Schefter: NFL on track to add 2 playoff teams by 2015

[BroncoWave]

Was just on Sports Center. Schefter seems pretty sure this will be done by the 2015 season.

This would be the format:

7 teams per conference get into the playoffs. Only ONE team gets a bye now instead of two. The other 6 teams play in WC weekend which still leaves you with 4 in the divisional round and so on and so forth.

Thoughts?

[Northman]

Dont like it. Its fine the way it is, just more a way for the NFL to try and suck more money out of everyone. I cant wait until they make the NIT playoffs so all the bottom feeders can feel like they have accomplished something.

[BroncoWave]

Yeah, I tend to like the current format better as well. This format would give the 1 seed an even bigger advantage than they already have, being the only team with a bye.

But it would add two playoff games, which equals extra revenue for the league. It also gives more meaning to more regular season games, which probably increases ratings of regular season games even further.

I'm not sure I like the balance of this format, but I can definitely see why the league is doing it.

[Joel]

More playoff berths make regular season games less meaningful, not more. If you want meaningful regular season games, go back to the days when each conference only had ONE wildcard slot, so as many as half a dozen teams in BOTH conferences went into Week 13 knowing their choices were:

1) Win your divison, 2) Win ALL your last 4 games or 3) pray....

The wildcard team usually won out, and hardly ever lost more than once, proving they really were the best of the rest in their conference. Now it's, "well, if we don't win our division there's still 2 wildcards; we should get at least one of them." In the ~20 years since the #6 seeds began, I bet that for every year where a team like this years Cardinals just missed because of a truly brutal conference, there were 2 where the #5s had really good records but BOTH #6s were 9-7 or 8-8 teams by virtue of sheer luck, had no place in the playoffs and got destroyed Wildcard Weekend.

We need 2 LESS playoff games, not 2 more. Hell, there's 32 teams; why not just go back to a 14 game season and start a 5 round playoff between ALL of them the week before Christmas. We wouldn't need the grossly unfair byes (prevention of which was half the reason the NFL started wildcards after the merger gave them 6 playoff teams) and the regular season games would be supremely meaningful, right? Some day the NFL's gonna learn it can only water the wine so much before it's just drinking water. Hope it's not too late by then.... :tsk:

[aberdien]

dumb

[gregbroncs]

Just the NFL trying to make more money.
.
I hate it. Even in years where it would benefit the Broncos...I still hate it. If they can't earn their way in the current format then too damn bad. Play better next year.

[DenBronx]

The NFL is going to win this one.

If it means extra money then they will get their way.

Sucks because I like it how it is.

[VonDoom]

Don't like it. I just happen to be a fan of the way things currently are; any changes like this are unnecessary, in my opinion.

[Broncolingus]

... just more a way for the NFL to try and suck more money out of everyone.

Yup...

...that's ALL it is.

[ForgettingBrandonMarshall]

Hmm, I actually don't mind this. The NFL makes more money and I get to watch more football.

[BroncoWave]

It would still be a smaller percentage of playoff teams than you have in the NBA and NHL, so from that standpoint I have no problem with it. The main issue, IMO, is that only one team gets a bye, but with 7 teams there is really no other good way to seed it.

In the end some of us might not like it but I guess we better learn to like it, because this seems all but a foregone conclusion.

Schefter said in the same piece that they have pretty much abandoned the idea of the 18 game schedule though. To be honest, I'd much rather add two playoff teams than 2 extra weeks if I had to choose between the two.

The positives of this would be that more teams stay alive later in the season, which makes more games late in the season have meaning. It also makes wild card weekend way more exciting as you have 6 games instead of 4. It would also highly intensify the race for the 1 seed, as it REALLY gives you a big advantage now.

As I said, I'd probably rather keep it the same but I can certainly see where the NFL is coming from with this.

[gregbroncs]

It would still be a smaller percentage of playoff teams than you have in the NBA and NHL, so from that standpoint I have no problem with it. The main issue, IMO, is that only one team gets a bye, but with 7 teams there is really no other good way to seed it.

In the end some of us might not like it but I guess we better learn to like it, because this seems all but a foregone conclusion.

Schefter said in the same piece that they have pretty much abandoned the idea of the 18 game schedule though. To be honest, I'd much rather add two playoff teams than 2 extra weeks if I had to choose between the two.

The positives of this would be that more teams stay alive later in the season, which makes more games late in the season have meaning. It also makes wild card weekend way more exciting as you have 6 games instead of 4. It would also highly intensify the race for the 1 seed, as it REALLY gives you a big advantage now.

As I said, I'd probably rather keep it the same but I can certainly see where the NFL is coming from with this.The NBA playoffs are horrible. The closer the NFL gets to that the worse it is. The NBA playoffs have essentially made the regular season irrelevant. In fact it's actually counter productive in the NBA to make the playoffs as a 7-8 seed. The more teams added to a playoff system the more likely crappy teams make the playoffs.
.
I actually think more playoff teams makes more meaningless games at the end of the season.

[OrangeHoof]

I'm against it in theory but I wouldn't mind the extra games on the schedule. Instead of the current format (SAT - late aft, NBC, SAT - night, NBC, SUN - early aft, CBS or FOX and SUN late aft, CBS or FOX), they could have (SAT - early aft, CBS or FOX, SAT - late aft, CBS or FOX, SAT - night, NBC, SUN - early aft, CBS or FOX, SUN late aft, CBS or FOX and SUN - night, NBC). Win, win, win for the three networks.

[OrangeHoof]

Schefter said in the same piece that they have pretty much abandoned the idea of the 18 game schedule though. To be honest, I'd much rather add two playoff teams than 2 extra weeks if I had to choose between the two.


Bingo. I detest the idea of a longer season. I also hate the idea of more teams. If Goodell simply has to goose the product, adding two playoff teams and screwing up the Pro Bowl are probably the least objectionable.

[NightTrainLayne]

I love the idea.

Pros:

--Teams like Arizona this year aren't left out when they clearly had a better season than some division winners. I'm going with Pat Kirwin's research on this but over the past 20 years only a couple of teams would be that seventh team and have worse than an 8-8 record.

--An extra game for all of us to enjoy.

--It makes the bye a reward for the best team in each conference. When there are so few playoff games, to give two teams a bye in each conference is detrimental IMO.

Cons:

--The fifth and sixth games on wildcard weekend would have to be at awkward times.

... I'm struggling to list another con.

BTW, they've been discussing this at Owner's meetings for the last few years. If they are "leaking" this out now, it's already a done deal.

[Joel]

The NBA playoffs are horrible. The closer the NFL gets to that the worse it is. The NBA playoffs have essentially made the regular season irrelevant. In fact it's actually counter productive in the NBA to make the playoffs as a 7-8 seed. The more teams added to a playoff system the more likely crappy teams make the playoffs.
.
I actually think more playoff teams makes more meaningless games at the end of the season.
Wholeheartedly agreed. To me, the ideal number of playoff teams is around 1/3; 1/2 is way too many and 1/4 way too few. In this case, 10 teams is what I want: Make the worst division winner play the best non-division winner while the rest watch; the victors move on to the divisional round.

