Jump to content
DigInBoys

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

Recommended Posts

Adding more teams into the playoffs just makes the quality and excitement worse. The current system is amazing, no changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PeteyPercyPonde said:

How often have the 1-3 seeds had the same record where they have to go to a tie-break for the 3rd seed?  The two best teams in each league get byes.  You argue that a team playing in a tougher division has it harder to make the playoffs. What about a team who finished 4th year before playing  other last place teams instead instead of the team playing a 1st place schedule?  There are not enough games in the league for everyone to play the exact same schedule so sacrifices and tie-breakers need to be made.

I haven't seen one better playoff scenario presented than the one the NFL uses today.

Only 2 games are based on the previous seasons record. So while those can make a difference, its quite minor. 

Again, as I explained, they don't have to all be tied to make it unfair but since you asked. 

2015: Three AFC division champs were all 12-4

2014: Three NFC division champs were all 12-4

2012: 1 AFC division champ was 13-3, 2 AFC division champs were 12-4

2011: 1 NFC champ was 15-1, 2 NFC champs were 13-3

2006: 1 NFC champ was 13-3, 2 NFC champs were 10-6

2005: 1 NFC champ was 13-3, 3 NFC champs were 11-5

2002: 3 NFC champs were 12-4

 

So the exact scenario I described has happened 3 times since the NFL went to 8 divisions (9% of the time) and its happened in 2 of the last 4 years. And getting a bye based on tiebreaker has occurred 7 times (32% of the time). So 1 out of every 3 seasons a team has to play on wildcard weekend despite having an identical record as a team that has that week off. To me, that is too often. 

Edited by youngosu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

I understand your point but i think the logic is flawed because you think the 3rd seed is being mistreated so your solution is to mistreat the best team(#1) by making them play possibly 3 games before the SB

Being treated equal to another team is NOT being mistreated. If you have divisions that play unique schedules than IMO every team a wins that division should treated as equally as possible.  

And FYI, that isn't my solution. Have no wildcards and everyone (3 seed and 1 seed) only need to win 2 games before the SB. That is fine by me. I have no problem shrinking the playoffs if your concern is making the #1 seed play too many games. Lets do it. If you can't win your division (which is a red apple to green apple comparison) I don't find it unfair to eliminate you. That is the whole point of having divisions. 

Edited by youngosu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't like how records determine the bye and you want to make it so there is no wildcard game?

Whats the difference then between that and the 6 seed and 7th ranked team having the same record and the team that finished 7th not making the playoffs?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gopherwrestler said:

You don't like how records determine the bye and you want to make it so there is no wildcard game?

Whats the difference then between that and the 6 seed and 7th ranked team having the same record and the team that finished 7th not making the playoffs?

 

Simple, every team is put in a group. Within that group they have a clear path to making it into the tournament (win that group). And 87.5% of their schedule matches everyone else in that group. If you fail to win that group, too bad. That is the purpose of having divisions (groups) and a regular season. 

And, FYI, I never said I don't like how records determine a bye. I don't like how division champions are treated unequally in the number of games they have to play to win a championship. If you want to radically change the NFL and get rid of the divisions, have everyone play everyone in their conference (15 games) and 1 cross conference game (either based on previous seasons finish or just a straight rotation) and then seed teams 1-6 giving teams 1 and 2 a bye, I'd have zero problem with byes. 

I personally prefer divisions and the rivalries that builds by playing those teams twice every year but when 2 teams from different divisions have as few as 5 common opponents and 1 team is getting a week off to rest because it lost an extra game or because of a tie-breaker that is not a good system in my eyes. It just isn't.

Edited by youngosu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Being treated equal to another team is NOT being mistreated. If you have divisions that play unique schedules than IMO every team a wins that division should treated as equally as possible.  

And FYI, that isn't my solution. Have no wildcards and everyone (3 seed and 1 seed) only need to win 2 games before the SB. That is fine by me. I have no problem shrinking the playoffs if your concern is making the #1 seed play too many games. Lets do it. If you can't win your division (which is a red apple to green apple comparison) I don't find it unfair to eliminate you. That is the whole point of having divisions. 

