncertainty and even randomness.

That uncertainty and randomness can yield imperfect results at times, but that is the attraction as well as the limitation of the system as it exists.

Not much point in fixin' what ain't broke.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Thank you for responding.

I'm not smart enough to address both Examples at once, so let's deal with Example I, the Round Robin, that you proposed before as well.

The first thing I note is that you keep the Wild Card round "One and Done." So, this year that means that eight of the 12 teams, including the Saints, Falcons, Steelers, Giants and Texans would still have faced a single elimination game, wherein presumably the risk would still remain of the "better" or "best" teams being eliminated in a single contest, subject to the vagaries that can afflict any single contest, which is exactly what I thought you wanted to avoid.

The second thing I note is that a Wild Card round team that reaches the Super Bowl would have played a 24 week season, including Exhibition Games.

The third thing I note is that the Super Bowl would be pushed to February 19th with fans watching the same group of teams playing each other over a three or four week week period.

It seems that you end up with the worst of all possible worlds:
--You keep the "single elimination" aspect for 75% of the contestants.
--You make already banged up players endure a 24 week season.
--You risk turning the playoffs into an NBA-like marathon with single digit ratings.

You aver by assertion, but without any proof, that this will increase the popularity of a sport that:
--Already produces the most successful annual championship tournament on the planet
--Has created multiple billion dollar franchises, some from initial investments of less than $1,000
--Comprises a multi-billion dollar annual enterprise.

I appreciate your explaining it in terms that can be understood by someone as slow as myself, but I respectfully disagree and think that you are indeed internally inconsistent in addition to, well, wrong.

Before you try to convince me again, please refer me to the focus groups and marketing surveys you have done to demonstrate that there is indeed a market for this approach that is greater than the market for the existing approach, which last week produced a contest, for an annual championship, that drew 112 million viewers in the US alone.

Thank you, though, for answering someone whom I know, from other comments you have made, you regard as intellectually challenged.

Well first of all most of your major concerns were already initially addressed in that post because you asked me to show you how I would do it within the confines of the current CBS system without changing much of anything and that's exactly what I did. Ideally for a round robin playoff system you would not have wild card single elimination week as "part of the playoffs", at least not where you included divisional champions. It kind of ruins the entire purpose but I gave you an example of one way to include it at the divisional round while making the least amount of changes.

With a wild car round, the playoffs do not officially begin until you get to the Round Robin round. The Wild Card week becomes a qualification for playoffs week for the bottom 4 seeds. But this would still allow 6 teams to make the playoffs, at the end of the regular season. Which is what matters. But the 3 week round robin tournament IS now the playoffs followed by the single elimination NFC Championship game. Now you can change the number of "automatic" entrants, like divisional champions, and the number of entrants that need to qualify for it because of their weaker records a number of different ways.

I also pointed out that if you cut 2 preseason games, you would not lengthen the season. You have to determine ahead of time if you're going to have a 6 team, 5 team, 4 team, etc round robin. The more teams you include the more games have to be played which is why it's best to stick with groups of 4. If 6 teams must have a chance at the playoffs there are multiple ways of solving this issue, without having a wildcard week that includes Divisional Champions, including re-arranging the conferences, elimination divisions, getting rid of double elimination round robin from the regular season(which gives you 3 additional weeks to work with and the possibility of even more opponents facing each other), etc.

I'm not going to go into any more details because it appears to me you are looking for negatives rather than trying to understand the positives. I'm not sure you understood any of it really if you think it resembles the NBA playoffs. The NBA uses a best of 7 playoff format which is not I am talking about and it's what creates very boring playoffs. You really should do some research on playoff formats in other places because this is going to be the best that I can do in explaining round robin. There's plenty of real life information already available from the many pro sports that employ it world wide, so not sure why you need focus groups or marketing surveys.

To give you a real life example of why Round Robin playoff formats are superior without the need of focus groups or marketing surveys, research public as well as expert perception and opinion in the difference in UK soccer between the Football League(which uses round robin) and the FA Cup(which uses single elimination knockout just like the NFL does).

In English football, the Football League, the (round-robin) League champions are generally regarded as the "best" team in the land, rather than the (knockout) FA Cup winners.

