DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Post Season Could Expand to 14 or 16 Teams

With 8-8 teams seemingly making the playoffs on a regular basis, how many playoff slots is too many? I don't think I want to see a 6-10 team in the playoffs, but that could easily be the next step if we add another 4 teams to the mix.

Goodell: Owners could expand postseason to 14 or 16 teams - CBSSports.com
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on...-14-or-16-teams

If you like (or don't like) Roger Goodell's ambition to increase the regular-season schedule to 18 games, you're really going to love (or hate) the owners' next big idea -- playoff expansion.

That's what Goodell discussed Wednesday with the media at the owners' meetings in Dallas.

"Right now we're with 12 teams obviously. We'll look at probably 14 or 16 teams," Goodell said, via NFL.com.

So, um, half the league would make the postseason, then? Yeah, that sounds like kind of a brutal idea, right?

Apparently the owners have discussed it before, but didn't implement anything. That inability to move the idea forward could very well happen again once the competition committee discusses it (we assume) in the spring.

But although some might believe an expanded postseason would water down the playoff teams, it also might be tough to convince the owners of perennially mediocre teams (cough, cough, San Diego) that their squads would have a chance to earn additional money by making more franchises eligible for the playoffs.

Isn't that right, Philip Rivers?

I asked Philip Rivers what he thought of Goodell's idea to expand playoff teams from 12 to 14 or 16. "I'd like it this year."

What is the purpose of the playoffs? Is it to generate cash for the league or is it the fairest possible competition to determine who is the best team that year? If it's the first reason, then let all 32 teams in the playoffs and add 3 weeks to the season, if it's the second reason, then 6 from each conference is enough... it's very hard to make the case that a 7-9 or 6-10 team is the best team in the league.

It's like saying you put Manhattan in the NCAA tournament because you really think they deserve a chance to play for the national championship.

(to DC, not to Goodell)

We all like football. We all want more football. More playoffs is then good.

Do it!

Heck, anything that can improve our shot to actually make the playoffs is something I want.

I guess I'm not interested in expanding the number of teams making the playoffs. I kinda like the system we have in place. That's not to say that if someone comes up with a better Idea I won't listen, I just don't think this it.

It should be hard to make the playoffs.. it should be something worth striving for and therefore making it more valuable. I think you reduce it's value by expanding it.

It's like, the more paper US dollars you print, the less each dollar is worth. kinda the same thing (much less important but the same thing)

More playoff teams, just means more teams sitting starters the last couple games imo. Im not interested. I think it should stay as is.

Only difference is, the more playoff games the nfl has, the more money they make.

If Goodell took over CocaCola instead of the NFL, he'd have suggested 4 or 5 recipe changes by now...

If they expand it, they HAVE to get rid of division winners, IMO.

You're right. There's teams at 8-8 getting in, but those are USUALLY weak division winners (this year is an exception)

If they went with 7 teams in each conference, ignoring division winners, it'd eliminate teams like the 11-5 Patriots getting left out in favor of the 8-8 Chargers.

schedules are everything in the NFL. there are flaws with any system. i am fully in favor of keeping divisions meaning something.

otherwise, we lose all the rivalries. who cares if we beat Pitt if it's all a big AFC cluster? less people at least. that's a bad thing.

Basically if they expanded to 8 teams in each conference we'd have a legitimate shot each season. It would change the dynamic of the entire league IMO. Right now each week is of the utmost importance. Adding teams to the playoffs places less importance on each game. Hell, we were 0-5 and STILL are "mentioning" playoffs this year with just 6 teams getting in.

i agree with that side. it'll become the NBA where the first half of the season is half-hearted by the better teams and they wait until the second half to get down to business.

the Giants already seem to do this anyway (and really the Pats this year too), but most teams seem to care from the start.

I don't like it. Frankly, the way I look at the NFL right now, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I know you don't want to become complacent, but things are working right now. If you want to change things, make them small changes. Focus on player safety (with equipment, better medical care, not through taking away parts of the game). Focus on advertising, marketing, etc.

Let's not water down the league. In baseball, there are 800 games in a season, or something like that, yet by the all-star break, most of the teams are totally out of it. So, you still have 2 or 3 months of season left that are totally meaningless. Attendance and interest goes down.

With the NBA (which I am not a fan of at all), it seems like the season is 11 months long. It would be easy to lose interest in that.

