A Jerry Jones kind of rule change

rocyaice said:

Its rare but it does happen. Not even a 10 win team. Even a 9-7 team. The point is a team 8-8 shouldn't be in the playoffs over a team with a better record than them. Everyone complained about the NFC East taking a playoff spot over teams with better records than them. This is a way to avoid that.

Click to expand...

But doesn't it take out the fun of upsets? A few years ago the Jet's (#6 seed) knocked of the Pats (#1 seed with a bye week) 28-21. Just curious.

Bohuntr97 said:

But doesn't it take out the fun of upsets? A few years ago the Jet's (#6 seed) knocked of the Pats (#1 seed with a bye week) 28-21. Just curious.

Click to expand...

I think there's even a greater chance of upsets adding 2 more teams in.

rocyaice said:

I think there's even a greater chance of upsets adding 2 more teams in.

Click to expand...

That's why I don't mind expanding. The same year I mentioned, the Packers were the #6 seed (last in the NFC) and won it all.

Super_Kazuya said:

Someone did a study of the last decade or so and the conclusion was pretty much that it wasn't really that much of a game changer. People have a fear that this will open a floodgate of 8-8 (or worse) teams getting in, but in reality those 8-8 teams are usually division winners that wouldn't have gotten in any other way, even with an extra playoff spot available.

Click to expand...

So last year's 8-8 Cowboys would have gotten in? Thanks for finally supporting Dak and this 8-8 team. You finally saw the light.

Nav22 said:

Hate it.

The #2 seeds are being punished by losing their bye.

They have to earn their way to the Divisional Round now by pummeling some garbage #7 seed that probably finished 8-8 or 9-7.

Way to water down the playoffs, clowns. Fixing what isn’t broken.

Click to expand...

Worse, disadvantaging the #2 seed only further advantages the #1 seed, which was already cruising to the SB.

But mo playoff games means mo money.

Maybe. The NFL may be turning into the NBA, making the regular season a snoozefest as almost half the teams are going to make the playoffs anyway, while the #1 seeds are even more assured of making the SB.

The two moves together work at cross purposes in terms of playoff competition. While they open the tournament to another team, at the same time they make it more likely that the 1st seed wins anyway.

If they want more playoff games, go whole hog and go 16 teams, with full tournament style by seeding. Or 16, with 1st and 2nd seeds keeping their byes. I think I like that the best.

Wait. Better. Add a weekend. 16 teams.
Week1 - 4 wildcard teams play
Week2 - wild card winners play 3rd and 4th division winners
Week3 - Winners of week 2 play the top two seeds
Week4 - Conference championship

I like Wildcard Weekend. They've got to earn playing division winners with an extra win. They're not really in the playoffs until Week2. Wildcard Weekend is pre playoffs.

Note that this gets them another week of TV revenue w/o having the entire league have to play another game, and w/o an *odd* number of games for the regular season.

I'm a genius! Buybuydandavis for Commish!

This is why i stopped watching the nba playoffs like i used too

once they moved to 7 game first round i was out

you dont need extra games chief its fine as is now youre making the post season longer

Vtwin said:

I'd get rid of all the playoff byes. To big a variable and inconsistency. The reward for a high seeding is home field and a theoretically, weaker opponent.

Click to expand...

That will happen when they expand to 16 playoff teams, like the NHL and NBA.

America's Cowboy said:

So last year's 8-8 Cowboys would have gotten in? Thanks for finally supporting Dak and this 8-8 team. You finally saw the light.

Click to expand...

They wouldn’t actually... 9-7 Rams were next up. That’s why it’s kind of silly to call it a Jerry rule, since it still wouldn’t get him in. Unless it’s supposed to be another knock on Jerry’s incompetence...

mediocre teams will be rewarded with playoff appearances. But for Cowboy fans , nothing but a super bowl counts and Jerry knows this very well. No empty stats , playoff wins etc. We want a Super Bowl ASAP.

This was 100% jerry

Furboy said:

Which use why I think they should expand teams. It gives a good reason to have that many, and it helps fill voids left by past relocations. Plus, it makes it easier to expand to 18 games.

Click to expand...

The ONLY reason the NFL wants to expand regular season games and now the extra wildcard team is money and that's it. The coaches are against expanding the league if it is at the expense of cutting preseason games. The coaches know how import they are for evaluating the talent on their teams. As it is now the first couple weeks of the season is often pretty sloppy because the starters get so little work during the preseason because of needing that time to evaluate non-starters. More isn't always better.
.

rocyaice said:

I don't know why you guys keep saying this. This doesn't benefit poor teams it benefits the teams who are 10-6 or 11-5 and who miss out on the playoffs for a 8-8 divisional winner.