Round-robin tournament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tournament has become known for the possibility for "minnows" from the lower divisions to become "giant-killers" by eliminating top clubs from the tournament and even theoretically win the Cup, although lower division teams rarely progress beyond the early stages. The qualification rounds and a system of byes mean that the very smallest and very biggest teams almost never meet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Cup

.

The winners of the Football League soccer tournament is the one that is most highly respected and the winners of the tournament are considered the best teams. People do not believe the FA Cup produces the best teams because of the issues of single elimination tournaments, the same major issues that are part of the NFL playoffs. They believe in the Football League tournament because the Round Robin has proven to the satisfaction of both experts and public to determine the best teams. Even though the FA Cup includes 763 teams while the Football League only includes 72. Nobody's impressed by the fact "763 teams made the playoffs". It's ridiculous and the best teams rarely face each other. Now granted the NFL isn't quite as bad as this, but it's still fairly similar when you consider how little effect round robin has at the divisional round. In the NFL you could argue all you have to do is better than 3 divisional rivals(sometimes terrible teams), and win 3 straight games and become Super Bowl champions. That's it. You just have to be better than 3 terrible NFL teams, and then you have almost an equal shot at winning the Super Bowl by going on a 3 game winning streak.

You seem to be stuck on some perceived negatives that are nowhere near what we currently have. None of the teams would repeat playing each other, all teams would get 3 playoff games, and everybody would get to see all the top teams facing each other. The advantage is that all teams would be measured against the same level of competition. Currently none of the teams face the same level of competition before being eliminated.

There's no logical reason to expect football fans would not be more interested in watching their playoff teams play playoff football for 2 additional games with each team having a chance to make the Super Bowl with the Championship finalist likely not being decided until week 3. It grows in excitement with each week.

Right now, with what we have, nobody is watching the teams that go out in week 1 and week 2. 0 viewers. The teams are at home. The games don't exist. Think about it. There are plenty of fans that couldn't care less about watching the playoffs once their team is out.

And I'm not sure what fans, owners or players, of the teams that were knocked out this year wouldn't give to be able to play 2 more games and still have a shot at the Super Bowl if all it meant is an additional week of football. You should ask them if they'd rather stay at home and miss out on the opportunity to ever play, let alone win a playoff game in their entire career. Which happens for a lot of NFL players.

Most of perceived negatives are football political or financial issues. Or logistics. They have little to do with the quality of the playoff format which is what I and the OP are discussing nor are they any issues to begin with. For example just because the format produces a certain amount of revenue, it doesn't mean that would change or wold be reduced by a different, and quite likely, more competitive playoff format. Not to mention a 4 team group round robin is just one of the ways you can improve the playoff systems. Like I explained, there are multiple systems that still offer advantages over single elimination tournaments, including double elimination or Page playoffs.

The main purpose of single elimination tournaments is this: to eliminate. It's simply not designed with the primary goal of determining the best teams or creating the toughest competition in the finals. It's flawed from the get go because of this.

 

[ausbacker]

PatriotSeven, you were wrong in your first attempt at this in another thread and you're wrong again.

The Giants just took out the NFC's #1 & #2 seeds away from home, the #5 seed at home and the AFC's #1 seed in the Superbowl at a neutral site.

You have rocks in your head if you think that's broken and not impressive.

 

[Deus Irae]

No




............

 

[jah]

No, you're just butthurt because we lost.

 

[pheenix11]

Everything about the NFL schedule and playoffs is perfect, from the symmetrical yearly schedule to the byes to the one and done to the biggest television event of the year. Don't change a thing. The other sports can only dream to be as relevant as the NFL.

 

[Bertil]

God, I hate this idea. Really, why fix what is not broken?

You can't in SB 46! It is lost forever. Same for 42. Get over it.

Is this from the Roger Goodell school of excessive micromanagement?

 

[KoolAid]

I still think the original premise of only expanding the SB to a 3 game series is viable, not completely restructuring the current playoff system. My motivation is based on accessibility for fans. There are reasonable solutions to most of the issues except a 20 game limit per team. If owners had the oppty to host a SB game every year, I think that would be enticing enough to consider 2 teams maybe playing 21 or 22 games. I was blessed with the oppty to go to the SB in 1997, but now I don't see how I could ever get back with the astronomical inflation of ticket prices.

