aussie_eagle Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Yes because the last wildcard generally comes down to some tiebreaker which is basically luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiphoon Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 On 1/7/2018 at 7:55 PM, steadypimpin said: Why is this always brought up??? It's fine how it is. Not every year is gonna have a bunch of teams that do well. I don't want 8-8 or a 7-9 team getting in. I also think its fine as is. I also don't want 8-8 or 7-9 getting in, but I'm prepared for it to happen on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherwrestler Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 I like the way it is. Makes it a little more tough to get in and the regular season mean a little more with only 32 teams. College football I'd like them to expand tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 47 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said: I also think its fine as is. I also don't want 8-8 or 7-9 getting in, but I'm prepared for it to happen on occasion. While lets look at the numbers. I went all the way back to 2002 when the realignment and new scheduling rules went into effect. Here is the break down of who would have gotten the extra spots. One 11-5 team Nine 10-6 teams Twenty-eight 9-7 teams One 8-7-1 team Twenty 8-8 teams Five 7-9 teams Of the 64 teams that would have made the playoffs 16% would have 10 or more wins, 61% would have winning records, 92% would have been .500 or better, and 8% would have had losing records. 39% of the added teams would fall into your 8-8/7-9 category but for every losing team (7-9 or worse) that would earn playoff berth 2 teams with double digit wins would be added to the playoff field. Seems like a fair trade off. Getting 10 wins in the NFL is difficult and if you are gonna have wildcards than no 10 win teams should be left out (0 would be left out if playoffs were expanded to 16 teams). From 1990-2001 when the alignment changed only two 10 win teams failed to earn playoff berths (both in 1991). And of course that assumes that the records wouldn't improve if teams are battling for playoff spots which I am not sure is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiphoon Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 hour ago, youngosu said: While lets look at the numbers. I went all the way back to 2002 when the realignment and new scheduling rules went into effect. Here is the break down of who would have gotten the extra spots. One 11-5 team Nine 10-6 teams Twenty-eight 9-7 teams One 8-7-1 team Twenty 8-8 teams Five 7-9 teams Of the 64 teams that would have made the playoffs 16% would have 10 or more wins, 61% would have winning records, 92% would have been .500 or better, and 8% would have had losing records. 39% of the added teams would fall into your 8-8/7-9 category but for every losing team (7-9 or worse) that would earn playoff berth 2 teams with double digit wins would be added to the playoff field. Seems like a fair trade off. Getting 10 wins in the NFL is difficult and if you are gonna have wildcards than no 10 win teams should be left out (0 would be left out if playoffs were expanded to 16 teams). From 1990-2001 when the alignment changed only two 10 win teams failed to earn playoff berths (both in 1991). And of course that assumes that the records wouldn't improve if teams are battling for playoff spots which I am not sure is the case. All well and good. Let me clarify a few things. 1) I'm fine with the playoff system as is. I think its the best system without putting half the league into the playoffs (which renders them meaningless) 2) Bye weeks and home field advantage are crucial benefits for being the top 2 seeds (bye week) and winning your division (at least one home game) 3) I'm okay with sometimes a 10 win team missing out due to them not winning their division. Win your division...or win the Wildcard 4) 8-8 teams are gonna happen. Its an unfortunate part of the system, but I like the focus on divisions and the key is winning them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnPatFan Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 The reason I think eliminating the bye weeks is a bad idea is it dramatically lowers the stakes for good teams late in the regular season. You would see many more dinged up star players not playing for the last 1-4 weeks, as they a.) wont be hoping for a week off and b.) have much less incentive to finish with a top two record. “Home field is enough incentive” I think is just untrue. IIRC NFL Home teams win about 57% of the time in the regular season, so it’s actually not that big an advantage. Compare 57% chance to win vs 100%(a bye). Definitely worth sitting Brady, Gronk and any one else you feel is tired or hurt or your scared of getting hurt for the last 2-3 weeks of the season once you are guaranteed a spot and won’t be getting a bye to rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqOptic Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 On 1/7/2018 at 8:40 PM, youngosu said: Again, missing the point. Why should the Eagles get a week off simply because they played a much easier schedule than the Saints? Frankly, I bet the Eagles would be lucky to be in the playoffs had they played the NFL South schedule. Yet thanks to an easy schedule they get a week off to get healthy. Yeah, great system. Because the won their games! This isn't college football with eye tests! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamcanadian Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Not only does it negate the regular season, worse yet, the SB would turn into a game decided by which team is more banged up after these extra games. Already most teams enter the playoffs pretty banged up with some players on season ending injuries, this would just add 2 or 3 more starters to every injury list and make the SB a farce. At this point in the season, every NFL player is injured in some way or another and far more open to more serious injuries, the more games they play. So I would absolutely hate it to see one more game added to any schedule for the playoffs and I think the Division champions have earned their game off to heal. It makes for a much more interesting SB!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is clueless. Dont care if that comes across as mean. Thats how I feel. Half the teams in the league do NOT deserve to make the playoffs. Thats idiotic. I would make the playoffs LESS teams before I made it MORE teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raves Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 I think the only changes to the playoff system should be how they do seeding. 4 Conference Champs and top 2 records outside of Conference Champs get into the playoffs. From there teams are seeded 1-6 based on their record. Winning your conference should only guarantee you a spot in the playoff, not a home game. Years like 2013 where the Panthers were 12-4 and the Saints 11-5 in the NFC South and the Seahawks were 13-3 and the 49ers were 12-4 there is no reason that the Saints and 49ers should've had to travel to Green Bay (8-8) or Philadelphia (10-6) when both teams had better seasons or in 2010 when the 11-5 Saints, behind the 13-3 Falcons, had to travel to the 7-9 Seahawks. Your reward for winning your conference is you get in the playoffs, past that the best record should be the deciding factor for seeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamcanadian Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Raves said: I think the only changes to the playoff system should be how they do seeding. 4 Conference Champs and top 2 records outside of Conference Champs get into the playoffs. From there teams are seeded 1-6 based on their record. Winning your conference should only guarantee you a spot in the playoff, not a home game. Years like 2013 where the Panthers were 12-4 and the Saints 11-5 in the NFC South and the Seahawks were 13-3 and the 49ers were 12-4 there is no reason that the Saints and 49ers should've had to travel to Green Bay (8-8) or Philadelphia (10-6) when both teams had better seasons or in 2010 when the 11-5 Saints, behind the 13-3 Falcons, had to travel to the 7-9 Seahawks. Your reward for winning your conference is you get in the playoffs, past that the best record should be the deciding factor for seeding. I like it the way it is, sometimes teams have better records because of SOS and you would be punishing teams that perhaps played a far harder schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 28 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said: I like it the way it is, sometimes teams have better records because of SOS and you would be punishing teams that perhaps played a far harder schedule. Yet you are okay with punishing teams with harder schedules by making them play wildcard weekend while others get the week off? Seems inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raves Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, youngosu said: 35 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said: I like it the way it is, sometimes teams have better records because of SOS and you would be punishing teams that perhaps played a far harder schedule. Yet you are okay with punishing teams with harder schedules by making them play wildcard weekend while others get the week off? Seems inconsistent. The 3 NFC South teams in the playoffs had the hardest SOS for the NFC as they each had 4 matches against 10+ win teams just from in conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Raves said: The 3 NFC South teams in the playoffs had the hardest SOS for the NFC as they each had 4 matches against 10+ win teams just from in conference. Exactly, that is why its an unfair punishment to not give the Saints a bye while the Eagles and Vikings who likely would have had worse records playing in the South do get byes. If you are against punishing teams for having harder schedules you should be against byes. As I've said before, the only reason most people think 12 with 2 byes and HFA for division champs is the "best" system is because its what they are used too. If the NFL expanded to a 16 team tournament, fans would be arguing that its the best system in 20 years whenever someone poses an idea for changing it. Its the comfort of what they are used too, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 It's the perfect playoff setup now. Why expand it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.