NFL NFL Considering Changing Playoff Format

[Exe Gesis]

So why not reward the teams with the best record then? You win the games, you deserve it, right? Make the division winners earn their HF by having good records. With divisions of 4-5 teams, you can't really moan too much

As for your other comments on RG....

1) International games- why not? Spread the market around and sell the NFL product in other countries. You've got fans watching in places like Canada, the UK, Japan, China, Australia....scheduling can be arranged without too much hassle. You'll note the EPL is looking at doing the same thing now.

2) Super bowl outside the US- certainly not as hidebound as the Vics insisting the GF will stay at the MCG forever- TBH, I don't see this happening until after there are NFL franchises well established outside the US, which is still some way off....but in the fullness of time, why not?

3) Pro Bowl- well, nobody gives a damn about the game anyway, so who cares where you p[lay it or when?

a>Best records...They COULD use the same seeding/tie-breaker system of strength of schedule etc, used for the draft, and seed the playoff teams 1-6 no matter their division. But why even have divisions then? I love the divisional system, and playoff format that's always been in place. Also, because there are 6/16 divisional games, then winning your division is important. If you remove divisions altogether (which has been suggested before), it not only messes up the the current cyclical scheduling with teams from other divisions, but it also would not get passed by the owners who rely on their divisional rivalries for revenue, etc.

b>The problem that Goodell is referring to of tanking wont get solved per se because 99% of the time the teams doing that are top seeded 14-2 teams anyway. Resting players is still going to occur whichever playoff format you use. Also, there would be the same anomalies in the new format as there would be in the current format where a team would get ripped off because they had a tougher schedule, or a team got ripped off because they had a far superior record 11-5 vs a divisional team having an 8-8 record. So, it's pointless changing it then because the same problems/anomalies occur under both systems. If you want to change the format then it has to SOLVE the anomalies altogether. Maybe there's a better idea out there on how to do that under the divisional-wildcard format.

1>International games are ok, but also silly. It's really not going to cause the Chinese to all take up Gridiron when they don't even have a league or a very poor one if they did have one. Tho it was throwing money away running the NFLE, that's what would help nurture the game overseas -- setting up leagues right around the world, investing money directly into those leagues. But just having a game on exhibit once a year in China doesnt create a league, doesn't finance that league. Who are the kids interested in taking up the sport going to play for??

2>Superbowls outside the US is just insanity. It's an American institution. Plus there's a whole lot of financial reasoning behind it being in America anyway....the owners would be against it. Stadiums are built for it, economies are driven by it, network stations, families, press and corporate sponsors based in America that drive the game would not be for it.

3>Pro-Bowl is an exhibition game, with minimal rules and no real contest about it. The idea that Goodell had about the pro-bowl is ok -- staging it the week before the SB and excluding players from both SB teams. But it's still silly too because the idea is that the very best players (including SB players) should be playing in that. The problem with the Pro-Bowl is there's no real incentive for the players to do it. So the idea to fix it should be based on something else there than just a fat paycheck and/or holiday in Hawai'i. As it's based on Conference rivalry, then there should be some idea directed towards a benefit given to the winning conference that parlays down to the players representing the winning conference. There are probably some ideas out there better than just pushing it back to the weekend before the SB. Players are all having off-season surgeries, phewing that they finished the year in one piece, and are engaging in new contract talks with their teams...the last thing they'd want at that point is playing a truly competitive game and getting injured for nothing.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Ditto what mcgarnacle said, for me.
Each division is its own special dynamic, schedules, etc.
While the point you bolded CAN go both ways, that's why there's no point changing the rule! Because it will happen both ways under the current system too! Either way you do it it makes no difference.
So it just ends up coming down, again, to what HCs decide to do -- tank and rest stars, or play hard in preparation for the playoffs.

I suppose the NFL is saying that many times a division can be decided quite a few weeks before playoffs. Those teams of course still fight for positioning in the top 4 seeds, but NFL reasons that it's more likely that WC teams and Div winners will, more times than not, a greater chance of having a closer run to the line.

Anyway maybe the Giants have shown the blueprint for the future. Just play the last game as if it matters to carry momentum into the playoffs.

