NFL Playoffs--doesn't this make more sense?

[RobToxin]

I agree, but also No team should get a bye unless all teams get one, it's an unfair advantage.....
The best record should get the HF throughout but no bye...

The only way to get rid of the bye is add more teams.

As it stands with 6 in each conference, if there was no week 1 bye there would have to be a week 2 bye.

6 teams playing in week one. 3 win. 3 lose.

That leave you with 3 teams. One of them will then get a bye in Week 2.

Even if you took away the conferences and just seeded all of them together.

You would go from 12 to 6 to 3 and have a team with a bye right before the Super Bowl.

Four teams (two in each conference) would have to be added to eliminate the bye week.

 

[PhilSimms11]

I agree, but also No team should get a bye unless all teams get one, it's an unfair advantage.....
The best record should get the HF throughout but no bye...

How can all teams get a bye? Does this mean you're in favor of expanding the number of playoff teams to 8 in each conference? That's the only way nobody gets a bye. I am not in favor of expanding to 8. 7...maybe, but not 8.

 

[PhilSimms11]

Why are we arguing about this? In a few years it will go the way of the NCAA and everyone gets in

REALLY? Wow, that would suck. Wait a minute. Not everybody in the NCAA gets in. In basketball it's only 68 and football is 4. Baseball/softball is 64. Hockey is...16(?). Badminton is...???

 

[Oldschool739]

The only way to get rid of the bye is add more teams.

As it stands with 6 in each conference, if there was no week 1 bye there would have to be a week 2 bye.

6 teams playing in week one. 3 win. 3 lose.

That leave you with 3 teams. One of them will then get a bye in Week 2.

Even if you took away the conferences and just seeded all of them together.

You would go from 12 to 6 to 3 and have a team with a bye right before the Super Bowl.

Four teams (two in each conference) would have to be added to eliminate the bye week.

Uh Uh you're driftin' on me there Boss.....

 

[RobToxin]

I figure that soon the playoffs will expand. That will be another change that happens under Goodell's watch.

That will probably occur instead of the season going to 18 games.

Player's union will back an expanded playoff because the more teams in the playoffs, the more players who will get playoff money.

 

[Oldschool739]

How can all teams get a bye? Does this mean you're in favor of expanding the number of playoff teams to 8 in each conference? That's the only way nobody gets a bye. I am not in favor of expanding to 8. 7...maybe, but not 8.

I don't know, but if they can put a man on the moon, pipe oil from alaska and create a Cappuccino machine
Then they ought to be able to figure out a way.....I'll have a tall white mocha peppermint cappuccino whipped on top please !!!!! That guys my hero....

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Oh, this again... Just don't see the owner's buying into changing the format any time soon. Carry on...

 

[redseat]

REALLY? Wow, that would suck. Wait a minute. Not everybody in the NCAA gets in. In basketball it's only 68 and football is 4. Baseball/softball is 64. Hockey is...16(?). Badminton is...???

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Money]

Can anyone explain to me again why the Texans and Redskins deserved to play at home this past weekend? Common sense dictates they didn't. They earned their ticket by winning their division, but there's simply no reason they should have been playing at home.

 

[Broncos6482]

Can anyone explain to me again why the Texans and Redskins deserved to play at home this past weekend? Common sense dictates they didn't. They earned their ticket by winning their division, but there's simply no reason they should have been playing at home.

Sure. They deserved to play at home because they won their divisions, something the Chiefs and Packers failed to do.

 

[Money]

Sure. They deserved to play at home because they won their divisions, something the Chiefs and Packers failed to do.

No...they deserved to be in the playoffs (with the division format), but they certainly didn't deserve to be playing at home (and they proved it).

 

[Broncos6482]

No...they deserved to be in the playoffs (with the division format), but they certainly didn't deserve to be playing at home (and they proved it).

No, they did deserve to be playing at home because that is the reward for winning your division. Not winning your division means not playing at home.

 

[Broncos6482]

If you can't win your division you deserve a harder path to the Super Bowl, and that means playing on the road. I don't care if you go 14-2, if that's not enough to win your division, go prove your worth on the road.

 

[Money]

No, they did deserve to be playing at home because that is the reward for winning your division. Not winning your division means not playing at home.

So the superior football team doesn't deserve to play at home against the inferior football team? That's some backwards-ass logic there.

 

[Anointed One]

I like the current format personally...

Some years, there could be a division where the 3 best teams in the conference are in there but they're all beating up one another through out the year...

 

[Broncos6482]

So the superior football team doesn't deserve to play at home against the inferior football team? That's some backwards-ass logic there.

It's not backwards at all. The goal at the beginning of the season is to win your division. Do you think the Packers were thinking at the beginning of the season, "Gee, I hope we finish with a better record than the Redskins"? Of course not, they were concerned with winning their division.