 

[ausbacker]

I still think the original premise of only expanding the SB to a 3 game series is viable, not completely restructuring the current playoff system. My motivation is based on accessibility for fans. There are reasonable solutions to most of the issues except a 20 game limit per team. If owners had the oppty to host a SB game every year, I think that would be enticing enough to consider 2 teams maybe playing 21 or 22 games. I was blessed with the oppty to go to the SB in 1997, but now I don't see how I could ever get back with the astronomical inflation of ticket prices.

It's a knee jerk reaction to the pain of a second Superbowl loss in 4 seasons. I doubt anyone was asking for a round robin after the first 3 championships.

 

[KoolAid]

It's a knee jerk reaction to the pain of a second Superbowl loss in 4 seasons. I doubt anyone was asking for a round robin after the first 3 championships.

I am not talking about a round robin. I am bummed they lost of course, but I also rank this season as a success from where they stood around week 7.

 

[ausbacker]

I am not talking about a round robin. I am bummed they lost of course, but I also rank this season as a success from where they stood around week 7.

A 3 game series isn't applicable nor is a round robin series. It is what it is.

 

[PatriotSeven]

PatriotSeven, you were wrong in your first attempt at this in another thread and you're wrong again.

The Giants just took out the NFC's #1 & #2 seeds away from home, the #5 seed at home and the AFC's #1 seed in the Superbowl at a neutral site.

You have rocks in your head if you think that's broken and not impressive.

And that proved that playoff system works? lol

They are the best team in the NFL? Ok.
What about the 2nd best? The #1 AFC team who lost to the #4NFC seed or the the #1 NFC team who also lost to the #4 NFC team?
What about the #3 NFC team who beat the #4 NFC team that beat all of those teams who lost to the #2 NFC team? Where do they stand?
What about the #5 AFC team who beat the #1 AFC team in the regular season but lost the #4 AFC team?

You have No freaking idea. None. 0. Zip. Zilch. And neither do I. Can't even begin to rationally explain it.

The logic of single elimination is based on this: team A beat team C who beat B therefore team A > B, yet often team B beats team A or sweeps them when they face each other.

It answers nothing other than who wins the Super Bowl. This year it worked convincingly. The other 45 Super Bowls? It rarely works as well as it did for the Giants this year. It only comes close to being convincing when the #4 seed wins it and none of the wild card teams advance. That's not actually what happens most years though.

And on top of that it's entirely possible to have a team that goes 4-13 in the regular season, make the playoffs, and win a Super Bowl. It becomes even more likely when they draw the #3, #1, and #5 seeds and #1 seed has a division which was a complete disaster like theirs. Or one that goes 5-11. And so on...

Of course the refs and NFL is going to take it upon themselves to make sure that 4-13 team won't make it out of the Wild Card round, but if they actually let them play, very possible. And with the way things have gone the past 10 years, the "magical improved parity" out of nowhere, it's entirely possible.

How is it that the parity improved so well since Goodell took over in the regular season and winning seeds have become so randomized for Super Bowl contenders and winners without any changes to the playoffs system? We've had just about every possible combination in the past 5 years when it didn't happen for 40 years. Including mixing in another #1 vs another #1 when it had not previously happened since 1993.

Super Bowl contenders:

2010 — No. 6 Packers over No. 2 Steelers

2009 — No. 1 Saints over No. 1 Colts

2008 — No. 2 Steelers over No. 4 Cardinals

2007 -– No. 5 Giants over No. 1 Patriots

2006 — No. 3 Colts over No. 1 Bears

2005 — No. 6 Steelers over No. 1 Seahawks

2004 — No. 2 Patriots over No. 1 Eagles

2003 — No. 1 Patriots over No. 3 Panthers

2002 — No. 2 Buccaneers over No. 1 Raiders

2001 — No. 2 Patriots over No. 1 Rams

2000 — No. 4 Ravens over No. 1 Giants

1999 — No. 1 Rams over No. 4 Tennessee

1998 — No. 1 Broncos over No. 2 Falcons

1997 — No. 4 Broncos over No. 2 Packers

1996 — No. 1 Packers over No. 2 Patriots

1995 — No. 1 Cowboys over No. 2 Steelers

1994 — No. 1 49ers over No. 2 Chargers

1993 — No. 1 Cowboys over No. 1 Bills

1992 — No. 2 Cowboys over No. 4 Bills

1991 — No. 1 Redskins over No. 1 Bills

But amazingly in the past 6 years all the seeds seem to have completely, magically, randomized. Blowouts, no longer exist. Perfect parity in the regular season. But no changes were made to the playoff format. Perfect parity in the regular season. The playoff format just completely fixed itself in 6 years so it works perfectly random. Which is what you would get close to if you did apply round robin to the playoffs. But we don't have that.