Letting the dregs into the playoffs is always billed as a chance of Cinderella stories, but how often do they ACTUALLY go all the way? If the NFL adds a #7 seed, what does the NBA tell us about their chances? How many #7 seeds have won an NBA Championship? I don't follow it much, but last I heard my hometown Rockets were the lowest seed to EVER win it all: From #6. Bottom seeds don't win championship, all they do is play spoiler for #1 seeds who phone in games against teams beneath them. More wildcards means more games like our playoff game last year.

All we need do to know if this is a good idea is ask ourselves: Should the Steelers have been a playoff team this year?

[Hawgdriver]

Fine.

[BroncoWave]

I love the idea.

Pros:

--Teams like Arizona this year aren't left out when they clearly had a better season than some division winners. I'm going with Pat Kirwin's research on this but over the past 20 years only a couple of teams would be that seventh team and have worse than an 8-8 record.

--An extra game for all of us to enjoy.

--It makes the bye a reward for the best team in each conference. When there are so few playoff games, to give two teams a bye in each conference is detrimental IMO.

Cons:

--The fifth and sixth games on wildcard weekend would have to be at awkward times.

... I'm struggling to list another con.

BTW, they've been discussing this at Owner's meetings for the last few years. If they are "leaking" this out now, it's already a done deal.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I am warming up to it.

And honestly, the WC games wouldn't have to be at awkward times. It would be just like the regular season. You have a 1PM eastern kickoff, a 4PM kickoff, then a night game.

Only one team getting a bye is still the one reservation I have, but it could wind up being a good thing.

[BroncoWave]

All we need do to know if this is a good idea is ask ourselves: Should the Steelers have been a playoff team this year?

But should the Cardinals have been? Many would say yes.

[Joel]

But should the Cardinals have been? Many would say yes.
I'm one of them, but stuff happens. I'm not perfect nor unbiased either, but my recollection is there've been a lot more dog #6s than good ones since we started having them. The #5? Sure; they truly are the best of the rest, but the #6 is just the best of the best of the rest. We needn't go far down that road before we go from "the only losing playoff team in history at least won its division" to "how many losing teams make the playoffs this year?"

That aside, is it worth excluding Arizona to prevent an 8-8 #7 seed with NO shot to even reach the Conference Championship knocking off an injured, careless and/or unlucky 12-4 #2 seed?

*shrug* I thought 6th seeds were a mistake in principle, intent and execution; that ought to tell you how I feel about 7th seeds. When it was 3 winners and a wildcard, MAN, that made the last month intense, and I took some pride in knowing that, though my Oilers only won their division twice, they made the playoffs 7 years straight because they were the best of the rest 5 times.

This year sucked for Arizona, but what would've sucked more would've been if they, Carolina, NO and SF all finished 11-5 but Arizona missed the playoffs, even though they beat the #1, 3, 4 and 5 NFC seeds. If Arizona had won their last game (a 23-20 home loss to SF on a last second FG) and Carolina lost theirs, that's exactly what would've happened, and a 7th wildcard STILL might not have saved them, because the wildcards created to IGNORE DIVISIONS and send teams by CONFERENCE standing elminate all but one team from each division in the first tiebreak.

So New Orleans would've been #2 seed as NFCS Champs by division record over Carolina, leaving 3 non-champs tied for the 2 wildcards:

#5 Seed
Step 1: Eliminate all but one team from each division; SF eliminates Arizona by division record. Step 2: Head-to-head; Carolina eliminates SF: Carolina is #5 seed.

#6 Seed
Step 1: Eliminate all but one team from each division; SF eliminates Arizona by division record: SF is #6 seed.

So Arizona would've beaten Carolina in their only meeting and had the same record, yet missed the playoffs while Carolina got the top wildcard. All because the first step of the wildcard tiebreak uses division record, even though wildcards are supposed to ignore division standings in favor of conference standings. If they want to fix wildcards, they should fix THAT, because it comes up more often than you'd think.

[Dzone]

Goddell is setting things up for expansion. Lets hope he doesnt get his dream of having a team in London. That would be dumber than a new jersey super bowl.

[ForgettingBrandonMarshall]

Wholeheartedly agreed. To me, the ideal number of playoff teams is around 1/3; 1/2 is way too many and 1/4 way too few. In this case, 10 teams is what I want: Make the worst division winner play the best non-division winner while the rest watch; the victors move on to the divisional round.

Letting the dregs into the playoffs is always billed as a chance of Cinderella stories, but how often do they ACTUALLY go all the way? If the NFL adds a #7 seed, what does the NBA tell us about their chances? How many #7 seeds have won an NBA Championship? I don't follow it much, but last I heard my hometown Rockets were the lowest seed to EVER win it all: From #6. Bottom seeds don't win championship, all they do is play spoiler for #1 seeds who phone in games against teams beneath them. More wildcards means more games like our playoff game last year.

All we need do to know if this is a good idea is ask ourselves: Should the Steelers have been a playoff team this year?

I'm not sure I agree with the comparison between the NFL and the NBA. The lower seeds in the NBA don't usually advance because the series is a best of 7. Lower seeded teams have a better chance of winning one game in the NFL than winning 4 out of 7 games in the NBA. You know, any given Sunday and all that.

To answer your Cinderella story question, 2 of the last 10 Super Bowl winners were 6 seeds: '05 Steelers and '10 Packers.

To answer your Steelers question, I think they would have been dangerous if they made the playoffs this year. They started off the year as a "defeated" team (0-4 if I'm not mistaken, then 2-6). To overcome that deficit and put themselves into a position to make the playoffs shows me they were playing their best football. In the second half of the season, the Steelers were 6-2 with a good chance of winning both games they lost (the NE game was close until the 4th).

[Northman]

But should the Cardinals have been? Many would say yes.

But thats how it goes. Sucks, but thats how it goes. It doesnt mean EVERY team should get in, i just cant buy into that. Arizona could of won their division and made it a moot point.

[BroncoWave]

But thats how it goes. Sucks, but thats how it goes. It doesnt mean EVERY team should get in, i just cant buy into that. Arizona could of won their division and made it a moot point.

They would only be letting in 14 teams, not 32. So "every" team wouldn't be getting in.

[OrangeHoof]

Maybe a deserving Arizona gets in but also an undeserving Miami/Jets gets in. Think about that.

[Ravage!!!]

But thats how it goes. Sucks, but thats how it goes. It doesnt mean EVERY team should get in, i just cant buy into that. Arizona could of won their division and made it a moot point.

Yeah.. I'm so tired of hearing "yeah, but that team SHOULD have been in the playoffs." WHY should they have been in? They didn't win the games they needed to win. After we allow another two into the playoffs because they couldn't hack it, then it will just be "another" two later on that "should have" been in. We see this in the NCAA tournament EVERY year. SOmeone is ALWAYS going to feel "ripped" because they didn't get in.

You know the teams that wanted this pushed through? THe Kansas City's and the Dallas Cowboys. Hooof nailed it, now we are just going to see two more 8-8 teams, get in. GREAT! :sigh:

I can you hear Jerry Jones on the phone now:

"Yeah Roger, this is Jerry. Gosh darn it, we just can't seem to get in that darned thing, so we thought that maybe... instead of us having to GET TO the playoffs... that well, you bring the playoffs to us!"

