http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdo...--nfl.html

 

The NFL in my opinion needs to leave this be. When you begin adding extra teams to participate, and you begin rewarding teams with W-L records over Divisional winners, you water down the overall product out there IMHO. I don't care if New Orleans is 11 - 5 and Philadelphia is 10 - 6. People cry about that right now.

 

My arguement is that, look, New Orleans played in a dome this year nine times (one away game in ATL), and they play in the South in the nice weather conditions of Tampa Bay and Carolina. Get over it. If you're such a better team, you should be able to go out on the road and beat the Eagles right? The Eagles 10 - 6 record is more impressive than New Orleans 11 - 5 record this year. They deserved to win the NFC East and they deserved the home field advantage. New Orleans had a chance to clinch their division twice this season, and they failed to do so. Sorry for your luck.

 

Same thing with them going into SEA a few years ago when they went 7 - 9. Again, sorry for your luck. If you're a superior team, I don't care where you're playing, you will find a way to win. I understand that homefield advantage is important, but, people act like teams can't win on the road and go onto the Superbowl as well. The Giants and Steelers have proven that when you look back at the last decade of play-off runs.

 

Then, when you get into this mess of seven teams per conference, I don't like that as well.

 

#7 would play #5

#6 would play #4

 

That now leaves seeds 1# - #3 free for how long? Do you force #3 and #2 to face-off now? Or, do you allow the ultimate winner out of the #7 - #4 seeds to duke it out with #3 after they've had what? two weeks worth of rest? And so forth? Just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't mind the leauge's ambition. But, if it's not broke, you have no need to fix it. The way it works now is perfect. #6 Vs. #4 / #5 Vs. #3. #1 and #2 await their opponents with a week off, and then that's that before the Conference Championship.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

I agree with you wholeheartedly. 

 

I think the playoffs are fine the way they are, and changing it could be disastrous.

---

I remember there were complaints about the Seahawks playing at home with a losing record. Fans, not the NFL, suggested basing the home team purely on record after the Saints played at Seattle. I  also remember reading complaints about the Chargers getting in with an 8-8 record while the 11-5 Patriots did not. NFL.com is wrong about this being a new issue.

 

If the NFL is going to change how teams are seeded in the playoffs, there is no reason to have eight divisions because division titles will be useless. Some anomalies will happen, but at least it makes a lot more sense than college football, where not all conferences have 12 teams and a championship game and realignment is allolwed. One reason I always preferred the NFL is the conferences are always the same 16 teams (14 or 15 when I started watching). Another is it means something to win the division. Duke won its division, but had no chance of playing in the Orange Bowl because of its record. If the NFL was like that, teams that win their divisions would miss the playoffs. Why have eight divisions if winning one does not guarantee a playoff berth?

---

I have long felt that a team should be at least .500 to get into the playoffs, despite winning their division. The NFL is different than MLB, though, in that there are only 16 games.

 

IMO, there is no excuse for putting a sub-.500 team into the MLB playoffs. It also creates another level of excitement on the last day of the season where a team is 80-81 and clinched their weak division. They must still win that last game to get in. I would even argue for >.500 in MLB where there's so many games in the season.

 

In the NFL, a team should be at least 8-8 to get in, if not then you go to the tiebreakers.

 

Losing teams don't belong in the playoffs IMO.

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

I have long felt that a team should be at least .500 to get into the playoffs, despite winning their division. The NFL is different than MLB, though, in that there are only 16 games.

 

IMO, there is no excuse for putting a sub-.500 team into the MLB playoffs. It also creates another level of excitement on the last day of the season where a team is 80-81 and clinched their weak division. They must still win that last game to get in. I would even argue for >.500 in MLB where there's so many games in the season.

 

In the NFL, a team should be at least 8-8 to get in, if not then you go to the tiebreakers.

 

Losing teams don't belong in the playoffs IMO.

 

You think the MLB is bad at that? Check out arena football history. National champions in the AFL have had losing records.

 

I think a team should be at least 9-7 to get in.

---

I don't think division titles would be useless, as division winners would still automatically get in the playoffs.


I could stomach a seeding change. Most times, everything works out ok.

