Jump to content

NFL To Revamp Playoffs; Add 7th Team with Only 1 1st Round Bye


ramssuperbowl99

Recommended Posts

I think will dramatically favor the 1 team who had the bye, and you might say that they deserve that after being the best reg season team, but you could also have 3 teams who all got 13-3 and only one gets the huge advantage of a bye 17/18 weeks into a season.

AND we'd be guaranteed to have a sub .500 team in the playoffs. Probably playing that well rested top team. What is the point of this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

I think will dramatically favor the 1 team who had the bye, and you might say that they deserve that after being the best reg season team, but you could also have 3 teams who all got 13-3 and only one gets the huge advantage of a bye 17/18 weeks into a season.

AND we'd be guaranteed to have a sub .500 team in the playoffs. Probably playing that well rested top team. What is the point of this? 

money 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding an 8th seed to each conference as early as 2031 would theoretically level the playing field. That would happen because all teams would play in the first round, and no rest advantage is given to any team.

It would also lead possibly to the involvement of CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports 1 in televising the NFL playoffs. In the first round, the 1 PM slots on each day would feature regional coverage on CBS and Fox of 2 AFC and NFC games, respectively. The 1 PM game not airing locally on the CBS or Fox affiliate would be carried in that market on CBS Sports Network or Fox Sports 1. Local markets would most likely choose the game involving a team of local interest, including inevitably the primary markets.

Say you're a Packers fan, and the Packers are playing in the 1 PM regional slot, but your Fox affiliate chose to air the game NOT involving the Packers. What do you do? If you have cable, satellite, or something like Hulu Live TV, you tune in to Fox Sports 1 to watch the Packers game.

This is called a "reverse mirror". This is something I want the NFL to implement in the next TV contract. It would first be used to carry additional Sunday afternoon CBS and Fox games to local markets using CBSSN and FS1, like in markets which have substantial fan bases for multiple teams. Youngstown, a secondary market for both the Browns and Steelers, would be guaranteed to see all games from both teams locally through the reverse mirror where applicable. The reverse mirror could also expand the distribution of a timeslot's best games beyond markets it is airing on CBS or Fox. Because not all markets would get the same game through reverse mirror (unless a 4:25 DH slot had only 2 games), Sunday Ticket would still be required for those who want to watch a particular game but it is not airing on CBS, Fox, CBSSN, or FS1 in their local market. In some markets, a CBS or Fox station could allow viewers to vote for the NFL games they want shown through reverse mirror.

The implementation of the reverse mirror avoids the NFL having to play playoff games on days other than Saturday or Sunday, while still having all games televised nationally.

Edited by pf9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

I think will dramatically favor the 1 team who had the bye, and you might say that they deserve that after being the best reg season team, but you could also have 3 teams who all got 13-3 and only one gets the huge advantage of a bye 17/18 weeks into a season.

AND we'd be guaranteed to have a sub .500 team in the playoffs. Probably playing that well rested top team. What is the point of this? 

This is not true, and people need to stop saying it like it is. I went back 10+ years and couldn't find a season where the 7 seed in either conference would be sub .500. You're far more likely to have a sub .500 division winner than a sub .500 third wildcard seed (there were multiple 7-9 division winners in that same timeframe where I could not find a 7-9 7th seed.)

The vast majority of 7 seeds added are going to be 9-7 teams, with the occasional strong year where you get a 10-6 team, and the occasional weak year where you get an 8-8 team.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

I think will dramatically favor the 1 team who had the bye, and you might say that they deserve that after being the best reg season team, but you could also have 3 teams who all got 13-3 and only one gets the huge advantage of a bye 17/18 weeks into a season.

AND we'd be guaranteed to have a sub .500 team in the playoffs. Probably playing that well rested top team. What is the point of this? 

Money. And the stupidity of the fans who signed off on this garbage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a Bye, Earn it! Have the best record in your Conference and get HFA throughout. The teams that do that should have an advantage over every other team.

Have no issues whatsoever with the #2 seed having to play an extra game like the other 4 used to. If You're So good, beating a 7th seed shouldn't be a problem playing at Home, with or without rest!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

You want a Bye, Earn it! Have the best record in your Conference and get HFA throughout.

 

What about in a situation where two teams have an identical record? It happens often. So, two teams are 13-3 for example, but only one gets the MASSIVE advantage of a bye and HFA based on (whatever the separator is...). Both have earned it, and would get it in every season so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

What about in a situation where two teams have an identical record? It happens often. So, two teams are 13-3 for example, but only one gets the MASSIVE advantage of a bye and HFA based on (whatever the separator is...). Both have earned it, and would get it in every season so far.

We had that this year, 3 ways! They will as always be determined by a 1/2 dozen or more different kinds of Tie Breakers if H2H doesn't do it outright!

GB had their chance to beat SF and Got Smoked, Embarrassed!

NO had their chance to beat SF and Choked!

If either wanted the #1 seed Bye, they should of handled their business. If anything that's exactly the scenario why the #2 seed shouldn't get a Bye. Step up or Step off! Pretty cut and drive to me honestly! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

What about in a situation where two teams have an identical record? It happens often. So, two teams are 13-3 for example, but only one gets the MASSIVE advantage of a bye and HFA based on (whatever the separator is...). Both have earned it, and would get it in every season so far.

This same issue already exists between 2 seeds and 3 seeds. It's not a new issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...