Sources: NFL mulls 14 playoff teams

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The NFL is urgently discussing a new scheduling formula that would include a three-game preseason and could also feature an expanded postseason field from 12 to 14 teams, sources league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Chris Mortensen.

The expanded postseason proposal would offset teams' lost revenue from the elimination of a preseason game, and it also could lead to additional television revenues for the league.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell alluded to the league's interest in the new scheduling model during an interview this past week, although he said the changes likely would not happen in 2014.

rest - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9743015/nfl-considering-expanded-postseason-format-3-game-preseason-sources-say

[Dapper Dan]

I wouldn't mind it. There are some good teams that go 10-6, but they're in a good division. Then a sucky team makes their division sucks. These 2 extra spot should get in those good teams that miss out.

[SR]

I love it

[chazoe60]

The Chiefs organization has been a driving force behind this for years. They were begting for this decades ago. Makes sense if you're the Chiefs I guess. :laugh:

[Dapper Dan]

Also. I'm all for less preseason games.

[dogfish]

source; dogfish mulls stabbing goodell in the face


why not just let 'em all in?

[SR]

source; dogfish mulls stabbing goodell in the face why not just let 'em all in?seriously? It's TWO teams

[dogfish]

seriously? It's TWO teams

this isn't hockey-- making the playoffs actually means something. . . :D

[SR]

this isn't hockey-- making the playoffs actually means something. . . :D
Hockey is 16 teams with no first round bye. Hockey playoffs also last three months and are all best of seven series. But hey if you wanna trash hockey be my guest.

[chazoe60]

Hockey is hockey and what they do works for them, hardest trophy to win IMHO. But I see what Dog is saying too, 14 teams is damn near half(I know it's not actually half) and that's too many if you ask me. I also think that bye week for the top two in each conferance needs to stay, we need to reward those teams because that is hard to do. Just my opinion on the matter.

[Dapper Dan]

I'm all for trashing hockey, but I see nothing wrong with 16 teams. If you have double digit wins, you should be in.

[MOtorboat]

I'm all for trashing hockey, but I see nothing wrong with 16 teams. If you have double digit wins, you should be in.

How do you feel about 8-8 teams?

[gregbroncs]

Getting to the Playoffs in Football means something. Make this change and it means a lot less. Win your division or be good enough to get the wild card. I don't want the NFL turned into the NBA where half the teams make the playoffs and it means virtually nothing to make it. Actually in the NBA it's worse to make it as the 8th seed than miss because of their draft process.

I am against this all the way. 1st 14 then 16. If you get to 16 teams in you will have teams with 8-8 records winning wild card battles. If you can't win your division then why should you be average and get in? It's not every year 10-6 teams miss the playoffs but I don't feel bad for the ones that do. Should have won your division.

[Dapper Dan]

How do you feel about 8-8 teams?

I'm torn about it. A .500 record is pretty crappy for a playoff team. At the same time, the team probably won its division. So, I think you can't kick a division winner out of the playoffs, but I don't think they should get the favor when it comes to seeding. A 10-6 team deserves a better seed than an 8-8 team, along with the home field advantage it comes with.

Part of the problem with football in general is the low number of games. You only have so many games you can work with. It's a really small sample size to figure out who should be in the playoffs, or bowl game, etc. I'm not saying we need a longer season. But I think that's the difficulty with football.

[MOtorboat]

I'm torn about it. A .500 record is pretty crappy for a playoff team. At the same time, the team probably won its division. So, I think you can't kick a division winner out of the playoffs, but I don't think they should get the favor when it comes to seeding. A 10-6 team deserves a better seed than an 8-8 team, along with the home field advantage it comes with.

Part of the problem with football in general is the low number of games. You only have so many games you can work with. It's a really small sample size to figure out who should be in the playoffs, or bowl game, etc. I'm not saying we need a longer season. But I think that's the difficulty with football.

I think there's only one or two examples in the last six or seven seasons where a double-digit win team hasn't gotten in. If you expand to 16 you're including almost all the 8-8 teams. At 14, you're letting in most 9-7 teams.

[Dapper Dan]

I think there's only one or two examples in the last six or seven seasons where a double-digit win team hasn't gotten in. If you expand to 16 you're including almost all the 8-8 teams. At 14, you're letting in most 9-7 teams.

Just looking back to 2008, it seems to be every other year. 2008, 2010, 2012.

I think when a conference has teams 13-3, 11-5, and 10-6, it's not the 10-6 team's fault they're in a tougher conference. They miss out while a .500 team makes it. The point is for the best teams to make it so they have a chance at a Super Bowl. The 10-6 team should make it before the 8-8 team. Yes, the goal is to win your division. But that isn't always a fair measuring stick to gauge teams. The goal is for the best teams to make the playoffs.

