Should the NFL add 4 more games(no byes) to Wild Card weekend?

[youngosu]

Just now, JustAnotherFan said:

The Patriots had that locked up in week 15. Point made.

HFA doesn't mean you only want it for the whole playoffs. Teams would want it for the first round too. So, again no point made. 

[JAF-N72EX]

Yeah your just being obtuse here for no reason. 

[youngosu]

No, I am not. You are simply wrong. You are wrong that teams schedules are based on previous season record (again, 87.5% of a teams schedule is set in stone right now) and you are wrong that teams wouldn't care about being a #3 seed instead of a #7 seed. 

I am not being obtuse. I understand your claims just fine, you are just wrong. Sorry you won't admit you are wrong but you are. 

[BigBearSD]

36 minutes ago, youngosu said:

The problem isn't the difference between the 1st and 8th seed. The problem is the difference between the 2nd and 3rd seed. Sometimes the bye comes down to a tie-breaker. When both teams are division champs who play wildly unique schedules byes are inherently unfair. 

 

I am honestly at a loss for why so many people think the NFL playoff system isn't terrible. Teams in different divisions can have as few as 2 common opponents over the course of a season yet if both finish 12-4 one is gonna get a week off to rest and recover while the other has to play a game. That is a joke of a system.

 

Getting a bye comes down to having the easier schedule more often than it comes down to being the better team. This look at the NFC this year for evidence, the 2 teams that won the easiest divisions got the byes. How is that fair?

Every single team in the NFC/AFC shares 4 common conference opponents on their schedule 1 of which they will play twice so there is 5 games to base it off. 

[youngosu]

8 minutes ago, BigBearSD said:

Every single team in the NFC/AFC shares 4 common conference opponents on their schedule 1 of which they will play twice so there is 5 games to base it off. 

Okay, so 25% of their schedule (I wouldn't count a team they play twice since they don't both play them twice). I thought it could be as little as 2. I admit I was wrong there. That is still a very small sample size (and location of those games could still create unfairness). It doesn't change my point. 

I don't care about expanding the playoffs, frankly I'd like to see them shrunk by 4 teams and only let the 8 division champs in but if you are gonna let non-division champs in than its inherently unfair to give some of those division champs byes but not other division champs. Either they should all get byes or none of them should get byes.

 

BTW, no byes could solve the "better record should get home game" issue too. Give every division champ a home game in the first week of the playoffs but after that the team with the best record gets HFA. This creates an incentive to both win your division and to win as many games as possible. It would/could actually enhance the last few weeks of the season. Even if a team is locked into being a wildcard with 2 weeks left in the season they could still win games to earn a home game after the 1st round of the playoffs. 

[Ketchup]

1 minute ago, youngosu said:

Okay, so 25% of their schedule (I wouldn't count a team they play twice since they don't both play them twice). I thought it could be as little as 2. I admit I was wrong there. That is still a very small sample size (and location of those games could still create unfairness). It doesn't change my point. 

I don't care about expanding the playoffs, frankly I'd like to see them shrunk by 4 teams and only let the 8 division champs in but if you are gonna let non-division champs in than its inherently unfair to give some of those division champs byes but not other division champs. Either they should all get byes or none of them should get byes.

So a 10-6 division champ gets the same reward as a 14-2 division champ? Nah. 

[nolaexpat]

No. I actually like this format a lot. It rewards the top seeds and makes everyone work for it. The only issue I have with it is that sometimes it rewards teams from weaker-than-normal divisions over those that have played better. Ex. Seahawks making it in at 7-9 while someone stronger sits. But that's the exception so once in a while I suppose it's not the end of the world.

Also they beast-moded us to win a game so I really can't say much.

[youngosu]

2 minutes ago, Ketchup said:

So a 10-6 division champ gets the same reward as a 14-2 division champ? Nah. 

2 things:

1) You don't actually know that the 14-2 champ would go 14-2 agains the schedule the 10-6 team played since they may have only 4 common games. 

2) No its not the same reward, the 14-2 team would have HFA when/if they played the 10-6 team. HFA is a pretty damn sizable reward in the NFL playoffs. Pretending its not is nonsense. 

[youngosu]

Just now, nolaexpat said:

No. I actually like this format a lot. It rewards the top seeds and makes everyone work for it. The only issue I have with it is that sometimes it rewards teams from weaker-than-normal divisions over those that have played better. Ex. Seahawks making it in at 7-9 while someone stronger sits. But that's the exception so once in a while I suppose it's not the end of the world.

Also they beast-moded us to win a game so I really can't say much.

Disagree that its the exception, You just don't notice because usually the "weaker" team isn't 7-9. They are 11-5 thanks to an easy schedule. The current system rewards having an easy schedule. That is all it does. 

I assume you are a Saints fan, the Saints played a much more difficult schedule than the Eagles. Yet the Eagles got a week off thanks to an easy schedule. That is what the current system does. 

[Ketchup]

3 minutes ago, youngosu said:

2 things:

1) You don't actually know that the 14-2 champ would go 14-2 agains the schedule the 10-6 team played since they may have only 4 common games. 

2) No its not the same reward, the 14-2 team would have HFA when/if they played the 10-6 team. HFA is a pretty damn sizable reward in the NFL playoffs. Pretending its not is nonsense. 

