Should the NFL expand the playoff field?

[mikesteelnation1]

I've been meaning to start this thread for a while..

We've all read a lot lately about the possibilities of an expanded playoff field to either 14 or 16 teams. Should it happen? Does it even make sense?

14 teams makes no sense whatsoever. Have #6 and #7 play a play in game, give teams #1-#5 a bye, then follow the current format giving the top 2 seeds 2 weeks off. That's way dumb.

In a 16 team field it would require all 16 teams to participate from the get go, no bye weeks, just a 16 team bracket. The only advantage to being a top seed is homefield, but now you play double the games to get the superbowl. That's even dumber than 14 teams, but the more likely outcome if the playoffs expand.

We would be committing the same sin as bball and hockey then. Allowing in too many teams, and making the regular season much less important (to be truthful the NHL and NBA damage their regular season product exponentially by allowing MORE than half the teams into the playoffs).

The NFL has built its brand and huge popularity on the current set up. Why water down the product with more playoff teams and games, when it could potentially damage the quite short regular season as a result? Please NFL owners, don't open Pandoras box. I beg you. The equilibrium is just right, it's why ratings grow every year.

As proof of why I believe the playoff structure is perfect, I give you the 4 teams that would have been the #7-8 seeds:

NFC- giants and bears.
AFC- Steelers and chargers

Does anyone think these teams had a shot to win it all tourney style? To all of a sudden get hot and win the Lombardi? Hell no!!! Double hell no!!!! The giants, Steelers, and bears were among the leaders the first half of the season. All ended the season on super cold streaks. The chargers sucked the whole time.

Further proof, the divisional round features the 4 best teams in each conference. BTW all the favored teams won this weekend. Chuckstrong got trumped by ray ray strong. Seattle forced rg 3 and outs all day. Green bay needed Webb to instill confidence they could still play d, and they shut down AD running right. A more talented Houston team smothered a not so good Bengals offense.

The only team among the divisional participants that didn't have a better record than their opponent was the ravens. They faced a 1st place schedule in a division with 2 teams with .500 or better records, while the colts played a dead last place schedule in a division with 1 team with with a .500 or better record. And let's face facts, everyone knew the young colts were getting beat by the very experienced playoff ravens..

Everyone expected what happened, on the worst wild card weekend perhaps EVER, entertainment wise. And the league is considering adding MORE games like this?? Really??

[Bengals1181]

I think the giants and steelers could have made a run.


I'm not opposed to exploring the idea of a 7 team playoff. Makes getting the #1 seed more specials as you're the only one to get a bye.

[BobbyJ]

I like it the way it is. Makes teams actually try to win their division as opposed to just playing mediocre and getting in with a sloppy record. The two wildcards is a nice bridge, not to few but not too much.

[Trumpetbdw]

The Bears missing out at 10-6 are the exception, not the rule. Could the Giants and Steelers have made a run? Sure, I guess. But to me, it's irrelevant. Neither team deserved to get in. There would be many more instances of mediocre, undeserving teams getting into the playoffs than of teams that have double digit wins, and probably deserved a shot.

Plus, the NFL is much different than the NHL or NBA. It's one and done. We've seen many times over the years the "Any Given Sunday" mantra come to fruition. Especially in a 16 team playoff, with no one getting a bye, it eliminates all benefit of being a 1 or a 2 seed, which likely leads to more teams laying down in week 17 to rest up.

Pure and simple, it's clear a playoff expansion would only serve as a money grabber. At what point does common sense win out over greed?

[BobbyJ]

I agree trumpet. In an ever-growing fast paced business world things always change, adapt, grow and shrink b/c of money. The NFL will always constantly battle with that business concept and probably always will b/c it's a sport that started as a pure game but eventually was matched with a $$$ Billion Dollar Business. Once the money side of it became bigger than the game itself, is when you see rules change, formats change etc...

We just need good people in place to preserve the game and not let it slip too far from it's pure form.

[hobbes27]

The Bears missing out at 10-6 are the exception, not the rule. Could the Giants and Steelers have made a run? Sure, I guess. But to me, it's irrelevant. Neither team deserved to get in. There would be many more instances of mediocre, undeserving teams getting into the playoffs than of teams that have double digit wins, and probably deserved a shot.

Plus, the NFL is much different than the NHL or NBA. It's one and done. We've seen many times over the years the "Any Given Sunday" mantra come to fruition. Especially in a 16 team playoff, with no one getting a bye, it eliminates all benefit of being a 1 or a 2 seed, which likely leads to more teams laying down in week 17 to rest up.

Pure and simple, it's clear a playoff expansion would only serve as a money grabber. At what point does common sense win out over greed?

Recent history shows us that its not necessarily the best team that wins the Super Bowl, but who is the most hot. I don't think there is any team that missed the playoffs this year that would qualify as "hot" that would make an expanded playoffs.

I like the way the NFL does it now. It rewards teams for winning the division and it also rewards teams for putting together a great regular season record (with both a bye and a home game in the second round). Expanding the playoffs sorta makes week 17 less relevant because it doesn't mean as much to get the #1 or #2 seed, as you point out.

I think expanding the playoffs also just puts less meaning on the regular season. In Hockey, the regular season is pretty irrelevant when it comes to who makes the Stanley Cup, because home ice doesn't seem as important. In basketball, home court matters a little more, but the regular season isn't that interesting to follow. In both cases, there isn't huge interest in the regular season. If you expand the playoffs, sure you make more money through 2 or 4 extra playoff games. But you also dilute the value of the regular season. Even with only 16 games, games will have less meaning if more people qualify for the playoffs.

As much as some people don't like Goodell, I don't think he makes rash choices. He's not going to expand the NFL playoffs just to make extra money, without thinking of the long-term ramifications for the league.

[BobbyJ]

Just to put things into perspective. Imagine if the NFL was like college football. If you lost 1 game your chances for going to a SB might be done. Now I know the systems are two different beasts. Im just saying bring that same win/loss mentality to the NFL and its an eye opener. Really gets me thinking of how great college ball would be if it were anything like the NFL system.

[packa7x]

I don't think having 1/2 the league make the playoffs is smart. At some point you'll get over saturation, losing teams, and uncompetitive games.

[Rich Gapinski]

Please, Rodge, don't expand the playoffs. Go work on expansion to Japan first.

[xmenehune]

instead of always having a twelve team playoff or sixteen team playoff or always a set number of teams, perhaps a more fluid way would be better. This year I think 8 or 10 teams would've been fine.

I guess the question should be how to make the playoffs more meaningful.

IF you could construct the various scenarios for an 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 team playoffs and then somehow choose which one would be the most effective that particular season, then yes we could have an even better playoff system.

But how would you choose? which factors are the most important to allow a team into the playoffs? Right now it's strickly W-L records, but if you ask me HOU isn't a good team. What if you could get in the playoffs if your second half record is better than anyone else? Would that be a good factor?
HOU and ATL had a great first half of the season, I don't believe either team will win the AFC or NFC championship.
With social media such a large part of the sports world, perhaps a fan vote for a team that has chance might be another approach (see snub'd teams - great speculation, but maybe now we could see just how smart the general public can be).

Just some thoughts, I guess if someone had the time and skills to review past years and put to the test if a snub'd team or hot team in last half of season had a reasonable chance to win it all, maybe another playoff format might emerge.