Doc Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 What difference does it make if an 8-8 or worse team team makes the playoffs? If they don't deserve to be there, they'll be eliminated the 1st week. I don't see that as a deterrent or reason not to do it. And frankly I wish they'd done it sooner, seeing as how the AFCE had been dominated by the Cheaters since they moved to the 4 division format. 1
MJS Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 56 minutes ago, Doc said: What difference does it make if an 8-8 or worse team team makes the playoffs? If they don't deserve to be there, they'll be eliminated the 1st week. I don't see that as a deterrent or reason not to do it. And frankly I wish they'd done it sooner, seeing as how the AFCE had been dominated by the Cheaters since they moved to the 4 division format. Because a team without at least a winning record simply doesn't deserve to get in. It happens very rarely in the current format and would be quite a bit more common in an expanded playoff format. I don't want the Bills to get into the playoffs because they expanded it. I want them to get in because they are a good team and deserve it.
Rob's House Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 This reminds me of when Maker's Mark reduced its whiskey to 80 proof so they could spread it out further. They ended up with more bottles, but of an inferior product. 1
BullBuchanan Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, aristocrat said: 4 teams since 2000 have won the super bowl as the wild card team. 4 in 19 years. Only 2 have been the 6th seed - ever Edited November 17, 2019 by BullBuchanan
4merper4mer Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 I think they will have 8 teams from the conference with the lesser overall record and 6 teams from the conference with the better record. This is the fairest way to do it. Personally though I think they should leave it at 12 teams.
Jerome007 Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 On 11/14/2019 at 3:24 PM, jwhit34 said: The top record would get a bye and the 3 other division winners would host the playoff games vs. the 3 wild cards. The league will want to preserve the value of winning the division. I admit I cringed at the idea of 14 teams instead of 12... but it would make sense. Exactly this way. We all hate change, and there's something great in the NFL about so few teams making the playoffs, 20 out of 32 are out! Yet 18 out of 32 out ain't so bad. It's still not an open house. Who remembers when the NHL had 21 teams yet 16 made the playoffs? The regular season meant nothing. IDK about you guys, but I watch the playoffs. Yet, it doesn't matter if it's football, movies, whatever, I don't like sitting on my ass all day long watching TV! Especially since I watch intently, not passively half asleep. So 3 games per day that first playoff weekend is kind of excessive to me! I won't watch them all, but of course overall the total viewership will increase so more $$$. 9 hours ago, MJS said: Because a team without at least a winning record simply doesn't deserve to get in. It happens very rarely in the current format and would be quite a bit more common in an expanded playoff format. That wouldn't change. Only division winners with poor record get in. That there is 2 or 3 wildcard teams, they'll have a good record unless the whole conference stunk!
Tesla03 Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 12 hours ago, MJS said: Because I don't want to see diluted playoff football and I don't think want the NFL to turn into other sports that let half their teams in. how is letting 1 extra team in per conference diluting the playoffs sorry some of us don't want to wait 5000 months to see our team play again, especially as Bills fans when our seasons usually end in November.
Doc Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 30 minutes ago, Tesla03 said: how is letting 1 extra team in per conference diluting the playoffs sorry some of us don't want to wait 5000 months to see our team play again, especially as Bills fans when our seasons usually end in November. Good question. Like I said above, that team will be eliminated quickly if they're so inferior. It's just an extra game to watch...or not if you're so incensed about a potential sub-.500 team making it in.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Have a division championship count as 1 game advantage. So if you have a 9-7 division winner they'd be seeded behind an 11-5 non division winner.
Locomark Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 41 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Have a division championship count as 1 game advantage. So if you have a 9-7 division winner they'd be seeded behind an 11-5 non division winner. I like this innovative approach. Why should some mediocre division winner get to leapfrog good teams !!
Doc Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 The more I think about it, adding an extra playoff team helps reduce the chances of a team with a good record missing the playoffs. I see that far more than I've seen a .500 or worse team make them. As for what to do about seeding, they should keep it the way it is. The better team should win.
cba fan Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 On 11/14/2019 at 4:09 PM, quinnearlysghost88 said: Stop. Giving. Division. Winners. Playoff. Berths. Top records! you never wan to get rid of divisions. It ends the rivalries and fight to be division winner. And all the drama that comes with that. Also would remove urgency to play well when a team is great and has playoff all but locked up mid season. Best games are must win matchups throughout season. Yes sit sucks when a very weak division winner gets a home playoff game like 7-9 Seattle back a few years ago. But that is very rare outlier. Could also be rectified by making the divisions bigger with more teams in each. Expand the league by a few teams to make that work.
steve2jerry Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 (edited) Longtime lurker, go Bills (fav AFC team) From 1990-1995, the percentage of teams making the playoff was 42.8 (12 out of 28), until it dropped with the addition of 2 expansion teams. With 14/32, it goes to a higher 43.75%, which as a fan I'm not so thrilled with, but I understand the reasoning behind it as some have mentioned: money, but also the possibility of expansion once again. With a 17 game schedule (hopefully 2 byes for players rest/safety, and 3 preseason games), I could see the NFL expanding to London and Canada, and possibly 2 more US cities after 5 years which would make a 14/36 playoff rate of 38.8%, just above the 37.5% it is now. All for money purposes. 36 teams seems far too many, but it would be an excuse to realign the divisions how they were before, 3 per conference, with 6 teams each, thus guaranteeing a quality record for each division winner, and 4WCs. Divisions are in place for travel purposes, as teams need to stick in their regions as much as possible to reduce their mileage, and I can't see them going away when other solutions could replace the off chance an 8-8 team wins one (3 best division winners get home field, etc.). I still think a 12-4 WC should be home to a, 8-8 division winner, but really, that WC should prove their record by winning on the road as well. I also think with the international expansion we have seen inrecent years, that a 17 game schedule would work if they had one neutral site per year per team. It makes sense as they already go to London, just call that the neutral game for each team. The only negative is the extra 2 weeks of a long season. At least the Super Bowl teams get another 'bye' at media week. To respond to the post, I agree with the seeding of #1 record gets bye, and then the next 3 division winners as home, or next 2 as home and then 4 WCs based on record, including the last division winner. Edited November 17, 2019 by steve2jerry Thought i ran out of chars
Recommended Posts