Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: NFL 2011 Solution-Avoiding A Work Stoppage

Hybrid View

  1. NFL 2011 Solution-Avoiding A Work Stoppage

    I've created a detailed plan for post-season expansion as a much better alternative to an 18-game regular season. My proposal makes the game more efficient, enjoyable, competitive and profitable for all involved from the league, owners, players, fans, tv partners, advertisers and sponsors.

    It's too long to read in its entirety, unless your livelihood depends on a 2011 NFL season.

    I simply need to get the attention of people from the NFL and NFLPA. My blueprint is compelling, viable and feasible. I don't need a receptive audience, just an attentive one.

    Here's the link.

    http://www.slideshare.net/JasonMathas/02-0111-nfl

    Jason Mathas

  2. Jason - good start. Consider that teams lose money with byes. Why not get rid of byes. Have all 32 teams play in round 1. That still results in 5 rounds. If one sets them up into two brackets -AFC and NFC. Each bracket would be ranked and top half would play bottom half of other conference. This would make playoffs more exciting. The most watched college sport is March Madness for a reason.

  3. #3
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by williwonte View Post
    Jason - good start. Consider that teams lose money with byes. Why not get rid of byes. Have all 32 teams play in round 1. That still results in 5 rounds. If one sets them up into two brackets -AFC and NFC. Each bracket would be ranked and top half would play bottom half of other conference. This would make playoffs more exciting. The most watched college sport is March Madness for a reason.
    No way. The reason there are 64 (well, now 68) teams in the tournament is because there are 347 Division 1 basketball teams in the NCAA. Putting all 32, or even putting more than 12 teams in the playoffs would basically render the regular season completely worthless.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Wordsworth View Post
    No way. The reason there are 64 (well, now 68) teams in the tournament is because there are 347 Division 1 basketball teams in the NCAA. Putting all 32, or even putting more than 12 teams in the playoffs would basically render the regular season completely worthless.
    How does it render the regular season worthless? You're speculating. Would you not watch football during the regular season because of a 24-team playoff system? Of course, most people resist change from the familiar, whether the "familiar" is beneficial or detrimental. People will adjust and gravitate towards the new system.

  5. #5
    24 teams in the playoffs? Can't say I'm on board at all, it would render the regular season almost meaningless. Under your plan teams with 6 wins would have made the playoffs last year, teams could clinch post-season by week 8. One of the things that makes the NFL great is that every week is life or death. If a team is 0-1 and playing a 1-0 division rival, it's almost must-win to keep from dropping 2 1/2 back.

    On a personal note, as a guy who earns his money by looking up stats (ok, earns might be a bit strong), I wouldn't look forward to writing "the Panthers are 1-9, if they lose 2 more they run the risk of missing the playoffs" or "teams that lose their first 3 games only make the playoffs 97.3% of the time".

  6. You make a good point, but the NFL season is short. Meaning 1 game per week, unlike baseball, basketball, hockey with 2-4 games per week. People wait for the playoffs to start in those sports. At least the people who watch those sports.

    But the attention span and focus is there and will be there from teams and fans. I understand 24 is such a "big number", compared to the current system, and I expect initial resistance. What you're not considering, with your 1-9 Panthers reference, is that if a team is out of it after 9-10 games, that affects the rest of the league during their last 6-7 games. If they tank because they know they're out of it, it makes for more boring meaningless games.

    24 teams rewards the top records with byes, but qualifies more teams. This solution, ultimately makes for more meaningful, competitive games throughout the entire season. Occasionally a 6-10 team might get in. But the bell shaped curve developed over time will typically limit that occurrence. But 24 teams definitely prevents a team 9-7, 10-6 or 11-5 from exclusion.

    I know everyone is accustomed to the current system. But this is an improvement. It makes more money for the league. Creates more excitement (games, meaningful games) and opportunity for more players to get to the Super Bowl.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonMathas View Post
    Occasionally a 6-10 team might get in. But the bell shaped curve developed over time will typically limit that occurrence.
    Not just occasionally. Going back to '02 (the first year with 32 teams) a 6-10 or worse team would have made the playoffs every year, with a 5-11 team making it 5 out of those 9 years.

  8. You're basing this on the current 12 team qualifying system. Now at least 8-12, up to 14 teams pack it in early because they know there's no shot by week 9-10. This is what skews the records towards the low end. More teams with the chance to get in will play harder for the duration of the season. The probability and outcome will bear this out. But you are my stat guy. I need someone with instant access to this info. Check out my overtime solution:
    http://www.slideshare.net/JasonMatha...ertime-dilemma

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonMathas View Post
    You're basing this on the current 12 team qualifying system. Now at least 8-12, up to 14 teams pack it in early because they know there's no shot by week 9-10. This is what skews the records towards the low end. More teams with the chance to get in will play harder for the duration of the season. The probability and outcome will bear this out. But you are my stat guy. I need someone with instant access to this info. Check out my overtime solution:
    http://www.slideshare.net/JasonMatha...ertime-dilemma
    That makes no sense from a pure math perspective. Some teams might win a few more games later in the year, but that means other teams will lose more (for every win there is a loss) and the win distribution would end up roughly the same. The idea that 3/4 of the league would end up 2 games under .500 or better in any year, let alone most years, is not realistic.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Freeland View Post
    Not just occasionally. Going back to '02 (the first year with 32 teams) a 6-10 or worse team would have made the playoffs every year, with a 5-11 team making it 5 out of those 9 years.
    EHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHHEHEHEHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH!!!!! (That's the buzzer)
    Screw you guys, I'm going home.

Similar Threads

  1. NFP News - Healthy Darren Sharper confident he'll find work in 2011
    By Administrator in forum National Football Post
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2011, 06:40 PM
  2. NFP News - Jonathan Kraft blames players for work stoppage
    By Administrator in forum National Football Post
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-02-2011, 05:39 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 07:59 PM
  4. How will a work stoppage affect you?
    By msclemons in forum NFL
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-19-2011, 06:48 PM
  5. Senators weigh in on NFL work stoppage.
    By bluestree in forum NFL
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-09-2010, 10:21 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •