NFL playoffs likely to expand to 14 teams in 2015

[FJX]

Not a fan. Just keep it like it is.

[1/28/01]

Sick thread

[display name]

That would suck.

[berad]

If it's that or 18 games, I'm going for expanded playoffs. Wonder how this alters the format?

 

My guess would be the #2 seed no longer gets a bye week and there are 6 total games on wildcard weekend.

[lgcs27288]

If it's that or 18 games, I'm going for expanded playoffs. Wonder how this alters the format?

 

My guess would be the #2 seed no longer gets a bye week and there are 6 total games on wildcard weekend.

I was watching NFL network and they brought that up. That's how it would be, only the #1 seeds get the bye week.

[berad]

I was watching NFL network and they brought that up. That's how it would be, only the #1 seeds get the bye week.

 

It makes the most sense to me, personally. IIRC, Matt Birk laid out the same thing a few years ago when the 18 game schedule debate first came up - I liked it and stuck with it.

[T3hRaven]

18 games is a far worse idea, but I don't understand why they're changing something that really doesn't need to be changed.

[berad]

18 games is a far worse idea, but I don't understand why they're changing something that really doesn't need to be changed.

 

Monies. NFL Playoff games get some of the biggest viewership, even worldwide, every season. This was their least abrasive route to get that money. Players were/are very against 18 games and, in turn, fans were/are as well (I know I am).

 

Maybe there are complaints about 'cheapening' the playoff pool but I bet everyone still watches and enjoys - players included.

[Sizzlebshu]

18 games is a far worse idea, but I don't understand why they're changing something that really doesn't need to be changed.

Considering the Cardinals this year, something had to be done. I much prefer that the 4 wild card spots just go to best overall record rather than by conference. 

[MissK528]

Considering the Cardinals this year, something had to be done. I much prefer that the 4 wild card spots just go to best overall record rather than by conference. 

 

This is what I'd rather them do. It seems like a much simpler solution. Actually, just take the top 6 teams from each conference (and I only keep the conference thing since the Super Bowl is AFC vs NFC) regardless of division. When the 7-9 Seahawks got in because they were the cream of the crap a few years back, a bunch of better teams lost out with better records. I still don't see how's earning a spot...

[AsianRice]

Stop messing around with the tradition.......

[Gordo52]

I hate how they're consistently changing everything. They're ruining a perfect game.

[Sizzlebshu]

This is what I'd rather them do. It seems like a much simpler solution. Actually, just take the top 6 teams from each conference (and I only keep the conference thing since the Super Bowl is AFC vs NFC) regardless of division. When the 7-9 Seahawks got in because they were the cream of the crap a few years back, a bunch of better teams lost out with better records. I still don't see how's earning a spot...

The problem with this is that it makes divisions meaningless.

[52520Andrew]

That would not have been good last year as I think that last team would have been the Steelers ugh. At least we could see them get blown out by the Pats however...well actually not that much better but but the Steelers would have been out of it.

 

The good news however was that we would be at 16 since the Steelers would be behind us since they made the playoffs so at least we could draft before them. I don't mind it that much although that first round bye was nice.

[MissK528]

The problem with this is that it makes divisions meaningless.

 

I don't think it would be meaningless... teams would still play their division at home and away every season, and someone would still be top in the division... it just wouldn't GUARANTEE a playoff spot, especially if there's teams in other divisions that have better records than the best in a weak division.

[52520Andrew]

I think that if you win your division, you deserve a spot. People forget that those 7-9 Seahawks beat the Saints in the playoffs who were defending super bowl champs. I would still give them the top 4 seeds as well. What would change is the fact that there would be an extra wild card so teams like the 2008 Pats and 2013 Cardinals would both make the playoffs.

 

I mean if you look at last year, there were 7 teams that deserved the playoffs more than anyone else in the NFC and a couple teams lost out in the last week. Seattle, San Francisco, New Orleans, Arizona, Carolina, Green Bay, and Philidelphia all deserved the postseason. After that, you had the Bears who lost to the Packers, the Cowboys who lost to the Eagles, and then teams like Detroit, New York, and St. Louis who were decent but they didn't deserve it. I think 7 would be about the max that I would go in terms of teams however or you start to be like the NBA with the playoffs where the regular season becomes meaningless.

[berad]

Got interested so I looked back on the history of the NFL playoffs
 
Since the 1970 merger
1970-1975: 8 playoff teams / 26 total = 30.8%
1976-1977: 8 playoff teams / 28 total = 28.6% (Bucs and Seahawks came in 1976)

 

1978-1989: 10 playoff teams / 28 total = 35.7%

 

1990 -1994 12 playoff teams / 28 total = 42.9%
1995-1998: 12 playoff teams / 30 total = 40.0% (Jags, Panthers, and Ravens added, Browns out)

1999 - 2001: 12 playoff teams / 31 total = 38.7% (Browns back)
2002 - present:12 playoff teams / 32 total = 37.5% (Texans)
 
Proposed: 14 playoff teams / 32 total = 43.8%

[Willbacker]

Just sets the stage for a 16 team playoff. Lol.Too many playoff teams makes the regular season more meaningless and could provide a WC with a losing record. Smh.

 

Feed the coffers.

[berad]

Just sets the stage for a 16 team playoff. Lol.Too many playoff teams makes the regular season more meaningless and could provide a WC with a losing record. Smh.

