Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 47 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • The Anti-Java

      Participant
      Post count: 7089

      NFL.com’s Ian Rapoport reports the league’s competition committee has endorsed expanding the playoffs from 12 to 14 games.It's newsworthy, but playoff expansion is entirely up to the owners. The issue has been percolating for years, but the league has admirably done its best to avoid fixing what isn't broken. With the lure of more money — what else? — the owners might not be able to resist much longer.Source: Ian Rapoport on Twitter Apr 5 - 7:17 PM

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 10626

      While I would like to see the Bucs have a better chance to make the playoffs, with another couple of wildcards added, I wouldn’t want them to water it down too much. Percentage of teams that make the postseason.MLB      26.7NFL      37.5NHL      53.3NBA      53.3MLS      55.5

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1455

      Nope, the post season is something you should have to earn, not something handed to you. If anything I’d take 1 wildcard team from each conference away and only 1 team get a bye.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8983

      One one hand, the bucs would actually have a shot and not get buttf###ed out of playoffs when they are close.On the other, ..what does it REALLY matter when only a rule/schedule/system change gets your team in, instead of actual talent? Besides, it would, as other posters said before me, water down the game. We have witnessed teams with losing (under eight wins) records going to playoffs. That needs to be fixed firs,t imvho, before establishing a longer playoff schedule or including more teams.Now, IF they bring in expansion teams at any point in time, I'd probably reconsider the idea myself. It would only be in that instance however.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      As long as top teams earn BYES and the bottom feeders have to rough each other up. The division system we play in already makes a few wonky results.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 704

      No, the playoffs would be watered down with nearly half of the league making the playoffs.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4140

      There is always at least one team in each conference that doesn’t get in with an equal record to the others who get in on a wild card.  I'm on the fence about the question - but in general, more football?  hell yes.

    • rpratto

      Participant
      Post count: 347

      Too much of an advantage for the top two seeds with that first round bye.  Add two more WC teams to each conference and get rid of the first round byes

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9276

      leave as is

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      I’m ok with it as it does in fact make the regular season even more important.  Reason being, with 7 teams in the playoffs, only the 1-seed is getting a bye – where 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, and 4 plays 5.  The less byes there are, the more important it is to win in the regular season.In each of the last 4 seasons, at least 1 double digit win team missed the playoffs in lieu of  a .500 (or so), team.  More divisions = more chance of bad teams getting in the playoffs, because just about every year, at least 1 division is very weak and has a 9-win (or less), champion.  If the goal is to get the best teams in the playoffs, then adding another wild card team ensures more worthy candidates.  A 10-6 team shouldn't miss the playoffs because tie-breakers put them third in their division while a 9-7 (or worse), team gets a home playoff game.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2090

      I’m in favor of it. It might not be great some years, but fairly often there are teams with winning records that somehow get excluded.

    • Marcia

      Participant
      Post count: 5337

      I am all about progression if it makes sense from a fans perspective.  True football fans, I would think, would want to leave it alone.  It’s about perfect where it is right now. 

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      I am all about progression if it makes sense from a fans perspective.  True football fans, I would think, would want to leave it alone.  It's about perfect where it is right now.

      Define "True football fans"?  I consider myself a true football fan and I don't think it's "about perfect".  I think there are plenty of flaws.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1828

      it’s not broken. Leave it the way it is.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1637

      We have witnessed teams with losing (under eight wins) records going to playoffs. That needs to be fixed firs,t imvho, before establishing a longer playoff schedule or including more teams.

      This needs to be fixed. As well as division winners automatically getting top seeds (IE when a 7-9 or 8-8 team is a 4 seed and a 9-7 team is a 6 seed). Otherwise, I wish they would stop changing things.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      We have witnessed teams with losing (under eight wins) records going to playoffs. That needs to be fixed firs,t imvho, before establishing a longer playoff schedule or including more teams.

      This needs to be fixed. As well as division winners automatically getting top seeds (IE when a 7-9 or 8-8 team is a 4 seed and a 9-7 team is a 6 seed). Otherwise, I wish they would stop changing things.

      Clearly, they're not going to change that.  The solution thereafter is to add an extra team.  It's better for everyone.  No one loses.

    • Marcia

      Participant
      Post count: 5337

      I am all about progression if it makes sense from a fans perspective.  True football fans, I would think, would want to leave it alone.  It's about perfect where it is right now.