[Northman]

They would only be letting in 14 teams, not 32. So "every" team wouldn't be getting in.

You know what im talking about.

[BroncoWave]

You know what im talking about.

Not really. 14 teams is still less than half, and a smaller percentage than make it in other sports. Now I really hope they would stop at 14, because 16 would definitely be too much, but I think you still have teams that are good enough to get hot and win a super bowl at 13 and 14.

Let's say Pitt and AZ get in this year. People forget that Pitt went 6-2 over their last 8. They were on fire and could have made some noise in the playoffs. And AZ went into Seattle and won, also playing some good football down the stretch. I would say both of those were deserving playoff teams.

Now as I said, I do still have reservations about it like you do, but I'm starting to warm up to it the more I think it through.

[Northman]

Not really. 14 teams is still less than half, and a smaller percentage than make it in other sports. Now I really hope they would stop at 14, because 16 would definitely be too much, but I think you still have teams that are good enough to get hot and win a super bowl at 13 and 14.

Let's say Pitt and AZ get in this year. People forget that Pitt went 6-2 over their last 8. They were on fire and could have made some noise in the playoffs. And AZ went into Seattle and won, also playing some good football down the stretch. I would say both of those were deserving playoff teams.

Now as I said, I do still have reservations about it like you do, but I'm starting to warm up to it the more I think it through.

Ok, maybe not.

I was referring to teams like the 07' Pats and this past years Cardinals. I didnt mean for you to take it literally. My main point is that not every team that had a solid/winning season can be let in. Those be the breaks, its like we discussed about the homefield stuff. You want to make the playoffs? Win your division that is why you play the games.

[Buff]

Of all the potential rule changes - this one bothers me the most.

The reason the NFL is so popular is because each regular season game is crucial. The more they devalue the regular season, the more they water down the product.

The NFL, frankly, has placed way too big of an emphasis on innovation. The game works in its current form. Quit trying to overhaul it and reinvent it year after year.

[Ravage!!!]

Of all the potential rule changes - this one bothers me the most.

The reason the NFL is so popular is because each regular season game is crucial. The more they devalue the regular season, the more they water down the product.



Exactly. As Joel mentioned before, the more teams that are added to the playoffs, with the reasoning of "they should have been in" (still dont' understand that one).... the less important the regular season games become. NBA has made their regular season games nearly worthless. The NCAA basketball season, basically completely meaningless.

NCAA football was the other way around, where the regular season games meant TOO much. The NFL has had the GREAT balance. Now its going the wrong way, and for the purposes that North brought up..... money.

[Joel]

Goddell is setting things up for expansion. Lets hope he doesnt get his dream of having a team in London. That would be dumber than a new jersey super bowl.
The NFL has no choice there if it wants more profits (as it always does.) It's saturated and stretched the US market as far as it can, to the point of marginal returns, and knows that. That's why everything turns pink for a month each October and the league plays up things like Play60: Practically every US man who cares about sports at all is already an NFL fan, so the league must aggressively turn to non-traditional sources (e.g. women) to add customers, while promoting their product with the next generation to sustain their existing market.

I think that's also why the NFL's increasing offense as defenses expense: More scoring is more entertaining to casual fans, and the more luck is a factor the more 24 pt comebacks we get, which is great for TV (just bad for good teams against bad ones.) The problem is still the same though, that there just aren't many Americans who aren't already following (i.e. spending money on) the NFL, and few large media markets remain lacking an NFL team (basically, just L.A., Las Vegas and San Antonio, and the last has the Texans and Cowboys just 200 miles away.)

When pervasive marketing and a vitual monopoly gives any company most of the existing market, the only way to increase sales is to broaden the market, since it can't be deepened any more. That means the National Football League must become the International Football League; there's no way around it. The owners of the worlds most profitable sport want a bigger piece of the world market than the US alone can provide; they see half a billion Europeans with $16 trillion to spend watching FIFA constantly and think, Why not us?

It may take longer, because the NFL's never figured out no one will pay top dollar to watch AAA ball, especially when it's FOREIGNERS playing a FOREIGN sport badly, but European expansion's even more inevitable than an expanded playoffs. The NFL needs—or at least WANTS—another market as profitable as the US, and Europe's the only place to get it. The only other place with a big enough population AND economy is Japan. It's not Goodells dream; Goodell's dream is getting well-paid to be the face of the OWNERS' dreams, so he's living his own.

[Joel]

I'm not sure I agree with the comparison between the NFL and the NBA. The lower seeds in the NBA don't usually advance because the series is a best of 7. Lower seeded teams have a better chance of winning one game in the NFL than winning 4 out of 7 games in the NBA. You know, any given Sunday and all that.
Yeah, but any given Sunday won't get a crappy team to the SB for the same reason they don't win best-of-7 series' against #1 seeds.


To answer your Cinderella story question, 2 of the last 10 Super Bowl winners were 6 seeds: '05 Steelers and '10 Packers.
Yes, but the question was how many SEVENTH seeds won it all, even in the NBA. To my knowledge, the answer is "NONE, despite how long they've been trying; even a #6 has only won it all ONCE." It's a strong argument that, in a series, everyone <#6 is just wasting space and playing spoiler to REAL playoff teams, and that #6 SB winners succeeded by luck as much as skill. The big differences (justifying A wildcard—NOT a dozen) are that an NFL team plays <½ the league, and almost ½ their schedule's divisional, so the same team could have a radically different record in another division/conference.


To answer your Steelers question, I think they would have been dangerous if they made the playoffs this year. They started off the year as a "defeated" team (0-4 if I'm not mistaken, then 2-6). To overcome that deficit and put themselves into a position to make the playoffs shows me they were playing their best football. In the second half of the season, the Steelers were 6-2 with a good chance of winning both games they lost (the NE game was close until the 4th).
Exactly: The Steelers would've been dangerous, but NOT CONTENDERS. Playing them Wildcard Weekend could've inflicted even more championship-threatening injuries on Colts and Bengals teams that already had plenty, and if their host got careless (as Cincy arguably did) Pitt might've even have won and done the same thing to our and NEs injury-wracked teams.

They weren't going to the Super Bowl though, let alone going to win it, and everyone knew that. Just because 2/48 #6 seeds managed to win a SB isn't an argument for two #7 seeds.

[BroncoWave]

Yeah, but any given Sunday won't get a crappy team to the SB for the same reason they don't win best-of-7 series' against #1 seeds.

It happened twice with the Giants.

[Joel]

But thats how it goes. Sucks, but thats how it goes. It doesnt mean EVERY team should get in, i just cant buy into that. Arizona could of won their division and made it a moot point.
Going back to a single wildcard would've mooted it better, because when the wildcard's the best of the rest the simple answer to why Arizona missed the playoffs is "Because Seattle and SF was better; any team that finished 3rd in its division is, by definition, NOT the best non-champion." Again, fixing the real problems with the wildcard system means dropping two of them so dog teams don't make the postseason, and dropping division record as the first tiebreak for wildcards that are supposed to be based on conference record.

[Poet]

The second seed gets shit on haaaaaaaaaaaaaard.

[BroncoWave]

I will say this. I think a BETTER solution to teams like Arizona missing the playoffs is just to get rid of divisions altogether and let the 12 best teams into the playoffs, regardless of conference. I know that will never happen, but I would like that better than simply adding teams to the mix.

[BroncoWave]

The second seed gets shit on haaaaaaaaaaaaaard.

My thought too. It makes getting the 1 seed twice as advantageous as it already is.

[Joel]

It happened twice with the Giants.
No, the Giants weren't crappy, hence they were only #6 seed for ONE SB win. The '07 Giants shared a division with the #1 seed and the #6 seed yet STILL managed to finish between them with a 10-6 record. Any team that has 4 games against playoff teams just in their own division but still finishes 10-6 is pretty good; #1 seed Dallas swept them, so they were 10-4 against the rest.


The second seed gets shit on haaaaaaaaaaaaaard.
Yup, because more often than not the #6 seed is garbage that only got to the playoffs because the rest of the conference sucked even more. Yet another reason I hate multiple wildcards.

[Poet]

This year the Wild Cards were really good, to be fair. The Niners and the Saints both had a real shot at the first round bye. The Chargers upset my Bengals, and played decently against Denver. The Chiefs were also a good team that just happened to look great during the first half of the season.

[BroncoWave]

This year the Wild Cards were really good, to be fair. The Niners and the Saints both had a real shot at the first round bye. The Chargers upset my Bengals, and played decently against Denver. The Chiefs were also a good team that just happened to look great during the first half of the season.

More often you see shitty division winners than shitty wildcards IMO. But I've made my position pretty clear on how using divisions to seed the playoffs is flawed.

[slim]

More often you see shitty division winners than shitty wildcards IMO.

:noidea:

[slim]

lol

[BroncoWave]

:noidea:

It's true. When you think of really undeserving teams to make the playoffs in recent years, you tend to think of the 7-9 Seahawks and the 8-8 Broncos.

Wild Card teams usually tend to be decent because they have to beat out 10 or 11 other teams for those spots, whereas division winners only have to outperform 3 other teams to get in.

Now I'm hoping you didn't interpret my statement as "wild card teams are usually better than division winners" because that's not what I said. I simply said that when you see shitty/undeserving teams in the playoffs they tend to be division winners more often than they are wild cards.

[Joel]

Yeah.. I'm so tired of hearing "yeah, but that team SHOULD have been in the playoffs." WHY should they have been in? They didn't win the games they needed to win. After we allow another two into the playoffs because they couldn't hack it, then it will just be "another" two later on that "should have" been in. We see this in the NCAA tournament EVERY year. SOmeone is ALWAYS going to feel "ripped" because they didn't get in.

You know the teams that wanted this pushed through? THe Kansas City's and the Dallas Cowboys. Hooof nailed it, now we are just going to see two more 8-8 teams, get in. GREAT! :sigh:

I can you hear Jerry Jones on the phone now:

"Yeah Roger, this is Jerry. Gosh darn it, we just can't seem to get in that darned thing, so we thought that maybe... instead of us having to GET TO the playoffs... that well, you bring the playoffs to us!"
Though none of us wants to admit it, that's pretty much the Commissioners job: 32 billionaires huddle together in a skybox conference room at a billion dollar stadium one of them got their hometown to build for him, they decide how to squeeze another few pennies out of the worlds most profitable sport, then Goodell goes out and finds a way to (literally) sell it to the fans. Since terminal cancer forced retirement on the greatest NFL Commissioner since Jim Thorpe, the commissioners principal job is to be a lightning rod for the owners.

Remember that when raising Hell with Goodell personally, as if he's some kind of radical departure from Tagliabue. Even Rozelle started the approval of musical cities when owners couldn't coerce their longtime homes into buying them fancy new stadiums fill with lots of profitable skyboxes (but less seats for the average Joe.) Then again, when 32 owners unanimously agree on something, neither the NFL Commissioner nor any of their other employees can argue much. ;)


This year the Wild Cards were really good, to be fair. The Niners and the Saints both had a real shot at the first round bye. The Chargers upset my Bengals, and played decently against Denver. The Chiefs were also a good team that just happened to look great during the first half of the season.
I dispute that. Neither the '9ers nor Saints had a realistic shot at the bye because they COULDN'T WIN THEIR DIVISION.

The NFCW looked closer than it was because Seattle stumbled down the stretch and let SF hang around, but by the end of Week 13 the only SFs only bye scenario was:

Go undefeated their last 3 games and hope Seattle went winless.

On paper, that was a theoretical possibility; in reality it was hopeless.

New Orleans, on the other hand, was considered a SB contender all year—until they were humiliated in Seattle; they, or at least Brees, was never the same after that, and Carolina quickly moved into the drivers seat in the NFCS. Since their first meeting was late in the season and in NO, the Saints got to make it interesting by drawing even, but their helplessness on the road almost assured Carolina would pull back in front after hosting the rematch.

In those cases, the system worked. The real problem (IMHO) is Arizona beat NO yet couldn't beat them for the last WILDCARD even if they'd finished with the same record (which came within a FG of happening when Arizona hosted SF their last game.) An Arizona win would've made SF 11-5 also, so NO would've always been seeded ahead of SF (because they won the head-to-head) and SF would always be seeded ahead of Arizona (because their division record was better.) So Arizona misses the playoffs and watches a team they beat get the #5 seed with the same record.

[powderaddict]

It's true. When you think of really undeserving teams to make the playoffs in recent years, you tend to think of the 7-9 Seahawks and the 8-8 Broncos.



Both of those team won in the first round, I'm not sure why they were "undeserving".

[BroncoWave]

Just did a little math comparing 4 and 5 seeds as 4 seeds are the worst division winner and 5s are the best wild card. The average amount of wins for 4 seeds in the last 10 years is 9.6. The average amount of wins for 5 seeds is 10.7. Of the 20 4 seeds in the last 10 years, only 11 won double-digit games. Of the 20 5 seeds, 17 of them won double digit games. Only one 5 seed failed to have a winning record. Three 4 seeds failed to do so.

If you think comparing the worst division winners to the best WC teams is a bit unfair, let's compare them to the 6 seeds now. 6 seeds STILL average 9.75 wins over that time, which is more than the 9.6 that 4 seeds average. So over the last 10 seasons, both 5 seeds and 6 seeds tend to preform better than 4 seeds.

This illustrates my point that your wild card teams tend to be better than your worst division winners.

[Joel]

It's true. When you think of really undeserving teams to make the playoffs in recent years, you tend to think of the 7-9 Seahawks and the 8-8 Broncos.

Wild Card teams usually tend to be decent because they have to beat out 10 or 11 other teams for those spots, whereas division winners only have to outperform 3 other teams to get in.

Now I'm hoping you didn't interpret my statement as "wild card teams are usually better than division winners" because that's not what I said. I simply said that when you see shitty/undeserving teams in the playoffs they tend to be division winners more often than they are wild cards.
I'd like to see some stats on that, but the only way to avoid it is to get rid of divisions, and no, that'll never happen. Ignoring how invested each fanbase is in many classic rivalries as old as the teams (which in some cases is nearly a century,) it would make scheduling nightmarish unless we essentially did like the MLB used to do and ended cross-conference games.