Back in 97, the Broncos finished with the second best record in the AFC at 12-4. Unfortunately, the Chiefs had the best record in the AFC at 13-3, so that meant the Broncos were on the road the majority of the playoffs. In the AFC Championship game, the Broncos had to play at 11-5 Pittsburgh. That's just how it goes, but the Broncos proved they were better and won anyway.

I will never have an ounce of pity for a wild card team that has to play on the road against a division winner with a worse record.

 

[Money]

It's not backwards at all. The goal at the beginning of the season is to win your division. Do you think the Packers were thinking at the beginning of the season, "Gee, I hope we finish with a better record than the Redskins"? Of course not, they were concerned with winning their division.

Back in 97, the Broncos finished with the second best record in the AFC at 12-4. Unfortunately, the Chiefs had the best record in the AFC at 13-3, so that meant the Broncos were on the road the majority of the playoffs. In the AFC Championship game, the Broncos had to play at 11-5 Pittsburgh. That's just how it goes, but the Broncos proved they were better and won anyway.

I will never have an ounce of pity for a wild card team that has to play on the road against a division winner with a worse record.

You act like winning the NFCE or AFCS by default was an accomplishment. The Redskins and Texans should have thanked the football gods, packed their bags and hit the freakin' road. Simply being in the postseason was reward enough.

BTW...you need to stop using "it's how things are" as a reason for why this shouldn't change. Unless of course you feel nothing should ever change. Divisional play itself has morphed over the years. It's not unrealistic to think the rewards that go along with it should morph as well.

 

[Broncos6482]

You act like winning the NFCE or AFCS by default was an accomplishment. The Redskins and Texans should have thanked the football gods, packed their bags and hit the freakin' road. Simply being in the postseason was reward enough.

BTW...you need to stop using "it's how things are" as a reason for why this shouldn't change. Unless of course you feel nothing should ever change. Divisional play itself has morphed over the years. It's not unrealistic to think the rewards that go along with it should morph as well.

You don't seem to understand. The reward for winning your division is a home playoff game. If you aren't going to reward division winners, then what is the point of having divisions?

And before you say, "Making the playoffs is reward enough," simply making the playoffs is not a reward for division winners, as two wild card teams in each conference also make the playoffs.

The point is to incentivize teams to win their division, and they do that by giving the division winners a home playoff game. That makes division games of the utmost importance, which helps fuels rivalries.

The system is absolutely perfect.

 

[Money]

You don't seem to understand. The reward for winning your division is a home playoff game. If you aren't going to reward division winners, then what is the point of having divisions?

And before you say, "Making the playoffs is reward enough," simply making the playoffs is not a reward for division winners, as two wild card teams in each conference also make the playoffs.

The point is to incentivize teams to win their division, and they do that by giving the division winners a home playoff game. That makes division games of the utmost importance, which helps fuels rivalries.

The system is absolutely perfect.

You did it again. Everyone understands how things are now. That isn't a reason against change. If it were...nothing would ever change. Neither the Redskins nor the Texans would have gotten a wildcard bid, so the automatic bid would have been reward enough.

A "perfect" system certainly would not have a superior team going on the road to play an inferior team.

Forget your "it is what it is" defense for a second and prove to me how the Texans or the Redskins were among the best 12 teams in football. Prove to me how the Texans were better than the Chiefs or how the Redskins were better than the Packers. If you can't do that...than you can't justify them playing at home.

 

[Broncos6482]

You did it again. Everyone understands how things are now. That isn't a reason against change. If it were...nothing would ever change. Neither the Redskins nor the Texans would have gotten a wildcard bid, so the automatic bid would have been reward enough.

A "perfect" system certainly would not have a superior team going on the road to play an inferior team.

Forget your "it is what it is" defense for a second and prove to me how the Texans or the Redskins were among the best 12 teams in football. Prove to me how the Texans were better than the Chiefs or how the Redskins were better than the Packers. If you can't do that...than you can't justify them playing at home.

The Texans and Redskins don't have to be better than the Chiefs or Packers to justify them playing at home. They are justified in playing at home because they won their divisions, which the Chiefs and Packers failed to do.

If you simply want to have the best 12 teams make the playoffs, then do away with divisions and conferences, have everyone play everyone else one time, and then take the teams with the 12 best records and put them in a playoff tournament.

The NFL playoffs aren't simply about the 12 best teams making the playoffs, it's about the 8 division winners and the the 4 best non-division winners.

And by the way, you're wrong about the Redskins, they finished with 6th best record in the NFC, so even if they were in a different division they were still good enough to qualify for the playoffs.

Again, the system is set up the way it is now to emphasize the importance of division play. If you take that away, you might as well not even have divisions like I said.