      Define "True football fans"?  I consider myself a true football fan and I don't think it's "about perfect".  I think there are plenty of flaws.

      At some point a playoff team sneaks in that has no business being there.  Texans are an example of a watered down product.  Not even Texan fans thought they were worthy of being there.  If we add ore teams, we get more Texans type opponents.  That is no good for anyone.  I would think most true football fans would agree. 

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4140

      Still though – that’s more games to watch.    Knock off one of the preseason ‘contests’…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1110

      Leave it ALL alone, including  seeding a 7-9 division winner over a 9-7 wild card winner.  Leave it ALL alone.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      I am all about progression if it makes sense from a fans perspective.  True football fans, I would think, would want to leave it alone.  It's about perfect where it is right now.

      Define "True football fans"?  I consider myself a true football fan and I don't think it's "about perfect".  I think there are plenty of flaws.

      At some point a playoff team sneaks in that has no business being there.  Texans are an example of a watered down product.  Not even Texan fans thought they were worthy of being there.  If we add ore teams, we get more Texans type opponents.  That is no good for anyone.  I would think most true football fans would agree.

      "At some point"?  No, it's almost every year... sometimes it's twice in a year.  When that happens, generally there's at least one 10-win team that misses out on the playoffs.  We're stuck with the Texans and Redskins of the world making the playoffs (because they're division winners), the league won't change that.  What they can change is reducing the likelihood of a 10-win+ team missing the playoffs.Over the last 10 seasons...2006: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 0 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2007: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2008: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2009: 0 division winner... less than 10 wins / 0 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2010: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 2 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2011: 2 division winner... less than 10 wins / 0 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2012: 0 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2013: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2014: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2015: 2 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffsSo as you can see, there were 8 seasons where teams with 9 wins or less make the playoffs because they have a weak division.  There were 7 seasons where 10-win teams missed the playoffs.  Since we're stuck with the crappy record division winners with or without the extra playoff spot, me, and I think "real football fans", would rather see the 10-win teams (that deserve to be in the playoffs), make the playoffs.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Still though - that's more games to watch.    Knock off one of the preseason 'contests'...

      You wouldn't have too change any formats.  Adding the extra team would just mean 2 less teams with a bye and 2 more games on wild card weekend.

    • mdclarie

      Participant
      Post count: 867

      I’m cool with one more wild card in each conference. Only one team gets a bye, that’s good and forces the best teams to not let off the gas at the end of the season. Also would stop seeding division winners automatically. Seeding should be tied to record, not winning a division. If you are 7-8-1 and slide into the playoffs because you're in a crap division you get the #7 seed, not the #4.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 861

      I'm cool with one more wild card in each conference. Only one team gets a bye, that's good and forces the best teams to not let off the gas at the end of the season. Also would stop seeding division winners automatically. Seeding should be tied to record, not winning a division. If you are 7-8-1 and slide into the playoffs because you're in a crap division you get the #7 seed, not the #4.

      I'd vote for this, but no more teams.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1324

      No. And they can cut back on pre-season games as well. Don’t like paying full price for practice games and don’t want to see it too seasy to make the playoffs. Keep the regular season important!

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2090

      I am all about progression if it makes sense from a fans perspective.  True football fans, I would think, would want to leave it alone.  It's about perfect where it is right now.

      Define "True football fans"?  I consider myself a true football fan and I don't think it's "about perfect".  I think there are plenty of flaws.

      At some point a playoff team sneaks in that has no business being there.  Texans are an example of a watered down product.  Not even Texan fans thought they were worthy of being there.  If we add ore teams, we get more Texans type opponents.  That is no good for anyone.  I would think most true football fans would agree.

      "At some point"?  No, it's almost every year... sometimes it's twice in a year.  When that happens, generally there's at least one 10-win team that misses out on the playoffs.  We're stuck with the Texans and Redskins of the world making the playoffs (because they're division winners), the league won't change that.  What they can change is reducing the likelihood of a 10-win+ team missing the playoffs.Over the last 10 seasons...2006: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 0 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2007: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2008: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2009: 0 division winner... less than 10 wins / 0 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2010: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 2 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2011: 2 division winner... less than 10 wins / 0 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2012: 0 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2013: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2014: 1 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffs2015: 2 division winner... less than 10 wins / 1 double digit win teams miss the playoffsSo as you can see, there were 8 seasons where teams with 9 wins or less make the playoffs because they have a weak division.  There were 7 seasons where 10-win teams missed the playoffs.  Since we're stuck with the crappy record division winners with or without the extra playoff spot, me, and I think "real football fans", would rather see the 10-win teams (that deserve to be in the playoffs), make the playoffs.