But, this year, 49ers got some bad luck with having to travel to Green Bay.


They have to play in almost certainly below zero weather, against an 8-7-1 team (Niners went 12-4), and Niners had already beaten the "healthy" Packers earlier in the year.


The Niners should have the home game for that. And, the Home field for Green Bay in this case is a definite disadvantage to a team that was much better the whole season.

---

I also think that if there was a seeding change, that more than just record alone should factor in. Head to Head during the regular season should play a part also.


Colts vs Chiefs did work out ok, IMO. Chiefs were better record, but the Colts won Head to Head. I have no problem with the game being in Indy.

---

I don't think division titles would be useless, as division winners would still automatically get in the playoffs.


I could stomach a seeding change. Most times, everything works out OK.


But, this year, the 49ers got some bad luck with having to travel to Green Bay.


They have to play in almost certainly below zero weather, against an 8-7-1 team (Niners went 12-4), and Niners had already beaten the "healthy" Packers earlier in the year.


The Niners should have the home game for that. And, the home field for Green Bay in this case is a definite disadvantage to a team that was much better the whole season.

 

Now there is an interesting idea, jagherd: use HTH as the home field tiebreaker if applicable. But what if Green Bay's tie was with the 49ers?

 

Not almost certainly. Even at kickoff it will be in the negatives - and it is the late game, so the temperature will drop. But because it is the late game, the 49ers cannot use jet lag as an excuse for losing if the Packers win.

 

BTW the Packers would have had a much better record if they did not lose Aaron Rodgers for 7 weeks.

---

Why exactly do the 49ers deserve a home game against the Packers?  If they wanted a home game in the playoffs, all they had to do is beat the Seahawks both times.  If the 49ers are better than the Packers, then they can win in Green Bay.  Best of a division should get the homefield advantage.  Not sure why they shouldn't.  

 

I also don't think there should be a 'winning record' requirement.  Last time a losing team got into the playoffs, they won.  Adding that requirement imo would be saying "There is no parity in the NFL".  

 

If any changes are going to be made to the playoffs, it should be coaching challenges.  Coaches should have a challenge until they get two wrong.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Why exactly do the 49ers deserve a home game against the Packers?  If they wanted a home game in the playoffs, all they had to do is beat the Seahawks both times.  If the 49ers are better than the Packers, then they can win in Green Bay.  Best of a division should get the homefield advantage.  Not sure why they shouldn't.  

 

I also don't think there should be a 'winning record' requirement.  Last time a losing team got into the playoffs, they won.  Adding that requirement imo would be saying "There is no parity in the NFL".  

 

If any changes are going to be made to the playoffs, it should be coaching challenges.  Coaches should have a challenge until they get two wrong.  

 

Coach challenges would chaange for the entire season if that happened. Very rarely do they get two right, and often when they do they don't use the third one.

 

The "last time" a losing team went to the playoffs was actually the only time it happened. I see no reason requiring a winning record would be taking parity out of the NFL.

---

Win your division. You cannot control what any other team does, what you can control is winning your division. You shouldn't reward one team and punish another team because one has a better record even though they did not win their division.

 

 

 

Then, when you get into this mess of seven teams per conference, I don't like that as well.

 

#7 would play #5

#6 would play #4

 

That now leaves seeds 1# - #3 free for how long? Do you force #3 and #2 to face-off now? Or, do you allow the ultimate winner out of the #7 - #4 seeds to duke it out with #3 after they've had what? two weeks worth of rest? And so forth? Just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't mind the leauge's ambition. But, if it's not broke, you have no need to fix it. The way it works now is perfect. #6 Vs. #4 / #5 Vs. #3. #1 and #2 await their opponents with a week off, and then that's that before the Conference Championship.

 

You can't have a 7 team playoff. You can simply fix the entire problem by adding an 8th team, so the top two seeds in each division make the playoffs. It would be like the Champions League or World Cup in soccer, where the top half move on to the playoffs. The division winners are seeded 1-4, and the second place finishers ranked 5-8.  Everyone would play in the first round, no team gets a bye.

