Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 8 team playoff
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
koolaidluke
I think they should switch to an 8 team playoff system. Here is why:

1. Money: The league is desperate for new revenue, which is why they wanted an 18 game season so bad. The 18 game season though is a non starter because the players bodies can't handle it and because the owners aren't willing to give the players a larger cut of the revenue that such a move would require. 4 extra playoff games brings in a bunch of money without having to pay the players a higher percentage.

2. More teams in playoff hunt: Even fans of mediocre teams will have something to cheer for through the end of the season because their team will have a real chance of sneaking into the playoffs. The NFL season will be more interesting for more people. This also will help with the revenue end.

3. More good teams not being squeezed out: In 2007 and 2011 the Eagles fielded some pretty good teams but didn't make the post season because of early struggles. Those two teams could have made trouble for any other NFC team in the playoffs. Some other good teams have also been squeezed out: The Chargers in 2005 and the Patriots the year Brady went down.

In hockey and basketball, the majority of teams make the playoffs. It is set up that way for the 3 reasons I listed. Baseball's system is more like the NFL but baseball is gay so no meaningful comparison can be made there.

I would also like to point out that the league has added teams since the 6 team playoff format was first implemented. An expansion of the playoffs makes sense to go along with the expansion of the league.
Birdman420
I actually really like this idea and think it would benefit everyone with no deal downside
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Sep 2 2013, 01:10 PM) *
I think they should switch to an 8 team playoff system. Here is why:

1. Money: The league is desperate for new revenue, which is why they wanted an 18 game season so bad. The 18 game season though is a non starter because the players bodies can't handle it and because the owners aren't willing to give the players a larger cut of the revenue that such a move would require. 4 extra playoff games brings in a bunch of money without having to pay the players a higher percentage.

2. More teams in playoff hunt: Even fans of mediocre teams will have something to cheer for through the end of the season because their team will have a real chance of sneaking into the playoffs. The NFL season will be more interesting for more people. This also will help with the revenue end.

3. More good teams not being squeezed out: In 2007 and 2011 the Eagles fielded some pretty good teams but didn't make the post season because of early struggles. Those two teams could have made trouble for any other NFC team in the playoffs. Some other good teams have also been squeezed out: The Chargers in 2005 and the Patriots the year Brady went down.

In hockey and basketball, the majority of teams make the playoffs. It is set up that way for the 3 reasons I listed. Baseball's system is more like the NFL but baseball is gay so no meaningful comparison can be made there.

I would also like to point out that the league has added teams since the 6 team playoff format was first implemented. An expansion of the playoffs makes sense to go along with the expansion of the league.


Shutup.
make_it_rain
I'm assuming you mean 8 teams from each conference qualify, instead of 6 as it is now, which would bring the total to 16 teams, or exactly half the league making the playoffs.

What do you do about the bye system? Get rid of byes? Expand it so 4 teams get byes from each conference?

nephillymike
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Sep 2 2013, 12:10 PM) *
I think they should switch to an 8 team playoff system. Here is why:

1. Money: The league is desperate for new revenue, which is why they wanted an 18 game season so bad. The 18 game season though is a non starter because the players bodies can't handle it and because the owners aren't willing to give the players a larger cut of the revenue that such a move would require. 4 extra playoff games brings in a bunch of money without having to pay the players a higher percentage.

2. More teams in playoff hunt: Even fans of mediocre teams will have something to cheer for through the end of the season because their team will have a real chance of sneaking into the playoffs. The NFL season will be more interesting for more people. This also will help with the revenue end.

3. More good teams not being squeezed out: In 2007 and 2011 the Eagles fielded some pretty good teams but didn't make the post season because of early struggles. Those two teams could have made trouble for any other NFC team in the playoffs. Some other good teams have also been squeezed out: The Chargers in 2005 and the Patriots the year Brady went down.

In hockey and basketball, the majority of teams make the playoffs. It is set up that way for the 3 reasons I listed. Baseball's system is more like the NFL but baseball is gay so no meaningful comparison can be made there.

I would also like to point out that the league has added teams since the 6 team playoff format was first implemented. An expansion of the playoffs makes sense to go along with the expansion of the league.


