PDA

View Full Version : 4 More Playoff Teams



flippy
05-25-2010, 07:30 AM
The NFL should add 4 more wildcard teams to the NFL playoffs.

2 in each division.

No more bye week for the top 2 teams in each division.

Make em play.

It would easily add 4 more games which would add more excitement.

And if Goodell doesn't want the best teams to rest their starters at the end of the season when they clinch a playoff seed, how about playing the SuperBowl as a home game for the best team remaining in the NFL.

Make em play for home field advantage in the SuperBowl.

C'Mon Goodell.

Let's change it up!!!!

Who's with me?

BURGH86STEEL
05-25-2010, 07:35 AM
It will be likely that at least 2 of the 4 teams that make it will have a .500 or losing records. I don't think anyone wants to see a team with a losing record make the playoffs.

SteelAbility
05-25-2010, 08:29 AM
Sorry, can't say I'm with you on this one. That means half the teams make the playoffs, which will then routinely involve average or only slightly-better-than-average teams in the playoffs in significant percentage. Plus, the meaning of the playoffs gets a bit watered down and the meaning of the playoffs as compared to previous years changes.

SteelAbility
05-25-2010, 08:32 AM
It will be likely that at least 2 of the 4 teams that make it will have a .500 or losing records. I don't think anyone wants to see a team with a losing record make the playoffs.

That's a good point. :Agree

However, under the current rules, it is theoretically possible for a 3-13 team to get into the playoffs. You have one division that all split with each other (everyone 3-3 within the division) and lose all games outside the division. Someone wins the division on tie-break and goes in as the #4 seed. :shock:

cruzer8
05-25-2010, 09:38 AM
Just say no.

flippy
05-25-2010, 10:43 AM
It will be likely that at least 2 of the 4 teams that make it will have a .500 or losing records. I don't think anyone wants to see a team with a losing record make the playoffs.

Last year, there would have been 3 9-7 teams (Pittsburgh, Houston, Atlanta) and 1 8-8 team (San Francisco). And every one of those teams ended the season with a winning streak from 2-4 games.

With only 16 games in a season, there's a good chance that a good team that starts slowly or runs through a rough patch during the season won't make the playoffs, but could be a very dangerous team that could beat anyone who did make the playoffs. There are lots of average teams 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 that develop and come on at the end of the season.

Heck, some divisions are harder and the 7 and 8 team could arguably be better than the 3-6 teams. Odds are the 1 and 2 seeds are very good. The 3 seed is probably good. And the quality of the 4-8 teams is probably pretty varied.

And it's not like there'd have to be another week of football. There's already a team resting that's in the playoffs. Why not have them play?

And the bye weeks in the playoffs mess with the quality of the games imho. The teams that rest either get rusty or they're so well rested that there ends up being a game that gets decided by the week off rather than the competition.

And in the scenario you mention, the 1/2 teams shouldn't care if they have to play a bad team. If they're that good, they'll easily win.

Another couple of positives:

With more teams in the playoff hunt, weeks 15-16 would be even bigger than they are typically. There wouldn't be as many meaningless games. NFL teams tend to clinch to early imho.

More fans would get to experience the playoffs. This would be good for the NFL and fans. More money.

Why do 3 and 4 seeds have a potential to give their fans 3 playoff home games, but there's only 2 potential home games for the 1 and 2 seeds. The 1 and 2 seeds should be rewarded with more potential playoff home games to make more money. This is pretty messed up if you think about it.

We've seen 5 and 6 seeds win the SuperBowl recently. Given the new competitiveness of the league, I think we'd see 7 and 8 seeds capable of winning the SB.

Everyone loves an underdog. Look at the recent NHL series where Montreal and Philly (7 and 8 seeds) were playing to get into the Stanley Cup finals. I hate that the Pens got upset, but having a 7 and 8 seed make it was exciting.

There's a lot of positives to expanding the playoffs. Most of all, we'd have a better shot of getting in the playoffs every year.

And the Steelers can win even when we're underdogs.

flippy
05-25-2010, 10:48 AM
It will be likely that at least 2 of the 4 teams that make it will have a .500 or losing records. I don't think anyone wants to see a team with a losing record make the playoffs.

