Thoughts On The NFL Expanding Playoffs

[Greg Ambrosius]

Well, our favorite commissioner is now talking about expanding the NFL playoffs to include HALF of all teams. And to think we thought having just over 20 percent of all teams in the NFFC playoffs was too many!!

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the NFL eliminating two pre-season games and adding another round of playoffs? Here's the current story:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/87431 ... odell-says

My concerns are:
1. Does this move up Week 1 before Labor Day weekend?
2. Does it push back the Super Bowl another week?
3. Do we eliminate two weeks between the Conference Championship Games and the Super Bowl?
4. Do teams under .500 now reach the NFL playoffs and just water it down more?

It's a money grab for sure, while doing what they can to eliminate boring pre-season games. But they can't do the latter without figuring out how to subsidize two games that are already generating significant revenue for the teams. This idea sure beats an 18-game regular season, but half of all NFL teams making the playoffs just doesn't seem right. Thoughts?

[chriseibl]

I hate the idea with unbridled passion.

It would drastically reduce the importance of the regular season with the top teams not playing for byes and with weak teams entering the playoffs. In the NFL, where anything can happen on any given sunday, it's really wouldn't be that hard for a 7th or 8th seed to get hot at the right time and win it all. In the NBA this is avoided somewhat in that the truly best team nearly always wins a best of 7 series. That obviously can't happen in a best of 1 format.

Teams need to be better rewarded for strong regular seasons, especially in a sport where injuries can turn the tide so much by January. A playoff spot should be earned, not handed out. And I can't stress enough how much less interesting it would make the NFL's regular season. At least I'd still have fantasy football to keep me entertained.

[CALI CARTEL]

It doesn't add an extra week to the Playoff Schedule, 12 teams vs 16 teams takes the same amount of weeks to complete (4). If anything, the preseason will just start 2 weeks later and the current schedule will remain intact...until they add the 2nd bye week, expanding the Regular Season to 18 weeks, that's coming soon (already was done in the 1994 season, now the extra $ is worth any negative backlash).

[Greg Ambrosius]

I hate the idea with unbridled passion.

It would drastically reduce the importance of the regular season with the top teams not playing for byes and with weak teams entering the playoffs. In the NFL, where anything can happen on any given sunday, it's really wouldn't be that hard for a 7th or 8th seed to get hot at the right time and win it all. In the NBA this is avoided somewhat in that the truly best team nearly always wins a best of 7 series. That obviously can't happen in a best of 1 format.

Teams need to be better rewarded for strong regular seasons, especially in a sport where injuries can turn the tide so much by January. A playoff spot should be earned, not handed out. And I can't stress enough how much less interesting it would make the NFL's regular season. At least I'd still have fantasy football to keep me entertained.

I totally agree Chris. And wouldn't this have an impact on fantasy football? Would more teams have a playoff sewed up earlier and possibly rest starters in Week 16 and 17 to get healthy and hot for the playoff run? That would be my concern.

But HALF of all teams making the playoffs? Wow, that would be a stretch for me. In no time the 8th seed that finished 8-8 will be our Super Bowl champion.

[Greg Ambrosius]

It doesn't add an extra week to the Playoff Schedule, 12 teams vs 16 teams takes the same amount of weeks to complete (4). If anything, the preseason will just start 2 weeks later and the current schedule will remain intact...until they add the 2nd bye week, expanding the Regular Season to 18 weeks, that's coming soon (already was done in the 1994 season, now the extra $ is worth any negative backlash).

Well, it would be a shame if there are no first round byes, but you may be right. At least now teams fight for the top two seeds so that they can get home field advantage AND a one week bye. This would devalue the regular season even more if we start out 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc.

And I agree about the 2nd bye week. That will come in a way that allows teams playing on Thursday night to have a bye before that game. There's so much criticism about these stinker Thursday night games that giving those teams a bye before that game makes too much sense. But in order to do that they need a second bye week. They could easily accomplish that by reducing the two weeks between the Conference Championship Games and the Super Bowl to one week.

[Money]

I don't have a problem with it at all. Wildcards have been winning Super Bowls and teams putting it together at the end of the season have been winners as well. Maybe KJ is on to something. If you can do it within the confines of the current calendar schedule I say why not.