But with football, it's for a very short period. Every game counts. Even though some teams get mathematically eliminated earlier than others, the games are still, for the most part, competitive. There's truly a feeling of "any given sunday." Arizona could suck one game and then come back the next game and beat a contender (not saying it will happen, just saying it could happen).

You start adding teams, you start diluting the talent pool. You start adding games, you start diminishing the importance of each game. You start expanding the playoffs, you start diminishing the importance of each game, plus you make the season longer.

It's kind of like the McRib, or, something dear to my heart, mint flavored M&M's. They only come around once in a while, so when they're out, you go crazy for them. If I could go buy mint M&M's whenever I wanted, it wouldn't be a novelty, so I wouldn't buy as many.

Football is already a year-round sport for the fans, but the actual games and season are a very small part of that. And that's what makes it so great.

JMHO

Quote:

---

If they expand it, they HAVE to get rid of division winners, IMO.

You're right. There's teams at 8-8 getting in, but those are USUALLY weak division winners (this year is an exception)

If they went with 7 teams in each conference, ignoring division winners, it'd eliminate teams like the 11-5 Patriots getting left out in favor of the 8-8 Chargers.

---

I'm confused... if they expand it, why get rid of division winners? I see it as an either or from the NFL's perspective... either you get rid of division winners so an 8-8 division winner doesn't get in ahead of an 11-5 team that finishes 3rd in a strong division... OR... you expand the playoffs so both can get in.

Why would you expand it and also get rid of division winners?

I happen to like divisions and would hate for them to go away... and if you get rid of division winners making the playoffs, then you have to just get rid of divisions... how is it fair to have a team play its way through the NFC east (might be up and you'd have 6 games against 3 good teams) then have another play its way through a different division, say the NFC west (might be down and you get 6 games against 3 pretty bad teams) then say "Best overall record makes the playoffs"... If you are going to keep divisions, you have to let division winners into the playoffs... you have to... you could reseed so the 8-8 team doesn't get a home game against the 11-5 wild card team though.

You're right. Get rid of division winners regardless

J/C

Before it's all said and done, the NFL is going to dilute its product too much. Before long, there might be games on Monday, Thursday, and every Saturday in addition to Sunday (maybe even another weeknight, too). The NFL is already playing games in other countries (a crock in and of itself) and talks of placing a league team in one of them. Now they want to dilute the playoffs by adding more teams. Nobody should kid themselves: it's about $, $, $!

I've about had it with Goodell. Longer season, eliminating kickoffs, more playoff teams, screwing the pooch with bountygate, etc. Lately it seems that anything he concocts, does or touches is a load of crap.

This would make me stop watching.

As would expansion outside the continent.

Goodell is determined to ruin this game.

yeah, i think massively long playoffs is one of the things that is bad for the NBA, and for hockey for that matter.

It de-emphasizes the regular season. They are not going to make money back on lost importance (read: interest) in the regular season by adding two more playoff games within the existing rounds.

The NFL is wildly successful. Why do things that are going to jeopardize it? I understand that stagnancy can cause a good thing to go bad, but I don't see any trend of that whatsoever with this game.

Maybe they're just trying to find a way to get the Jets and Cowboys into the playoffs. (I know, it's not for this year.)

I used to like and support Goodell, now I just think he's a power mongering, owners' puppet tool despot that must tweak the sport for tweaking sake. Take a break from yourself, Roger.

I agree with you and the Coca Cola comment from the other poster.

The league is getting way too volatile at a time when it's highest in popularity. They need to calm things down and maintain some steadiness before they develop themselves into an NFL bubble.

But the owners don't want "steadiness". They want growth. To do that, they need new markets (overseas) and more TV revenue (more playoff games).

While they're the most popular sports in America right now, they still need to be growing. You know the old saying, "if you're not growing, you're dying".

Operating costs grow every year, so they have to find new revenue streams or tweak the current ones for more money.

Yes, but growth can be volatile, too, and involve a lot of bad decisions. The housing market exploded 10 years ago and look where it is now. Volatile moves like this one could have severe, unintended backlash.

How could adding playoff teams have a "severe, unintended backlash"?

"Hey, stop giving me MORE football!" - random NFL fan
"Come on Roger, that extra spot you created enabled my team to get into the playoffs...DAMN YOU!"



I'm on board with the idea some fans might not like it....making the regular season a little less important and the playoffs a bit more diluted. But "severe, unintended backlash"....not sure about that.