 

[usalion]

a>Best records...They COULD use the same seeding/tie-breaker system of strength of schedule etc, used for the draft, and seed the playoff teams 1-6 no matter their division. But why even have divisions then? I love the divisional system, and playoff format that's always been in place. Also, because there are 6/16 divisional games, then winning your division is important. If you remove divisions altogether (which has been suggested before), it not only messes up the the current cyclical scheduling with teams from other divisions, but it also would not get passed by the owners who rely on their divisional rivalries for revenue, etc.

b>The problem that Goodell is referring to of tanking wont get solved per se because 99% of the time the teams doing that are top seeded 14-2 teams anyway. Resting players is still going to occur whichever playoff format you use. Also, there would be the same anomalies in the new format as there would be in the current format where a team would get ripped off because they had a tougher schedule, or a team got ripped off because they had a far superior record 11-5 vs a divisional team having an 8-8 record. So, it's pointless changing it then because the same problems/anomalies occur under both systems. If you want to change the format then it has to SOLVE the anomalies altogether. Maybe there's a better idea out there on how to do that under the divisional-wildcard format.

1>International games are ok, but also silly. It's really not going to cause the Chinese to all take up Gridiron when they don't even have a league or a very poor one if they did have one. Tho it was throwing money away running the NFLE, that's what would help nurture the game overseas -- setting up leagues right around the world, investing money directly into those leagues. But just having a game on exhibit once a year in China doesnt create a league, doesn't finance that league. Who are the kids interested in taking up the sport going to play for??

2>Superbowls outside the US is just insanity. It's an American institution. Plus there's a whole lot of financial reasoning behind it being in America anyway....the owners would be against it. Stadiums are built for it, economies are driven by it, network stations, families, press and corporate sponsors based in America that drive the game would not be for it.

3>Pro-Bowl is an exhibition game, with minimal rules and no real contest about it. The idea that Goodell had about the pro-bowl is ok -- staging it the week before the SB and excluding players from both SB teams. But it's still silly too because the idea is that the very best players (including SB players) should be playing in that. The problem with the Pro-Bowl is there's no real incentive for the players to do it. So the idea to fix it should be based on something else there than just a fat paycheck and/or holiday in Hawai'i. As it's based on Conference rivalry, then there should be some idea directed towards a benefit given to the winning conference that parlays down to the players representing the winning conference. There are probably some ideas out there better than just pushing it back to the weekend before the SB. Players are all having off-season surgeries, phewing that they finished the year in one piece, and are engaging in new contract talks with their teams...the last thing they'd want at that point is playing a truly competitive game and getting injured for nothing.

1- i love the divisional rivalries (as an NFC east follower, our games are wars), but it is logical to give teams with better ecords an advantage. It can be done without destroying divisions.

2- International games may seem silly right now, but give it some time- innovation is what they are looking for...it could pay off big time.No harm in trying it to see what the reaction is- the NFL is fantastic at marketting their product.

3. An out of the US SB won't happen anytome soon, as I said- but why not explore the possibilities fro down the road? If the NFL becomes big in other parts of the world, why couldn't the SB be held in canada, the UK, or even Japan? They have stadia that are more than suitable, and if there were extra money to be made through international hosting, it could be a huge bonanza for the owners- they'd get on board. But as I said before- it won't happen anytime soon....I'd bet not in my lifetime (I'm 48)

I don't deny the SB is an American institution, but so is the World Series, and that has been held outside of the US without the world coming to an end.

4- As I said, nobody cares about the Pro Bowl- why get up in arms if someone looks to tinker with it?

 

[Dagless]

who DO you follow btw usa... I just don't know sorry

 

[usalion]

who DO you follow btw usa... I just don't know sorry

Green and white, mate- E-A-G-L-E-S!!!!!!

 

[Dagless]

lol ok mate...

You have to pick up your slack in the BEast though okay

We need everyone in the Div with a SB by the 50th

 

[FootyJunkie]

Pro Bowl = Gridiron Hit and Giggle

 

[Exe Gesis]

Well, let's focus on the play-off format and divisional format.