2008 would have been 1 11-5 team, 2 9-7 teams, and 1 8-8 team.
2007 - 1 10-6 team and 3 8-8 teams
2006 - 1 9-7, 3 8-8
2005 - 1 10-6, 3 9-7

So in the last 5 years, there would have been 0 teams with losing records. And 13 of the 20 teams had 9-7 or better records.

Sugar
05-25-2010, 10:50 AM
I'd actually rather go the other way and have only the division champs play each other. Of course, I'd like to go back to a 14 game season as well but that isn't the way the wind is blowing in the NFL.

I do like the idea of a home game in the SB for the top team.

RuthlessBurgher
05-25-2010, 12:15 PM
Why do 3 and 4 seeds have a potential to give their fans 3 playoff home games, but there's only 2 potential home games for the 1 and 2 seeds. The 1 and 2 seeds should be rewarded with more potential playoff home games to make more money. This is pretty messed up if you think about it.

Third and fourth seeded teams do not have the potential to give their fans 3 playoff home games. The way it is set up now, the #3 and #4 seeds (if they advance with home wins in the wild card round), play at the #1 and #2 seeds. No team can have any more than two home games in the playoffs (unless of course, the Super Bowl is scheduled in their home stadium that year, which has yet to happen), but that wouldn't be quite the same as a home game atmosphere anyway, since the season ticket holders are not able to keep their tickets for the Super Bowl like they are for actual home playoff games, since most of them go to corporate bigwigs and the like.

cruzer8
05-25-2010, 12:27 PM
I'd actually rather go the other way and have only the division champs play each other. Of course, I'd like to go back to a 14 game season as well but that isn't the way the wind is blowing in the NFL.

I do like the idea of a home game in the SB for the top team.

That wouldn't work for a couple of reasons. 1) "top team" would be too subjective and 2) planning such an event on such short notice would be virtually impossible.

BURGH86STEEL
05-25-2010, 12:47 PM
It will be likely that at least 2 of the 4 teams that make it will have a .500 or losing records. I don't think anyone wants to see a team with a losing record make the playoffs.

Last year, there would have been 3 9-7 teams (Pittsburgh, Houston, Atlanta) and 1 8-8 team (San Francisco). And every one of those teams ended the season with a winning streak from 2-4 games.

With only 16 games in a season, there's a good chance that a good team that starts slowly or runs through a rough patch during the season won't make the playoffs, but could be a very dangerous team that could beat anyone who did make the playoffs. There are lots of average teams 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 that develop and come on at the end of the season.

Heck, some divisions are harder and the 7 and 8 team could arguably be better than the 3-6 teams. Odds are the 1 and 2 seeds are very good. The 3 seed is probably good. And the quality of the 4-8 teams is probably pretty varied.

And it's not like there'd have to be another week of football. There's already a team resting that's in the playoffs. Why not have them play?

And the bye weeks in the playoffs mess with the quality of the games imho. The teams that rest either get rusty or they're so well rested that there ends up being a game that gets decided by the week off rather than the competition.

And in the scenario you mention, the 1/2 teams shouldn't care if they have to play a bad team. If they're that good, they'll easily win.

Another couple of positives:

With more teams in the playoff hunt, weeks 15-16 would be even bigger than they are typically. There wouldn't be as many meaningless games. NFL teams tend to clinch to early imho.

More fans would get to experience the playoffs. This would be good for the NFL and fans. More money.

Why do 3 and 4 seeds have a potential to give their fans 3 playoff home games, but there's only 2 potential home games for the 1 and 2 seeds. The 1 and 2 seeds should be rewarded with more potential playoff home games to make more money. This is pretty messed up if you think about it.

We've seen 5 and 6 seeds win the SuperBowl recently. Given the new competitiveness of the league, I think we'd see 7 and 8 seeds capable of winning the SB.

Everyone loves an underdog. Look at the recent NHL series where Montreal and Philly (7 and 8 seeds) were playing to get into the Stanley Cup finals. I hate that the Pens got upset, but having a 7 and 8 seed make it was exciting.

There's a lot of positives to expanding the playoffs. Most of all, we'd have a better shot of getting in the playoffs every year.

And the Steelers can win even when we're underdogs.