I would rather change the regular season schedule than the number of playoff teams. Play your division teams twice like normal and play your other 10 games all in-conference so you have overlap. Or maybe 8 games and then 2 out of conference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

I would rather change the regular season schedule than the number of playoff teams. Play your division teams twice like normal and play your other 10 games all in-conference so you have overlap. Or maybe 8 games and then 2 out of conference

I could get on board with such an option. I am a baseball fan more than a football fan and personally hate interleague play so if the NFL ditched inter-conference play I'd be 100% fine with it. 

Edited by youngosu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, youngosu said:

I could get on board with such an option. I am a baseball fan more than a football fan and personally hate interleague play so if the NFL ditched inter-conference play I'd be 100% fine with it. 

Unfortunately you cant play your whole conference without cutting down on division games which causes a big problem or expand to 18 games in the season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, youngosu said:

Note: I never said I want a "totally fair" system. That is impossible. I want the system to be as fair as you can make it. When three teams finish 12-4, all three teams win their division, and 1 of those teams has to win 4 games to be champion while the other two teams have to win only 3 games to be champion. Your system isn't even close to fair. 

And that holds true even when division champs have different records since their schedules are so unique.

Comparing 2 teams in the same division that share 87.5% of their schedule and letting 1 into the playoffs or giving 1 a bye in the playoffs based on that comparison is pretty close to fair. Ideally their schedules would be a 100% match but doing that with 32 teams and 8 four team divisions with a 16 game schedule is likely impossible. 

it sounds like you want to penalize good teams for being good.

and you keep using the schedule as part of your argument, but the reason that the schedule looks the way it does is because good teams beat up on bad teams. Of course you play an "easier" schedule when you and the other top 3 teams are beating up on the average/poor teams. it doesn't work out the way you think it does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

it sounds like you want to penalize good teams for being good.

and you keep using the schedule as part of your argument, but the reason that the schedule looks the way it does is because good teams beat up on bad teams. Of course you play an "easier" schedule when you and the other top 3 teams are beating up on the average/poor teams. it doesn't work out the way you think it does. 

Do the NHL, NBA, and MLB penalize their top seed by making them win just as many rounds as the other division champs? Being equal is not being penalized. If you have divisions than all division champs should be treated as equally as possible. If you don't want to treat them as equals, don't have divisions. Being treated as an equal is not a penalty. 

And the schedule is absolutely 100% part of the discussion. Sure, good teams beat up on bad teams but we aren't comparing good teams to bad teams. We are comparing division champs to other division champs. So we are comparing good teams to good teams. Strength of schedule could absolutely be the difference between going 12-4 and getting a week off and going 11-5 and being stuck in the wildcard round. If those 2 teams traded schedules you have no idea if the 12-4 team would still be 12-4 and the 11-5 team would still be 11-5. What you do know is that they are both division champions so since they are both division champions they should both be the same number of playoff wins from the title. That is not penalizing anyone, it is making them equal as they should be. Don't want equality, ditch the divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Unfortunately you cant play your whole conference without cutting down on division games which causes a big problem or expand to 18 games in the season

I know, which is why I said you ditch the divisions in such a case. Again, if the NFL wants to take the top 6 and give 2 teams byes. There are 2 fair ways to do that.

1) No divisions, everyone plays everyone in the conference (plus 1 inter-conference game to fill out the schedule) and the best 2 records get a bye.

2) Switch to four 8 team divisions, create a schedule that works for that (7 division games, 8 common games, and 1 uncommon game or 14 division games and 2 games outside the division), the 4 division champs get byes and the next 4 best records in each division play wildcard weekend.

Both of those would be solutions. But making 50% of your division champs play more games than the other 50% of your division champs is 100% unfair. There is a reason its only done in the NFL. Every other league that has a playoff (in the world not just the US) treats its division champs equally (in the number of games they have to win to be champ) come playoff time.

