I think I may be changing my tune on playoff expansion...

[Jlowe22]

2 hours ago, The Hitch said:

I disagree with the term "second best team in the conference". Eg the second best team in the afc this year is clearly the chargers. That they had a 10x harder schedule than the team that will get the actual second seed, plus lose out on the first seed on a tiebreak, doesn't not make them the second best team. 

 

The seeding is what it is but seeing as how all teams play totally different schedules and tiebreaks are wild and can depend on other teams, I don't think it's always the first best team, the second best team etc. 

That's fine, but it's also subjective while record isn't.  I don't think the team with the second best record in the conference should lose a bye week and be forced to play a team with the 7th best record in the conference.

[INbengalfan]

On 12/23/2018 at 11:21 PM, Slingin' Sammy said:

Don’t you have a foolish Hall of Fame question to pose somewhere?

If you added an extra spot, Philly would still be fighting Washington for the third wildcard, the very team they play head-to-head next week. Pittsburgh and Baltimore still would be playing for the division, even if they had the comfort of a wildcard to fall back on. Pittsburgh would still have to win next week to ensure they would be the third wildcard over the loser of Tennessee and Indy. See? Still plenty at stake.

Imagine if the schedulers actually had Pitt vs. Baltimore instead of them each playing the Ohio teams.  And it's been like this for years.  

[Shady Slim]

17 hours ago, INbengalfan said:

Imagine if the schedulers actually had Pitt vs. Baltimore instead of them each playing the Ohio teams.  And it's been like this for years.  

tbf produced some high drama last year

if they did this last year we would have seen the ravens defense stifle landry jones and earn the final wildcard spot what a thrill

[TheKillerNacho]

On 12/23/2018 at 10:28 PM, Thomas5737 said:

I don't particularly like first round byes. If the goal is to have a tournament to determine the best team I don't like having 2 teams that get an automatic first round win. Home field is plenty enough advantage. So I'd be cool with 8 teams. If you don't like that then only division winners make the playoffs.

We know the NFL isn't going to less playoff games though so 8 per conference is much more realistic. Could also go to two divisions per conference to eliminate the threat of winning a division with a losing record and making the playoffs.

You realize that's half the league right?

That means it's actually pretty likely a team with a losing record would get in as a wildcard lol.

(Redskins for example are currently the 8th team in the NFC with 7-8 record)

[pf9]

In addition to 2 playoff expansions each by MLB and MLS, even top-level college football has expanded from seeing 2 teams compete for the national title at the end of the season to 4. When FBS football adopts a playoff before the NFL expands theirs, you know something is wrong.

[pf9]

Also if there was 16 playoff teams, the only playoff spot still left to clinch this year would be the final NFC spot, which would be down to Washington, Green Bay. and Atlanta.

I do realize expanding to 16 playoff teams means clinching earlier, but I'd also want to shake things up by not guaranteeing a top 4 seed for a division winner (which is how the NBA does it in recent years, and also how the MLB should do it). This means teams would definitely be playing for seeding in the final weeks of the regular season.

Here's how the NFL seeds would look now after expanding the playoffs to 16 and changing the seeding process that way:

AFC:
1. Kansas City
2. LA Chargers
3. New England
4. Houston
5. Baltimore
6. Indianapolis
7. Tennessee
8. Pittsburgh

NFC:
1. New Orleans
2. LA Rams
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Seattle
6. Minnesota
7. Philadelphia
8. Washington (not yet clinched, #9 Green Bay and #10 Atlanta still in hunt)

Sunday's results would change some of the current seeds.

[Malfatron]

yeah, making the nfl more like the nba is a good idea....

[SWATcha]

1 hour ago, pf9 said:

In addition to 2 playoff expansions each by MLB and MLS, even top-level college football has expanded from seeing 2 teams compete for the national title at the end of the season to 4. When FBS football adopts a playoff before the NFL expands theirs, you know something is wrong.

There's nothing wrong. College football HAD to implement a playoff system as their old system was outdated. They started with 4 teams (8 less than NFL). Give it 2 more years and they'll expand it to 8, which should be their perfect number (and still be 4 less than the NFL).