Yes, there have been some bad division winners over the years, but I doubt they outnumber bad #6 seeds even in the relatively small post-'80s sample so vulnerable to anomalous skewing. Perhaps the easiest metric is how well the worst division winners and wildcards have fared since 1990 but, though I haven't checked, I'd bet on the worst of the best over the worst of the worst.

[Ravage!!!]

More often you see shitty division winners than shitty wildcards IMO. But I've made my position pretty clear on how using divisions to seed the playoffs is flawed.

I don't think so, unless you want to make the ENTIRE conference a single division. Otherwise, the division break-up absolutely makes the most sense. Taking the "best records" out of each conference is the flawed mentality.

So now, you want to say that you normally see weak division winners as opposed to weak wildcard winners. So the solution is to add 2 WEAKER teams to the playoffs? This makes no sense. Arizona doesn't "deserve" to get into the playoffs. EVery team plays by the same set of rules. Sometimes those rules benefit you, and sometimes they don't. We can say "yeah, but they SHOULD be in" all the way down the line with one line of thinking or another.

Adding more teams makes the regular season games just that much less important in the long run. 2 less games that "mean something" because getting to the dance is just that much easier to do.

Hey, the owner of the KC Chiefs has been after this for YEARS! Dallas has been a HUGE proponent of it! Hmmmm.... I wonder why these teams are asking if we can LOWER the qualifications to get into the playoffs? See a common denominator? Teams that are finding it HARD to win their division, and can't QUITE be good enough to make wildcard, are ACHING to have the standards lowered.

50% of the teams get into the playoffs? Wow... lets just rest our players for a couple more games since they just don't matter much.

Seems to be the philosophy of a lot of things in our society now days. Lets not keep score in children's leagues, and lets be happy of not caring if we win.... just as long as everyone gets a 'ribbon' for participation. Being able to determin which teams will be in the playoffs will be determined a LOT faster as well. Swell.

[Joel]

Just did a little math comparing 4 and 5 seeds as 4 seeds are the worst division winner and 5s are the best wild card. The average amount of wins for 4 seeds in the last 10 years is 9.6. The average amount of wins for 5 seeds is 10.7. Of the 20 4 seeds in the last 10 years, only 11 won double-digit games. Of the 20 5 seeds, 17 of them won double digit games. Only one 5 seed failed to have a winning record. Three 4 seeds failed to do so.

If you think comparing the worst division winners to the best WC teams is a bit unfair, let's compare them to the 6 seeds now. 6 seeds STILL average 9.75 wins over that time, which is more than the 9.6 that 4 seeds average. So over the last 10 seasons, both 5 seeds and 6 seeds tend to preform better than 4 seeds.

This illustrates my point that your wild card teams tend to be better than your worst division winners.
I DO think comparing the worst division winners to the best WCs grossly unfair, and irrelevant since no one's suggesting getting rid of ALL WCs, just debating whether we need MORE.

I'm glad you looked into it though, because your question did pique my curiosity, but 10 years is a fairly small sample and thus more subject to extreme skews by anomalies; I'd be more confident if we compared all bottom WCs and division winners since 1990 (i.e. when the NFL added #6 seeds.)

[BroncoWave]

I DO think comparing the worst division winners to the best WCs grossly unfair, and irrelevant since no one's suggesting getting rid of ALL WCs, just debating whether we need MORE.

I'm glad you looked into it though, because your question did pique my curiosity, but 10 years is a fairly small sample and thus more subject to extreme skews by anomalies; I'd be more confident if we compared all bottom WCs and division winners since 1990 (i.e. when the NFL added #6 seeds.)

Notice my analysis did include 6 seeds, and they still do better on average than 4s. When I have time, I will go back to 1990.

[BroncoWave]

Actually, Joel, you can't really go back to 1990 with the way I am doing it. Before 2002 there were only 3 divisions per conference, so you had to be the best out of 5 or 6 teams instead of just the best out of 4, so in that format you probably tended to see better division winners. But I did expand my stats to 2002 and got this:

4 Seeds: 9.6-6.3
5 Seeds: 10.7-5.3
6 Seeds: 9-7-6.2

So still, in the 12 seasons since we moved to 4 divisions, 5 and 6 seeds have outpreformed 4 seeds. I think this DEFINITELY proves that we shouldn't be taking away playoff teams to drop to 5 per conference. Does it prove that we should add teams? No. But it does show that wild card teams are, on average, stronger than your worst division winner.

[Joel]

Notice my analysis did include 6 seeds, and they still do better on average than 4s. When I have time, I will go back to 1990.
I did notice that, but think it should have begun and ended there; again, the question's not whether to have WCs AT ALL, but whether to have more. Comparing the 1997 AFC #5 seed to the 2010 NFC #4 is grossly unfair. Far more importantly, it reveals NOTHING about whether the bottom wildcard does so well by comparison to the bottom division winner (neither of which it considers) that teams currently BELOW the bottom WC should be in the tournament.

The playoffs aren't a reward for a season well played, or at least, not primarily that. The playoffs are to determine the best team in the NFL and, to a lesser extent, in each conference. NO ONE should be there unless genuinely in contention for one of those two titles, and it's not entertaining to watch contenders blowout non-contenders, or be fatally crippled by injuries while beating them, or, worst of all, have a few unlucky bounces bounce them right out of the tournament.

[Northman]

Actually, Joel, you can't really go back to 1990 with the way I am doing it. Before 2002 there were only 3 divisions per conference, so you had to be the best out of 5 or 6 teams instead of just the best out of 4, so in that format you probably tended to see better division winners. But I did expand my stats to 2002 and got this:

4 Seeds: 9.6-6.3
5 Seeds: 10.7-5.3
6 Seeds: 9-7-6.2

So still, in the 12 seasons since we moved to 4 divisions, 5 and 6 seeds have outpreformed 4 seeds. I think this DEFINITELY proves that we shouldn't be taking away playoff teams to drop to 5 per conference. Does it prove that we should add teams? No. But it does show that wild card teams are, on average, stronger than your worst division winner.

Or it just shows how much parity exist in the league.

[BroncoWave]

I did notice that, but think it should have begun and ended there; again, the question's not whether to have WCs AT ALL, but whether to have more. Comparing the 1997 AFC #5 seed to the 2010 NFC #4 is grossly unfair. Far more importantly, it reveals NOTHING about whether the bottom wildcard does so well by comparison to the bottom division winner (neither of which it considers) that teams currently BELOW the bottom WC should be in the tournament.

The playoffs aren't a reward for a season well played, or at least, not primarily that. The playoffs are to determine the best team in the NFL and, to a lesser extent, in each conference. NO ONE should be there unless genuinely in contention for one of those two titles, and it's not entertaining to watch contenders blowout non-contenders, or be fatally crippled by injuries while beating them, or, worst of all, have a few unlucky bounces bounce them right out of the tournament.

Any team that can win 10 games should be considered good enough to get to play for the Super Bowl. Since, on average, both wild card teams average right around 10 wins, I think it's fine to keep it at 2.

