Does anyone think expanding playoffs is a good idea?

[fightingirish595]

I really like the playoffs the way they were. There is only one change I think should be made. I think the 4 division winners should NOT be guaranteed seeds 1-4. I think they should be guaranteed a playoff berth, but then win record/ranking should decide seeds.

Then you devalue the division title. And dont expand playoffs. MLB and NFL playoffs are perfect the way they are in terms of amount of teams

 

[TomPatriot]

It's Goodell's idea (or he supports it). So . . . no.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I know I'm in the minority - but when a 6-10 team makes the playoffs and a 11-5 team does not in the CURRENT system, I'm hard pressed to find a reason to defend and keep the status quo rather than let good teams into the playoffs

There's no stopping BAD teams from getting into the playoffs under the current system - nor under an expanded playoff system (if a team with a losing record wins it's division)

Expanding the playoffs at least would ensure that those 11-5 teams who have been left out in the past would still get a chance to compete

I don't know why that's a bad thing

No system is perfectly meritorious. Even a 12 win team might have played 90% of the cellar dwellers while a 10 win team had a meat grinder schedule. Why not have each win not simply be a win? How about a win is a percentage of quality of opponent, HFA level, injury factor? Write up a Pythagoream theorum type calculation so everything is 100% meritorious.

Here's a plan: how about we break each PO race into a divisional one where each member of a division plays nearly the same schedule. The winner of that nearly same schedule earns a division PO spot. As well then allow two teams that achieved a good record but did not win the division race to be in the POs too?
Again yes there will be instances where a better team is further down in seeding or even not in the POs. But there will never be a perfect system, never. But this system now is a good one. And this system frequently provides one or two mediocre teams a chance for long shot-unrealistic glory. Expending it will see new depths plumbed for bad football in the playoffs. What's the point of "playoff" football if it has numerous teams that over the span of 16 games showed they are not the top tier quality?

 

[JoeSixPat]

No system is perfectly meritorious. Even a 12 win team might have played 90% of the cellar dwellers while a 10 win team had a meat grinder schedule. Why not have each win not simply be a win? How about a win is a percentage of quality of opponent, HFA level, injury factor? Write up a Pythagoream theorum type calculation so everything is 100% meritorious.

Here's a plan: how about we break each PO race into a divisional one where each member of a division plays nearly the same schedule. The winner of that nearly same schedule earns a division PO spot. As well then allow two teams that achieved a good record but did not win the division race to be in the POs too?
Again yes there will be instances where a better team is further down in seeding or even not in the POs. But there will never be a perfect system, never. But this system now is a good one. And this system frequently provides one or two mediocre teams a chance for long shot-unrealistic glory. Expending it will see new depths plumbed for bad football in the playoffs. What's the point of "playoff" football if it has numerous teams that over the span of 16 games showed they are not the top tier quality?

That may indeed work! Though it's too complicated for most football fans where they just want simple and straight forward rules.

I'm not sure the average football fan, in decrying how awful a 14 team playoff roster is, actually realizes that we're not talking about adding 6-10, 7-9, 8-8 teams to the playoffs in this scenario

That's the CURRENT system - that allows teams with losing records in, but keeps teams with winning records out

The teams left out in the current system each year are almost always 9-7 or better. Some seasons - as any good Patriots fan can tell you - 11-5 teams are being left out

Again, allowing a 11-5 into the playoffs can't be a bad thing the way I look at it

 

[Wheelman]

There's only one change I would make. All playoff teams need to win 9 games. If a division winner does not win 9 games they are eliminated from the playoffs and there's 3 division winners and 3 wild card teams in the playoffs.

 

[jmt57]

If you want a system that is most likely to crown the best team as champion then you minimize playoffs and a single elimination tournament. Two 16-team conferences play each other team within their conference once. Conference winners play for the title. Done.

Problem is that from a business standpoint that formula doesn't work. Zero interest in the majority of teams not even half way through the season. Result is lower revenues and profits due to decreasing attendance and advertising revenue (tv ratings). Neither the 32 owners nor the players are going to get on board with that idea.


With the current setup each fan base has a 25% chance of winning the division every year (well, except for the AFC East and NFC West). That optimism leads to more ticket sales, more apparel/souvenir purchases, more people buying the Sunday Ticket, more eyeballs watching auto, beer and insurance commercials.

At one time I felt adding at least one more team would be good. Reserve the bye as a reward for only the regular season champion. One less team left out due to a tie breaker, one more fan base elated with a playoff appearance.


Maybe I will come back around some day, but after witnessing this weekend's four games I'm more in favor of going back to the old format with fewer teams in the playoffs rather than even considering the concept of expanding the number of playoff teams.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

This weekend was a snoozefest. Nuff' said.

 

[Chevy]

Honest question. Why? (For the last statement)

They didn't win their division. They are invited to the post-season despite that fact as a way to round out the field. A team that wins it division deserves the right to host the game over an also-ran.

Win your Division

 

[Brick27]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but I don't see how looking solely at this weekend would lend any argument for expansion.

All 4 division winners won. Now, we are left with only division winners remaining in each conference.

The quality of play issues would not improve simply by adding more teams. If anything, it could mean more games for more playoff teams, and more room for injuries. As a result, crappier matchups, and perpetuating the issue even more.

 

[Triumph]

There isn't enough good enough teams to make the playoffs in the first place.. Hell ****ing nooo. Keep it as is. No more regular season games and no extra play off teams.

Injuries from the brutal regular season effect the quality of playoffs.

Carrs broken leg doomed Oakland. Tannehill would have given Miami a better chance, Stafford had a broken finger on his throwing hand.