Playoff expansion a done deal for 2015

[MarkP88]

I hate this, despite the fact that it probably helps us. The last thing I want to see is the NFL becoming more like the NBA and NHL.

Also, stay off my lawn!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I take more of motivational approach, particularly early to mid season, instead of this is a must win game, now the thought process could be more teams get in to the playoffs so we'll get em next week. That used to be the great thing about college football, every week was like a playoff and only two teams made the Championship game, now cheapened by expanded playoffs. Takes the desperation out of each week.

Instead of the 5-8 teams being in contention for those last WC spots it will be the 6-9. It is just shifted. You will still have the guys struggling to win the divisions which is winner take all. The top seed becomes that much more coveted as well. There can only be one playoff bye per conference.

I still see the same number of win to get in scenarios and the same number of division championships up for grabs.

 

[DFWJC]

Glass half full outlook:

At least teams who earned a playoff spot will get in (i.e. Cardinals last year, Patriots when they went 11-5 with Cassell)


Glass half empty outlook:

A really bad team will make the playoffs. If you thought it was bad when a 7-9 Seahawks made the playoffs, wait till a 6-10 makes it.

Can't see how a 6-10 makes it unless they're a division winner--which would have gotten them in now anyway.

Having said they, I was fine with only 6 getting in.
7 won't kill us though. And it won't be as bad as the NBA or NHL until they get to 8....which they probably will.

 

[Hoofbite]

The main drawback is good players can end up getting injured while playing a lesser team thereby decreasing said teams chance of making it to the Super Bowl and then The Show is watered down..

Good players can get injured walking to their car.

It only puts 1 team per conf at any sort of additional risk now that #2 won't get a bye.

 

[theogt]

Over the past 5 years, the teams that would have filled this position had an average of exactly 9 wins. There's a good chance an 8-8 team will make it in any given year. There's virtually no chance a 7-9 team will make it, and it essentially guarantees 10 win teams making the playoffs.

Basically, if you're above .500, you have a very good shot at making the playoffs.

 

[StylisticS]

I honestly hate bye weeks. The number 1 and number 2 seeds need to play on the first week as well. That's me though.

 

[Zekeats]

One additional team per conference is what i've heard.

I'm cool with it.

lil late

 

[Hoofbite]

No 7-9 will make the 7th seed.

I couldn't see it happening either but not sure the reality will differ that much from a 7-9 team. Likely be 8-8 or 9-7 team.

Given #2 wouldn't get a bye, if #2 cannot lose seeding they'll likely rest players during part of week 17 which means a 7-8 team could get an easy win to get to 8-8.

Of course the #2 would have to turn around and play that team the following week if tie breakers didn't shift the seeding of #7.

In any event it's going to most likely be an average team that sneaks in, something that doesn't really appeal to me.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I have been reading about topological approaches to questions like this one ie how many truly competitive situations regarding the playoffs there could be. In the vein I will try and demonstrate how you are wrong.

Competition comes in three forms. Challenge to division leads, people struggling for the last spot, and jockeying for position for home field advantage. Those are the vertex, edges and sides.

You will still see 4 division races so those matchups are still possible. You will still have a finite number of wild card slots and so there will still be jockeying for those last spots just as there were before. Now otoh there are 7 teams jockeying for position versus 6. That in theory presents one more team competing for HFA. In fact the symmetry looks exactly the same at least from the end points of top teams and bottom teams. It is just longer, so to speak, because of the additional team or teams per conference. Longer speaks to more quantity or more places where competition is possible.

I would argue that expansion means more competition unless you dont think coaches find HFA important enough to compete over.

I understand and agree with most of what you said. But I'd like a clarification on issues that comes to mind.

You opinion on this is what I am after.

The current play-offs have a potential of sending an 8-8 team to the tourney. Competition aside, with the new format there could be teams who do now own a winning percentage be invited to the play-offs.

Doesn't this water down the product, and do you feel this is more for money than any real competition?

Once again, I understand your position about teams vying for the last slots, or home field, or division leads.

However, there will be match-ups the first week of the play-offs with a team(s) heretofore not eligible because of their win/loss.

How does this make the product better in your view outside of promoting more fans to spend more money?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

If it is just one additional team per conference, the Cowboys still would not have made it last year.

 

[Hoofbite]

Over the past 5 years, the teams that would have filled this position had an average of exactly 9 wins. There's a good chance an 8-8 team will make it in any given year. There's virtually no chance a 7-9 team will make it, and it essentially guarantees 10 win teams making the playoffs.

Basically, if you're above .500, you have a very good shot at making the playoffs.

10 win teams were pretty much in as it was.

Only 7 times since 1992 has a 10 win team not gotten in, 4 of which have occurred between 2010 and now. Actually 2 NFC teams in 2010 in Tampa and NYG.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

I don't like it

 

[BringBackThatOleTimeBoys]

The top 1/3 is about right...don't increase the playoffs.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I understand and agree with most of what you said. But I'd like a clarification on issues that comes to mind.

You opinion on this is what I am after.

The current play-offs have a potential of sending an 8-8 team to the tourney. Competition aside, with the new format there could be teams who do now own a winning percentage be invited to the play-offs.

Doesn't this water down the product, and do you feel this is more for money than any real competition?

Once again, I understand your position about teams vying for the last slots, or home field, or division leads.

However, there will be match-ups the first week of the play-offs with a team(s) heretofore not eligible because of their win/loss.

How does this make the product better in your view outside of promoting more fans to spend more money?

As it stands now, all of the teams that now would be 3-6 for WC week will still have the same matchups. Now there is just a new team at the bottomend that has to play the team what would otherwise get the bye. I think that by definition that is more competition because before the two seed did not have to compete at all.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

10 win teams were pretty much in as it was.

Only 7 times since 1992 has a 10 win team not gotten in, 4 of which have occurred between 2010 and now. Actually 2 NFC teams in 2010 in Tampa and NYG.

7 examples in 21 years is it happening 33% of the time which is a lot. Parity is going to see few outliers and a fatter middle. 10 is only 2 wins from the mean.

 

[casmith07]

Add 2. No Byes.

 

[TrailBlazer]

The almighty dollar reigns supreme. This is all about money.

This waters down the field. But also can prevent 10 win teams from getting snubbed.

This lessens the significance of making the playoffs if .500 teams can make it. And makes regular season games less important.

 

[burmafrd]

in return there should be a rule that no team that does not have a winning record cannot make the playoffs. If a division winner only has 8 wins then sub in another team that maybe has 9 but is in a tougher division; And furthermore if a wild card team has a better record then a division winner they should have the home game. I see no reason there should ever be a reward for winning a very weak division

 

[dogunwo]

Don't care for it.

There's no need to increase the number.

Will it be a 3rd wildcard? 14 teams in the playoffs?

There was similar outcry when MLB expanded their playoffs. The result, more people watched, more teams in it toward the end of the season, and MLB made a lot more money.

 

[OhSnap]

Glass half full outlook:

At least teams who earned a playoff spot will get in (i.e. Cardinals last year, Patriots when they went 11-5 with Cassell)


Glass half empty outlook:

A really bad team will make the playoffs. If you thought it was bad when a 7-9 Seahawks made the playoffs, wait till a 6-10 makes it.

That got extremely ugly when the Hawks knocked out the 11-5 Saints, it would be bad if it started producing games like that every year but would be an upgrade if it let the 10-11 win teams in. Lovie Smith would still have a job and Marinelli would still be in Chicago, not that I care if Chicago or NO ever wins another game but fair is fair.