Each season at the end we hear of teams that "If they get in will be very dangerous" and "No one want to play this team" I say these teams belong. It creates an added element of excitement.

I'm not sure this will help the Lions much though.

[chriseibl]

I don't have a problem with it at all. Wildcards have been winning Super Bowls and teams putting it together at the end of the season have been winners as well. Maybe KJ is on to something. If you can do it within the confines of the current calendar schedule I say why not.

Each season at the end we hear of teams that "If they get in will be very dangerous" and "No one want to play this team" I say these teams belong. It creates an added element of excitement.

I'm not sure this will help the Lions much though.

What's the point of the regular season then? If I'm a 7-1 team, i think it's a smart move at that point to rest my starters for 5 weeks and then get back in sync in time for the playoffs because you're basically getting almost no advantage for being a high seed. Not saying that would actually happen in practice, but i don't feel those "if they get in will be very dangerous" teams belong. they had 16 weeks to get their act together and to prove they are one of the best 12 teams in the nfl. if you can't do it over 16 weeks i don't think you do deserve a chance to get lucky and win a couple games... perhaps because a significantly better team suffered an unfortunate injury or two in January.

you're right in that it would create an element of excitement in the playoffs since you'd really have no clue was winning the championship. but that's completely at the expense of the regular season, which would have very minimal value. you need to give the regular season some value because in a one game playoff system anything can happen. and i don't think it's a good thing that an 8-8 team gets lucky and wins a super bowl, which would certainly happen before long.

and aren't the playoffs already exciting?

[Money]

Some good points. But I would not call beating 3 top seeded playoff teams (on the road) to get into the Super Bowl "Lucky". It would be anything but lucky. I would say that this is the exact reason why they should add the teams because we all know it's possible and the storyline associated with that rise to prominence is priceless.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I don't have a problem with it at all. Wildcards have been winning Super Bowls and teams putting it together at the end of the season have been winners as well. Maybe KJ is on to something. If you can do it within the confines of the current calendar schedule I say why not.

Each season at the end we hear of teams that "If they get in will be very dangerous" and "No one want to play this team" I say these teams belong. It creates an added element of excitement.

I'm not sure this will help the Lions much though.

What's the point of the regular season then? If I'm a 7-1 team, i think it's a smart move at that point to rest my starters for 5 weeks and then get back in sync in time for the playoffs because you're basically getting almost no advantage for being a high seed. Not saying that would actually happen in practice, but i don't feel those "if they get in will be very dangerous" teams belong. they had 16 weeks to get their act together and to prove they are one of the best 12 teams in the nfl. if you can't do it over 16 weeks i don't think you do deserve a chance to get lucky and win a couple games... perhaps because a significantly better team suffered an unfortunate injury or two in January.

you're right in that it would create an element of excitement in the playoffs since you'd really have no clue was winning the championship. but that's completely at the expense of the regular season, which would have very minimal value. you need to give the regular season some value because in a one game playoff system anything can happen. and i don't think it's a good thing that an 8-8 team gets lucky and wins a super bowl, which would certainly happen before long.

and aren't the playoffs already exciting?

The NBA allows so many teams in the playoffs that a veteran team like the Spurs rested their stars in early December and didn't even fly them to Miami for a road game. What the hell is one loss to the Spurs? NBA teams even rest their starters at the end of the season when they have a shot at home court advantage because rested stars are better than a one game advantage at home. Is that what the NFL is going to soon become?

[Money]

The NBA allows so many teams in the playoffs that a veteran team like the Spurs rested their stars in early December and didn't even fly them to Miami for a road game. What the hell is one loss to the Spurs? NBA teams even rest their starters at the end of the season when they have a shot at home court advantage because rested stars are better than a one game advantage at home. Is that what the NFL is going to soon become?

This is a bit of a stretch. The NBA plays 82 games the difference of one game means little. In the NFL every game means something until you are eliminated and in most cases that's late in the season. I agree it must stop somewhere, but comparing the impact on an 18 game schedule in comparison with an 82 game schedule does not make your point, IMO.

Right now one game means the difference between 9-7 or 8-8 which as we all know is huge. This is not the case in sports that play 3-4 times per week. The biggest reason not to do it is that the players cannot withstand the physical punishment. It's already to much from that standpoint.