So basically, you would still have three weeks of conference playoffs, plus the SB, but, instead of giving the top two teams a round one bye, they would have to play that week against the 7th and 8th seeds. So what is more important, byes for the top two teams, or, the chance for two more teams to get in and the importance it puts on games for other teams who may have a shot? And there is more money of four more first round games. Not bad. My only gripe is I don't think 1/2 the teams should make the playoffs in any league. Maybe it they expand by two more teams and then it will be 16 of 34 instead of 16 of 32.
koolaidluke
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Sep 2 2013, 01:28 PM) *
Shutup.


you are sexually attracted to men
koolaidluke
Your objection is an extremely strong one and I thought about it but my rejoinder would be thus:

in an amateur league absolutely only the elite should have the privilege of going to the playoffs. But once money comes into the picture the standards change. Hockey and basketball actually have the majority of teams make the playoffs simply because the more playoff spots means more fan bases are engaged.

That being said, if having 50% of the teams making the playoffs is a deal breaker for some, you could have a 7 team per conference playoff with the 1st seed getting a bye. That way you'd essentially only have 40% of the league making it.

I don't think there is even enough talent for 32 NFL teams, let alone 34.
Rick
Makes total sense. Let's make the regular season LESS meaningful (like the NBA and NHL where the regular season means nothing) just so the owners can make more money. Good one.

Expanding the playoffs just plain sucks. Part of what makes the playoffs in the NFL so special (as well as MLB) is not everyone is there so you have to really EARN your way in. I don't care what sport you're talking about but, .500 teams (and below) just don't belong in the playoffs. They didn't earn their way in.

I have yet to hear any good reason there should be MORE playoff teams which aren't some version of, "because the owners can make more revenue." That just isn't a good enough reason. If it's making the game better, I'm all for it but it's not. It's dumbing down the regular season by allowing so many teams in.

make_it_rain
It's worth pointing out that the league was considering expanding to a 14 team playoff system, but that appears to have been scrapped.

To make that work, you'd likely need a few key changes:

1. Only the top seed in each conference gets a bye. The other six teams play each other wildcard weekend, with the top seed playing the lowest surviving seed from the wildcards in the divisionals, with the other two WC winners playing each other. This gives an added advantage to the top seed as they're the only team in their conference with a full week to rest, and when used in conjunction with a revised seeding system (see below), also ensures that the lowest seed is likely a weaker team and a more desirable opponent for the top seed in the divisional round.

The way its set up now, sometimes playing the lowest remaining seed isn't necessarily an advantage to the top seed. This applies in cases where a team goes 11-5 but only earns a #5 Wildcard spot, but there's a division winner who limps in at 8-8 and earns a #4 seed. Obviously, if you had your pick, you would want to play the 8-8 team, but with the setup now the #1 seed has the "luxury" of playing the 11-5 #5 seed.

2. Adjusting the seeding system so division winners aren't automatically seeded 1-4. In this case, winning a division only clinches a playoff spot. In cases of ties, you award the higher seed to the division winner. I'm kind of torn on this, as part of me thinks that your team should still get at least one home playoff game if you win your division. That being said, it is kind of lame when a team wins 11 games and has to go on the road against some scrubs who went 9-7 or worse but just lucked into a soft division.

At the end of the day, the NFL gets two additional playoff games per year, WildCard weekend turns into an epic triple header on Saturday and Sunday, and the seeding system more accurately reflects the strength of the team based on their performance in the regular season, not the strength or weakness of their division that season.
HOUSEoPAIN
We've had a 7-9 playoff team, and every year mediocre teams have a shot right up until the end, if not one or two of them making it at 8-8.

I think it's inevitable that more spots will be handed out because it's all about money, the same way that within 10 years the NCAA Final Four tourney will have 96 entrants, with 32 of them playing 16 meaningless games just to see who gets wiped out by the #1 and #2s in the first real round (or something to that effect).

My favorite format was prior to this one, where you had 3 divisions, and the top wild card team got to host a playoff game. In that format 10-6 was no guarantee to get in the playoffs most years. I understand with 32 teams the current format makes sense, but hopefully they won't expand it anytime soon.

make_it_rain
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Sep 3 2013, 01:03 PM) *
We've had a 7-9 playoff team, and every year mediocre teams have a shot right up until the end, if not one or two of them making it at 8-8.