If you want to argue against adding teams I can see where you are coming from, but I think dropping from 12 would be crazy. Also, it would never happen.

According to Schefter, going to 14 is all but a done deal, so we better learn to like it. And as I said before, I would WAY prefer that to extending the season to 18 games.

[BroncoWave]

Or it just shows how much parity exist in the league.

Which is another argument in favor of potentially adding playoff teams, as the talent is so evenly spread out that there are a large number of teams good enough to potentially win a title every season. It's not like the NBA where you have 2 or 3 good teams per conference then a bunch of dog teams. Any NFL team can beat any other team.

[Joel]

Actually, Joel, you can't really go back to 1990 with the way I am doing it. Before 2002 there were only 3 divisions per conference, so you had to be the best out of 5 or 6 teams instead of just the best out of 4, so in that format you probably tended to see better division winners.
You CAN, but you're right wider division competition tends toward stronger division winners. What I hated about the pre-Jags/Panthers NFL (or maybe just the post-Saints/Falcons NFL) was that having 4 teams in some divisions and 5 in others screwed those 4 when they were all good (i.e. the AFC Central) and gave them a pass when 3 sucked (i.e. the NFC West, home to those Saints AND Falcons.) Realignment seriously messed things up, but was inevitable once the other owners agreed to let the Browns and Oilers leave town BUT give Cleveland and Houston new teams.

It REALLY sucks, too, because 6X5 was the darned near perfect goal toward which the NFL had been moving ever since the merger 30 years earlier. Oh, well; at least the owners are happy. :rolleyes:


But I did expand my stats to 2002 and got this:

4 Seeds: 9.6-6.3
5 Seeds: 10.7-5.3
6 Seeds: 9-7-6.2

So still, in the 12 seasons since we moved to 4 divisions, 5 and 6 seeds have outpreformed 4 seeds. I think this DEFINITELY proves that we shouldn't be taking away playoff teams to drop to 5 per conference. Does it prove that we should add teams? No. But it does show that wild card teams are, on average, stronger than your worst division winner.
It looks lie a wash to me; a tenth of a games difference out of 16 is pretty negligible. That's a little surprising given that, per the same logic as above, the worst division winners are only competing against 3 other teams for their playoff spot, but the worst wildcard teams are competing against 11; one would expect quadrupling the competition would make the best record a lot better. Yet it doesn't: Because the much larger competition isn't chosen geographically, but by quality.

In other words, with a 9-7 record it's a lot easier to win at LEAST the last WC (it's usually assured) than win a division with a 9-7 record (it's usually impossible.) Put another way, on average over the last decade, a 9-7 record makes a team either the 4th best division champ or 2nd best WC team.

Since schedules are so often apples and oranges anyway though, and because it's a championship tournament rather than just a congratulatory bowl game, what I'm REALLY interested in is how often and far the worst division champ and worst WC ADVANCED in the playoffs. We KNOW they got there or we wouldn't be having the discussion, but which one is one-and-done the most? Or two-and-through? Or conference champions? Or SB champions?

[Northman]

Which is another argument in favor of potentially adding playoff teams,

Not necessarily. It goes back to what Ravage said about every team has to jockey for position and to gain those roster spots for the postseason. While anything can happen throughout a course of the year or in the postseason all teams have the same advantage to putting themselves in position to meet the required spots for the postseason. Simply adding teams only diminishes what the teams accomplish during the regular season.

[BroncoWave]

Not necessarily. It goes back to what Ravage said about every team has to jockey for position and to gain those roster spots for the postseason. While anything can happen throughout a course of the year or in the postseason all teams have the same advantage to putting themselves in position to meet the required spots for the postseason. Simply adding teams only diminishes what the teams accomplish during the regular season.

Just adding one playoff team per conference really doesn't diminish the other teams' accomplishments IMO.

It really only screws over the 2 seed as they have to play an extra game, but for the other 5 teams, what they have to do to reach the title remains unchanged.

[Joel]

Any team that can win 10 games should be considered good enough to get to play for the Super Bowl. Since, on average, both wild card teams average right around 10 wins, I think it's fine to keep it at 2.

If you want to argue against adding teams I can see where you are coming from, but I think dropping from 12 would be crazy. Also, it would never happen.

According to Schefter, going to 14 is all but a done deal, so we better learn to like it. And as I said before, I would WAY prefer that to extending the season to 18 games.
We must ACCEPT it; we're not forced to LIKE it. You're absolutely right #6 seeds aren't going anywhere (even though, with just 2 exceptions in 48 tries, #6 seeds NEVER HAVE gone anywhere.)

I've still never liked 'em and never will, anymore than I liked realignment or expanding from 30 teams to 32 just so owners who couldn't sell out EXISTING stadiums could demand someone ELSE buy them bigger, newer and more expensive ones to line their pockets. Talk about participation trophies.

[Northman]

Just adding one playoff team per conference really doesn't diminish the other teams' accomplishments IMO.

It really only screws over the 2 seed as they have to play an extra game, but for the other 5 teams, what they have to do to reach the title remains unchanged.

Then why stop at there? Why not let every team play in the postseason?

[BroncoWave]

Then why stop at there? Why not let every team play in the postseason?

Because you obviously have to stop somewhere. At 14 you are still letting in less than half the teams, so you still have to accomplish something to get in.

[Northman]

Because you obviously have to stop somewhere. At 14 you are still letting in less than half the teams, so you still have to accomplish something to get in.

But why reward teams like the Cardinals and Steelers when they didnt do what it took to make the playoffs in the first place? You understand your logic just makes no sense here right? If the regular season doesnt really mean anything and since parity happens often in the NFL why do you want to put a limit on how many teams make the postseason? Right now they have stopped where they are and it works.

[BroncoWave]

But why reward teams like the Cardinals and Steelers when they didnt do what it took to make the playoffs in the first place?

Under the new format they did in fact do enough to make the playoffs. :)

[Northman]

Under the new format they did in fact do enough to make the playoffs. :)

Except the format isnt in place so no, they really didnt. :)

[BroncoWave]

Except the format isnt in place so no, they really didnt. :)

And they didn't make the playoffs, so what are you bitching about exactly? :D

[Northman]

And they didn't make the playoffs, so what are you bitching about exactly? :D

Not really bitching about anything, just debating your point as too why they should be added. Thats all.

[BroncoWave]

Not really bitching about anything, just debating your point as too why they should be added. Thats all.

I'm not really saying they SHOULD be added though. As I've said, I'd be perfectly fine keeping it at 12. I'm just saying I don't have a huge issue with them expanding, and it does have some merit.

I will say 14 is the absolute max they should have though.

[Ravage!!!]

Under the new format they did in fact do enough to make the playoffs. :)

yeah...because the playoffs were brought DOWN to them.

It's like the 40 yr old high jump contest. Bring that bar down a little bit, so that more can clear the challenge.

[Joel]

Because you obviously have to stop somewhere. At 14 you are still letting in less than half the teams, so you still have to accomplish something to get in.
Yeah: You have to be better than average—but just BARELY. That's not a championship tournament: It's a non-loser tournament.

