NFL: NFL Owners Want To Expand Playoffs?

[AUTiger7222]

(12-13-2012 08:31 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  Both of yall make compelling arguments and Im in the middle, but in my opinion Aftermath's opinion is more compelling.

I typed this before seeing the option of changing the seeding to best record instead of divisional rankings for the top 4.

The only bad side to that is strength of schedule. Howdo we combat that?

I don't think there's anyway to get around the strength of schedule thing. It is what it is.

[juraitwaluzka]

The problem with taking the division out of it is that for it to be fair you would need to be able to play a balanced schedule and that's very difficult with 16 teams and 16 games. Just comparing records is not enough. "Who you played" becomes a much larger factor.

The way the scheduling is done now, it is actually more fair. You are first measured against the other teams in your division. Each team in a division has 14 of the 16 games in common and that is a perfect measurement. When one team wins the division there is never any debate about it. There can't be and that's the way it should be.

If you move to a purely record based system you introduce ambiguity. Is the team that's 8-8 but lost to New England, San Francisco, Green Bay worse than the 10-6 team who happened to have a much weaker schedule? It's not easy to say. It's subjective because they didn't play the same schedule.

With current divisional play, if one team in the division has a weaker schedule, it doesn't matter - with 14 of 16 games the same, all the teams in the division will have similar strength of schedule. So it doesn't matter if it's weak or strong, your path to the playoffs is the same - compete with the teams in your division.

This is why divisional play is important. It's why divisional games matter more than the others. This doesn't need to ever go away.

Besides if you're going to just use records, why stop with divisions? Shouldn't you do away conferences too? What if the best NFC team was 9-7 but the AFC was filled with 12+ win team? The concepts are no different.

[AUTiger7222]

(12-14-2012 01:14 AM)juraitwaluzka Wrote:  The problem with taking the division out of it is that for it to be fair you would need to be able to play a balanced schedule and that's very difficult with 16 teams and 16 games. Just comparing records is not enough. "Who you played" becomes a much larger factor.

The way the scheduling is done now, it is actually more fair. You are first measured against the other teams in your division. Each team in a division has 14 of the 16 games in common and that is a perfect measurement. When one team wins the division there is never any debate about it. There can't be and that's the way it should be.

If you move to a purely record based system you introduce ambiguity. Is the team that's 8-8 but lost to New England, San Francisco, Green Bay worse than the 10-6 team who happened to have a much weaker schedule? It's not easy to say. It's subjective because they didn't play the same schedule.

With current divisional play, if one team in the division has a weaker schedule, it doesn't matter - with 14 of 16 games the same, all the teams in the division will have similar strength of schedule. So it doesn't matter if it's weak or strong, your path to the playoffs is the same - compete with the teams in your division.

This is why divisional play is important. It's why divisional games matter more than the others. This doesn't need to ever go away.

Besides if you're going to just use records, why stop with divisions? Shouldn't you do away conferences too? What if the best NFC team was 9-7 but the AFC was filled with 12+ win team? The concepts are no different.

I completely understand what you're saying.

But shouldn't it be fair that a 10-6 team should have the home field over a 9-7 team?

[juraitwaluzka]

(12-14-2012 03:30 AM)AUTiger7222 Wrote:  I completely understand what you're saying.

But shouldn't it be fair that a 10-6 team should have the home field over a 9-7 team?

Honestly it just really doesn't bother me that much.I'm fine with division winners getting a home game as a reward for winning the division. The system currently rewards winning your division as your first goal. If you are a wildcard team you failed in your first goal, and if you have a more difficult path as a result so be it.

Besides, because of scheduling differences the 9-7 record may be more impressive than the 10-6 record, it just depends.

[swanlee]

(12-14-2012 03:30 AM)AUTiger7222 Wrote:  I completely understand what you're saying.

But shouldn't it be fair that a 10-6 team should have the home field over a 9-7 team?

Not really, that 10-6 team should have won it's division then. If more teams are added to the playoffs and things changed to make winning a division meaningless they are effectively defeating the whole purpose of having divisions in the first place.

People seem to be trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. To many rules changes going on now, the game is fine leave it the fuck alone.

Still not to happy with the OT change either, sudden death works great, if you don't want to lose in OT and you lost the coin toss don't let them score. Defense is still part of the game.

Hey let's not have kickoffs, let all 32 teams make the playoffs, no more tackling. We might as well have flag football.

[ATLBound]

(12-14-2012 09:19 AM)swanlee Wrote:  Not really, that 10-6 team should have won it's division then. If more teams are added to the playoffs and things changed to make winning a division meaningless they are effectively defeating the whole purpose of having divisions in the first place.

People seem to be trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. To many rules changes going on now, the game is fine leave it the fuck alone.

Still not to happy with the OT change either, sudden death works great, if you don't want to lose in OT and you lost the coin toss don't let them score. Defense is still part of the game.

Hey let's not have kickoffs, let all 32 teams make the playoffs, no more tackling. We might as well have flag football.

The OT change wasn't because defense isn't part of the game. It's to give both teams the same opportunity, which I agree with. Once both teams get that ONE same opportunity, then it goes back to sudden death. I think that's perfect!

Defense is even more part of the equation in that aspect.

One bad call in OT can fuck you up and while we're on the subject.....one of the biggest reasons for the change in OT is to raise competition. Offenses were just settling for field goal range, so now you're crippled on defense because you're now not defending the whole field, only part of it. Offense has a huge advantage already and it makes it worst.

As far as the playoffs situation....the aspect of the wild card team having HFA over the division winner doesn't sit right with me. It's given to the division winner because that's always the primary goal of every team. It goes back to strength of schedule.

What if the reason the wild card team has a better record because of an easier schedule? What if the same could be said for the division winner? So you give it to the person who accomplished a goal that goes beyond just winning games. And I like the aspect given earlier about the wildcard team not getting any benefits, that's a basic definition of the wildcard team in any playoff format.

As far as solution to a problem, for OT a lot of people thought that was an issue. The playoffs thing is about money and more football.

[phocis850]

Money money money.

[swanlee]

In OT both teams do get a chance, Defense can score , Defense can stop an offense. It is silly to have it changed to some Madden like scenario. If you don't want to lose don't let the other team score. It is a silly change and was not needed.

[ATLBound]

(12-14-2012 10:39 AM)swanlee Wrote:  In OT both teams do get a chance, Defense can score , Defense can stop an offense. It is silly to have it changed to some Madden like scenario. If you don't want to lose don't let the other team score. It is a silly change and was not needed.

Yes, defense can score. But sudden death is still a possibility n the first possession if a touchdown is scored. I don't think you understand that its the best of both worlds.

You want sudden death, score a touchdown
Others want equal opportunity, so score a field goal and the opposite team gets a chance to win with a TD or tie with a field goal. After that, sudden death applies.
Or if the 1st team loses possession, then sudden death applies.

In each situation there is a way that sudden death applies. How do you not like that is beyond me?

I don't think you fully understand the rules of OT and how the change is nothing but positive.

Did you really like the way an OT game could have ended by driving 60 yards and then kicking a field goal? It goes back to what I stated earlier. Defense is a big part of it, because if you are able to defend the WHOLE field and not just part of it, then you have a chance to win. That change was all about competition and it was a proper solution.

And how the heck is this a Madden scenario? Is that some random insult that people put in when people are talking about something they dislike in football?

[swanlee]

I think the silly situational changes are stupid and approaching the college level crap. Sudden Death was fine it did not need to be changed. If your defense can't stop the other team from scoring you deserve to lose end of story.