MLB-6 division champs all have to win 11 games to be champ

NBA-6 division champs all have to win 16 games to be champ

NHL-4 division champs all have to win 16 games to be champ

MLS-2 regular season conference champs all have to win 3 rounds to be champ

CFL-2 division champs have to win 2 games to be champ

Liga MX (Mexican soccer)-Top regular season team has to win 3 matches to be champ

NPB (Japanese baseball)-Top team in each league has to win 2 rounds to be champ

Korean baseball-Top team has to win 1 series to be champ

World Cup soccer-Winner of each group has to win 4 matches to be champ

I could keep going.......

The NFL is the only professional league that doesn't treat all of its group champions as equals. And its absurd.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Do the NHL, NBA, and MLB penalize their top seed by making them win just as many rounds as the other division champs? Being equal is not being penalized. If you have divisions than all division champs should be treated as equally as possible. If you don't want to treat them as equals, don't have divisions. Being treated as an equal is not a penalty. 

And the schedule is absolutely 100% part of the discussion. Sure, good teams beat up on bad teams but we aren't comparing good teams to bad teams. We are comparing division champs to other division champs. So we are comparing good teams to good teams. Strength of schedule could absolutely be the difference between going 12-4 and getting a week off and going 11-5 and being stuck in the wildcard round. If those 2 teams traded schedules you have no idea if the 12-4 team would still be 12-4 and the 11-5 team would still be 11-5. What you do know is that they are both division champions so since they are both division champions they should both be the same number of playoff wins from the title. That is not penalizing anyone, it is making them equal as they should be. Don't want equality, ditch the divisions.

A single team can't play 32 different schedules. Its not ever going to be "equal" because what you want is literally impossible.

i just don't see a way where what you want means either A) a complete watering down of the system or B) entire elimination of the game. There is no compromise because the idea by nature is radical. 

I could make another argument, but it gets into politics and we can't discuss that. The NFL is balanced, but it is not equal. No sport is, has been or ever will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I know, which is why I said you ditch the divisions in such a case. Again, if the NFL wants to take the top 6 and give 2 teams byes. There are 2 fair ways to do that.

1) No divisions, everyone plays everyone in the conference (plus 1 inter-conference game to fill out the schedule) and the best 2 records get a bye.

 

 

Now say you have two 12-4 teams. One team played the Browns, other team had to play the the Patriots in the inter-conference game and that decided who got the bye week?

The team that lost to the Patriots would have the harder schedule. That wouldn't be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, gopherwrestler said:

Now say you have two 12-4 teams. One team played the Browns, other team had to play the the Patriots in the inter-conference game and that decided who got the bye week?

The team that lost to the Patriots would have the harder schedule. That wouldn't be fair.

I agree, that is not 100% fair but its still more fair than the system in use today.

Determining who plays the Browns and Patriots could be part of the process to try to make it as fair as possible but....And FYI, under current tie-breaker rules the team that lost to the Patriots would get the bye assuming they beat the team that beat the Browns so most likely the team that played the Pats would still get the bye under your scenario.....

I never said it has to 100% fair. That is an impossible standard. But the current system is not even close to fair. The system I described above would be closer to fair.

Edited by youngosu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

A single team can't play 32 different schedules. Its not ever going to be "equal" because what you want is literally impossible.

i just don't see a way where what you want means either A) a complete watering down of the system or B) entire elimination of the game. There is no compromise because the idea by nature is radical. 

I could make another argument, but it gets into politics and we can't discuss that. The NFL is balanced, but it is not equal. No sport is, has been or ever will be.

The idea of treating the 8 division champs as equals is radical? Treating 8 division champs as equals (equal in terms of the number of playoff wins they need to be champ) is literally impossible?

Odd, every other league in the world does it. Hell, the NFL did it from 1933 through 1989.

I think you misunderstand the definition of radical and definitely misunderstand the definition of impossible (and possibly literally). What I propose is doing what the NFL did for 67 of its 94 seasons that had a postseason and something every other league has done for their entire postseason history. That is hardly a radical idea and its literally possible.

FYI, I'd argue the NFL playoff system is neither equal nor is it balanced. Or in reality you can't be balanced if you are not equal. Equal opportunity which is what I am proposing is literally a synonym for balance.

Edited by youngosu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×