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

[biletnikoff]

Seattle sucked rubber donkey lung this year. They weren't' worthy of  anything 

[SpanosPayYourRent]

Why though better teams desrve better advantages, not to where they cheat but to where they have a cushion 

[Eagles23]

The solution here is for the teams that didnt make the playoffs to win more games. If you didnt more games because of SoS why do you deserve a chance at being a champion?

[SteelKing728]

1 hour ago, youngosu said:

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.

I still disagree with what you propose, or how you view the current system, but it doesn't matter. You're not going to change your mind. Neither will I. That's okay.

[youngosu]

40 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

I still disagree with what you propose, or how you view the current system, but it doesn't matter. You're not going to change your mind. Neither will I. That's okay.

I actually might change my mind if someone could actually justify the fairness of three division champs all finishing 12-4, Team A beat Team B and Lost to Team C, Team B lost to Team A and didn't play Team C, and Team C beat Team A and didn't play Team B. If you can justify that it is fair for Team A and B to get a week off but Team C is stuck playing wildcard weekend I could be convinced.

 

The problem is that no one even tries to justify it, they just say things like "bad luck happens" which is an absurd way to justify a system in my eyes.

 

Although it will never happen it is theoretically possible for 1 conference to have three 16-0 teams. So teams don't even really control their ability to earn the bye. There is always an element of luck involved and a league can and do its beet to reduce the amount of luck involved in determining playoff success.

[areksoo]

22 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I actually might change my mind if someone could actually justify the fairness of three division champs all finishing 12-4, Team A beat Team B and Lost to Team C, Team B lost to Team A and didn't play Team C, and Team C beat Team A and didn't play Team B. If you can justify that it is fair for Team A and B to get a week off but Team C is stuck playing wildcard weekend I could be convinced.

 

The problem is that no one even tries to justify it, they just say things like "bad luck happens" which is an absurd way to justify a system in my eyes.

Just how the tie breaker works.  If the tie breaker can't be applied fairly across all team which are tied, then the you go to the next tiebreaker.  Head to head record is tough even with 2 teams due to the lack of games played.  3 teams is nearly impossible.  Fairness with H2H is every team tied has played with each other and the best record wins.  3+ teams tied also make common opponents impossible to reach 4 required to use that tied breaker, so then it goes to conference record or strength of schedule when you have 3+ teams tied.

Just like this year.  If it was only San Diego and Buffalo tied for the last playoff spot then Chargers should get in as they beat the Bills, but it was a 4 way tie for 2 spots and these 4 teams only had 2 games against each other. Chargers were eliminated first because they had the worst conference record. Titans won that with the best conference record.  Then Bills won the tie breaker with Ravens. 

For 3 or more teams, I think that it could be better, but fair given how little the number of games there are... Also when people say "bad luck happens", I completely agree with that too. 

[youngosu]

15 minutes ago, areksoo said:

Just how the tie breaker works.  If the tie breaker can't be applied fairly across all team which are tied, then the you go to the next tiebreaker.  Head to head record is tough even with 2 teams due to the lack of games played.  3 teams is nearly impossible.  Fairness with H2H is every team tied has played with each other and the best record wins.  3+ teams tied also make common opponents impossible to reach 4 required to use that tied breaker, so then it goes to conference record or strength of schedule when you have 3+ teams tied.

Just like this year.  If it was only San Diego and Buffalo tied for the last playoff spot then Chargers should get in as they beat the Bills, but it was a 4 way tie for 2 spots and these 4 teams only had 2 games against each other. Chargers were eliminated first because they had the worst conference record. Titans won that with the best conference record.  Then Bills won the tie breaker with Ravens. 

For 3 or more teams, I think that it could be better, but fair given how little the number of games there are... Also when people say "bad luck happens", I completely agree with that too. 

That is fine. I find it absurd. No team should be forced to play a game while other teams get the week off to rest and get healthy under those circumstances. Its just stupid. Sorry but it is. I honestly can't understand how so many people support it. Its truly mind boggling to me.

The whole point of divisions is to create a more fair system of determining a champion in a league with so few games and instead the NFL makes it even less fair by using divisions. Its utter nonsense.

[Thaiphoon]

1 hour ago, youngosu said:

That is fine. I find it absurd. No team should be forced to play a game while other teams get the week off to rest and get healthy under those circumstances.