I think that's why I lean more towards modifying the seeding in the playoffs to eliminate division winners automatically getting the 1-4 seeds. With 8 four team divisions, inevitably you're going to end up with some weak divisions and the occasional 9-7 or 8-8 division winner.

Determining the seeds by overall record wouldn't stop those teams from getting into the playoffs (and I don't think anything besides redoing the division structure would, which is impossible at this point), but it would ensure that teams that go 11-5 or 12-4 wouldn't have to go on the road to play these teams in the playoffs.

In some cases, adding 2 teams to the field would actually increase the amount of stronger teams that qualify for the playoffs. A few years ago, in 2008 or 2009 I think, the Patriots won 11 games and missed the playoffs. Last year, the Bears won 10 games and missed the playoffs, and I believe in 2010 the vagiants won 10 games and missed out. So, although I'm not in favor of expanding the playoffs, if you're going to do it, I think you basically have to scrap the seeding in favor of best overall record or you risk watering down the field or unfairly sending too many 11 or potentially 12 win teams on the road.
SAM I Am
I'll make this simple.

NO MORE FUCKING TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFFS!!!

NO MORE FUCKING TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE!!!
Dreagon
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Sep 3 2013, 06:52 PM) *
I'll make this simple.

NO MORE FUCKING TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFFS!!!

NO MORE FUCKING TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE!!!


I'm with this guy. Heck, I was happy when there were only three divisions per conference and you had "Wild Card Weekend" where the two wild card teams played each other for the fourth seed.
Rick
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Sep 3 2013, 01:03 PM) *
We've had a 7-9 playoff team, and every year mediocre teams have a shot right up until the end, if not one or two of them making it at 8-8.

I think it's inevitable that more spots will be handed out because it's all about money, the same way that within 10 years the NCAA Final Four tourney will have 96 entrants, with 32 of them playing 16 meaningless games just to see who gets wiped out by the #1 and #2s in the first real round (or something to that effect).

My favorite format was prior to this one, where you had 3 divisions, and the top wild card team got to host a playoff game. In that format 10-6 was no guarantee to get in the playoffs most years. I understand with 32 teams the current format makes sense, but hopefully they won't expand it anytime soon.

Exactly...it's all about money, not what's good for the game or (cough cough) the fans.

I think they've got it just right the way it is. Any more than this and it waters down everything and you start seeing bad teams make the playoffs.
Rick
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Sep 3 2013, 01:23 PM) *
I think that's why I lean more towards modifying the seeding in the playoffs to eliminate division winners automatically getting the 1-4 seeds. With 8 four team divisions, inevitably you're going to end up with some weak divisions and the occasional 9-7 or 8-8 division winner.

Determining the seeds by overall record wouldn't stop those teams from getting into the playoffs (and I don't think anything besides redoing the division structure would, which is impossible at this point), but it would ensure that teams that go 11-5 or 12-4 wouldn't have to go on the road to play these teams in the playoffs.

In some cases, adding 2 teams to the field would actually increase the amount of stronger teams that qualify for the playoffs. A few years ago, in 2008 or 2009 I think, the Patriots won 11 games and missed the playoffs. Last year, the Bears won 10 games and missed the playoffs, and I believe in 2010 the vagiants won 10 games and missed out. So, although I'm not in favor of expanding the playoffs, if you're going to do it, I think you basically have to scrap the seeding in favor of best overall record or you risk watering down the field or unfairly sending too many 11 or potentially 12 win teams on the road.

I have NEVER liked that they went to this in the NBA and the NHL. It weakens the regular season even more. If you win your division, you deserve a better seed...period. Doesn't matter if you're in a weaker division (that's not your fault) or anything else. Why have different divisions if you're just lumping them all together at the end? What, exactly, is the point?
Rick
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Sep 3 2013, 07:52 PM) *
I'll make this simple.

NO MORE FUCKING TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFFS!!!

NO MORE FUCKING TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE!!!

