Argument for playoff expansion

[gordontrue]

Perhaps the most common argument against expansion is that teams with poor records who aren't that good would be getting in.

What people are forgetting is that, with the rule that division winners get automatic berths.... the NFL playoffs already has bad teams! The teams that would be added in a 14-team playoff are actually better than the average worst team in any given playoff.

I went back over the last 10 years to see who would've been in the playoffs in a 14 team system.

- The average record for those 20 teams is 9.05 - 6.95.
- Only 6 of the 20 teams did not have a winning record (all 6 were 8 - 8)
- 10 of the 20 teams actually had better records than division winners that got in.
- 3 won 10 games
- 1 won 11 games (08 Pats)

 

[HammerDown]

Playoff expansion seems to make more sense than adding more regular-season games. They seem bound and determined to add more games one way or another.

 

[JDM]

The system is 100% perfect as is. No system ever done in any sport is better.


Leave it the fuck alone.

 

[cdumler7]

Still happy with the format we have now. The number of teams getting in compared to number of teams in the league seems just about right to me. It is something that for the most part has to be really earned. Just think if you move it to 7 teams then somebody will be complaining about how there should be 8 and so on. Playoffs should still be a privilege not an almost given every year.

 

[BusSport]

What people are forgetting is that, with the rule that division winners get automatic berths.... the NFL playoffs already has bad teams!

So, because the playoffs already has bad teams, the playoffs would be better with MORE bad teams!

Great logic, there!

 

[gordontrue]

So, because the playoffs already has bad teams, the playoffs would be better with MORE bad teams!

Great logic, there!

The point was that the teams that would get added would often be better than teams that are currently already in the playoffs.

 

[gordontrue]

To play devils advocate... I think the best argument against expansion is that in the NFL, any team can get hot and win.

If the NBA put in 2 more teams, it wouldn't matter... those teams would never win a series (maybe 1 every 20 years, then they'd lose the next round).

In the NFL, with the 1 and done, any team can win the superbowl.

The problem there is that the reward for making the playoffs is cheapened. Now you have to battle 13 teams that have a legitimate shot at winning, instead of 11.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Why are we trying to fix something that's not broken?...16 reg. season games is fine, any more and we need to expand rosters, which effects the cap, etc.

12 of the 32 teams make it to the playoffs...maybe a handful of times a deserving team doesn't get it...adding another WC team and taking the bye away from the #2 seed is really the only thing I would consider. I can really leave it as it is also.

 

[night]

I don't like the idea of expansion. Letting more teams in the playoffs makes the regular season less meaningful. Do we really want more teams with .500 or below records making it in?

 

[gordontrue]

I don't like the idea of expansion. Letting more teams in the playoffs makes the regular season less meaningful. Do we really want more teams with .500 or below records making it in?

Did you read the OP? In the past 10 years, only 6 of the 20 added teams would've been at .500, and NONE under .500

 

[Pattersonca65]

To play devils advocate... I think the best argument against expansion is that in the NFL, any team can get hot and win.

If the NBA put in 2 more teams, it wouldn't matter... those teams would never win a series (maybe 1 every 20 years, then they'd lose the next round).

In the NFL, with the 1 and done, any team can win the superbowl.

The problem there is that the reward for making the playoffs is cheapened. Now you have to battle 13 teams that have a legitimate shot at winning, instead of 11.

With the NBA and MLB, not nearly as concerned with additional injuries from a couple more games. The injuries piled up for KC and GB during their games. Adding games just adds the potential for teams to rack up more injuries. They ought to leave everything as is

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Interesting perspective from the OP, doesn't change my mind or what I suspected to begin with. However, the idea that people think it will be some 8-8 team like the 2013 Steelers every year is patently false.

 

[night]

Did you read the OP? In the past 10 years, only 6 of the 20 added teams would've been at .500, and NONE under .500

But what's the point? Higher television ratings in areas that historically don't have their team enter the playoffs?

They're still unworthy teams in my opinion.

 

[gordontrue]

But what's the point? Higher television ratings in areas that historically don't have their team enter the playoffs?

They're still unworthy teams in my opinion.

The point for the NFL, is the millions of dollars that would come with 2 additional playoff games.

The point for the fans?

2 more nfl playoff games to watch, slightly more hope that your team can get in the playoffs and make a run.

 

[boltfan72]

Perhaps the most common argument against expansion is that teams with poor records who aren't that good would be getting in.

What people are forgetting is that, with the rule that division winners get automatic berths.... the NFL playoffs already has bad teams! The teams that would be added in a 14-team playoff are actually better than the average worst team in any given playoff.

I went back over the last 10 years to see who would've been in the playoffs in a 14 team system.

- The average record for those 20 teams is 9.05 - 6.95.
- Only 6 of the 20 teams did not have a winning record (all 6 were 8 - 8)
- 10 of the 20 teams actually had better records than division winners that got in.
- 3 won 10 games
- 1 won 11 games (08 Pats)

Totally agree. The more I think about it the more I agree with adding another team. With 16 teams in each conference it's highly unlikely that out of the 10 teams currently left out, not one will be at least 8-8. It's more likely that a 7-9 team wins a division.

Plus, only one team will get a bye week. I don't like the idea of giving the 2nd best team in the conference a week off.

Look no farther than the two games we would've had this year, in addition to 4 other games that were great to watch:

Arizona at Carolina: Rematch of the game where Arizona shocked the world and made a run to the SB.
Pitt at New England: Enough said.

Count me in.

 

[JDM]

I don't see how cheapening the regular season so a bad team can make the playoffs provides a better product.

 

[gordontrue]

I don't see how cheapening the regular season so a bad team can make the playoffs provides a better product.

Again the point of the OP was to show that it WON't be a bad team that makes the playoffs. More often than not, one of the division winners is a worse team than the best team that misses the playoffs.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Some people are really running into a brick wall and I don't even necessarily agree with the OP's underlying point, lol.

 

[JDM]

Again the point of the OP was to show that it WON't be a bad team that makes the playoffs. More often than not, one of the division winners is a worse team than the best team that misses the playoffs.

An 11-5 team that didn't win their division or earn a wildcard wasn't good enough. Letting them in and taking away a bye from a team that earned it cheapens the regular season substantially.

 

[boltfan72]

So, because the playoffs already has bad teams, the playoffs would be better with MORE bad teams!

Great logic, there!

What teams in the playoffs are bad?