So...get rid of the regular season bye week.

Quote

Its just stupid. Sorry but it is. I honestly can't understand how so many people support it. Its truly mind boggling to me.

Because it works and is the best playoff system of the major US sports.

Quote

The whole point of divisions is to create a more fair system of determining a champion in a league with so few games and instead the NFL makes it even less fair by using divisions. Its utter nonsense.

Playoffs are setup so that each division has a representative in the playoffs. It is a system that is setup that promises to the owners in each division that they will be able to host a playoff game.... only IF they win their division.

Each division plays relatively the same schedule as its division rivals. There are some differences due to a team getting to face a harder team due to winning the division the previous year. In this case, the NFL is attempting to arrive at parity by effectively "punishing" the previous year's division winners by making them play the tougher teams.

Divisions are needed because the NFL does not have the ridiculous number of games like baseball (I love baseball BTW) and there's no possible way that teams can play over 31 games so that each team plays everyone else (and therefore arriving at a true measure of which record is better). So the divisions play other divisions on a rotating basis. The only constant in schedules each year are the division rivals. However, given that the teams have 3 division rivals and therefore only 10 games each year are distributed amongst the other teams in the league, the NFL determines tiebreakers by looking at head to head, as well as the record vs common opponents. It would still need this even if divisions were eliminated and they didn't play 31 games.

Now, on to your complaint about bye weeks. Home Field is not so much an advantage nowadays. But divisions are guaranteed a home game. And since they added 2 more teams as wildcards (because people whinged about "Deserving teams are left out of the playoffs") they needed an elegant way to decide the seeding and playoff opponents.

Division winners are ranked 1-4 based upon the aforementioned criteria. This criteria is the SAME for every team. Right before week 1, every team has the ability to win their division and also be ranked #1.

So then that leaves the Wildcards. We have 2. For a total of 6 teams out of 16 in each conference. This is perfect as it avoids watering down the playoffs to allow have the conference making it. So what do we do with these wildcards? 

Well...did they win their division? No. 

So they shouldn't be rewarded with a higher seed than any division winner. So they have tiebreakers vs the other wildcard team to determine seeding.

Now, you have 6 teams. In order to avoid a double elimination-type of tournament, you can't have all 6 teams playing the same weekend. So what do you do to keep it single elimination and not prolong the number of weeks needed to get through the post season?

Easy. You have the #3 and #4 Division winners host the two wildcard teams.

So what do #1 and #2 do? You bet. They rest up as they have earned it through their superior record AS WELL as the fact that they...say it with me... won their division.

You want to complain about the system and think it more fair to eliminate divisions and add 2 more teams? Completely disagree.

If having 2 Wildcard teams means people whinge about teams getting first round byes, then let's eliminate the wildcard teams altogether and only have the division winners play (1vs4 and 2vs3). Problem solved. I'm MUCH more likely to want to eliminate the #5 and #6 seeds (wildcards) than I am to ADD more teams to the playoffs.

This ain't baseball. It ain't hockey. It ain't basketball.

Its football. And there's a reason why its the favorite sport in the U.S. 

[youngosu]

19 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

So...get rid of the regular season bye week.

Because it works and is the best playoff system of the major US sports.

Playoffs are setup so that each division has a representative in the playoffs. It is a system that is setup that promises to the owners in each division that they will be able to host a playoff game.... only IF they win their division.

Each division plays relatively the same schedule as its division rivals. There are some differences due to a team getting to face a harder team due to winning the division the previous year. In this case, the NFL is attempting to arrive at parity by effectively "punishing" the previous year's division winners by making them play the tougher teams.

Divisions are needed because the NFL does not have the ridiculous number of games like baseball (I love baseball BTW) and there's no possible way that teams can play over 31 games so that each team plays everyone else (and therefore arriving at a true measure of which record is better). So the divisions play other divisions on a rotating basis. The only constant in schedules each year are the division rivals. However, given that the teams have 3 division rivals and therefore only 10 games each year are distributed amongst the other teams in the league, the NFL determines tiebreakers by looking at head to head, as well as the record vs common opponents. It would still need this even if divisions were eliminated and they didn't play 31 games.

Now, on to your complaint about bye weeks. Home Field is not so much an advantage nowadays. But divisions are guaranteed a home game. And since they added 2 more teams as wildcards (because people whinged about "Deserving teams are left out of the playoffs") they needed an elegant way to decide the seeding and playoff opponents.