      Correct answer.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 161

      Are you guys kidding me?You can continue being old school if you want....we're more than likely going to be fighting for a Wild Card spot this year and I'm not trying to get screwed over by some tiebreaker if it comes down to it. The more football the better IMO. Think about how different things might have been had Freeman and the 2010 Bucs made the playoffs. That was seriously one of the hottest if not the hottest team in the league at that point in the year and they weren't scared of anybody. Teams get screwed over by tiebreakers and by lesser teams winning crappy divisions every year...I'm definitely in favor of them expanding the playoffs by a team or two in each conference.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1110

      If you are 7-8-1 and slide into the playoffs because you're in a crap division you get the #7 seed, not the #4.

      The problem is, though, you are giving an opinion whether a division is good or bad rather than fact.  Teams can beat up on each other in a good division and others can gain a wild card birth due in part to being in a very weak division.  Take away the importance (and the resulting reward of a higher seed) of winning a division and then there's no need to have them.  Actually, I'm in agreement with Joe Madden for MLBaseball doing away with divisions entirely and having all teams in each league play equal schedules. But that's because it's unfair to the Rays to compete with the money of the Yankees and Red Sox every single year when other MLB teams don't have that hurdle.  So in MLB, take the top 4 teams in each league seeded as they finish.  The NFL, though, is equal in every way possible, so as long as there are NFL divisions, for the above reasons. I say leave it all alone.  Just my opinion.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2560

      Nah. Leave it alone. Big playoff formats are a weakness in the NBA IMHO.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8983

      Are you guys kidding me?You can continue being old school if you want....we're more than likely going to be fighting for a Wild Card spot this year and I'm not trying to get screwed over by some tiebreaker if it comes down to it. The more football the better IMO. Think about how different things might have been had Freeman and the 2010 Bucs made the playoffs. That was seriously one of the hottest if not the hottest team in the league at that point in the year and they weren't scared of anybody. Teams get screwed over by tiebreakers and by lesser teams winning crappy divisions every year...I'm definitely in favor of them expanding the playoffs by a team or two in each conference.

      Strong argument there. Indeed they were. IF they had made playoffs, they might've done something, imo.But then again, the agrument is going to revert to, "now the refs have to screw tampa for two games now, instead of one."And the REAL messed up part about this....They do this, and the bucs STILL don't make playoffs. Talk about adding insult to injury.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Nah. Leave it alone. Big playoff formats are a weakness in the NBA IMHO.

      That's because more than half the teams in each conference make the playoffs.  In the NFL, even 7 is still less than half.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2090

      Nah. Leave it alone. Big playoff formats are a weakness in the NBA IMHO.

      That's because more than half the teams in each conference make the playoffs.  In the NFL, even 7 is still less than half.

      Also, NBA does a series, which makes it more likely the best team will win. This is more like March Madness. People love the NFL for the parity. Well, this is just more of that.

    • Marcia

      Participant
      Post count: 5337

      An increase in playoff games cheapens the regular season.  Don’t eat the cheese.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      If you are 7-8-1 and slide into the playoffs because you're in a crap division you get the #7 seed, not the #4.

      The problem is, though, you are giving an opinion whether a division is good or bad rather than fact.  Teams can beat up on each other in a good division and others can gain a wild card birth due in part to being in a very weak division.  Take away the importance (and the resulting reward of a higher seed) of winning a division and then there's no need to have them.  Actually, I'm in agreement with Joe Madden for MLBaseball doing away with divisions entirely and having all teams in each league play equal schedules. But that's because it's unfair to the Rays to compete with the money of the Yankees and Red Sox every single year when other MLB teams don't have that hurdle.  So in MLB, take the top 4 teams in each league seeded as they finish.  The NFL, though, is equal in every way possible, so as long as there are NFL divisions, for the above reasons. I say leave it all alone.  Just my opinion.