It’s not enough of a reward for winning 4 more games then another team in the regular season. It’s just not. No, you don’t know if the 14-2 team would have that record if they played the 10-6 teams schedule but you can’t have every team play the same schedule. 

[ET80]

I like it as is. No need to change anything.

[youngosu]

29 minutes ago, Ketchup said:

It’s not enough of a reward for winning 4 more games then another team in the regular season. It’s just not. No, you don’t know if the 14-2 team would have that record if they played the 10-6 teams schedule but you can’t have every team play the same schedule. 

Okay, so a bye is a huge reward in your eyes (I take it).

So lets go back in time:

2015: How is it fair that the Patriots and Broncos both get byes with 12-4 records while the Bengals (also 12-4) simply because of an overtime loss at Denver (they didn't play NE at all) have to play wildcard weekend?

2014: How is it fair that the Seahawks and Packers both get byes with 12-4 records while the Cowboys play wildcard weekend due to a crazy three way tie-breaker (Cowboys even beat Seattle in Seattle in 2014) despite having the same 12-4 record?

So, while you are worried about rewarding a 14-2 team over a 10-6 team I am far more concerned with penalizing teams that are just as deserving as the team that is getting the reward of a week off. And those 2 examples I provided are just the beginning. Most of the time at least one team is getting a bye based on a tiebreaker which is ridiculous. We aren't talking 14-2 vs. 10-6, we are talking 12-4 vs. 12-4. You give one a huge reward and essentially punish the other based dubious tiebreakers. 

If you can explain the fairness of those 2 seasons (and the many other like it) than you might have a point, right now I am not buying it. 

[Ketchup]

Just now, youngosu said:

Okay, so a bye is a huge reward in your eyes (I take it).

So lets go back in time:

2015: How is it fair that the Patriots and Broncos both get byes with 12-4 records while the Bengals (also 12-4) simply because of an overtime loss at Denver (they didn't play NE at all) have to play wildcard weekend?

2014: How is it fair that the Seahawks and Packers both get byes with 12-4 records while the Cowboys play wildcard weekend due to a crazy three way tie-breaker (Cowboys even beat Seattle in Seattle in 2014) despite having the same 12-4 record?

So, while you are worried about rewarding a 14-2 team over a 10-6 team I am far more concerned with penalizing teams that are just as deserving as the team that is getting the reward of a week off. And those 2 examples I provided are just the beginning. Most of the time a team is getting a bye based on a tiebreaker which is ridiculous. We aren't talking 14-2 vs. 10-6, we are talking 12-4 vs. 12-4. You give one a huge reward and essentially punish the other based dubious tiebreakers. 

Like I said, no system is going to be perfect and some teams will get the short end of it sometimes due to tie breakers. Ties happen and the NFL needs a way to break them. Is it always going to seem fair, no but life ain’t always fair because you can’t please everyone. Fact is, if you don’t want to worry about tie breakers getting you a lower seed, win more games. Changing it so no teams have a bye week is going to piss off the teams a hell of a lot more then the idea of possibly losing the bye week to a tie breaker, I can guarantee that. 

[youngosu]

7 minutes ago, Ketchup said:

Like I said, no system is going to be perfect and some teams will get the short end of it sometimes due to tie breakers. Ties happen and the NFL needs a way to break them. Is it always going to seem fair, no but life ain’t always fair because you can’t please everyone. Fact is, if you don’t want to worry about tie breakers getting you a lower seed, win more games. Changing it so no teams have a bye week is going to piss off the teams a hell of a lot more then the idea of possibly losing the bye week to a tie breaker, I can guarantee that. 

How do you know it would piss off the teams? Based on what?

Were they all pissed in 1990 when the playoffs went from 10 to 12 teams and 2 less teams got byes? I don't remember an uproar at the time. Do you?

And while no system is perfect and teams will sometimes get the short end of the stick that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to create a better system. And the current system is broken. The fact that your only explanation is "no system is going to be perfect" and "piss off teams" (with no evidence of this) demonstrates that 12 teams is a deeply flawed system due for improvements. 

BTW, it has to be collectively bargained so if it were proposed the NFLPA would likely get something they want out of the deal (maybe a 2nd in season bye week or changes to the TNF games) making them perfectly fine with such a deal. 

 

[Ketchup]

3 minutes ago, youngosu said:

How do you know it would piss off the teams? Based on what?

Were they all pissed in 1990 when the playoffs went from 10 to 12 teams and 2 less teams got byes? I don't remember an uproar at the time. Do you?

And while no system is perfect and teams will sometimes get the short end of the stick that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to create a better system. And the current system is broken. The fact that your only explanation is "no system is going to be perfect" and "piss off teams" (with no evidence of this) demonstrates that 12 teams is a deeply flawed system due for improvements. 

BTW, it has to be collectively bargained so if it were proposed the NFLPA would likely get something they want out of the deal (maybe a 2nd in season bye week or changes to the TNF games) making them perfectly fine with such a deal. 

 

So what system do you propose that is so much better then the current one? One that adds teams and dilutes the playoffs? One that removes all bye weeks? One that has half the league in the playoffs? None of those things are appealing. 

Going to have to agree to disagree on this one.