Thread: Expanded Playoffs?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...nding-playoffs

"Right now we're with 12 teams obviously. We'll look at probably 14 or 16 teams," Goodell said.

Somebody needs to bitch-slap Goodell. Seriously.

Originally Posted by Timmy!

Somebody needs to bitch-slap Goodell. Seriously.

Or bitch- slap his good idea fairy.

Tned, can you do something about us not being able to change our votes? This is the 2nd time that I accidently voted opposite of what I intended.

Bottom line is that making it possible for half the teams to get in means teams with losing records would qualify, just like in the NBA & NHL. I believe that if you can't win at least half of your games, you don't deserve to make the play-offs. That included the 2010 Seahawks that make it with a losing record by winning the division title of the most horrible division in the history of the NFL, the 2010 NFCW.

Ugh, no. Usually I try to be progressive and I like alot of changes Goodell has had in mind, but this one sucks. Plenty of teams make the playoffs as it is. Chances are 999/1000 times the best team in the league will find a way into the top 12 and get a crack at the title.

14 or 16 teams with a league expansion I suppose. But with the 32 team league hell no

The Hunt family has been pushing for this for decades. I wonder why?

Originally Posted by Pudge

14 or 16 teams with a league expansion I suppose. But with the 32 team league hell no

yes that is what i am thinking.

Originally Posted by FanInAZ

Tned, can you do something about us not being able to change our votes? This is the 2nd time that I accidently voted opposite of what I intended.

Bottom line is that making it possible for half the teams to get in means teams with losing records would qualify, just like in the NBA & NHL. I believe that if you can't win at least half of your games, you don't deserve to make the play-offs. That included the 2010 Seahawks that make it with a losing record by winning the division title of the most horrible division in the history of the NFL, the 2010 NFCW.

Or maybe slow down and read the question before you vote?

Hell no. The only team in recent memory I think of that got "screwed" out of the playoffs was the Pats when they went 11-5 a few years ago. How would they even handle that? Have a Wild-Wild Card Weekend where the bottom 4 teams in each conference played each other to advance to the Wild Card Round? Just dumb. The top 12 seems just about perfect to me

I don't have a problem with 16 teams. The NHL has nearly the same amount of teams in the league and has 16 teams in the playoffs...four division winners and four wild card teams per conference. I don't see why it would be bad in the NFL.

As a fan, I wouldn't ever mind more football, but it's a bad idea.

On one hand we have Goodell using "safety" to essentially make defenders play two hand touch. And on the other he's trying to make them play more games. He's an effing hypocrite.

Originally Posted by SeeingRed

I don't have a problem with 16 teams. The NHL has nearly the same amount of teams in the league and has 16 teams in the playoffs...four division winners and four wild card teams per conference. I don't see why it would be bad in the NFL.

I like the NFL's model, where you have to really work to get into the Playoffs, and only about 1/3 of the teams get in, vs. the NHL/NBA, where over half of the teams get in.

On the one hand, more teams means more games, and a better chance of "your" team getting in, but it also diminishes the excitement of the playoff races and the fight to get in. Also, good or bad, it would get rid of one or both of the top seeds getting byes (if you went to 14 teams, only one in each conference would get a bye), if you went to 16, nobody would get a bye. I'm torn on whether the elimination of the byes is good or bad.

I think I lean towards how it is now.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

As a fan, I wouldn't ever mind more football, but it's a bad idea.

On one hand we have Goodell using "safety" to essentially make defenders play two hand touch. And on the other he's trying to make them play more games. He's an effing hypocrite.

Yes, because not allowing defenders to lead with the helmet, or go at a QB's knees is pretty much exactly the same thing a two hand touch.

I think equating safety changes to "two hand touch" or "flag football" has BY FAR become the most overused cliche of the 2012 NFL season.

Originally Posted by Tned

I like the NFL's model, where you have to really work to get into the Playoffs, and only about 1/3 of the teams get in, vs. the NHL/NBA, where over half of the teams get in.

On the one hand, more teams means more games, and a better chance of "your" team getting in, but it also diminishes the excitement of the playoff races and the fight to get in. Also, good or bad, it would get rid of one or both of the top seeds getting byes (if you went to 14 teams, only one in each conference would get a bye), if you went to 16, nobody would get a bye. I'm torn on whether the elimination of the byes is good or bad.

I think I lean towards how it is now.

While I don't side with expanding the playoffs, I don't think eliminating the byes would be the big issue. If you look at the last several SB winners, most have actually come from the wild card round. It doesn't seem like the bye has a huge advantage these days.