Division winners are ranked 1-4 based upon the aforementioned criteria. This criteria is the SAME for every team. Right before week 1, every team has the ability to win their division and also be ranked #1.

So then that leaves the Wildcards. We have 2. For a total of 6 teams out of 16 in each conference. This is perfect as it avoids watering down the playoffs to allow have the conference making it. So what do we do with these wildcards? 

Well...did they win their division? No. 

So they shouldn't be rewarded with a higher seed than any division winner. So they have tiebreakers vs the other wildcard team to determine seeding.

Now, you have 6 teams. In order to avoid a double elimination-type of tournament, you can't have all 6 teams playing the same weekend. So what do you do to keep it single elimination and not prolong the number of weeks needed to get through the post season?

Easy. You have the #3 and #4 Division winners host the two wildcard teams.

So what do #1 and #2 do? You bet. They rest up as they have earned it through their superior record AS WELL as the fact that they...say it with me... won their division.

You want to complain about the system and think it more fair to eliminate divisions and add 2 more teams? Completely disagree.

If having 2 Wildcard teams means people whinge about teams getting first round byes, then let's eliminate the wildcard teams altogether and only have the division winners play (1vs4 and 2vs3). Problem solved. I'm MUCH more likely to want to eliminate the #5 and #6 seeds (wildcards) than I am to ADD more teams to the playoffs.

This ain't baseball. It ain't hockey. It ain't basketball.

Its football. And there's a reason why its the favorite sport in the U.S. 

You do realize I at no time said that I personally want divisions eliminated right? I mentioned that as an option to make the league more fair. And you could do within a 16 game schedule by keeping conferences. You don't need 31 games to do it, you need 15 but it was NOT the only option nor did I claim it was my preferred option. 

I agree about eliminating wildcards, I've mentioned multiple times in this thread that that is my preferred solution. I wasn't in favor of going from 10 to 12 teams when they did it in 1990. I was 11 but still remember thinking how unfair that was to the division champ with the 3rd best record. Wildcards are not needed when you have 8 divisions. But if you are gonna have wildcards than you still need to treat all division champs as equals therefore you would need a 16 team tournament if you insist on wildcards. Rather that waters down the playoffs or not is irrelevant. Its the only way to do it AND be fair to all the....say it with me....teams that won their division. 

At the beginning of the season you say every NFL team has the ability to win its division and be #1 seed but that is not technically true.  Every team does have the ability to win its division. If you go 16-0 you are guaranteed to win your division but it is theoretically possible to go 16-0 and be the #2 seed based on tie-breakers so it is not technically true that every NFL team has a the equal ability to be the #1 seed because as you said, you don't play everyone in your conference so its technically possible that 2 teams could go 16-0 and only one of those teams could be the #1 seed. 

I agree its football, but having a 12 team playoff is not why its the favorite sport in the US so not sure how that is even relevant to the discussion. And claiming the NFL has the best playoff system in American sports is your opinion, its not a factual statement. IMO, its the worst playoff system in American sports. The NHL has the best playoff system in American sports, the NBA is 2nd, MLB is 3rd (would jump above the NBA if they changed the wildcard round to 3 games and had less off days so teams had to use their whole rotation), the NFL barely beats MLS (which is a garbage league as a whole) when it comes to playoff systems (and MLS would jump the NFL if it didn't have the stupid 2 game series with away goals tie-breaker). The NFL's system is garbage. 

[howru8888]

I mean if the plan is making everything equal and fair then add a team to each conference and in your 16 game schedule play everyone in your conference once and take the top 6 teams. Personally speaking my preference would be to add 1 playoff team per conference and eliminate the re-seeding each round and no longer does winning the division earn your a home game, teams are seeded by record. And no it doesn't make the regular season more meaningless. If anything it makes it more meaningful. You're gonna play your *** off for that bye. When thats no longer available you still want to get that 2 seed. This year alone do you think Minnesota would have wanted to play Atlanta or Detroit? Plus selfishly I would also love Saturday and Sunday triple headers. Thing I don't understand speaking of game times why is it on Championship weekend next week the game times are 2 and 5 (roughly) but the 1st 2 weekends the game times are 330/715 on Saturday and then Sunday its 12/330?