And that about sums it up. I agree 100%.
make_it_rain
QUOTE (Rick @ Sep 4 2013, 07:04 AM) *
I have NEVER liked that they went to this in the NBA and the NHL. It weakens the regular season even more. If you win your division, you deserve a better seed...period. Doesn't matter if you're in a weaker division (that's not your fault) or anything else. Why have different divisions if you're just lumping them all together at the end? What, exactly, is the point?


FWIW, I like the current playoff setup the way it is. If the NFL wants to suck even more money out of people, let them stick another miserable team like the Jags in London for a few games a year. The NFL playoffs are special, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

That being said, I don't think changing the seeding system completely eliminates the purpose of divisions. The point of the division alignment is to create a balanced and consistent scheduling setup for all teams. Each year, you get 6 games against division opponents, 4 games against another NFC division, 4 games against another AFC division, and 2 at large games based on finish the year before.

If you change the seeding logic, all of these features of division play don't suddenly go out the window. The same alignment and scheduling setup remains, there's simply different logic used to seed the teams that qualify for the playoffs.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Sep 4 2013, 12:44 PM) *
If you change the seeding logic, all of these features of division play don't suddenly go out the window. The same alignment and scheduling setup remains, there's simply different logic used to seed the teams that qualify for the playoffs.


Your complaint earlier about 12 win teams going on the road against 8-8 teams in the first round I agree with, however I think you have to give each division winner a home game. This was never a problem with the 3 division system to my knowledge; if for some reason you didn't win your division with 12 wins, you would surely get the 4th seed and a home game, and obviously your division winner would also have 12+ wins, even if the other two had 10 or 11.

After they added the Jags and Panthers in 1995 I felt that was the best format and system to date, as those two additions gave each conference 3 5-team divisions, with the same playoff format. Also, in any year you could get as many as 4 different teams from a single division in the playoffs, which I thought was awesome, as it created extra drama and boosted rivalries, often there would be a division with 3 teams in.


koolaidluke
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Sep 4 2013, 01:30 PM) *
Your complaint earlier about 12 win teams going on the road against 8-8 teams in the first round I agree with, however I think you have to give each division winner a home game. This was never a problem with the 3 division system to my knowledge; if for some reason you didn't win your division with 12 wins, you would surely get the 4th seed and a home game, and obviously your division winner would also have 12+ wins, even if the other two had 10 or 11.

After they added the Jags and Panthers in 1995 I felt that was the best format and system to date, as those two additions gave each conference 3 5-team divisions, with the same playoff format. Also, in any year you could get as many as 4 different teams from a single division in the playoffs, which I thought was awesome, as it created extra drama and boosted rivalries, often there would be a division with 3 teams in.


gay post
xsv
KAL, I think this is your best post of all time.

biggrin.gif
Rick
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Sep 4 2013, 12:44 PM) *
FWIW, I like the current playoff setup the way it is. If the NFL wants to suck even more money out of people, let them stick another miserable team like the Jags in London for a few games a year. The NFL playoffs are special, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

That being said, I don't think changing the seeding system completely eliminates the purpose of divisions. The point of the division alignment is to create a balanced and consistent scheduling setup for all teams. Each year, you get 6 games against division opponents, 4 games against another NFC division, 4 games against another AFC division, and 2 at large games based on finish the year before.

If you change the seeding logic, all of these features of division play don't suddenly go out the window. The same alignment and scheduling setup remains, there's simply different logic used to seed the teams that qualify for the playoffs.

But they do--essentially--go out the window. You could easily deal with any scheduling issues without having divisions. My point is, why would it matter if the Eagles were in one division with the Chargers (at the end of the day) if everyone is thrown into the same pot for seeding at the end of the season?

Obviously, you'd be talking about logistical issues if you wanted to make division foes play twice a year but, if seeding is not based on division play, why worry about having them play each other twice? Why worry about divisional play at all at that point. That's what I'm saying.

But I do agree with you, the current setup is not broken so why try to fix it. Oh, I forgot, Goodell is trying his best to squeeze every penny out of the league even though he's killing it.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (xsv @ Sep 4 2013, 05:15 PM) *
KAL, I think this is your best post of all time.

biggrin.gif


It's certainly his most coherent.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.