"Sure, they only played 11 games and still managed to lose 4, but they're a decent team with a huge fanbase, so putting them against this good 9-2 team that won its conference and also has a huge fanbase will make for an entertaining profitable bowl. Even though neither of them belongs anywhere NEAR a championship game."

The only thing wrong with amateur football is that it's SO amateur.

[Poet]

yeah...because the playoffs were brought DOWN to them.

It's like the 40 yr old high jump contest. Bring that bar down a little bit, so that more can clear the challenge.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but when I read this post I conjured up a thought; this proposal would be correct if throughout enough recent history - would have to qualify that in and of itself - enough good teams existed because of the parody in the league. If this were the case, they wouldn't be lowering the bar to help the lesser combatants compete. Instead, they would be opening up more doors in the arena for worthy combatants.

To me, that's the crux of the argument. Are there enough worthy teams that miss the playoffs to merit an expansion? If there are, maybe we should do it. If there are not, then no, we should not.

[Joel]

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but when I read this post I conjured up a thought; this proposal would be correct if throughout enough recent history - would have to qualify that in and of itself - enough good teams existed because of the parody in the league. If this were the case, they wouldn't be lowering the bar to help the lesser combatants compete. Instead, they would be opening up more doors in the arena for worthy combatants.

To me, that's the crux of the argument. Are there enough worthy teams that miss the playoffs to merit an expansion? If there are, maybe we should do it. If there are not, then no, we should not.
1) In the entire history of NFL #6 seeds, exactly TWO won Super Bowls; 46 others fell by the wayside.
2) In the entire history of NBA #7 (and #8) seeds, NONE have EVER won an NBA Championship.

That's not much evidence we improperly exclude SB contenders: Even without #6 seeds we'd only have excluded 2 in 24 years. That's barely 4% who made it as #6 seed; would #7s do better?

The NFL's not the SECAA, and the playoffs aren't a reward for every decent team with a huge fanbase and strong alumni: It's a championship tournament; only championship contenders belong.

[Poet]

1) In the entire history of NFL #6 seeds, exactly TWO won Super Bowls; 46 others fell by the wayside.
2) In the entire history of NBA #7 (and #8) seeds, NONE have EVER won an NBA Championship.

That's not much evidence we improperly exclude SB contenders: Even without #6 seeds we'd only have excluded 2 in 24 years. That's barely 2% who made it as #6 seed; would #7s do better?

The NFL's not the SECAA, and the playoffs aren't a reward for every decent team with a huge fanbase and strong alumni: It's a championship tournament; only championship contenders belong.

This line of argument is valid, but it ignores the fact that many good seeds, including one seeds, two seeds, and three seeds fail to win the SB. I'm not sure that this measure of method should be the leading parameter.

[Joel]

This line of argument is valid, but it ignores the fact that many good seeds, including one seeds, two seeds, and three seeds fail to win the SB. I'm not sure that this measure of method should be the leading parameter.
The difference is many other #1, 2 and 3 seeds HAVE won the Super Bowl. I'm not saying, "a lot of #6 seeds didn't win the SB." I'm saying, "96% of #6 seeds didn't win the SB." That's actually better than the track record of NBA #6s, where only ONE #6 and NO #7/8 ever won an NBA Championship (unless someone did it since the '95 Rockets.) Why would an NFL #7 do better?

[Poet]

The difference is many other #1, 2 and 3 seeds HAVE won the Super Bowl. We're not talking about "a lot of #6 seeds didn't win the SB." We're talking about "97% of #6 seeds didn't win the SB."

This doesn't address my argument, though.

[Joel]

This doesn't address my argument, though.
Doesn't it? Anytime a #1-3 seed wins, the other two necessarily lose, so both have happened many times in many sports. However, that speaks more of the quality of the champion that beat top seeds than of the top seeds who lost to champions. With #6-8 seeds, it's not a case of "many were champions and many were not," but a case of "almost NONE were champions, and nearly ALL were not," and that speaks more of the losers quality: Few were champion contenders, as evidenced by the negligibly small number who WERE champions.

Yet, for the sake of argument, ignore the abysmal 96% failure rate of NFL #6 seeds (because they're here to stay regardless) and look at the 100% failure rate of NBA #7 seeds (because the NFL's considering a pair of #7 seeds.) The NBA's had #7 seeds a looong time, and NONE ever won an NBA Championship; that's powerful evidence #7 seeds are NOT contenders. In summary:

Many #1-3s didn't win the SB, just as many #6s—but many OTHER #1-3s DID win the SB, UNLIKE 96% of #6s.

Further, >1 team has won the NBA Championship from the #1-3 seed, but ONLY 1 #6 and NO #7 has EVER won it.

Both are potent evidence NFL #7s wouldn't even do as well as the 2/48 #6s who won SBs, and both address your argument.

[Poet]

Doesn't it? Anytime a #1-3 seed wins, the other two necessarily lose, so both have happened many times in many sports. However, that speaks more of the quality of the champion that beat top seeds than of the top seeds who lost to champions. With #6-8 seeds, it's not a case of "many were champions and many were not," but a case of "almost NONE were champions, and nearly ALL were not," and that speaks more of the losers quality: Few were champion contenders, as evidenced by the negligibly small number who WERE champions.

Yet, for the sake of argument, ignore the abysmal 97% failure rate of NFL #6 seeds (because they're here to stay regardless) and look at the 100% failure rate of NBA #7 seeds (because the NFL's considering a pair of #7 seeds.) The NBA's had #7 seeds a looong time, and NONE ever won an NBA Championship; that's powerful evidence #7 seeds are NOT contenders. In summary:

Many #1-3s didn't win the SB, just as many #6s—but many OTHER #1-3s DID win the SB, UNLIKE 97% of #6s.

Further, >1 team has won the NBA Championship from the #1-3 seed, but ONLY 1 #6 and NO #7 has EVER won it.

Both are potent evidence NFL #7s wouldn't even do as well as the 2/48 #6s who won SBs, and both address your argument.

The playoffs is meant to put the best teams into the playoffs. If it were designed to only put the teams built to win a SB, we would still be looking at all defensive running teams because nothing ever changed. The Eagles had no shot to win the SB this year, should they have been eliminated? I mean, the Niners and the Saints were obviously better than they, and superior than the Packers, so should the Packers not have been allowed?

The Bengals and the Chiefs obviously were not capable of winning the SB, should they have been disallowed. Also, basketball and football are so dissimilar that I find that argument to be void of merit. In the NFL ONE team puts more men on the field of play than two NBA teams COMBINED. It's also worth mentioning that we are now seeing the trend of wildcard teams going deep into the playoffs. The Ravens did it recently. The Packers did it recently. The Giants did it recently. It doesn't have to happen frequently, it just has to happen enough that in the back of our heads we can't count the discount a sixth seed, or a fifth seed.

[Joel]

The playoffs is meant to put the best teams into the playoffs. If it were designed to only put the teams built to win a SB, we would still be looking at all defensive running teams because nothing ever changed. The Eagles had no shot to win the SB this year, should they have been eliminated? I mean, the Niners and the Saints were obviously better than they, and superior than the Packers, so should the Packers not have been allowed?
No, the playoffs are literally designed to put the best team—singular—in the winners circle. The very first NFL playoff (i.e. the 1932 NFL Championship) was created solely because two teams finished tied for the best record and the only way to determine a singular winner was to have them play for it; they actually had to change the rules to even ALLOW a playoff, because postseason games had been banned 8 years earlier after Chicago kept scheduling extra games against dog teams until they had the highest win percentage.

