Do you support expanding the playoffs to 14 teams?

[MHSL82]

There's already a thread on this, but I thought a poll would be good.

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/...-you-support-expanding-playoffs-14-teams.html

Just in case, you don't know, here's the proposal: The AFC and NFC sends 7 teams to the postseason through an objective system. The top seed from each conference gets a first round bye and a home playoff game in the 2nd round. The 2nd seed plays the 7th seed, and doesn't get the bye week. Everything else is the same.

How would it have looked in the past?

In 2013, the Patriots would have played the 8-8 Steelers on the AFC side, and the 10-6 Cardinals would have played the Panthers on the NFC side.

In 2012, the Patriots would have played the 8-8 Steelers on the AFC side, and the 49ers would have played the 10-6 Chicago Bears.

In 2011, the Ravens would have played the 9-7 Tennessee Titans on the AFC side, and the 49ers would have played either the 8-8 Eagles, Cardinals, or Bears.

In 2010, the Steelers would have played the 9-7 Chargers, and the Bears would have played either the Bucs or Giants at 9-7.

In 2009, the Chargers would have played the 9-7 Texans or Steelers, and the the Vikings would have played the Falcons at 9-7.

In 2008, the Steelers would play the 11-5 Patriots, and the Panthers would have played either the 9-7 Cowboys or
Bears.

In 2007, the Colts would have played the Browns at 10-6, and the Packers would have played either the Vikings or Cardinals at 8-8.

In 2006, the Ravens would have played the Broncos at 9-7, and the Saints would have played either the Rams, Panthers, or Packers at 8-8.

Proponents will argue that it would make week 17 more exciting, where more teams would be fighting for playoff spots, and would make more money for the system.

Opponents argue that it would devalue the regular season and could potentially give a 8-8 team which didn't win its division, the opportunity to win the Super Bowl.

Where do you stand?

 

[MHSL82]

I added the not right now option, but that's considered a no. I just wanted to know who was vehemently (relatively speaking) against it.

 

[MHSL82]

Mods please merge if possible. Thanks.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I added the not right now option, but that's considered a no. I just wanted to know who was vehemently (relatively speaking) against it.

Why don't you just rely to my thread? I am voting yes btw.

 

[OregonDucks]

14 teams?! Why not just let everyone in and everyone gets a medal

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

14 teams?! Why not just let everyone in and everyone gets a medal

Not following this 2 year old logic.

The NFL has 32 teams. Currently 12 of them make it to the playoffs aka 38% of the population. Adding two more teams to the pot, means 44% make it this time around. This means that 56% of NFL teams will not make it into the playoffs.

We're not giving everybody a trophy. 99% of the time, you will have to win at least 8 games in order to qualify for the postseason. That's a tough task for any team to handle, particularly when you have 16 games.

I like the idea of expanding because it increases interest for week 17 and adds more football to the table.

What exactly is the problem? Every year, we see one 8 win team making the playoffs. What's wrong with adding possibly one more to the equation? The only real difference here is that the 2nd seed would no longer get the bye week.

 

[mcnabb7542]

14 teams?! Why not just let everyone in and everyone gets a medal

No shit, what is this the special olympics? Roger Dodger seriously needs to get out of office, he's gonna turn this league into crap!

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

No shit, what is this the special olympics? Roger Dodger seriously needs to get out of office, he's gonna turn this league into crap!

Once again, I don't get why people are upset about the 2nd seed losing a bye week. Adding two more teams would increase interest for week 17 and doesn't punish a team like the Cardinals, for simply being an elite division.

 

[MHSL82]

My team is in the playoffs and looks be for a while, but to be honest, one day that might not be. So anything within realistic chances of passing competition committee approval that increases the chances of my team going to the playoffs, I am for. I know that the seven seed likely does not do anything in the playoffs, but as a fan, why not? As far as the second-seed not getting a bye, I feel that is a negative, but the number of times where my team will be the second seed is likely lower than the number of times where we're a bubble team or 3-6 seeds. But then again, I care more about my team than the league competitiveness.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

THere is minimal differences between 14 teams making and 12 teams making it... and there is no logical reason against a 14 team playoffs!!! So i guess i have to be for it... But i am a reluctant supporter!!!

 

[mcnabb7542]

Once again, I don't get why people are upset about the 2nd seed losing a bye week. Adding two more teams would increase interest for week 17 and doesn't punish a team like the Cardinals, for simply being an elite division.

Cause I don't see the NFC West as an "elite division", sorry but I'm not buying a one year wonder, and I don't want to watch an 8-8 team or better yet, a 7-9 team in the playoffs. There is a reason to as why you have a regular season, you have a winning regular season then your rewarded with a playoff spot,


This isn't the National Bastard Association!