Not sure how you guys see this as rewarding mediocrity or water down the playoffs.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as a big deal.

Basically, whenever they make a change like this, we soon get used to it and it's no big deal.

People who whine about more teams in the playoff are so silly.

It grows the sport by sucking more cities and regions (and media markets) into the fold and keeps them there longer through the season.

If you don't like it, go fantasize about what baseball used to be like before the '60s (or whatever specific year they made the change) when they played the entire regular season to determine which two teams would face off in the championship. You purists will love that nonsense.

gjkoeppen said:

The ONLY reason the NFL wants to expand regular season games and now the extra wildcard team is money and that's it. The coaches are against expanding the league if it is at the expense of cutting preseason games. The coaches know how import they are for evaluating the talent on their teams. As it is now the first couple weeks of the season is often pretty sloppy because the starters get so little work during the preseason because of needing that time to evaluate non-starters. More isn't always better.
.

Click to expand...

I agree entirely, and my issue with this is that it's watering down the NFL. I am totally against what they are doing atm. I'm aware that this is a money grab. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying something extra though. Since they see fit doing this, I think it's reasonable to say that adding expansion teams can help with this. I think it keeps it from being watered down if more teams exist because there's more competition. Plus, it helps anyway for the owners as they'd be able to put teams in markets that they can earn money from. San Diego and St. Louis make sense because they had previous teams, and I think could earn the owners more money and would thus make sense to have an 18 game schedule (likely needing 2 bye weeks). I'd also suggest adding 4 teams as stated. The NFL has had unbalanced divisions before.

SSoup said:

People who whine about more teams in the playoff are so silly.

It grows the sport by sucking more cities and regions (and media markets) into the fold and keeps them there longer through the season.

If you don't like it, go fantasize about what baseball used to be like before the '60s (or whatever specific year they made the change) when they played the entire regular season to determine which two teams would face off in the championship. You purists will love that nonsense.

Click to expand...

I think expanding teams can help with this actually. It'd be fun to see a few more teams in the league. San Diego and St. Louis back with teams, and adding Orlando and London to the mix would be brilliant. I think this moves the league forward actually and gives the owners what they want. And, I think it means players have more options.

rocyaice said:

I don't know why you guys keep saying this. This doesn't benefit poor teams it benefits the teams who are 10-6 or 11-5 and who miss out on the playoffs for a 8-8 divisional winner.

Not sure how you guys see this as rewarding mediocrity or water down the playoffs.

Click to expand...

Don’t waste your time dwelling on the knuckleheads that can’t see the reason or didn’t pay attention when they first started talking about this move. It’s really for the teams that were 10-6/11-5 and still missed the playoffs. The league/owners did not like that especially the owners whose team missed out. If an 8-8 team gets in and wins the whole thing then that means that particular team started playing championship ball in time to win.

I love it!! I can’t wait until the 18 game schedule starts More football to watch

Furboy said:

I agree entirely, and my issue with this is that it's watering down the NFL. I am totally against what they are doing atm. I'm aware that this is a money grab. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying something extra though. Since they see fit doing this, I think it's reasonable to say that adding expansion teams can help with this. I think it keeps it from being watered down if more teams exist because there's more competition. Plus, it helps anyway for the owners as they'd be able to put teams in markets that they can earn money from. San Diego and St. Louis make sense because they had previous teams, and I think could earn the owners more money and would thus make sense to have an 18 game schedule (likely needing 2 bye weeks). I'd also suggest adding 4 teams as stated. The NFL has had unbalanced divisions before.

Click to expand...

Goodell was asked last season about after the new CBA gets worked out did he see the league adding any expansion teams and he said with the make up of the league with 8 divisions with 4 teams each he didn't see a fair way of adding any teams.
.
.

Money is the motive 100% it is not abut the real game that sport gone long time ago.
like everything else the bar will be lowered every year coated with some fancy words and people will accept it.

rocyaice said:

I don't know why you guys keep saying this. This doesn't benefit poor teams it benefits the teams who are 10-6 or 11-5 and who miss out on the playoffs for a 8-8 divisional winner.

Not sure how you guys see this as rewarding mediocrity or water down the playoffs.

Click to expand...

If you apply this rule going back to the realignment you'd have close to the same amount of 10-6 teams make the playoffs as 8-8 teams. But it also would have let in 15+ amount of 9-7 teams. So it is heavily loaded with 8-8 and 9-7 teams.