[MOtorboat]

Just looking back to 2008, it seems to be every other year. 2008, 2010, 2012.

I think when a conference has teams 13-3, 11-5, and 10-6, it's not the 10-6 team's fault they're in a tougher conference. They miss out while a .500 team makes it. The point is for the best teams to make it so they have a chance at a Super Bowl. The 10-6 team should make it before the 8-8 team. Yes, the goal is to win your division. But that isn't always a fair measuring stick to gauge teams. The goal is for the best teams to make the playoffs.

But by expanding it, it doesn't let in better teams, it lets in worse teams. I think you're arguing for eliminating qualifications based on divisions and making the playoff field smaller.

[Dapper Dan]

But by expanding it, it doesn't let in better teams, it lets in worse teams. I think you're arguing for eliminating qualifications based on divisions and making the playoff field smaller.

That's a possibility.

Maybe we just need a BCS committee :lol:

[DenBronx]

I dont like it unless the NFL adds two more teams and makes it a game regular season game schedule.

[Joel]

Nearly half is too many; between a quarter and third is about right. Twelve is really too many, but without expansion (and L.A. and San Antonio are the only US sites that MIGHT be viable) fourteen is just ridiculous. I still like how wildcards started: All division winners and the best of the rest, so a really good team with the misfortune of sharing a division with an all time great isn't denied—IF better than ALL other runners up. We could (and probably should) go back to that: Each conferences worst division winner hosts its best non-division winner; the victor moves on against one of the other three division winners.

Won't happen for the same reason expansion beyond the US will: Money. If one pays attention ESPN flat out says the NFL's only looking at more playoff games to compensate for revenue lost by LESS preseason games. The only good thing about that would be forcing all but two teams to earn their way to the second round. I know byes are based on record, but that has more to do with scheduling than whether the #2 seed is genuinely better than the #3. We played a total of FOUR winning teams last year, only beat ONE and THEY won our only playoff game: We were good, but were we really the AFCs BEST?

It's really kind of pathetic and nauseating watching the worlds most lucrative sport desperately seek ways to squeeze even more profit out of a fanbase already stretched to or beyond its limit, at least in the US, while screaming about greedy players and refs cutting into its bottom line. To hear the NFL tell it pro football's suddenly more popular than dresses with women, but IMHO that's less about growing natural interest than it is the NFL compensating for marginal male returns by doing things like dressing all players in pink for all of October. Same with Play 60; that's not about the NFLs deep commitment to juvenile health, it's about ensuring as many kids as possible grow up to be football fans, marketing to kids so aggressively it would make a '60s cigarette executive blush.

Meanwhile, last years NFL TV ratings fell 5%. Either the NFL will pull in tens of millions of new US fans over the next few years, or it will start seriously and urgently looking at how to create fans (i.e. consumers) beyond the US. Or, knowing the NFL, both; it's not like 50 million new US fans over the next decade would magically content NFL owners with profits when know amount of growth ever has. At this point, I just hope they don't kill the goose that layed the golden egg, especially since the rules changed to increase ratings grabbing big 'splosions have already seriously lamed it.

As far as the tournament itself though, we already admit too many teams, so admitting even more without a significantly larger league would only exacerbate that problem.

[Broncolingus]

All for limiting preseason games...

...don't support expanding playoffs/teams.

[sneakers]

Are they still trying ways of stretching the season into March?

[Dapper Dan]

Are they still trying ways of stretching the season into March?

That would be awesome if the postseason was in March/April. Manning would have like 8 Super Bowls by now.

[Simple Jaded]

The NFL needs to mull not mulling so much.

[Poet]

I really like the setup as it is. The league is competitive. You have the division winners, and you have some really, really good teams as the wild cards. What more could you ask for? I think Mo touched on it, but doing this doesn't put more good teams in. It puts more average teams in. Yes, a lot of teams are better than their records. Any football fan worth their salt knows that. Still, what is going to occur more often, good eight and eight/nine and seven teams getting in, or average teams getting in? I guess that's what does it for me. More often than not, the third and fourth place teams - in the WC - are just really average.

[CrazyHorse]

Are they still trying ways of stretching the season into March?

Sneakers, where are you with the NO NO NO cat?

[dogfish]

I think there's only one or two examples in the last six or seven seasons where a double-digit win team hasn't gotten in. If you expand to 16 you're including almost all the 8-8 teams. At 14, you're letting in most 9-7 teams.

come on, MO. . . you know how it goes these days-- everyone deserves to get a ribbon for playing. . . we don't want any hurt little feelers. . .

[sneakers]

Sneakers, where are you with the NO NO NO cat?

I have not thought of that guy in about 6 months.....I had it as my ringtone for a while until I got a new phone