      No, he is giving a fact.  If you have a division where everyone is "good", and they're all "beating up on each other"... to a tune of all of them having 3-3 division records, then they should be better than 6-4 vs other teams.  History has shown that teams with 9 wins and less - who are division winners - almost never have a winning record in their other 10 games.  Last year, the Redskins were 5-5 and Houston was 4-6.  The year before that, Carolina was 5-6.  Green Bay was 5-5 in 2013.  Denver in 2011 was 5-5.  You can target that AFC West division in 2011 as proof to the statement.  Every team was 3-3 in division, 3 teams were 5-5 and KC, the only7-9 team was 4-6.  Meaning, they were all "average", not "good".  If you go back to 2010, Seattle won their division with a 7-9 record... they were 3-7 in non-division games, the Rams who they were tied with, was 4-6.  Arizona at 9-7 in 2008 was 3-7 in non-division games.  You can keep going back further and further, but all you'll see is that it is a fact, that teams with 9 wins and less who win their divisions really aren't good.  In 2007, our 9-7 Bucs were 4-6 against the rest of the league.Don't agree with Maddon on that topic, he's completely wrong.  There are teams with high payrolls in every divsion, by spreading out who you play doesn't fix anything.  In fact, it's counter productive.  Teams who have less money to opperate with are going to be spending more money in travel expenses to counter any possible income increases that may occur from a few more wins.  Besides, the argument is stupid from the stand point that the Rays made the playoffs more times since 2008 than Baltimore, Toronto, and Boston.  Meaning, run your team better and you'll win.  I think the addition of 2 more teams and a set up like the NFL (4 divisions with 4 teams), would work best for MLB.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      An increase in playoff games cheapens the regular season.  Don't eat the cheese.

      An increase in playoff games enforce the importance of the regular season.  Don't have tunnel vision.

    • Marcia

      Participant
      Post count: 5337

      An increase in playoff games cheapens the regular season.  Don't eat the cheese.

      An increase in playoff games enforce the importance of the regular season.  Don't have tunnel vision.

      No.  The only way to increase the importance of the regular season is to eliminate play off games. The difference in talent on any team comes down to two things.  QB play and coaching.  Meaning, if Belechick is in Tampa, we win next season and are playoff bound.  Give me Chip Kelly with Winston and we are like a douche in the wind, trying to get back to 6-10. No more playoff games.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      An increase in playoff games cheapens the regular season.  Don't eat the cheese.

      An increase in playoff games enforce the importance of the regular season.  Don't have tunnel vision.

      No.  The only way to increase the importance of the regular season is to eliminate play off games. The difference in talent on any team comes down to two things.  QB play and coaching.  Meaning, if Belechick is in Tampa, we win next season and are playoff bound.  Give me Chip Kelly with Winston and we are like a douche in the wind, trying to get back to 6-10. No more playoff games.

      That's right... and with the influx of better QB's in the league, you're going to have more 10-win teams.  Having 4 divisions mean that the chances of a 9-win team making the playoffs (who aren't really all that good), and 10+ win teams missing out are greater.  Put the better teams in.  Makes the game better.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 962

      Not just no, but “HELL NO!”The NBA sucks because it is too long, MLB has screwed up October because they extended the playoffs but failed to shorten the season. Why does that moron commish we have feel a need to ruin a perfectly good game every time he wakes up in the morning?

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4140

      Because the owners say so – he works for the owners and they want MORE money. Simple economic greed.

    • Marcia

      Participant
      Post count: 5337

      Making the playoffs already means very little.  Allowing more weak teams in the dance is a horrible idea.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Making the playoffs already means very little.  Allowing more weak teams in the dance is a horrible idea.

      History shows that they'd be adding stronger teams to the dance, not weaker.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Not just no, but "HELL NO!"The NBA sucks because it is too long, MLB has screwed up October because they extended the playoffs but failed to shorten the season. Why does that moron commish we have feel a need to ruin a perfectly good game every time he wakes up in the morning?

      The NBA's problem is that more than half of each conference makes the playoffs.There's nothing wrong with MLBThe NFL adding one more team would make the playoffs better as teams deserving a spot who miss out, would now be in.

    • Marcia

      Participant
      Post count: 5337

      Making the playoffs already means very little.  Allowing more weak teams in the dance is a horrible idea.