And the most amazing part? In the past 6 years, under the watch of Mr. Goodell:

A #1 seed has won
A #2 seed has won
A #3 seed has won
A #4 seed has won
A #5 seed has won
A #6 seed has won

Perfect! In 2012, the final piece fell into the mix when the #4 Giants won the Super Bowl. All seeds have won a Super Bowl in the span of 6 years when it's never ******* happened before. And should never happen in a single elimnation tournament that heavily favors the #1 and #2 seeds(they only need to win 2 games to make the Super Bowl and 3 to win it...they should make it and win it a lot more often!). Perfect parity in the regular season. Perfectly random seed contestants in the Super Bowl that amazing always seems to go to the most popular, fan favorite teams. Is even better at producing random seed results than round robin, yet we don't have round robin.

Nothing to worry about. It's not broken, you're right. It's absolutely perfect. And they did all this using the most imperfect playoff system there is for trying to achieve this?

Goodell for president!

Patriots, there is absolutely no incentive or reason to ever try to be a #1 or #2 seed again if you care about winning the Super Bowl. As long as Goodell is president. This is what it basically means.

 

[Deus Irae]

I still think the original premise of only expanding the SB to a 3 game series is viable, not completely restructuring the current playoff system. My motivation is based on accessibility for fans. There are reasonable solutions to most of the issues except a 20 game limit per team. If owners had the oppty to host a SB game every year, I think that would be enticing enough to consider 2 teams maybe playing 21 or 22 games. I was blessed with the oppty to go to the SB in 1997, but now I don't see how I could ever get back with the astronomical inflation of ticket prices.

It's a lousy idea.

 

[jcdavey]

And that proved that playoff system works? lol

They are the best team in the NFL? Ok.
What about the 2nd best? The #1 AFC team who lost to the #4NFC seed or the the #1 NFC team who also lost to the #4 NFC team?
What about the #3 NFC team who beat the #4 NFC team that beat all of those teams who lost to the #2 NFC team? Where do they stand?
What about the #5 AFC team who beat the #1 AFC team in the regular season but lost the #4 AFC team?

You have No freaking idea. None. 0. Zip. Zilch. And neither do I. Can't even begin to rationally explain it.

The logic of single elimination is based on this: team A beat team C who beat B therefore team A > B, yet often team B beats team A or sweeps them when they face each other.

It answers nothing other than who wins the Super Bowl. This year it worked convincingly. The other 45 Super Bowls? It rarely works as well as it did for the Giants this year. It only comes close to being convincing when the #4 seed wins it and none of the wild card teams advance. That's not actually what happens most years though.

And on top of that it's entirely possible to have a team that goes 4-13 in the regular season, make the playoffs, and win a Super Bowl. It becomes even more likely when they draw the #3, #1, and #5 seeds and #1 seed has a division which was a complete disaster like theirs. Or one that goes 5-11. And so on...

Of course the refs and NFL is going to take it upon themselves to make sure that 4-13 team won't make it out of the Wild Card round, but if they actually let them play, very possible. And with the way things have gone the past 10 years, the "magical improved parity" out of nowhere, it's entirely possible.

How is it that the parity improved so well since Goodell took over in the regular season and winning seeds have become so randomized for Super Bowl contenders and winners without any changes to the playoffs system? We've had just about every possible combination in the past 5 years when it didn't happen for 40 years. Including mixing in another #1 vs another #1 when it had not previously happened since 1993.

