Should the NFL Expand the playoffs to 8 teams and eliminate byes?

[EmotionallyUnstable]

I love the single bye.

 

Initailly disliked it, but I think it adds competition to the end of season that might otherwise not be there. 

[MRW]

How about this? Top team in each conference gets to decide, bye or home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Second team gets the other.

[MJS]

I am vehemently against expanding the playoffs. I was against it when they expanded to 7, and I am certainly against expanding to 8.

 

It cheapens the quality of the playoffs. It makes it too easy to make the playoffs.

 

Now, if they add some expansion teams, then we can talk. But letting HALF the league into the playoffs? That's just too much.

[dave mcbride]

4 hours ago, Big Turk said:

I have been thinking about this recently.  

 

There is no other major league sport that gives the enormous advantage that the NFL does to it's #1 team in the conference. All of those teams have to play in the first round of the playoffs. NBA now even have play-in games to get into the playoffs...although I am not sure why simply having a better record doesn't qualify you. What's the point of all those games if you can be eliminated by a team with a worse record before the actual playoffs?? That doesn't make much sense, unless it's a money grab.

 

NHL has 8 teams, MLB has 6 teams. Nobody has any byes.  All of those sports play far more games than the NFL. Granted, the physical toll is different for NFL players, but still.

 

It used to be the top 2 teams that got a bye when there were 6 teams. Why when there could have been 3 normal playoff games, I am not sure of.  Now that they expanded to 7, obvious one team has to get a bye.  Expanding to 8 should eliminate the bye and the unfair advantage that it gives them.

 

No. Absolutely no. I would far rather reduce it to 6. This ain’t the NHL, whose easy playoff entry system has always been laughably horrible.

Edited December 8, 2022 by dave mcbride

[What a Tuel]

5 hours ago, djp14150 said:

If they expand to 8 teams there will be a second bye.

 

or 8 team 

week 1 5 vs 8 and 4 vs 7

week 2 survivors vs 3 and 4 

Week 3 survivors vs 1 and 2 

week 4 conf finals 

week 5 super bowl

 

No way do they give 1st and 2nd seeds two bye weeks. That also means 3 weeks of no football for the top seeds. 

 

2 hours ago, MJS said:

I am vehemently against expanding the playoffs. I was against it when they expanded to 7, and I am certainly against expanding to 8.

 

It cheapens the quality of the playoffs. It makes it too easy to make the playoffs.

 

Now, if they add some expansion teams, then we can talk. But letting HALF the league into the playoffs? That's just too much.

 

That is the plan. It doesn't necessarily have to line up timewise.

Edited December 8, 2022 by What a Tuel

[The Wiz]

2 hours ago, MJS said:

I am vehemently against expanding the playoffs. I was against it when they expanded to 7, and I am certainly against expanding to 8.

 

It cheapens the quality of the playoffs. It makes it too easy to make the playoffs.

 

Now, if they add some expansion teams, then we can talk. But letting HALF the league into the playoffs? That's just too much.

There have been times when teams had no right being in the playoffs even before the expansion to 7 teams because they won their division.

 

It was already cheapened based off of that alone when they disregard overall record vs division record.

 

I think if anything divisions need to be changed/expanded/and/or not count as high in the overall standing.

Edited December 8, 2022 by The Wiz

[Boatdrinks]

4 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

There have been times when teams had no right being in the playoffs even before the expansion to 7 teams because they won their division.

 

It was already cheapened based off of that alone when they disregard overall record vs division record.

 

I think if anything divisions need to be changed/expanded/and/or not count as high in the overall standing.

The NFL has always stressed division play and some divisions are stronger than others at different times. I don’t think division champions cheapen the playoffs though I see the argument for overall record. It’s mostly about traditional rivalries and it’s tough to argue with the NFLs success . 

[RiotAct]

2 hours ago, MJS said:

I am vehemently against expanding the playoffs. I was against it when they expanded to 7, and I am certainly against expanding to 8.

 

It cheapens the quality of the playoffs. It makes it too easy to make the playoffs.

 

Now, if they add some expansion teams, then we can talk. But letting HALF the league into the playoffs? That's just too much.

couldn’t agree more.  Hell, when we broke the drought in 2017, when it was still 6 teams, it was pretty evident we were in over our collective heads.  There is zero need for 8 teams in each conference to make the big dance. 

 

Well, besides money 🙄

[The Wiz]

2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

The NFL has always stressed division play and some divisions are stronger than others at different times. I don’t think division champions cheapen the playoffs though I see the argument for overall record. It’s mostly about traditional rivalries and it’s tough to argue with the NFLs success . 

Rivalries will exist even without there being the division champion though.  They can use it as a tie breaker, but shouldn't be the top prerequisite is all I'm saying 

 

That's the old NFL.  I know people hold onto the old dolphins and the more recent pats as a rivalry.  But it wasn't.  It was a "we hate them because they always beat us".

 

We have a rivalry now with the chiefs.  Back and forth, blow for blow until something gives.  If they can make every team like that then most teams will be fighting for a 10-11 win season for the #1 seed.

 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

I like how there were only 6 playoff teams per conference for our entire playoff drought and once we got good they added a team and took away the 2 seed bye 😂. 

[In Summary]

4 hours ago, The Wiz said:

once they go to 18 games, it will be 8 teams per conference with 1 and 2 with a 1st round bye and push out the season until late February/early march when they added a 2nd bye week.

 

That looks like how they want it to go IMO.

 

They should also expand the roster to 60.  This will probably happen in 2 year when the cap hits close to 300m (I'm guessing but I think it will get there).

Bodies will struggle to last 18 games plus playoffs. It'll shorten careers. Would need to consider the 60 players and two in-season byes.

[Rochesterfan]

4 hours ago, The Wiz said:

once they go to 18 games, it will be 8 teams per conference with 1 and 2 with a 1st round bye and push out the season until late February/early march when they added a 2nd bye week.

 

That looks like how they want it to go IMO.

 

They should also expand the roster to 60.  This will probably happen in 2 year when the cap hits close to 300m (I'm guessing but I think it will get there).

How would that even work.  8 teams (with 1&2 getting byes) does not work out in any way.  
 

That would be 6 teams playing - with 3 winners and then 1&2 after the bye and now you are at 5 teams left - so you need another bye and then it still doesn’t work out.

 

8 teams means no byes for anyone - 8 to 4 to 2 to 1 Conference winner.  
 

The issue with 8 teams per Conference is that makes 4 games per conference on opening weekend.  The NFL can realistically show 6 games (3 on Sat and 3 on Sun) and they are trying a 7th games using Monday, but that is really unfair.  Therefore; with 8 teams - a minimum of 1 potentially 2 games get played at the same time and you lose viewership.

 

The 7 playoff teams (with #1 bye) fixes that - each Conference plays 3 games - filling all 6 time slots and if wanted sliding 1 to Monday night - allowing the fans to see every game and maximizing TV revenue for themselves and their TV partners.  You get 6 Games on Wildcard weekend (3 in each Conference) - then 4 the next weekend - allowing the NFL to maximize the times for viewership.  
 

I think it worked out great - a few blowouts, but the NFL got exactly what it wanted - 13 games played including the SuperBowl all with their own time slot - no competing games to split viewership.

 

I expect it to stay that way for a while until they modify Conferences or Divisions and even then they will want to maximize individual games times - so 6 games is the most for a weekend.

 

 

 

[SinceThe70s]

8 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

sure.  they could call it hockey

 

Hockey was always the punching bag for a ridiculous post-season. I remember when 16 of the 21 teams made the post season. To their credit they've expanded to 32 teams without adding to the post season. And the 8 team divisions make it tougher for a sub .500 team to make the playoffs which is better then the NFL setup that is predicated on regular season divisional rivalries. 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Would have been Better to just say 16 teams and yes we should. More teams more more money more fan involvement = win win

 

 

[SMAKCruiser]

I wish they'd go back to a 6 team playoff and the top two get a bye but that will never happen

[dma0034]

Should be 8 because it's incredibly unfair to give 2 teams a bye and home field. 

 

 

In terms of slotting times you could put one of the East Coast games early (like 10am) on Sunday. 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by dma0034

[Xwnyer]

13 hours ago, Big Turk said:

I have been thinking about this recently.  

 

There is no other major league sport that gives the enormous advantage that the NFL does to it's #1 team in the conference. All of those teams have to play in the first round of the playoffs. NBA now even have play-in games to get into the playoffs...although I am not sure why simply having a better record doesn't qualify you. What's the point of all those games if you can be eliminated by a team with a worse record before the actual playoffs?? That doesn't make much sense, unless it's a money grab.

 

NHL has 8 teams, MLB has 6 teams. Nobody has any byes.  All of those sports play far more games than the NFL. Granted, the physical toll is different for NFL players, but still.

 

It used to be the top 2 teams that got a bye when there were 6 teams. Why when there could have been 3 normal playoff games, I am not sure of.  Now that they expanded to 7, obvious one team has to get a bye.  Expanding to 8 should eliminate the bye and the unfair advantage that it gives them.

 

NO the top team or two should get byes.  I hate expanded playoffs like what happened in baseball and hockey.

[CSBill]

13 hours ago, billsbackto81 said:

I agree but just go back to 16 if you want to keep it even. The extra game only benefits the owners pockets.

 

How about back to 16 games, but 12 teams make the play-offs?

 

Almost every team gets the extra game, four teams deservedly get relegated, the week 17 (bye week) means something, and the four Division winners get a bye--upping the value of it and competitive push for it.

[Airseven]

What this is really about is wishing the Chiefs had another opportunity to get knocked out.

[plenzmd1]

11 hours ago, EmotionallyUnstable said:

I love the single bye.

 

Initailly disliked it, but I think it adds competition to the end of season that might otherwise not be there. 

This is why there will always be incentive .. makes every regular season game SOOO important, which drives excitement, which drives ratings not only on games days, but to all the NFL related shows. Which all equals more money. 

10 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

No. Absolutely no. I would far rather reduce it to 6. This ain’t the NHL, whose easy playoff entry system has always been laughably horrible.

Man, that 16 of 21 stuff ended like 30 years ago and still the myth persists. NHL and NFL playoffs percentage been pretty damn close for a while now, NBA same as the NHL, actually a little easier now with the play in series.