      History shows that they'd be adding stronger teams to the dance, not weaker.

      That's quite theoretical and impossible to prove.  I'd be in favor of eliminating one or two of the teams from the playoffs in each league. Should be reserved for those franchises that give a crap.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Making the playoffs already means very little.  Allowing more weak teams in the dance is a horrible idea.

      History shows that they'd be adding stronger teams to the dance, not weaker.

      That's quite theoretical and impossible to prove.  I'd be in favor of eliminating one or two of the teams from the playoffs in each league. Should be reserved for those franchises that give a crap.

      No it isn't.  I provided the proof for you already... you just apparently chose to ignore it.https://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php/topic,1331504.msg2537266.html#msg2537266Virtually every season over the last 10 years, a 9-win team (or less), made the playoffs - while 10-win teams missed it.

    • Marcia

      Participant
      Post count: 5337

      Making the playoffs already means very little.  Allowing more weak teams in the dance is a horrible idea.

      History shows that they'd be adding stronger teams to the dance, not weaker.

      That's quite theoretical and impossible to prove.  I'd be in favor of eliminating one or two of the teams from the playoffs in each league. Should be reserved for those franchises that give a crap.

      No it isn't.  I provided the proof for you already... you just apparently chose to ignore it.https://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php/topic,1331504.msg2537266.html#msg2537266Virtually every season over the last 10 years, a 9-win team (or less), made the playoffs - while 10-win teams missed it.

      No my point is, that doesn't prove anything.  It provides info that teams with better records were hosed over teams with worse but it doesn't prove those teams that got hosed were better.  Not even close.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      An increase in playoff games cheapens the regular season.  Don't eat the cheese.

      An increase in playoff games enforce the importance of the regular season.  Don't have tunnel vision.

      No.  The only way to increase the importance of the regular season is to eliminate play off games. The difference in talent on any team comes down to two things.  QB play and coaching.  Meaning, if Belechick is in Tampa, we win next season and are playoff bound.  Give me Chip Kelly with Winston and we are like a douche in the wind, trying to get back to 6-10. No more playoff games.

      An increase in playoff games keeps more teaming fighting in December for spots and home field. Don't pretend the pros don't exist :)

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      Here’s an idea:Bottom member of every conference loses out on the playoffs.Winner of every conference gets a BYE week with the overall top two conference seeds getting two bye weeks.For example, 24 teams:Playoff Week 1AFC (1) (2) 3x4 5x6 7x8 9x10 11x12NFC (1) (2) 3x4 5x6 7x8 9x10 11x12Playoff Week 2AFC (1) 2x12 4x6 8x10NFC (1) 2x11 3x5 7x9Playoff Week 3 QuarterfinalsAFC 1x10 2x6NFC 1x7 2x5Playoff Week 4 SemifinalsYou get the idea.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Making the playoffs already means very little.  Allowing more weak teams in the dance is a horrible idea.

      History shows that they'd be adding stronger teams to the dance, not weaker.

      That's quite theoretical and impossible to prove.  I'd be in favor of eliminating one or two of the teams from the playoffs in each league. Should be reserved for those franchises that give a crap.

      No it isn't.  I provided the proof for you already... you just apparently chose to ignore it.https://www.pewterreport.com/forum/index.php/topic,1331504.msg2537266.html#msg2537266Virtually every season over the last 10 years, a 9-win team (or less), made the playoffs - while 10-win teams missed it.

      No my point is, that doesn't prove anything.  It provides info that teams with better records were hosed over teams with worse but it doesn't prove those teams that got hosed were better.  Not even close.

      Agree to disagree then.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Here's an idea:Bottom member of every conference loses out on the playoffs.Winner of every conference gets a BYE week with the overall top two conference seeds getting two bye weeks.For example, 24 teams:Playoff Week 1AFC (1) (2) 3x4 5x6 7x8 9x10 11x12NFC (1) (2) 3x4 5x6 7x8 9x10 11x12Playoff Week 2AFC (1) 2x12 4x6 8x10NFC (1) 2x11 3x5 7x9Playoff Week 3 QuarterfinalsAFC 1x10 2x6NFC 1x7 2x5Playoff Week 4 SemifinalsYou get the idea.

      That's too many.  Seven is a good number.

Viewing 47 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.