Super Bowl contenders:

2010 — No. 6 Packers over No. 2 Steelers

2009 — No. 1 Saints over No. 1 Colts

2008 — No. 2 Steelers over No. 4 Cardinals

2007 -– No. 5 Giants over No. 1 Patriots

2006 — No. 3 Colts over No. 1 Bears

2005 — No. 6 Steelers over No. 1 Seahawks

2004 — No. 2 Patriots over No. 1 Eagles

2003 — No. 1 Patriots over No. 3 Panthers

2002 — No. 2 Buccaneers over No. 1 Raiders

2001 — No. 2 Patriots over No. 1 Rams

2000 — No. 4 Ravens over No. 1 Giants

1999 — No. 1 Rams over No. 4 Tennessee

1998 — No. 1 Broncos over No. 2 Falcons

1997 — No. 4 Broncos over No. 2 Packers

1996 — No. 1 Packers over No. 2 Patriots

1995 — No. 1 Cowboys over No. 2 Steelers

1994 — No. 1 49ers over No. 2 Chargers

1993 — No. 1 Cowboys over No. 1 Bills

1992 — No. 2 Cowboys over No. 4 Bills

1991 — No. 1 Redskins over No. 1 Bills

But amazingly in the past 6 years all the seeds seem to have completely, magically, randomized. Blowouts, no longer exist. Perfect parity in the regular season. But no changes were made to the playoff format. Perfect parity in the regular season. The playoff format just completely fixed itself in 6 years so it works perfectly random. Which is what you would get close to if you did apply round robin to the playoffs. But we don't have that.

And the most amazing part? In the past 6 years, under the watch of Mr. Goodell:

A #1 seed has won
A #2 seed has won
A #3 seed has won
A #4 seed has won
A #5 seed has won
A #6 seed has won

Perfect! In 2012, the final piece fell into the mix when the #4 Giants won the Super Bowl. All seeds have won a Super Bowl in the span of 6 years when it's never ******* happened before. And should never happen in a single elimnation tournament that heavily favors the #1 and #2 seeds(they only need to win 2 games to make the Super Bowl and 3 to win it...they should make it and win it a lot more often!). Perfect parity in the regular season. Perfectly random seed contestants in the Super Bowl that amazing always seems to go to the most popular, fan favorite teams. Is even better at producing random seed results than round robin, yet we don't have round robin.

Nothing to worry about. It's not broken, you're right. It's absolutely perfect. And they did all this using the most imperfect playoff system there is for trying to achieve this?

Goodell for president!

1-6 seed won in the past 6 years...that actually seems pretty great

very very nice

 

[PatriotSeven]

1-6 seed won in the past 6 years...that actually seems pretty great

very very nice

Yes it's perfect!

Except when you consider that a playoff system that is, by design, supposed to never do this, does this.

You know what's supposed to do this? Non-seeded, Round Robin. And it doesn't even get it this good.

So how is it that a single elimination tournament, that by design is supposed to favor the #1 and #2 seeds because they both have to play 1 less games and get home field advantage, produces the random seeding Champions only a non-seeded, round-robin tournament can produce? And does it even better? I mean it does it truly perfectly. Without actually having non-seeded, round-robin?

For 40 years, the NFL single elimination seeded playoff format, produced exactly the type of results you would expect out of a single elimination playoff format. And for the past 6 it's producing the type of results you would only get out of a group based, FIFA world cup-like, non-seeded, round-robin playoff format. Without ever changing the tournament playoff format?

Think about it! Only round-robin completely eliminates seed advantage. There is no advantage for seeds in a round-robin format. There is a major advantage for the #1 and #2 seeds in the NFL playoff format as the NFL originally created it. Has been for 40 years. And yet in the past 6 years, it was completely eliminated and evened out without ever actually using a different playoff format to change something that's been tested both mathematically, statistically and based on historical 40 years worth of results.

And not only did it eliminate it. But produced the perfect results in terms of total random seeds.

#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6 seed winners in 6 years.

Out of a single elimination tournament that heavily favors the #1 and #2 seeds.

You have a better chance of winning the lottery, than ever having that combination of seed winners in a span 6 years from the NFL, seeded, single elimination, playoff format. That is unless someone is making it perfect.

The better question is who, not how, is getting us these results. It's not the teams own playing or chances, or the NFL playoffs, that's for damn sure. Something else is making it this fair. Not the tournament structure.

This is the mathematical and statistical equivalent of this:igsfly:

"I'm going to Disney World"!