butta54 371 Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) "I do believe it will be approved for the 2015 (season)," Goodell said. "I think we want to see one more year of, will it impact the regular season in a positive way from a competitive standpoint? Will it create more excitement, more races toward the end of who's going to qualify for the playoffs?" Back in May during the spring meeting Goodell was quoted as saying he believed the NFL would expand their current playoff system in 2015. As of now it seems that is set to come true this upcoming off-season. Under the new system: An extra team will be added to each conference's playoff pool The top seed in each conference will have a wild card bye (no longer top two seeds) Top two division winners with the best record will have home games The rest of the pool is re-seeded by their record. Thoughts? Edited December 16, 2014 by butta55 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted December 16, 2014 I prefer seeing worthy teams left out than unworthy teams getting in, I like having a premium on playoff spots, therefore I dislike this idea 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted December 16, 2014 I want to see the Bills make the playoffs. Expand it to every team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
butta54 371 Posted December 16, 2014 This is one I might reserve judgement on because I'm really in the middle. I agree with oochy that each playoff spot should be very important. However, there are parts of the new format that I like, such as only one team on a bye for the first week. Also, I do believe there are quality teams on the bubble every year that don't make it in. Cardinals from last year come to mind and there will be a number of teams this year. I believe adding one team per conference won't upset the balance too much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025 Posted December 16, 2014 I wouldn't be that upset at two more teams getting in but that's where it should stop IMO if it indeed does expand. Having over half the teams make it in like in the NBA is disgusting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteVo+ 3,702 Posted December 17, 2014 Twelve out of 32 is was the perfect playoff system. What a shame. The one thing I like is that the bye week becomes more exclusive, but other than that, no me gusta. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bay 2,003 Posted December 17, 2014 I wouldn't be that upset at two more teams getting in but that's where it should stop IMO if it indeed does expand. Having over half the teams make it in like in the NBA is disgusting. I recall an 8 seed won a Championship in some sport. Does that ever happen in nba? 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted December 17, 2014 What doesn't the NFL understand about not allowing a sub .500 team into the playoffs? This is really simple. Don't let the NFC South in. Don't let the NFC West in years ago. Just make it the top 6 records. Fuck division winners. It's 6 games out of 16. Give 'em a fucking banner but if they don't have a top 6 record, leave 'em out. They don't belong in. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
butta54 371 Posted December 17, 2014 What doesn't the NFL understand about not allowing a sub .500 team into the playoffs? This is really simple. Don't let the NFC South in. Don't let the NFC West in years ago. Just make it the top 6 records. Fuck division winners. It's 6 games out of 16. Give 'em a fucking banner but if they don't have a top 6 record, leave 'em out. They don't belong in. Agreed I've said all year that you go with the top records. Divisions should stay as a means of built in tie-breakers against common opponents and helps scheduling as far as teams playing in relatively close areas for half the season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteVo+ 3,702 Posted December 17, 2014 Just make it the top 6 records. Fuck division winners. It's 6 games out of 16. Give 'em a fucking banner but if they don't have a top 6 record, leave 'em out. They don't belong in. I could probably make a thread out of this (and perhaps I will), but this leads to two ideas: 1) Change from eight four-team divisions to four eight-team divisions. 2) Abandon divisions altogether, separating teams only by conference. Possibility #2 is really intriguing to think about. How to schedule games? You have to preserve rivalries. The Eagles and Cowboys must play each other twice a year, for example. Beyond that? You could go college football style and just let teams schedule each other. There is a lot of potential for creativity. Fun to think about, IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014 Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Leave it all the way it is. Divisions are a part of football and have been since the merger. If we go strictly by record how long before people are crying when the conferences are unbalanced and two 8-8 teams get in in one conference while a 10-6 sits at home in the other? Are we going to say, "well fuck the conferences, go by record! Look at the NBA!"? inb4 some rigid loser like oochymp comes in to try and debunk my hypothetical rather than the overall point. Edited December 17, 2014 by Zack_of_Steel 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted December 17, 2014 Leave it all the way it is. Divisions are a part of football and have been since the merger. If we go strictly by record how long before people are crying when the conferences are unbalanced and two 8-8 teams get in in one conference while a 10-6 sits at home in the other? Are we going to say, "well fuck the conferences, go by record! Look at the NBA!"? Agreed, sir. Going purely by record when schedules vary wildly outside of divisions is entirely unfair. The division winner must have a playoff spot. Otherwise it is meaningless. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014 Posted December 17, 2014 Also, adding in a 7th team is fucking retarded purely for the fact that we'll be seeing 8-8 teams in the playoffs on nearly a yearly basis. Just look at the last couple seasons. We'd have had 2 in 2013, 1 in 2012, and 2 in 2011. This only serves to water down the playoffs and generate more revenue for the NFL. My interest and patience are waning. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
