Jump to content

NFL Playoff Format Changing for 2015?


Mac the Knife

Recommended Posts

Perhaps lost in the shuffle of pregame jibber-jabber this morning: a report that at its next meeting, the NFL owners will finally, formally consider a playoff format adjustment, expanding the number of qualifiers to 14 (7 from each conference), and eliminating the distinction between division champions and wild-card qualifiers in certain circumstances.

The new format would have only the top-seeded team in each conference receiving a first round 'bye,' with #2 vs. #7, #3 vs. #6, and #4 vs. #5 in the first round. Teams would then be re-seeded for the divisional round.

The up side of this plan (which was first pitched by Lamar Hunt a decade ago) is an expanded playoff field, with additional TV games that can be sold to networks. The down side is that it'll almost guarantee a .500 or below .500 team in the playoffs each and every year.

My suggestion?

Go ahead and expand the tournament to 16 teams. Give the 8 divisional champions slots #1 through #8 based on their record, without concern to conference. Award the wild card qualifiers (#9 through #16) without regard to conference/divisional alignment, allowing the 16 best teams to make it. Then go old-school with it: #1 vs. #16, #2 vs. #15, and so on. Leave open the possibility of a Patriots-Broncos, Steelers-Browns, Cowboys-Redskins or Chiefs-Raiders Super Bowl.

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is only happening because of the suckitude that is the NFC South and the incessant whining being bellowed out from the so-called casual fans. The NFL, if it had any sense, should just reject this expansion. But I could see some sort of re-seeding that would give home-field advantage to the team who has the better record in a particular game.

MofnV2z.png

The CCSLC's resident Geelong Cats fan.

Viva La Vida or Death And All His Friends. Sounds like something from a Rocky & Bullwinkle story arc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the likelihood of a 10-6 team missing the playoffs, while a 7-9 or 6-10 makes it in as division champ, will increase the odds of this happening.

Of course, if another team is added, we're more likely to see additional sub .500 teams make the playoffs in thh future.

Check out my site at stevebcreations.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is only happening because of the suckitude that is the NFC South and the incessant whining being bellowed out from the so-called casual fans. The NFL, if it had any sense, should just reject this expansion.

This is happening because the NFL sees additional television revenue can be had by doing it. No more, no less. Adding two additional playoff games (in the Wild Card round) gives the NFL the opportunity to have all its network TV partners (NBC, CBS, Fox) air two playoff games each, in effect giving them the "Week 18" of programming they're seeking (and which they can't get by persuading the NFLPA to go to an 18-game regular season).

It stinks from a competitive aspect, as eventually with or without the change to divisional champions, below .500 teams will make it on a more regular basis. But this isn't being done to improve competition. It's being done to line coffers.

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds really similar to arguments against the extra MLB wild card. That turned out to be pretty awesome, and I think a seventh playoff team on either side would make for just as much additional excitement.

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind, though it should come with the proviso that if there's a division winner below .500 and a team out of the wild cards at or above .500, the division winner loses its playoff berth. I think that would happen in the NFC right now.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Division winners won't ever lose playoff berths. They might lose home-field, but you can't "win" something only to lose something else. Otherwise, what's the point of having divisions? (But that's a separate argument)

5963ddf2a9031_dkO1LMUcopy.jpg.0fe00e17f953af170a32cde8b7be6bc7.jpg

| ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULB | USMNT | USWNT | LAFC | OCSC | MAN UTD |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing with divisins now is that there are only 6 division games - just under 1/3 of the season. You could (and I think it's happened) sweep your division and not win it, or lose every game and win it.

With the schedule the way it is now, it almost makes sense to just go with "groupings", and do a straight conference seeding.

The "groupings" would be for scheduling purposes only - not competitive, so winning your "group" wouldn't mean anything. It's just that one season, group A would play group B and C, B would play A and D, C, etc. You'd play your own group every year to maintain rivalries.

Alternatively, what if you played your division opponents three times - giving 9 division games?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that conference standings should trump all other forms of seeding, and that divisions should only exist for the purpose of scheduling. Seeing a 7-9 team make the playoffs while a 10-6 team misses them is insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is only happening because of the suckitude that is the NFC South and the incessant whining being bellowed out from the so-called casual fans. The NFL, if it had any sense, should just reject this expansion. But I could see some sort of re-seeding that would give home-field advantage to the team who has the better record in a particular game.

It has nothing to do with the NFC South. Goodell has wanted this for a few years. The NFC South might be the thing that pushes them over the edge. They were going to do it anyway, but maybe they think that people are so upset about the NFC South that they'll welcome the expanded playoffs. Or alternatively, they'll be able to spin the added games ($$$) as "listening to the fans " and they'll receive glowing praises in the media for it.

And I don't know if there really is this level of whining from actual fans. On ESPN? Sure. I'm certain they're featuring multiple stories a week about how bad that division is, and having their "experts" discuss it each pregame show, but it would be the same thing if there was a division with four 10+ win teams, too. But are actual people who watch football outraged by the NFC South being bad this year? It's possible, but I haven't met any.

I think this is a terrible idea, by the way. But it was inevitable, and it's only a step towards the eventual 20 game season, starting in July, followed by a 16-team playoff and a Super Bowl sometime around the start of the NCAA tournament.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with the NFC South. Goodell has wanted this for a few years.

The 14-team playoff format actually precedes Goodell by a few years. Lamar Hunt made the initial proposal for the 7th team per conference sometime around 1998.

The revamping of the scheduling formula in 2002 plays a large role in below .500 teams making the playoffs nowadays. Schedules used to be crafted to ensure parity, with virtually all of each team's regular season opponents based on where they placed within their division in the previous season. Nowadays only 2 of 16 game opponents are based on such criteria (each team playing 6 games against their division opponents, 4 against a division within the conference, and 4 against a division from the opposing conference).

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing with divisins now is that there are only 6 division games - just under 1/3 of the season. You could (and I think it's happened) sweep your division and not win it, or lose every game and win it.

With the schedule the way it is now, it almost makes sense to just go with "groupings", and do a straight conference seeding.

The "groupings" would be for scheduling purposes only - not competitive, so winning your "group" wouldn't mean anything. It's just that one season, group A would play group B and C, B would play A and D, C, etc. You'd play your own group every year to maintain rivalries.

Alternatively, what if you played your division opponents three times - giving 9 division games?

I think it was the Raiders that went 6-0 in divison play a few years ago but didn't make the playoffs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that conference standings should trump all other forms of seeding, and that divisions should only exist for the purpose of scheduling. Seeing a 7-9 team make the playoffs while a 10-6 team misses them is insane.

10-6 team should have won more division games.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that conference standings should trump all other forms of seeding, and that divisions should only exist for the purpose of scheduling. Seeing a 7-9 team make the playoffs while a 10-6 team misses them is insane.

It is very likely that an 11-5 team will miss the playoffs in the NFC.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo it would be even more absurd for a team that won it's division to not make it to the playoffs. I don't care how crappy the division is, they won it, they earned the playoff spot. The 10-6/11-5 team on the outside should have won their division then.

niagaraq.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.