You bring up some valid points. I am not sure if allowing half the teams in the league into the playoffs will be a good thing. I don't think the league wants to face the possibility that a team with a losing record might make the playoffs. I don't believe 8-8 teams should make the playoffs. 9-7 record is on the borderline. Teams are usually what their record says. Steelers were a 9-7 average TEAM last season that did not deserve to make the playoffs. Same can be said for San fran, ATL, or anyone else that did not make it.

The divide in records may get worse when they add games to the schedule.

I like the format that the teams with the best records get the reward of a week off.

There will always be meaningless games at the end of the season.

Some people like to cheer for the underdog. Some fans like to see the top teams lose. I don't think anyone is more excited about 7th or 8th seed contenders outside of the fans of those teams. Fan like and dislike teams in those situations for different reasons.

Steelers already have a good shot to make the playoffs every year. They just need to play well enough to make the playoffs.

At the end of the day, there will always be issues with any format the league implements.

flippy
05-25-2010, 12:59 PM
Why do 3 and 4 seeds have a potential to give their fans 3 playoff home games, but there's only 2 potential home games for the 1 and 2 seeds. The 1 and 2 seeds should be rewarded with more potential playoff home games to make more money. This is pretty messed up if you think about it.

Third and fourth seeded teams do not have the potential to give their fans 3 playoff home games. The way it is set up now, the #3 and #4 seeds (if they advance with home wins in the wild card round), play at the #1 and #2 seeds. No team can have any more than two home games in the playoffs (unless of course, the Super Bowl is scheduled in their home stadium that year, which has yet to happen), but that wouldn't be quite the same as a home game atmosphere anyway, since the season ticket holders are not able to keep their tickets for the Super Bowl like they are for actual home playoff games, since most of them go to corporate bigwigs and the like.

I've been confused about everything since watching the finale of Lost. :oops:

flippy
05-25-2010, 01:06 PM
I'd actually rather go the other way and have only the division champs play each other. Of course, I'd like to go back to a 14 game season as well but that isn't the way the wind is blowing in the NFL.

I do like the idea of a home game in the SB for the top team.

That wouldn't work for a couple of reasons. 1) "top team" would be too subjective and 2) planning such an event on such short notice would be virtually impossible.

1. They could rank them the same way they rank the seeds.

2. They can do loads of stuff in 24 hours on the Celebrity Apprentice. They've got 2 full weeks. And every other sport has less time than that.

If you wanted more time, why not award the SuperBowl to the top seeded team at the start of the playoffs. If they get there, great. If not, it's a nuetral field for 2 other teams. And that would give them 5 weeks.

Think about it this way, why reward cities like Tampa or AZ for having crappy teams. If you want to host a SuperBowl, you'd have to build a better/more competitive team and earn it. It would incent teams to be better and would raise the level of competition across the league.

Northern_Blitz
05-25-2010, 01:38 PM
Not sure I like the extra playoff teams, but I do like the idea of home field advantage for the SB.

No more of this pansy dome or fair weather game!

cruzer8
05-25-2010, 02:24 PM
I'd actually rather go the other way and have only the division champs play each other. Of course, I'd like to go back to a 14 game season as well but that isn't the way the wind is blowing in the NFL.

I do like the idea of a home game in the SB for the top team.

That wouldn't work for a couple of reasons. 1) "top team" would be too subjective and 2) planning such an event on such short notice would be virtually impossible.

1. They could rank them the same way they rank the seeds.

2. They can do loads of stuff in 24 hours on the Celebrity Apprentice. They've got 2 full weeks. And every other sport has less time than that.

If you wanted more time, why not award the SuperBowl to the top seeded team at the start of the playoffs. If they get there, great. If not, it's a nuetral field for 2 other teams. And that would give them 5 weeks.

Think about it this way, why reward cities like Tampa or AZ for having crappy teams. If you want to host a SuperBowl, you'd have to build a better/more competitive team and earn it. It would incent teams to be better and would raise the level of competition across the league.

Superbowls aren't in Tampa or AZ as a reward to the city, although there are benefits that come along with hosting one. They are there because of a variety of factors. Weather. Accomodations. Events. Accessability. And so on.

The Superbowl is the largest, most anticipated sporting event in this country. You don't just slap that all together in 2 weeks. Why do you think they'll be awarding the 2014 Superbowl in 2010? It's so the immense planning can begin.

Btw, Celebrity Apprentice uses this little thing called editing to make it look like they do those things that quickly. :D