You know the NFL itself has often thought about dispensing with conferences and divisions. But it cant be do-able like that. So, you retain divisions. Ok, but as divisions are based on 6/16 games, there is no way imo you can cheapen a divisional title to not having HF advantage because the WC team from another division has had a totally different schedule. That's the bottom line imo. It's also folly to suggest that an 8-8 Division winner is automatically inferior than a 10-6 WC team. It often happens in the AFC-W or NFC-E where the division winner is 8-8 or 9-7. Yet they often go on to become conference champs as opposed to a WC team who was 10-6 and got eliminated in the WC round.

Just because only 3 times in 42 years has a WC team won the SB then it's not some major problem that needs to tinkered with.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Rooney cites scheduling as potential impediment to playoff expansion
Posted by Mike Florio on March 20, 2015, 6:15 PM EDT

Getty Images
The many proposed rule and bylaw changes to be considered next week by NFL owners don’t include a potential expansion of the postseason from 12 to 14 teams. Unofficially, the NFL is waiting to tie to larger postseason pool of games to the next sale of the Thursday Night Football package. Officially, the NFL is concerned about how to properly schedule the two extra wild-card games.

“I think we’ve always said [playoff expansion] is something that’s worth considering,” Steelers president Art Rooney II told the team’s official website. “But the details of it, when would the game get scheduled? Monday night is one of the possibilities, which I don’t think is a great alternative. The idea is OK, it’s just that when you get down to exactly how does it work, it gets a little complicated.”

It gets complicated because adding a game on Monday night could require a team to play in the divisional round on only five days later. Which apparently is a problem even though the NFL has no qualms about requiring every team to play at least one regular-season game only four days after a Sunday game.

“That’s not ideal for the league to have a team that’s going to play on Monday night and then have to come back the next week and play on a short week, where even on a Saturday is a possibility,” Rooney said. “That’s a complication that, there again, we need to figure it out. The [new expanded] college playoff piece of it is sort of in the mix there in terms of when does that game get played? It’s part of the discussion.”

It’s odd that the NFL seems intent on putting one of the extra games on Monday night, especially since the NFL doesn’t currently play a Monday night game in Week 17. The easiest change to the schedule would be the creation of a Saturday and Sunday tripleheader, with kickoff times each day matching the kickoff times of the Thanksgiving trio of games.

A Friday night playoff game also is possible. Though it would entail a short week, both teams would be playing only five days after their final regular-season game, avoiding any potential competitive disadvantage.

Regardless, the NFL stands to make many more millions by making the No. 2 seed in each conference play the No. 7 seed. It’s believed to be an inevitability, once it can be linked to the many more millions that will be made once the Thursday night games are placed out for bidding on a multi-year deal.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

FFS just leave as is. This expanded playoff bullshit is ridiculous, we've just had a whole division fail to make it to 8-8.

And just on expanding regular season to 18 games, some journo made a good point about Borland's early retirement might knock it on its head.

 

[Starburns_]

FFS just leave as is. This expanded playoff bullshit is ridiculous, we've just had a whole division fail to make it to 8-8.

And just on expanding regular season to 18 games, some journo made a good point about Borland's early retirement might knock it on its head.

Twice in 4 years it's happened. We now also have the possibility (albeit slim) that a team could finish last in their division and still make the playoffs. For all the talk about "winning your division", it makes a mockery of that mindset when you can be the least of those 4 teams and still get a playoff shot (and a potential opportunity to boot the division winner).

Plus, were last years playoffs really worse off for the lack of Philly and Houston?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Twice in 4 years it's happened. We now also have the possibility (albeit slim) that a team could finish last in their division and still make the playoffs. For all the talk about "winning your division", it makes a mockery of that mindset when you can be the least of those 4 teams and still get a playoff shot (and a potential opportunity to boot the division winner).

Plus, were last years playoffs really worse off for the lack of Philly and Houston?

That's one very good point -- that all four teams in a division could make the playoffs. Ridiculous.

 

[Starburns_]

That's one very good point -- that all four teams in a division could make the playoffs. Ridiculous.

Made worse when you consider the maths for that would effectively require all 4 teams to have very good non-divisional records, meaning that the gap between 1 and 4 in the standings is likely based on divisional results. The idea that the results of those 12 divisional games could be deemed irrelevant by a single away win by 4th over 1st in the playoffs? Nah, f*** that.

Isn't the point of the conferences, divisions, and playoffs so that 32 can go into 16-20 games and a definite champion emerge? If you're going to disregard the scheduling in such a way, you may as well just rank them NCAA style.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Made worse when you consider the maths for that would effectively require all 4 teams to have very good non-divisional records, meaning that the gap between 1 and 4 in the standings is likely based on divisional results. The idea that the results of those 12 divisional games could be deemed irrelevant by a single away win by 4th over 1st in the playoffs? Nah, f*** that.

Isn't the point of the conferences, divisions, and playoffs so that 32 can go into 16-20 games and a definite champion emerge? If you're going to disregard the scheduling in such a way, you may as well just rank them NCAA style.

It's all just unnecessary greed by the owners to have a couple extra playoff games.
Otherwise, the way it is now is perfect.
I would add a new rule tho -- The NFC South Rule -- if the division winner finishes below .500, then they don't get home field advantage if a wild card team has a better record.

 

[Starburns_]

It's all just unnecessary greed by the owners to have a couple extra playoff games.
Otherwise, the way it is now is perfect.
I would add a new rule tho -- The NFC South Rule -- if the division winner finishes below .500, then they don't get home field advantage if a wild card team has a better record.

Absolutely agree with that. There's also no 'if' about it, surely it's impossible for the team with the 4th best record in a conference to not be at .500. But yeah, a division win should only carry so much weight, it shouldn't be a free ride to a top 4 seeding.

Agree on the greed thing too, but there has to be an alternative. I would've said 18 game season, but TGBB's point about Borland is spot on, they can't have that either.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Absolutely agree with that. There's also no 'if' about it, surely it's impossible for the team with the 4th best record in a conference to not be at .500. But yeah, a division win should only carry so much weight, it shouldn't be a free ride to a top 4 seeding.

Agree on the greed thing too, but there has to be an alternative. I would've said 18 game season, but TGBB's point about Borland is spot on, they can't have that either.

NFL is pretty transparent. You can see thru all the BS. It's just about money. 18 games a season, making the game 'safer' to avoid litigation, extra playoff games, london franchise ffs. It's not Sparta, it's madness.

 

[Broken]

NFL is pretty transparent. You can see thru all the BS. It's just about money. 18 games a season, making the game 'safer' to avoid litigation, extra playoff games, london franchise ffs. It's not Sparta, it's madness.

For sure. One extra home game to charge "playoff" ticket prices with those two games (assuming one in each conference) so let's say an extra $20 million which then gets divided among the teams. Plus the home team gets a kick along from from whatever they generate at the stadium plus they pay less for players who work on the playoff payment schedule. It's an ideal option for the owners, and given they decide on if the playoffs expand or not, I think it's a given it will happen soon.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Mara says playoff expansion is inevitable
Posted by Mike Florio on March 22, 2015, 6:46 PM EDT

Getty Images
Last year at this time, it was believed that NFL owners would vote to expand the playoffs, effective in 2015. The league wisely waited; after all, the fans of the teams that finished at No. 7 in each conference this past season would have been confused at a minimum by their team’s failure to make it to the tournament, flat-out TO’ed at worst.

But now that the 2015 league meetings are approaching, momentum has dissipated for an expansion of the playoff field from 12 to 14 in the coming season.

Speaking to reporters from the site of the annual gathering, which has returned to Arizona this year, Giants co-owner John Mara has acknowledged that playoff expansion is inevitable, via Jordan Ranaan of NJ.com. But Mara confirmed it won’t happen this year.

As PFT (those bastards) previously has reported, the NFL hopes to tie the extra playoff games to the Thursday night package, which will be up for bidding in 2016. So whether it’s CBS, NBC, FOX, ESPN, ABC, TNT, or some other network, the playoff games will be bundled with the Thursday night games in the hopes of bringing in even more billions than the NFL already generates.

 

[Dirty Bird]

It's all just unnecessary greed by the owners to have a couple extra playoff games.
Otherwise, the way it is now is perfect.
I would add a new rule tho -- The NFC South Rule -- if the division winner finishes below .500, then they don't get home field advantage if a wild card team has a better record.

Why should a team that couldn't even be divisional champs and already in the playoffs on luck get a home playoff game?

Say a team won the divisional last year 7-9 playing the NFC North and AFC North, going 0-8 vs them and 7-1 vs everyone else.
Would they deserve to travel to a team that goes 10-6, 8-0 vs the NFC South and AFC South?

You can look at that and know the 7-9 team had a MUCH harder schedule than the team that went 10-6.

The idea of the 1-4 seeds being divisional champs is fair and equitable as it covers the differences in schedules that arises in the NFL from it's scheduling procedures.

ps. If you're too arrogant to realise I'm right and you're wrong, at least change it to the NFC West rule. Seahawks did it first (Not that Im complaining after their result )

 

[Woodson]

I think Goodell is crazy.
If he wants to change this then there's no point even having divisions!
One example of a flaw in his thinking is that a wild card team at 10-6 could have had a very easy schedule and division, while a division winner at 9-7 could have had a very tough schedule and division.
Goodell with his international week 17 games, superbowls outside of America, pro-bowls outside of Hawai'i, etc, is losing the plot imo trying to leave a mark on the NFL....instead of actually just doing a good job as commissioner and worrying about more important things like, you know, Spygate.

You nailed it back 2008 GG… DB just re-hashing about the sub .500 Div Champ getting that WC home game.. based on your points bolded.

Just disappointing that a team with 11-5 record stays home while a 8-8 proceeds.. that's perhaps why they're pushing this 'extra teams' in the play-offs…

 

[Exe Gesis]

Mara realizes playoffs will be expanding
Posted by Mike Florio on April 16, 2015, 7:33 AM EDT

Giants co-owner John Mara doesn’t talk very much. When he does, he says plenty. Often to the website owned by the team that he owns. (Exclusive!)

Via Giants.com, Mara spoke recently about the inevitability that the playoff field will expand from 12 to 14 teams. It’s a change that some owners will reluctantly accept.

“I still would prefer to keep it the way it is, but I don’t think it’s the end of the world if we end up making the change,” Mara said. (We really need a better figure of speech for describing worst-case scenarios, unless anyone who uses that phrase looks forward to the eventual validation. “See, this, is the end of the world.”)

“We did not believe that there were any competitive reasons not to do it,” Mara added. “Not all of us are crazy about it, but competitively, the only thing that bothers us is the fact that only one team in each conference would get a bye, which gives them somewhat of an advantage. But we’ve seen in the past that the number one seed doesn’t always make it through to the Super Bowl.”

He’s right. The No. 1 seed loses surprisingly often in the divisional round of the playoffs. Which leads to the far more important potential complication of having the No. 2 seed face the No. 7 seed in the wild-card round. As Commissioner Roger Goodell explained last month to Peter King of TheMMQB.com, the No. 2 seed could end up hosting games for five straight weekends, if the No. 2 seed has back-to-back home games to end the regular season.

It would go like this: Week 16 at home; Week 17 at home; wild-card round at home vs. No. 7 seed; divisional round at home vs. No. 3, No. 4, or No. 5 seed; and conference championship game at home, if No. 1 seed loses in the divisional round.

The other problem arises from the placement of the extra two games in what would become a six-game wild-card weekend. The NFL is interested in Monday night, but a potential conflict looms with the NCAA championship game. And the NCAA has said it’s not moving.

The prevailing thought continues to be that the NFL will tie the extra playoff games to the Thursday night package in a one-plus-one-equals-three effort to get more money for both from whichever network picks up the extra games. With the Thursday night package going out for bid in 2016, that’s when the playoff change is likely to be made.

The owners who don’t like the idea will find solace in the enhanced opportunity to qualify for the postseason — and in all the extra cash they’ll be making.

 

[FootyJunkie]

For the Wild Card round

3 games Saturday - 12:30pm, 4:30pm, 8:30pm
3 games Sunday - 12:30pm, 4:30pm, 8:30pm

All times US eastern.

Either give the Sunday Night network (currently NBC) a triple header Saturday and the Sunday Night game
OR
Just the Saturday and Sunday night games.

FOX/CBS get what ever afternoon games left over, according to conference.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Reduce it to 4 teams per conference.
Divisional winners only.

If you need to replace lost games, then go to a round robin tournament between the 4 teams (6 games vs current 5)

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Leave it as it is. It's good

 

[Dirty Bird]

Leave it as it is. It's good

I wonder what the general consensus will be if we get Chiefs vs Steelers and Packers vs Seahawks Championship games