butta54 371 Posted December 17, 2014 I stand by the idea you can get rid of the automatic division winner playoff spot and still have meaningful divisions for the reasons I stated earlier. I want to see the best records in the big dance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025 Posted December 17, 2014 I would disagree with Zack but I'm too scared to so I agree. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maverick 791 Posted December 17, 2014 Give the division winner a playoff spot, but the team with the better record in the playoffs gets home field. As many of you have stated, divisions help preserve rivalries and a playoff spot is a fair prize for winning your division. However, if the 4th seed 8-8 Saints are matched against the 5th seed 11-5 Lions, the game is played in Detroit. That'd be a fair solution, IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241 Posted December 17, 2014 They need to leave it the way it is. That's whack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradyFan81 404 Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Fucking dumb. Oh yeah, like we really need more 8-8 teams in the playoffs. If you can't win more than half your games, you're not a fucking playoff team. Sometimes division winners will have 8 wins (very rarely) but it's a necessary evil for the divisions. That doesn't mean add MORE 8-8 teams tho. If they had this format last year, the Steelers, Ravens, Jets and Dolphins all would've been tied for the 7th spot at 8-8. Arizona would've been the NFC team at 10-6, which is tough for them but not really, 11 win teams have been snubbed from the playoffs before. When an 11 win team doesn't make it, yeah that's pretty unlucky for them but oh well. In 2012: Chicago at 10-6, Pittsburgh at 8-8 would've made it. 2011: Chicago/Arizona/Philly/Dallas all at 8-8, Tennessee 9-7 So hope you guys like watching mediocre .500 teams in the playoffs, cause we're getting more of them. Chances are, 1 of the 2 extra teams will be 8-8 every year. Edited December 17, 2014 by RevisFan81 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) inb4 some rigid loser like oochymp comes in to try and debunk my hypothetical rather than the overall point. funny, I actually agree with your overall point that divisions should retain some meaning beyond scheduling convenience (seriously though, how did they come up with a 16 game schedule prior to the realignment?) but I will say that I firmly believe that once you descend to the slippery slope argument, you've lost I also find it somewhat amusing that you're strongest point against expansion is that you don't want to have 8-8 teams in the playoffs when the current division/scheduling format makes it far easier for a team to win their division at 8-8 I don't like the idea of completely eliminating the division winner spot, but I do think there should be a minimum standard, the division winner doesn't get a playoff spot if it doesn't hit .500 sounds fair to me, give that conference a third wild card Edited December 17, 2014 by oochymp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradyFan81 404 Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) If you do the thing where you say that the division winner doesn't get a playoff spot if they're 7-9 or less, then you're gonna have smart asses like me saying how's it fair that a 9-7 NFC team gets that playoff spot instead, when there's a 10-6 AFC team that's more deserving? If we're all about fairness, then shouldn't the 10-6 team from the AFC team get moved into that NFC spot instead of the 9-7 team? All about wanting the best teams in, right? Just because that 9-7 team happens to be in the NFC they get in over a more deserving team? Suddenly we got Baltimore taking on Arizona on wild card weekend or some shit like that. edit: Zack just made the same point above. Edited December 17, 2014 by RevisFan81 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted December 17, 2014 Give the division winner a playoff spot, but the team with the better record in the playoffs gets home field. As many of you have stated, divisions help preserve rivalries and a playoff spot is a fair prize for winning your division. However, if the 4th seed 8-8 Saints are matched against the 5th seed 11-5 Lions, the game is played in Detroit. That'd be a fair solution, IMO. The 5th seed New Orleans Saints at 11-5 had to travel to the 4th seeded 7-9 Seattle Seahawks. That wasn't this huge deal. But now the South gets the benefit of this, suddenly its a huge deal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) If you do the thing where you say that the division winner doesn't get a playoff spot if they're 7-9 or less, then you're gonna have smart asses like me saying how's it fair that a 9-7 NFC team gets that playoff spot instead, when there's a 10-6 AFC team that's more deserving? If we're all about fairness, then shouldn't the 10-6 team from the AFC team get moved into that NFC spot instead of the 9-7 team? All about wanting the best teams in, right? Just because that 9-7 team happens to be in the NFC they get in over a more deserving team? edit: Zack just made the same point above. the 8-8 requirement wouldn't be about putting the best teams in it'd be about establishing minimum standards for playoff participants without blowing up the current structure there will (or should) always be arguably deserving teams left out of the playoff so the question should be how do you decide which of the arguably deserving teams should be left out? giving priority to division winners makes a lot of sense, the 8-8 requirement wouldn't really change that, it just establishes that division winners aren't necessarily part of the arguably deserving discussion The 5th seed New Orleans Saints at 11-5 had to travel to the 4th seeded 7-9 Seattle Seahawks. That wasn't this huge deal. But now the South gets the benefit of this, suddenly its a huge deal? I remember plenty of people complaining when Seattle made it at 7-9 but it was generally passed off as a rare thing that won't happen again, now we're potentially seeing it again within five years so that excuse is gone Edited December 17, 2014 by oochymp 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted December 17, 2014 Does anyone really think that they're going to put in a minimum win requirement to make the playoffs? I feel like this is an untenable solution that no one is going to seriously consider, as it seems incredibly arbitrary. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) I never said it would happen, just that it would be a better option to address an emerging issue than blowing up the current alignment Edited December 17, 2014 by oochymp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
butta54 371 Posted December 17, 2014 I don't know the perfect solution (if one exist) but complaining about mediocore teams in the playoffs doesn't really sit well with me when we've seen over and over that lower seeds can come in and make noise. The playoffs have always been about it doesn't matter how you get in as long as you get a chance. That ideal is why I'm fine with two new teams because I know they have a good chance of rolling like any other seed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites