FanNation - The Republic of Sport

The current number of teams making the playoffs is fine. Increasing the number of team will simply water down the playoffs by putting lesser teams in. Case in point? Last year. Adding 2 more teams per conference would have put 2 teams with 8-8 records into the playoffs in the NFC. Minnesota, Phlly and Arizona were 8-8, so two of these teams would have gotten in depending on tie breakers. Does anybody really believe any of these teams were worthy?

I'm guessing your blog is at least partially a result of your Browns not making the playoffs. Yeah, the finished with the same record, so they lost the tie breakers, so they WERE NOT first in the division. It sucks for the Browns and their fans, but they lost a very winnable game in week 16 if I recall, which led to the Steelers not having to win their last game against Baltimore to get in, which is a big factor in why they lost that game.

Hockey and basketball both allow 16 teams in, and look at the results. You have very average teams (or worse than average) making the playoffs every year. The Atlanta Hawks got the 8 seed this year at 8 games below 500. That's probably the equivalent of a 7-9 team making the playoffs in the NFL, which could very well happen if they expand to 16 teams.

i agree with perfect. id rather see 10-6 teams miss out, it makes the final weeks of the seasonmore exciting to see who gets in and who cant make it. Thats awesome to wath. otherwise, wed be watching in week 17 two 6-9 teams duke it out for that 7th win. i just dont like the idea at all.

No its supoused tobe hard.Making theplayoffs mean your one of the best.But that takes away from that when Half the teamsmakeit.Instead of saying your 1 of the best for making the playoffs, your basically saying that your just not one of the worst.


bottomline is that it takes away from thecompetition in the playoffs.

i agree with perfect. id rather see 10-6 teams miss out, it makes the final weeks of the seasonmore exciting to see who gets in and who cant make it. Thats awesome to wath. otherwise, wed be watching in week 17 two 6-9 teams duke it out for that 7th win. i just dont like the idea at all.
ravens26 | 06/14/08, 09:28 AM Report Offensive Comment

Not to mention, it's just going to make the teams that are actually good clinch even earlier, making even more games late in the season that involve those good teams meaningless.

LOL - Probably one of the only times a Steelers and Ravens fan agree on something, ravens26.

Other than hating the Browns, that is.

In response to Perfect's first comment:

You do realize that teams have clinched the division with only an 8-8 record. Probably, the reason why the NFL increased the playoffs to 12 teams to begin with was to cut down on 10-win teams missing the playoffs. It's failed quite a few times ( such as the aforementioned 3 times in the last 5 years).

"Not to mention, it's just going to make the teams that are actually good clinch even earlier, making even more games late in the season that involve those good teams meaningless."

Also, seeding in the playoffs (i.e., home field advantage) is just as important (if not even more) as making the playoffs itself. Dallas and Green Bay fought very hard to get the top spot in the NFC last year (with Dallas winning). And even if the playoffs are expanded, teams will be fighting hard to get higher seeding than others.

Yeah, once in a blue moon, an 8-8 team wins a division or gets into the playoffs as a WC either due to a weak division or conference. But that would become much more common at 16 teams. While there will always be those situations, it still comes down to the question, is an 8-8 team really worthy of making the playoffs? I personally think not.

As for seeding/home field advantage. While I don't dispute it's importance, I think most coaches would tell you they'd place having a healthy team, especially when talking about key players, as a higher priority than having a extra game at home. After all, having home field in the Conf Championship is meaningless if you don't get there because you got knocked out in an earlier round because you weren't playing at full strength.

"Yeah, once in a blue moon, an 8-8 team wins a division or gets into the playoffs as a WC either due to a weak division or conference. But that would become much more common at 16 teams. While there will always be those situations, it still comes down to the question, is an 8-8 team really worthy of making the playoffs? I personally think not.

As for seeding/home field advantage. While I don't dispute it's importance, I think most coaches would tell you they'd place having a healthy team, especially when talking about key players, as a higher priority than having a extra game at home. After all, having home field in the Conf Championship is meaningless if you don't get there because you got knocked out in an earlier round because you weren't playing at full strength."

And there have been times where a team's backups were just as good as the starters. Like last year, the Packers rested most of their starters, but still won the final game. And the Patriots had little to no major injuries despite keeping their starters through the final game (which is because they wanted to make history - and they did, by going 16-0, but however, failed to win the Super Bowl).

You're supporting my argument. Maybe GBs backups got the job done, but is that the game that most people want to watch? As for the Pats, had they not been pursing a perfect season, they likely would have rested players.

Also, a detail you're overlooking, you'd almost certainly have to do 1 of 2 things, never of which will be well received going to 16 teams.

A. Add a round - I'm sure the NFL would LOVE to do this, but the players union would likely push back hard, as they seem to do anytime the NFL wants to extend the season beyond what it already is.

B. No more byes for the top two teams - Yeah, that's gonna make teams play harder when they've already clinched. I'd argue the good teams play for that as much as they play for home field. Imagine telling the Pats this year that they don't get a bye even though they went 16-0.

"You're supporting my argument. Maybe GBs backups got the job done, but is that the game that most people want to watch? As for the Pats, had they not been pursing a perfect season, they likely would have rested players.

Also, a detail you're overlooking, you'd almost certainly have to do 1 of 2 things, never of which will be well received going to 16 teams.

A. Add a round - I'm sure the NFL would LOVE to do this, but the players union would likely push back hard, as they seem to do anytime the NFL wants to extend the season beyond what it already is.

B. No more byes for the top two teams - Yeah, that's gonna make teams play harder when they've already clinched. I'd argue the good teams play for that as much as they play for home field. Imagine telling the Pats this year that they don't get a bye even though they went 16-0."

No I am not really supporting your whole argument (just the players side). And indeed no more first round byes. Several teams in the past did poorly when they had a first round bye (example: the Colts are 0-4 when they had it). Now, the expanded first round, to maximize TV coverage, would be played over 2 weeks (which allows for a first week bye, but nothing else). Since Super Bowl sites are set for a few years, this would mean temporarily getting rid of the bye week between the Conf. Champs and Super Bowl. Think about the revenue increase with the expanded playoffs. This actually might do good.

Of course, an alternate solution would be to place 1 game on cable (NOT NFL Network). A Monday night game in playoff week 1 would be televised on ESPN. Then CBS and FOX could each have Sunday doubleheaders and a Sunday Night playoff game on NBC. This solution retains the bye week between the Conf. Champs and Super Bowl.

A Monday night game in the playoffs? I think the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Bottom line is, just because watering down the playoffs by adding 4 less deserving teams would generate more revenue, that doesn't make it a good idea.

Sure, in the current format, a 10-6 team may not make the playoffs, but in many cases, those 10-6 teams have nobody to blame but themselves, as they likely lost games they could/should have won at some point during the season, and in many cases, down the stretch. It's not worth having teams 8-8 teams get in just to accommodate a a few 10-6 teams.

"A Monday night game in the playoffs? I think the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Bottom line is, just because watering down the playoffs by adding 4 less deserving teams would generate more revenue, that doesn't make it a good idea.

Sure, in the current format, a 10-6 team may not make the playoffs, but in many cases, those 10-6 teams have nobody to blame but themselves, as they likely lost games they could/should have won at some point during the season, and in many cases, down the stretch. It's not worth having teams 8-8 teams get in just to accommodate a a few 10-6 teams."

But if we expand, then there's more chances for NFL Lore by having these weaker teams upset the stronger teams and become Cinderella's. Had only division winners been allowed in the playoffs, the Giants would have never won the Super Bowl last year. As you see, there are people who want the top 2 seeds to lose in the playoffs early on. But it can only happen right now in the Divisional Playoffs. By adding those extra teams, it could very well happen in the first round.

And the NFL has had 16 teams in the playoffs before - only because a labor dispute made it necessary. And indeed, there were teams that only finished 5-4 - and even a couple of 4-5 teams in the 1982 playoffs. So, you should consider history before making an opinion.

OK, I'll consider history. Do you really think a team that finishes below 500 deserves to be in the playoffs? I don't. If you don't win more than half of your games, you don't deserve to play for the title. I'd even argue that a 9-7 team is on the borderline of deserving it. If they get in because of a week conference or division, fine. The league doesn't need to make it an almost certainty by adding 4 teams to the playoffs.

As for the Cinderellas, they exist in the current playoff format, so there's no need to water it down to make it happen. The 2005 Steelers and the 2007 Giants are both examples of that. Won 4 straight on the road in the playoffs (counting the SB) to win it all.

"OK, I'll consider history. Do you really think a team that finishes below 500 deserves to be in the playoffs? I don't. If you don't win more than half of your games, you don't deserve to play for the title. I'd even argue that a 9-7 team is on the borderline of deserving it. If they get in because of a week conference or division, fine. The league doesn't need to make it an almost certainty by adding 4 teams to the playoffs.

As for the Cinderellas, they exist in the current playoff format, so there's no need to water it down to make it happen. The 2005 Steelers and the 2007 Giants are both examples of that. Won 4 straight on the road in the playoffs (counting the SB) to win it all."

Teams that do finish below .500 may not appear to deserve a spot. But what if one of them ends up making the Super Bowl? And even wins? That would prove they are worthy.

If I recall, teams with losing records have in the past made it to the final round in the NBA and NHL. Sure they didn't win the final round, but they proved they belonged in the playoffs.

If they don't prove worthy in the regular season, then they shouldn't get to play for the championship with all of the teams that DID prove it.

"If they don't prove worthy in the regular season, then they shouldn't get to play for the championship with all of the teams that DID prove it."

The NBA and NHL can't really control if a losing team makes the playoffs. If there just aren't enough teams with winning records to fill the playoff spots, then they have to let some losing teams in.

The NBA and NHL can't really control if a losing team makes the playoffs. If there just aren't enough teams with winning records to fill the playoff spots, then they have to let some losing teams in.

pf9 | 06/16/08, 05:47 AM

Why not? It's rather simple. Just reduce the number of teams to a number, like, say, the NFL? The NFL doesn't seem to have this problem, and only WILL EVER have it if they increase the field to 16 like you want.

"Why not? It's rather simple. Just reduce the number of teams to a number, like, say, the NFL? The NFL doesn't seem to have this problem, and only WILL EVER have it if they increase the field to 16 like you want."

The NBA and NHL are at 16 in the playoffs for a reason.

Now, if the NFL doesn't expand the playoffs, many fans will get frustrated with their teams constantly missing out, that many teams will no longer sell out their home games regularly - only teams with long waiting lists (like Green Bay) will. And TV ratings will take a hit.

If the NFL is to survive in the long run, then they need to expand they playoffs.