Roger Goodell believes expanded playoffs could still be competitve

[Sportsguy9695]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday that a proposal to expand the playoffs by two teams would not water down the postseason.

"We're very cautious on that," said Goodell, who was the featured guest at a fundraising breakfast for Brooks-DeBartolo Collegiate High School, which was founded by soon-to-be Hall of Famer Derrick Brooks and former San Francisco 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo. "You want to make sure that you don't do that. We have 12 teams out of 32 that make our playoffs now. This would only take us up to 14.

"The competitiveness of our league, that's the difference to me. It's not just adding two more teams that didn't have a chance to proceed in the playoffs. That wouldn't be something that we're interested in. I think what we're seeing now is such a competitive league that a team that got in on the 13th or 14th spot has a chance to win it all."

The league will discuss the proposal at a May 20 meeting in Atlanta. Goodell said owners could vote to implement the new system for the 2014 or 2015 season.

Some critics have said that expanded playoffs would dilute the quality of the postseason, but Goodell doesn't see it that way.

Source: ESPM

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

We already have two threads, but let me sum up what I have said before on this issue:

- Adding two more teams, would mean 44% of NFL teams would make the postseason, compared to 38% under 12 teams. It's essentially a 6% increase.

- If we had a 14 team playoff under the 8 division, 32 teams system, we would have seen at least 12/14 playoff teams with at least 9 wins on the season. Under the current system, we had at least 13/14 playoff teams with at least 9 wins on the season. No wildcard, non-division team would have 8 or less wins on the season. However, we have seen 8-8 teams which failed to win their division get into the playoffs. I believe the Cowboys did back in 1999, and the Vikings in 2004.

- The only real change here would be the loss of the bye week for the 2nd seed. Everything else would pretty much stay the same.

I for one support expanding to 14 teams simply because I want to see more football.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

We already have two threads, but let me sum up what I have said before on this issue:

- Adding two more teams, would mean 44% of NFL teams would make the postseason, compared to 38% under 12 teams. It's essentially a 6% increase.

- If we had a 14 team playoff under the 8 division, 32 teams system, we would have seen at least 12/14 playoff teams with at least 9 wins on the season. Under the current system, we had at least 13/14 playoff teams with at least 9 wins on the season. No wildcard, non-division team would have 8 or less wins on the season. However, we have seen 8-8 teams which failed to win their division get into the playoffs. I believe the Cowboys did back in 1999, and the Vikings in 2004.

- The only real change here would be the loss of the bye week for the 2nd seed. Everything else would pretty much stay the same.

I for one support expanding to 14 teams simply because I want to see more football.

Only thing I don't like is likely only 1 team would get a 1st round bye. That coupled with HFA is just such a giant advantage, it really is huge. The top 2 seeds go against each other enough that I think it's important both got the rest.

If some team gets a cake schedule (see Broncos last year) and gets top seed they are literally (barring a disaster) a lock for the SBOWL, and that doesn't seem right.

I guess you could extend it a week and have 3 first round byes, but meh?

 

[night]

I don't like expanding the playoffs. So we're just going to add a couple .500 teams? What is the point of that?

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I don't like expanding the playoffs. So we're just going to add a couple .500 teams? What is the point of that?

Incorrect. You would at most add only one .500 team.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Incorrect. You would at most add only one .500 team.

Which would be one too many.

 

[fearthepelicans]

It seems totally unnecessary. I can understand why the NBA and NHL let more teams in, but the NFL doesn't need to.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Which would be one too many.

Why is that a problem? We're talking about at least 86% or 12/14 with at least 9 wins. It's not that big of a deal.

Your Seahawks got in at 7-9 in 2010.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Why is that a problem? We're talking about at least 86% or 12/14 with at least 9 wins. It's not that big of a deal.

Your Seahawks got in at 7-9 in 2010.

Yes they did, but the chances of some team winning a division with a record like that again is pretty slim. Truthfully I feel it was embarrassing to all NFL west teams to have the division won with a 7-9 record and hope there is no repeat in any division.
I really feel adding another wildcard will almost guarantee that in the future, some team with .500 record will slip in and I'm against that.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

It seems totally unnecessary. I can understand why the NBA and NHL let more teams in, but the NFL doesn't need to.

hockey & basketball plays a series, not one game. One lucky game or bad call or etc. doesn't win a series. The move is for money, not for a better way to crown a champion. So the better teams normally prevail in a series. Much easier for an upset in a one game takes all. So in one game takes all, the teams should have to earn their way into the playoffs, not be given a spot, just so the NFL can have extra games in the playoffs.

The Commissioner gets credit by revenue, not by if he makes the sport better or worse.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I really feel adding another wildcard will almost guarantee that in the future, some team with .500 record will slip in and I'm against that.

I hate to break it to you, but we see an 8 win team get in the playoffs almost every season. Remember 2011? The Broncos got in at 8-8.

If you're really against allowing in 8-8 teams, then why don't you lobby for less playoff team?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I hate to break it to you, but we see an 8 win team get in the playoffs almost every season. Remember 2011? The Broncos got in at 8-8.

If you're really against allowing in 8-8 teams, then why don't you lobby for less playoff team?

I'm all for it. It would make the playoffs more special.

 

[CalamityX11]

I really think this whole expansion is overblown and such a trend worthy item to blow up.... AZ had a strong yr and unfortunately couldn't make it... ok cry me a river NFL experts/fans/league... Its not every yr a good team with a good record gets left out...

I think the last team was that Pats team led by Cassell? but how often is that?

Keep it as it is, its not broken, our playoff caliber play is not questioned(except SB) nor lacking.

Keep it as is.... I'll probably bite the tongue for ONE addt'l playoff team however I'm not exactly throwing pom poms for it.