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

THere is minimal differences between 14 teams making and 12 teams making it... and there is no logical reason against a 14 team playoffs!!! So i guess i have to be for it... But i am a reluctant supporter!!!

MilkSpiller22, here's what gets me about the whole opposition: under the current system, an 8-8, 7-9, 6-10, and a 9-7 team can win the Super Bowl. The #1 seed can still lose to an "inferior opponent" and go on to win the Super Bowl. I mean, just look at your Giants in 2011. They went 9-7, and this includes 4 losses in a row. The Packers at 15-1 beat them early in the season. One could argue: why do the Packers need to beat the Giants again?

My argument here is that the postseason/playoffs are really about determining a tournament winner and rewarding teams for putting up a productive season. It's not about crowning the team with the best winning% in the league. That ship was sailed a long time around. Adding two teams to the equation doesn't really change anything really. The bar minimum for 99% of the time is still the same at 8 wins. The only difference as pointed out, is the phasing out of the 2nd seed getting a bye week.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Cause I don't see the NFC West as an "elite division", sorry but I'm not buying a one year wonder, and I don't want to watch an 8-8 team or better yet, a 7-9 team in the playoffs. There is a reason to as why you have a regular season, you have a winning regular season then your rewarded with a playoff spot,

This isn't the National Bastard Association!

If that is the case, why aren't you advocating for reducing the number of teams in the playoffs? Why aren't you advocating for adding a rule stating that a team must have a winning record in order to qualify for the postseason?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

MilkSpiller22, here's what gets me about the whole opposition: under the current system, an 8-8, 7-9, 6-10, and a 9-7 team can win the Super Bowl. The #1 seed can still lose to an "inferior opponent" and go on to win the Super Bowl. I mean, just look at your Giants in 2011. They went 9-7, and this includes 4 losses in a row. The Packers at 15-1 beat them early in the season. One could argue: why do the Packers need to beat the Giants again?

My argument here is that the postseason/playoffs are really about determining a tournament winner and rewarding teams for putting up a productive season. It's not about crowning the team with the best winning% in the league. That ship was sailed a long time around. Adding two teams to the equation doesn't really change anything really. The bar minimum for 99% of the time is still the same at 8 wins. The only difference as pointed out, is the phasing out of the 2nd seed getting a bye week.

And nobody can give a a valid reason to why the #2 seed even deserves the BYE!!!

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

And nobody can give a a valid reason to why the #2 seed even deserves the BYE!!!

Exactly. Their argument would be stronger, if they advocated for less playoff teams.

I support adding two more teams, because it adds more excitement to the regular and postseason.

 

[BritishDolfan]

I'd support expanding the playoffs if they expand the league to 36 teams.

 

[Wolvie]

The 2nd seed deserves a bye week because they earned it... If you take it away from them, then that #1 seed gets a ridiculous advantage over all other teams in the playoffs. The difference between the last two teams making the playoffs may be slight but so are the differences between the 1 and 2 seed. If you expand, then take away everyone's bye and add 4 playoff teams. Because I believe that is too many teams, I say no expansion

 

[mcnabb7542]

If that is the case, why aren't you advocating for reducing the number of teams in the playoffs? Why aren't you advocating for adding a rule stating that a team must have a winning record in order to qualify for the postseason?

Why would I need to when teams that are in the playoffs general have a winning regular season?

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

[/B]

Why would I need to when teams that are in the playoffs general have a winning regular season?

Even under a 14 team format, you would see at least 86% (12/14) of the teams with at least 9 wins on the season. Once again, what's the problem? Other than taking away the 2nd seed bye, nothing else would have changed.

Here's the list of teams with at least 9 wins on the season:

2013 - 12/14 (Packers and Steelers)
2012 - 13/14 (Steelers)
2011 - 12/14 (Broncos and 8-8 NFC team)
2010 - 13/14 (7-9 Seahawks)
2009 - 14/14
2008 - 13/14 (Bolts)
2007 - 13/14 (8-8 NFC team)
2006 - 13/14 (one 8-8 NFC team)
2005 - 14/14
2004 - 13/14 (one 8-8 NFC team)
2003 - 14/14
2002 - 14/14

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

The 2nd seed deserves a bye week because they earned it... If you take it away from them, then that #1 seed gets a ridiculous advantage over all other teams in the playoffs. The difference between the last two teams making the playoffs may be slight but so are the differences between the 1 and 2 seed. If you expand, then take away everyone's bye and add 4 playoff teams. Because I believe that is too many teams, I say no expansion

That's one of the positives of adding one more teams. It INCREASES the relevance of the regular season. Want a break? Earn it.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.