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

[gopherwrestler]

14 minutes ago, youngosu said:

No, I simply said giving the Vikings and Eagles a bye over the Saints was unfair. Giving the Saints a bye over the Eagles/Vikings would also be unfair. Byes in general are unfair.

Unfair?

They had better records than the other team.

You have a goal to have the best record in the NFC/AFC regular season for a reason. You get that first round bye.

Might as well not seed the playoffs either.

[Livewire]

Personally I think it's fine the way it is.

[youngosu]

57 minutes ago, gopherwrestler said:

Unfair?

They had better records than the other team.

You have a goal to have the best record in the NFC/AFC regular season for a reason. You get that first round bye.

Might as well not seed the playoffs either.

Its unfair because you are comparing apples to oranges. Records only truly mean something if everyone plays a common schedule. Do away with seeding? Okay. Did you know the NFL didn't seed teams until 1975 so its been done that way before. 

Just because something is the goal doesn't make it a fair system. 

[gopherwrestler]

Just now, youngosu said:

the NFL didn't seed teams until 1975 so its been done that way before.

that was 43 years ago. There obviously was a good reason they started seeding.

 

Well then maybe they should just allow every team in.
Maybe the Browns just happened to play every game while the opposing team was playing the best game of there lives.
It's unfair to not let them in there because they had to play everyone when they played good.
We will make sure they can have a 32 place trophy too.

[BladeKor]

Why not just let all 32 teams in, I mean people wants to keep adding more and more wildcard teams.

[SteelKing728]

On 1/7/2018 at 8:20 PM, youngosu said:

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?

Maybe those two top divisions were so bad because the #1 teams were so good.

I love the playoffs the way they are right now. Best in all of sports!

It'll likely change someday and I'm not looking forward to it.

[youngosu]

1 hour ago, gopherwrestler said:

that was 43 years ago. There obviously was a good reason they started seeding.

 

Well then maybe they should just allow every team in.
Maybe the Browns just happened to play every game while the opposing team was playing the best game of there lives.
It's unfair to not let them in there because they had to play everyone when they played good.
We will make sure they can have a 32 place trophy too.

The reason they started seeding was because they had to have somewhere to play the game (unless they made everything neutral site) so they decided the "most fair" (not not that it is 100% fair) way to decide where to play the game was to use records. Prior it was a rotation just like schedules which I would agree is even less fair than using record. 

 

As for your 32 team idea. I'd argue that would be pretty unfair to the Steelers since the Browns and them shared 87.5% of their schedules making a comparison of the Steelers to Browns more of a green apple to red apple comparison than an apples to orange comparison. Sure, that 12.5% (2 games) could make a difference but its probably not gonna make a 13 game difference. That said, that 12.5% difference is a compelling argument for having wildcards since it is hypothetically possible a team could miss the playoffs based on those 2 games. So once you decide you need wildcards (as you just made a sound argument for) you than need to determine how to create the most fair system for everyone involved. I'd argue a system that give byes based on an apples to oranges comparison is too unfair to be used.

No division champs should have to win more games to win a league title than another division champ. If you think it takes putting all 32 teams in the playoffs to accomplish that goal, cool. I think it can be done with less. Again, the goal for me is to create a level playing field for all division champs. That does mean I support an 8 (no wildcards or byes), 16 (8 wildcards, no byes), or 24 (16 wildcards, division champs get byes) team tourney. My #1 choice would be 8 teams but since you made a compelling argument for wildcards I'd be fine with 16. 

[youngosu]

9 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

Maybe those two top divisions were so bad because the #1 teams were so good.

I love the playoffs the way they are right now. Best in all of sports!

It'll likely change someday and I'm not looking forward to it.

That is one opinion. They are not even close to as good as the Stanley Cup Playoffs in my opinion.  

[SteelKing728]

On 1/7/2018 at 8:36 PM, youngosu said:

Probably the most amusing thing about this to me is that their is nothing perfect about the current system. Everyone arguing to leave it as is would be making the same argument if it was 10 teams or 14 teams. 12 teams is just familiar so they have convinced themselves its somehow correct. They can't make any actual argument that actually proves that the teams getting byes actually deserve them, they just know that is how it is so might as well keep it. 

No, you make a grand assumption based on little to no actual proof.

Anyone can make a grand assumption though. Watch:

You want a totally fair system. "Bye Weeks are unfair!"

But then, one team winning and another team losing isn't fair. Everyone should win.

One player scores a touchdown on a play (or two if its a pass) but not everybody else scores a touchdown on that play. Just 1-2 players. That must be unfair.

One team plays the game at 1pm ET on Sunday, 7 days after their previous game same time. Another team plays a game on Monday 8:30pm ET, 8 days after their previous game (1pm on Sunday). That's unfair!!

One team gets a bye week 7, another week 8. Look how unfair that is...!

... and it goes on and on. Maybe the system is fair because its unfair. Maybe there is an equilibrium reached and the NFL doesn't want to mess with it. I don't know, but personally, in all of sports, I think the NFL has it right. Maybe a few tweaks here and there, but overall its a great system.

[SteelKing728]

4 minutes ago, youngosu said:

That is one opinion. They are not even close to as good as the Stanley Cup Playoffs in my opinion.  

But only half the league makes it in! That's unfair to the losers! Only one team wins it all! Everybody should win!

Using your prior logic, is this fair? 

[EaglesPeteC]

No

[youngosu]

20 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

But only half the league makes it in! That's unfair to the losers! Only one team wins it all! Everybody should win!

Using your prior logic, is this fair? 

That is NOT even close to my logic. All division champs are treated equally (4 rounds to a championship), that is as fair as you can make it. Go back and re-read my comments, its quite clear why that is as fair as you can make it. 

[youngosu]

42 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

No, you make a grand assumption based on little to no actual proof.

Anyone can make a grand assumption though. Watch:

You want a totally fair system. "Bye Weeks are unfair!"

But then, one team winning and another team losing isn't fair. Everyone should win.

One player scores a touchdown on a play (or two if its a pass) but not everybody else scores a touchdown on that play. Just 1-2 players. That must be unfair.

One team plays the game at 1pm ET on Sunday, 7 days after their previous game same time. Another team plays a game on Monday 8:30pm ET, 8 days after their previous game (1pm on Sunday). That's unfair!!

One team gets a bye week 7, another week 8. Look how unfair that is...!

... and it goes on and on. Maybe the system is fair because its unfair. Maybe there is an equilibrium reached and the NFL doesn't want to mess with it. I don't know, but personally, in all of sports, I think the NFL has it right. Maybe a few tweaks here and there, but overall its a great system.

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. 

[PeteyPercyPonde]

33 minutes 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. 

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.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

On 1/7/2018 at 8:20 PM, 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?

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