After the merger, wildcard teams came along for the same reason: Because there was a good argument restricting the playoffs to division winners might well exclude the best team—singular—if they happened to narrowly lose a tough division due to bad luck. The classic example is 1968 Colts and Rams both went 11-1-2 in the same division, with the Rams winning the homestand and tying on the road, so they won the division and Baltimore missed the playoffs, even though the pair were clearly the regular seasons best two teams by a wide margin:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1967/

I mean, it's not even close. They both won 2 more games than anyone else (the Packers and Cowboys were next closest with 9 wins, and that was the year they played the Ice Bowl to see who went to SB II.) The Colts outscored everyone but the Rams by >50 pts, but the Rams only outscored them by 4; the Colts also ALLOWED 11 pts less than anyone but the Rams (and only GB and Chicago were close) but just 2 more than the Rams. Those teams were VERY evenly balanced, and FAR better than everyone else in the regular season, but only one could make the playoffs.

So, wildcard; since a non-division winner better than ALL OTHER non-division winners might well be the best, admit the best of the rest to the playoffs. Not "admit the best, second best and third best of the rest." At some point we reach marginal returns; the #6 seed that's only won 2 SB in 48 tries is that point: Worse standards can only mean worse teams.

We don't have the playoffs just for the entertainment of watching good teams play other good teams; this isn't the SECAA: We have the playoffs so good teams can play good teams to determine who's BEST. That's why it's single elimination and the last man standing gets a trophy (okay, the last in each conference gets a trophy, then they play for another.)

The Eagles and Pack probably shouldn't have been there, but they won their respective divisions thanks to the division leaders collapsing in December, so there was no way around it.


The Bengals and the Chiefs obviously were not capable of winning the SB, should they have been disallowed. Also, basketball and football are so dissimilar that I find that argument to be void of merit. In the NFL ONE team puts more men on the field of play than two NBA teams COMBINED. It's also worth mentioning that we are now seeing the trend of wildcard teams going deep into the playoffs. The Ravens did it recently. The Packers did it recently. The Giants did it recently. It doesn't have to happen frequently, it just has to happen enough that in the back of our heads we can't count the discount a sixth seed, or a fifth seed.
Everyone with no realistic shot should be excluded, yes; I don't think the Bengals and Chiefs were any less capable of a championship than last years Ravens, but the Chargers were and the Steelers DEFINITELY were. After the top 5 AFC teams it was a BIG drop to #6 this year, and it amuses me when people suggest the Steelers could've made a run when they only finished 7th because a BUNCH of AFC teams lost a lot of games down the stretch. Sorry, but no contender ever backed into a #7 seed.

Yes, the NBA's different than the NFL, but each and every difference is the same in degree and kind for each NBA/NFL team, so there's comparison basis. We're not comparing how well each league plays football or basketball, but how often #7 seeds win championships, regardless of sport, and the record ain't good. The NBA's one of the few places we CAN check, because—for some inexplicable reason—few sports admit #7 seeds to championship tournaments. But we can seek others: http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/lowest_seeds_to_win_championship/intro.html
After surveying the field, they found a grand total of six champions seeded lower than 6th in ANY sport EVER—professional or college.

All but TWO were in individual sports, one an anomalous case of an unseeded player benefiting heavily from MOST of the top seeds being upset before she ever had to play them: She (somehow) managed to face just TWO seeded players yet win a Grand Slam! I won't say she only won because all "real contenders" got upset before she played them, because she won and they didn't, but that argument's not implausible. Four of the others were also Grand Slams, one featuring a young Boris Becker who many more.

In TEAM sports, we're looking at:

The 2008 Fresno State Bulldogs who were seeded 4th in the tournament before the tournament before the College World Series and
The 1995 Villanova Wildcats seeded 8th in the NCAA Mens Basketball Championship and

That's pretty thin evidence to make the case an NFL team can do what NO #7 seed has EVER done in ANY professional team sport: Win a championship. It's only happened twice in college sports and four times in pro sports, but NEVER in ANY pro team sport. It's a bad idea, and not just because 4% of even #6 seeds have won a SB (though that's a good reason, too.)

[Ravage!!!]

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but when I read this post I conjured up a thought; this proposal would be correct if throughout enough recent history - would have to qualify that in and of itself - enough good teams existed because of the parody in the league. If this were the case, they wouldn't be lowering the bar to help the lesser combatants compete. Instead, they would be opening up more doors in the arena for worthy combatants.

To me, that's the crux of the argument. Are there enough worthy teams that miss the playoffs to merit an expansion? If there are, maybe we should do it. If there are not, then no, we should not.


This line of argument is valid, but it ignores the fact that many good seeds, including one seeds, two seeds, and three seeds fail to win the SB. I'm not sure that this measure of method should be the leading parameter.

I think your posts answer your own questions. Your points direct us to the fact that there is enough parody in the league that the TOP teams aren't really that much better than the 3rd, 4th, and 5th seed. Yet, Joel's facts let us see that the 6th seed seems to be a line that is RARELY competitive enough to match with the top 4-5 teams.

EVEN if we throw in the earlier discussed points on how Wild Card teams have better records than division winners (doesn't mean they are better, just better records)..... they still aren't going to the Super Bowl.

That, to me, indicates that adding even MORE teams (that would be lower seeds), wouldn't add more competitiveness to the playoffs. It just adds another game and makes the regular season just that much less important.

[Joel]

I think your posts answer your own questions. Your points direct us to the fact that there is enough parody in the league that the TOP teams aren't really that much better than the 3rd, 4th, and 5th seed. Yet, Joel's facts let us see that the 6th seed seems to be a line that is RARELY competitive enough to match with the top 4-5 teams.

EVEN if we throw in the earlier discussed points on how Wild Card teams have better records than division winners (doesn't mean they are better, just better records)..... they still aren't going to the Super Bowl.

That, to me, indicates that adding even MORE teams (that would be lower seeds), wouldn't add more competitiveness to the playoffs. It just adds another game and makes the regular season just that much less important.
Agreed, and I'll further note that the #6 seeds 9.7-6.2 record over 10 years isn't significantly "better" than the #4 seeds 9.6-6.3 record. It's an unreliably small sample anyway, IMHO, but even if it weren't, a difference of 0.1 games between 2 groups of 20 teams is pretty negligible.

The relevant question here though isn't their regular season records; we pretty much knew the #4 and #6 seeds usually have pretty close to the same record: The real question is how often and how far each advanced. That is, we know only 2/48 #6 seeds won the SB; how many #4 seeds have? I haven't checked, but know it's a huge sample going all the way to the first wildcards, right after the merger, and I bet the answer is "a lot more than 4%." And, no, don't ask me how I divided 2 by 48 and got 2 while ago; consider it corrected.

[Broncolingus]

I still don't like it overall...

...I like the current structure just fine.