 

Feed the coffers.

 

More likely than that, I think, it's setting up for a league expansion in coming years.

[K-Dog]

So the Ravens would have made the playoffs last year and Joe would have gotten hurt.

[52520Andrew]

More likely than that, I think, it's setting up for a league expansion in coming years.

 

You thinking 36 teams and 16 team playoff or is it going to be 34(although that would be odd numbered teams per conference)

[Sizzlebshu]

I don't think it would be meaningless... teams would still play their division at home and away every season, and someone would still be top in the division... it just wouldn't GUARANTEE a playoff spot, especially if there's teams in other divisions that have better records than the best in a weak division.

So what's the point of winning the division then. It means nothing and honestly they should just be gotten rid of if thats the case. 

[The_Patriot_Way]

This is so stupid. Get rid of Roger Goodell already.

I HATE this move. The game is already violent as hell and every single play can be the end of someone's career. STUPID MOVE.

Just wait until the best teams start losing their best players to injuries in the extended play offs before they can reach the Superbowl. Watch then how stupid this is.

[T3hRaven]

This is so stupid. what the heck. Get rid of Roger Goodell already.

I HATE this move. The game is already violent as hell and every single play can be the end of someone's career. STUPID MOVE.

Just wait until the best teams start losing their best players to injuries in the extended play offs before they can reach the Superbowl. Watch then how stupid this is.

This is my main concern in addition to the lowering in the quality of the playoffs by allowing another team entrance, but as already mentioned it's all about the monies. Unfortunately, I'm apparently one of the select few who believes the law of diminishing returns applies to the almighty dollar.

[Inqui]

A 36-team league (and, thus, a 4 team expansion) makes the most sense. You would have 6 divisions, and each would all have 6 teams apiece. Also, expanding the league to 18 games would be wise, as it allows for each-and-every team's schedule to be formulaic (i.e. 10 divisional games, 6 teams from an opposing division, as well as two other games from an equal opponent in 2 other divisions). Actually, conferences might go away, altogether, if this were to happen.

 

But, I am the one who's being logical, here, though...

The NFLPA would like a word.

[Inqui]

This is my main concern in addition to the lowering in the quality of the playoffs by allowing another team entrance, but as already mentioned it's all about the monies.  Unfortunately, I'm apparently one of the select few who believes the law of diminishing returns applies to the almighty dollar.

I agree, although it's easy for me to say with how few almighty dollars I actually have.

 

I don't like the idea of expanding the league too far and putting in too many games, especially playoffs. A lot of the Australian sports leagues have playoff systems with half (or even more in the case of the A-League, if memory serves) of the teams able to qualify for the postseason and I'm really not a fan. It keeps more games interesting late in the season, but it does make a playoff berth far less for a club to be proud of. And that's with notably smaller leagues, I'm even more opposed with a 32-team league.

[52520Andrew]

A 36-team league (and, thus, a 4 team expansion) makes the most sense. You would have 6 divisions, and each would all have 6 teams apiece. Also, expanding the league to 18 games would be wise, as it allows for each-and-every team's schedule to be formulaic (i.e. 10 divisional games, 6 teams from an opposing division, as well as two other games from an equal opponent in 2 other divisions). Actually, conferences might go away, altogether, if this were to happen.

 

But, I am the one who's being logical, here, though...

 

Yeah I was thinking 36 would probably be next as it makes the most sense. That sounds like a decent system, it should be interesting if they ever do decide to expand like that.

[MissK528]

So what's the point of winning the division then. It means nothing and honestly they should just be gotten rid of if thats the case. 

 

I've always seen the divisions as more of a thing to simplify the scheduling process. Of course, if Roger gets his way and adds extra regular season games, then who knows what's gonna happen to the scheduling? I just don't think it's fair to have a team in a weak division get into the playoffs over a team that JUST misses with a better record.

[A Fish Called Yanda]

I don't really have too much of a problem expanding the playoffs...I still think the rules should be modified as such:

 

• Division winners make the playoffs
• Next 3 winningest teams make the playoffs

 

Teams are seeded in order of their record.  Throw out the Division winners get 1 - 4, wildcards take the rest.  It pisses me off how a team that is far superior than a division winner can have a low seed just because they had a better team in their division.  This also will force division winners' last game(s) of the season to count more, because they could potentially drop further in the seeding than they currently can.

[ravensdfan]

I don't really have too much of a problem expanding the playoffs...I still think the rules should be modified as such:

 

• Division winners make the playoffs
• Next 3 winningest teams make the playoffs

 

Teams are seeded in order of their record.  Throw out the Division winners get 1 - 4, wildcards take the rest.  It pisses me off how a team that is far superior than a division winner can have a low seed just because they had a better team in their division.  This also will force division winners' last game(s) of the season to count more, because they could potentially drop further in the seeding than they currently can.

 

The problem becomes that works the opposite way as well. A team with a better record is not necessarily superior. If their division is weak, a mediocre team could sweep the division, giving them 6 wins against lowly competitors.

 

Or just take SOS. A team with the easiest SOS of the season could finish with a better record than a division winner with one of the strongest SOS of the season. Does that make the wildcard team a better team? No it doesn't.

 

Winning the division should have its perks. Otherwise there is no sense having divisions at all.