With the way this country embraces football, I don't see how adding 2 teams to the playoffs would make people angry. Sure, moving a team to England would anger some......but giving them more football?

I know "more" isn't always better. But adding one team to each conference and only giving one bye week would really push teams to play for that #1 seed. And getting the 2 seed would be really imporant to get the 7 seeded team.

I would like to drop the automatic home playoff game if you win your division...seems a bit odd when an 8-8 team can host a 12-4 team. But that's a minor concern really.

It's as simple as noting how scarce things appeal to people. You throw too much at people, they get jaded.

Well, I can't answer for others, but for me, it cheapens the playoffs if you let a bunch more teams in. But not because they earned it, but because the rules were changed to allow lesser quality teams in.

That, to me simply makes the playoffs less valuable.

Let's be honest, they would never do this if it weren't for the added revenue it could bring. There is no competitive reason for it. in fact, it cheapen the competitive nature of the playoffs..

What's next, Double elimination so they can stretch the league year into March?

Yes, but this is a business, first and foremost. The notion that crowing the best professional football team in the country is what the NFL is truly about is hogwash. This was always a business first...and will always be that way.

So yes, adding one team each conference will create an additional playoff game to market, fill a stadium and show to the public (which will drive the TV contracts up).

I don't see adding one team to really be cheapening the playoffs. Going from 12 to 14....meh. There are still 32 teams....it's still not even half.

Instead of 4 games on wildcard weekend, we'll get 6. That's it. I'm ok with that.

Quote:

---

I don't see adding one team to really be cheapening the playoffs. Going from 12 to 14....meh. There are still 32 teams....it's still not even half.

---

Half the teams should not make the playoff. Being a gnat hair better than average should not get you into a competition to play for it all... yes I get that it's about money and nothing as pure and noble as finding a champion...

When they make me supreme ruler of all, I will implement a rule that in no sport will more than the top 3rd ever be allowed to compete for a postseason championship... If you weren't good enough in the regular season to finish in the top 3rd, better luck next year.

Sucks. Too many weak teams so we can market a few more lame games. How about all play during season is division only twice. Then EVERYBODY is in the playoff. Absolute pinnacle of "any given Sunday" belief, that you play it out. Draw in division for matchups, division playoffs, eventually SuperBowl. Stupid idea IMO, but if more teams equals better, ALL teams must be best.
This is like bowl games. Many more games, much less interest in bowl games for wife and I. This is simply because "bowl eligible" with records of .500 is not the same as "bowl worthy" which is different. I realize it is a business first and last, but a bad product is not good for business. From the strike onward, these "improvements to rules, fines, punishments, suspensions and such is lessening the experience for me. We seem to be making changes to be be busy. For what it is worth, Goodell and the owners are messing up the Game. Eating the Golden Goose is gluttony of the worst kind. Preserve the Game.

Lol. Next we'll have a "round robin double elimination" playoffs.

Lot's of changes to the game... New rules defending WRs and QBs. New kick off rule... Now wanting to eliminate the kick off, wanting to end the tough hits and give more teams a shot at the playoffs...

The way Goodell is trending. we'll soon be watching powder puff flag football and at the end of the season all the teams will get a participation Lombardi! lol

Home field advantage is enough of a bonus. To have another bye week is imho to much of an advantage. Here is my plan.

Each team plays 15 conference games with only one game against a team from the opposing conference. That one game would be decided by a random drawing of each team from each conference during the draft.

The top 8 teams in each conference play their tournament and the winner goes to the super bowl. No more Byes.

This is not the prbolem, the problem , I've gone over on here before.

The problem caused the 09 ( I think ) 10-6 Giants to miss the playoffs while the Packers made the playoffs at 8-8 or 9-7.

The problem is that every division winner gets in, regardless of how they compare to teams fighting for the wildcard in their own conference.

The solution is simple, if a division winner doesn't reach 10 wins, or the percentage equilivant to what 10 wins in the 16 game schedule gives you, then that team goes into the tiebreakers with the teams fighting for a wildcard in the same conference.

I just want the NFL to seed the playoffs properly. The fact that Seattle made the playoffs one year going 7-9, while 2 teams, the Bucs and Giants win 10 games and dont make it, is just wrong. And they host a playoff game against New Orleans who won 11 games. Just seed it right, division or not.

But they got rewarded for a losing season, whereas teams with winning records got shafted. Its not right.