MLB currently sends 10 teams to the playoffs (2 less than NFL) You keep hammering the point that MLB has expanded it's playoffs twice, yet they still have 2 LESS teams in the playoffs than the NFL. MLB HAD to expand, as yet again, their old format was outdated. Not to mention, the current MLB commish is contemplating expanding the league to 32 teams, so that their playoff format will be MORE like the NFL by adding 2 more WC teams and no longer having 1 and done WC "play-ins".

Basketball sends 16 teams to the playoffs (4 more than NFL). Fun fact. How many 7th or 8th seeds have ever won an NBA title? ZERO. Lowest seed to win a title? 6th. (6th, like the lowest seed currently in NFL playoffs) Again, you keep mentioning how the NBA has expanded it's playoffs, but looking at the results, maybe adding those extra 4 teams really wasn't a good idea after all.

NFL playoffs are perfect as is. The way the NFL is currently set up leads to the most exciting, drama filled, regular season there is. Adding more playoff teams only detracts from the regular season. Sometimes a team with a better record will have to travel for a playoff game. If you change the seeding formula, you're changing the way the whole "Divisions" narrative works. Happened to the Saints when they traveled to Seattle, didn't like it one bit, but if they were truly the better team, they would of won regardless. (Insert any given Sunday comments blah blah blah). You want a home game? Win your division. You want a bye? Be one of the top 2 seeds. 

[Malik]

44 minutes ago, SWATcha said:

There's nothing wrong. College football HAD to implement a playoff system as their old system was outdated. They started with 4 teams (8 less than NFL). Give it 2 more years and they'll expand it to 8, which should be their perfect number (and still be 4 less than the NFL).

MLB currently sends 10 teams to the playoffs (2 less than NFL) You keep hammering the point that MLB has expanded it's playoffs twice, yet they still have 2 LESS teams in the playoffs than the NFL. MLB HAD to expand, as yet again, their old format was outdated. Not to mention, the current MLB commish is contemplating expanding the league to 32 teams, so that their playoff format will be MORE like the NFL by adding 2 more WC teams and no longer having 1 and done WC "play-ins".

Basketball sends 16 teams to the playoffs (4 more than NFL). Fun fact. How many 7th or 8th seeds have ever won an NBA title? ZERO. Lowest seed to win a title? 6th. (6th, like the lowest seed currently in NFL playoffs) Again, you keep mentioning how the NBA has expanded it's playoffs, but looking at the results, maybe adding those extra 4 teams really wasn't a good idea after all.

NFL playoffs are perfect as is. The way the NFL is currently set up leads to the most exciting, drama filled, regular season there is. Adding more playoff teams only detracts from the regular season. Sometimes a team with a better record will have to travel for a playoff game. If you change the seeding formula, you're changing the way the whole "Divisions" narrative works. Happened to the Saints when they traveled to Seattle, didn't like it one bit, but if they were truly the better team, they would of won regardless. (Insert any given Sunday comments blah blah blah). You want a home game? Win your division. You want a bye? Be one of the top 2 seeds. 

For get win a title. There's only been 5 series in NBA history where the 8th seed beat the 1st seed. Exact same number for the 7th seed beating the 2nd. 

[Slingin' Sammy]

2 hours ago, SWATcha said:

There's nothing wrong. College football HAD to implement a playoff system as their old system was outdated. They started with 4 teams (8 less than NFL). Give it 2 more years and they'll expand it to 8, which should be their perfect number (and still be 4 less than the NFL).

MLB currently sends 10 teams to the playoffs (2 less than NFL) You keep hammering the point that MLB has expanded it's playoffs twice, yet they still have 2 LESS teams in the playoffs than the NFL. MLB HAD to expand, as yet again, their old format was outdated. Not to mention, the current MLB commish is contemplating expanding the league to 32 teams, so that their playoff format will be MORE like the NFL by adding 2 more WC teams and no longer having 1 and done WC "play-ins".

Basketball sends 16 teams to the playoffs (4 more than NFL). Fun fact. How many 7th or 8th seeds have ever won an NBA title? ZERO. Lowest seed to win a title? 6th. (6th, like the lowest seed currently in NFL playoffs) Again, you keep mentioning how the NBA has expanded it's playoffs, but looking at the results, maybe adding those extra 4 teams really wasn't a good idea after all.

NFL playoffs are perfect as is. The way the NFL is currently set up leads to the most exciting, drama filled, regular season there is. Adding more playoff teams only detracts from the regular season. Sometimes a team with a better record will have to travel for a playoff game. If you change the seeding formula, you're changing the way the whole "Divisions" narrative works. Happened to the Saints when they traveled to Seattle, didn't like it one bit, but if they were truly the better team, they would of won regardless. (Insert any given Sunday comments blah blah blah). You want a home game? Win your division. You want a bye? Be one of the top 2 seeds. 

No one is outraged when a 9-7 division winner hosts a 10-6 wildcard. But when an 8-8 team is hosting a 12-4 team, that’s a problem and a bad look for the NFL. Divisions should count for something, but it shouldn’t be a crutch for mediocre teams to host playoff games against great teams.

1 hour ago, Malik said:

For get win a title. There's only been 5 series in NBA history where the 8th seed beat the 1st seed. Exact same number for the 7th seed beating the 2nd. 

I like how the NBA is always the comparison brought up by the opposition instead of the NHL. You  know, the same league that had an 8th seed make the final as recently as 2017 and actually WIN a title in 2012. 

[SWATcha]

11 hours ago, Slingin' Sammy said:

I like how the NBA is always the comparison brought up by the opposition instead of the NHL. You  know, the same league that had an 8th seed make the final as recently as 2017 and actually WIN a title in 2012. 

So because 2 teams in the last 25 years or so have done it, that somehow proves your point? 

If anything, that just lends more support that the playoffs should be left as is. 

[Slingin' Sammy]

2 hours ago, SWATcha said:

So because 2 teams in the last 25 years or so have done it, that somehow proves your point? 

If anything, that just lends more support that the playoffs should be left as is. 

What? Two teams in the last SIX years have done it.

Only two 6th seeds have won the super bowl since 2002. Should we retract the playoffs back to just the top 4 teams? No, of course not. Just like the NBA and NHL should not as well. 

 

[kramxel]

I think the current format works great for the NFL. 

As a comparison I think 1 leg playoff games are ridiculous in soccer for instance. In the NFL it just wouldn't be practical to have 2 legs per round. 

[SWATcha]

18 minutes ago, Slingin' Sammy said:

What? Two teams in the last SIX years have done it.

Only two 6th seeds have won the super bowl since 2002. Should we retract the playoffs back to just the top 4 teams? No, of course not. Just like the NBA and NHL should not as well. 

 

Who said anything about retracting? Last I checked, the argument is whether to expand or not.

You posting that 2 teams have done it in the last six years in the NHL doesn't suddenly invalidate all the years that came before where 7th and 8th seeds did nothing. If you combine NHL and NBA, you still only have 1 team lower than the 6th seed to have won Championship in the last 25+ years, which supports NOT expanding.

[pf9]

20 hours ago, SWATcha said:

NFL playoffs are perfect as is. The way the NFL is currently set up leads to the most exciting, drama filled, regular season there is. Adding more playoff teams only detracts from the regular season. Sometimes a team with a better record will have to travel for a playoff game. If you change the seeding formula, you're changing the way the whole "Divisions" narrative works. Happened to the Saints when they traveled to Seattle, didn't like it one bit, but if they were truly the better team, they would of won regardless. (Insert any given Sunday comments blah blah blah). You want a home game? Win your division. You want a bye? Be one of the top 2 seeds. 

They may have been perfect as is in the early to mid=1990s but they sure as hell ain't perfect now.

Consider this. The NFL expanded their playoffs 3 times between 1967 and 1990 (4 if you count the AFL's playoff expansion in 1969. That's 3-4 expansions in 24 years. Their current system has been around for 29 - far longer than the period of frequent expansions from 1967-90.

So the NFL's system has been outdated for some time. It was adopted when the NFL had 28 teams. Now they have 32, so keeping the 12-team system seems quite ridiculous at this point in time.

And yes, of course the MLB will certainly expand to 12 playoff teams as soon as they expand their membership by 2 and align into 8 4-team divisions, necessitating the addition of a 6th playoff team in each league (a 4th division winner) to maintain the 2-wild card system. That I agree with.

However, if that happens before the NFL expands their playoffs beyond 12 teams, that will be 3 MLB playoff expansions before the NFL goes beyond 12 teams.

So the NFL desperately needs to keep up with the Joneses.