More playoffs teams in new CBA

XLIX said:

If you think having HFA throughout plus being the only playoff team in the conference with a bye week "means absolutely nothing" then you're clueless.

Click to expand...

Just ignore the fact that neither one of the number 1 seeds won this year I guess.

MrBigglesWorth said:

If I can't get the one seed because I simply lose to team and they have the tie breaker what's the difference between 2 and 3 or 3 and 4 as long as I get a home game. I'm just saying this encourages teams to be more judicious in resting players... We see it in the preseason now we will see it more in the regular season

Click to expand...

The difference between #2 and #3 will be an easier first round opponent, plus you would get to play at home divisional weekend. The difference between #3 and #4 would be pretty much the same as before.

Teams are still going to fight for higher seeds under the new format just like they do already.

festy1986 said:

Just ignore the fact that neither one of the number 1 seeds won this year I guess.

Click to expand...

SB54 was a #2 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB53 was a #2 seed beating a #2 seed.
SB 52 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB 51 was a #1 seed beating a #2 seed.
SB 50 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB 49 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB 48 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.

10 of the past 14 Super Bowl participants were #1 seeds, with 5 of the past 7 winners being #1 seeds. You look real stupid sitting there saying that seeding - especially being the top seed - doesn't matter.

XLIX said:

SB54 was a #2 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB53 was a #2 seed beating a #2 seed.
SB 52 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB 51 was a #1 seed beating a #2 seed.
SB 50 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB 49 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB 48 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.

10 of the past 14 Super Bowl participants were #1 seeds, with 5 of the past 7 winners being #1 seeds. You look real stupid sitting there saying that seeding - especially being the top seed - doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

XLIX said:

SB54 was a #2 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB53 was a #2 seed beating a #2 seed.
SB 52 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB 51 was a #1 seed beating a #2 seed.
SB 50 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB 49 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.
SB 48 was a #1 seed beating a #1 seed.

10 of the past 14 Super Bowl participants were #1 seeds, with 5 of the past 7 winners being #1 seeds. You look real stupid sitting there saying that seeding - especially being the top seed - doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

He has to be trolling you at this point. It makes the #1 seed more valuable now.

But it also means if a team isn’t getting the #1 seed, they’re not going to care all that much about the difference between the #2, #3, and #4. Winning the division becomes the end goal. Right now, teams frequently don’t care about #3 vs #4, and the cost of playing for the #2 probably isn’t worth it either since there’s no bye.

And with the 17 games, it creates more likely scenarios that the #1 seed is locked up well before the season is over. So you potentially have a whole lot more pointless games in week 16-18 or so where teams are just looking to rest players and coast.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

He has to be trolling you at this point. It makes the #1 seed more valuable now.

Click to expand...

I don’t think it started as trolling but once he made a fool of himself, he tried to make it look like such.

Yes, the #1 seed is even more valuable. I still think people will care about being #2 versus #3 because that’s the difference between playing at home or on the road in the 2nd round. The difference between 3 and 4 is minimal but, arguably, no more minimal than it already is.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

And with the 17 games, it creates more likely scenarios that the #1 seed is locked up well before the season is over. So you potentially have a whole lot more pointless games in week 16-18 or so where teams are just looking to rest players and coast.

Click to expand...

They’re only adding one week. It isn’t going to significantly shift the chances that the #1 seed is locked up “well before the season is over.”

Take this year for example. The NFC would still have gone down to the final week. In the AFC, Baltimore had a meaningless game 16. If there were 17 games, game 16 would not have been meaningless, while 17 would. So in each case, there would have been only 1 meaningless game for the top seed.

The undeniable fact in sports is that more playoff spots means a greater number of meaningful regular season games because more teams stay alive longer into the season. That’s undoubtedly one of the factors why they are doing this.

Froob said:

This stinks. End of regular season is great and now they just watered it down big time. Only one bye team now per conference

Click to expand...

urgh. Now Brady’s postseason passing record is vulnerable. I thought that would never be broken. But if they keep adding more postseason games....

Time to hand these out to all NFL players. They all deserve to win a cup.

MrBigglesWorth said:

Why would I play a player in week 16..or 17 or 18 if I know I'm making the playoffs

Click to expand...

Being the #2 versus #3 may matter far less than resting in this scenario. I could see a #2 team resting players as soon as week 15 if they are banged up even if it means slipping as low as #4. With the #2 bye off the table and there often being a runaway best team, there is very little reason to struggle over seeding.

Basically this approach makes the NFL like the NBA with all those garbage teams having early exits. My thoughts on the idea - it's garbage.

Biffins said:

urgh. Now Brady’s postseason passing record is vulnerable. I thought that would never be broken. But if they keep adding more postseason games....

Click to expand...

It probably gives future players a 10-20% higher chance of beating the record due to chances of making it in. The good news for Brady is that Goodell, Kraft, and the rest of the Lollipop Guild owners will probably expand the league to 36 teams by pushing into Europe, thus lowering the chances.

I hate it when people take something that isn’t broken and try to fix it. This is a prime example.

NFL is good at finding solutions for problems that don't even exist...

Flash said:

NFL is good at finding solutions for problems that don't even exist...

Click to expand...

And often ignoring the ones that do.

Biffins said:

urgh. Now Brady’s postseason passing record is vulnerable. I thought that would never be broken. But if they keep adding more postseason games....

Click to expand...

Patriots AFC Championship and Super Bowl appearances are also vulnerable.

Regular season records don't mean squat now....40 plus years and they hit the reset button over greed for money.

Steve85 said:

Glad to see the option for 16 games is still in the table. The extra 5B is over 10
Years so 500M a year. I guess a lot depends on how much the players really don’t want that extra game.

Personally hate the extra game and the expanded playoffs. It’s perfect the way it is & this is nothing more than a cash grab by people who are already billionaires. You can’t claim to be about player safety and health and then add games to the season.

Click to expand...

6% more games to play for 1.5% more money sure sounds fair to me.

Im fine with converting the last preseason game into the 17th game.

Throw in letting AB come back for 2020 and gentlemen, we've got a deal.

Tony2046 said:

6% more games to play for 1.5% more money sure sounds fair to me.

Click to expand...

It’s not 1.5% more money. If they play 6% more games, they get a 1.5% bigger piece of the pie - and the pie itself gets 6% bigger. It works out to roughly a 9% raise (meaning a 9% increase in the salary cap where all else is equal).

MrTibbs said:

Patriots AFC Championship and Super Bowl appearances are also vulnerable.

Regular season records don't mean squat now....40 plus years and they hit the reset button over greed for money.

Click to expand...

I oppose what the League is doing, but people need to stop losing their minds over it.

XLIX said:

It’s not 1.5% more money. If they play 6% more games, they get a 1.5% bigger piece of the pie - and the pie itself gets 6% bigger. It works out to roughly a 9% raise (meaning a 9% increase in the salary cap where all else is equal).

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Thanks.

They sure love the Steelers. Under these new rules the Steelers would have been in the playoffs 4 more times in the past 10 seasons. Wow. Ridiculous. Another reason to quit the NFL once Tom has retired.