 

Looking at this season's standings, the playoffs would look like this:

 

Dallas @ Seattle

Chicago @ Carolina

New Orleans @ Philadelphia

San Francisco @ Green Bay

 

Tennessee @ Denver

NY Jets @ New England

Pittsburgh @ Cincinnati

Kansas City @ Indianapolis

 

It would add more drama as the top 3 teams would be vying for 2 spots in most divisions the last few weeks.

---

To take the Champions League concept further, two changes that would be very intriguing:

 

1. Lottery for divisions each season

 

2. Lottery for each playoff round

 

Each season, every team is placed in a pot based on where they finished in their respective division in the previous season. The playoffs would be determined the same way as in my previous post (not saying I'm a proponent for this system, just an idea) but, the 16 teams would be drawn in a lotto to see who plays whom (2 pots, division winners get home field in pot A and 2nd place finishers in pot B). This is where it gets interesting. In the second round, the lottery is done again.

---

Coach challenges would chaange for the entire season if that happened. Very rarely do they get two right, and often when they do they don't use the third one.

 

The "last time" a losing team went to the playoffs was actually the only time it happened. I see no reason requiring a winning record would be taking parity out of the NFL.

It's not taking parity out of it.  It's admitting that there is no parity.

 

Because it would be saying that a team with a record good enough to win a division isn't good enough to win in the playoffs.

 

If you're going to do that, you might as well do away with divisions altogether.  They would serve absolutely no purpose other than for scheduling.  But why face off against a team twice a year?  Might as well change it so that you face 16 different teams.  One game against each of the other 15 teams in the conference, and one against the other conference team with the same ranking as you the previous year. For example the Jaguars this year would face off against each AFC team, and the Detroit Lions.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The NFL playoffs are perfect as is. 

 

Goodell is an [BLEEP]. 

---

I think playoff expansion would be great thing for the league. The players aren't going to budge on adding more regular season games, but I'm sure they would be in favor of an additional playoff game check. I've long thought that the first round byes were ridiculous in the first place. They're the only sport that does it. If you're truly the best team, you should be able to win four games.

---

LEONARD FOURNETTE FAN CLUB PRESIDENT. I WAS BEHIND HIM WHEN YOU ALL SAID HE WAS BRANDON JACOBS. QUIT HATING ON THE JAGUARS. GUS IS GONE. COUGHLIN HAS RESTORED ORDER. FOURNETTE IS FRED TAYLOR. DONT BELIEVE ME JUST WATCH.

I think playoff expansion would be great thing for the league. The players aren't going to budge on adding more regular season games, but I'm sure they would be in favor of an additional playoff game check. I've long thought that the first round byes were ridiculous in the first place. They're the only sport that does it. If you're truly the best team, you should be able to win four games.

 

The problem with adding two teams is that makes it too easy to get in the playoffs. I don't want it to be like college basketball where half of the teams go to the tournament.

---

The problem with adding two teams is that makes it too easy to get in the playoffs. I don't want it to be like college basketball where half of the teams go to the tournament.

 

???? There are 351 D1 basketball teams and only 68 get to go to the tourney.

---

LEONARD FOURNETTE FAN CLUB PRESIDENT. I WAS BEHIND HIM WHEN YOU ALL SAID HE WAS BRANDON JACOBS. QUIT HATING ON THE JAGUARS. GUS IS GONE. COUGHLIN HAS RESTORED ORDER. FOURNETTE IS FRED TAYLOR. DONT BELIEVE ME JUST WATCH.

???? There are 351 D1 basketball teams and only 68 get to go to the tourney.

 

I thought the 68 teams were out of 123 in Division 1-A.

---

I thought the 68 teams were out of 123 in Division 1-A.

 

There are 123 teams in D1 football. Basketball is a much, much cheaper alternative and many smaller schools field teams that are still considered D1. Thus, there are 351 D1 basketball teams.

---

LEONARD FOURNETTE FAN CLUB PRESIDENT. I WAS BEHIND HIM WHEN YOU ALL SAID HE WAS BRANDON JACOBS. QUIT HATING ON THE JAGUARS. GUS IS GONE. COUGHLIN HAS RESTORED ORDER. FOURNETTE IS FRED TAYLOR. DONT BELIEVE ME JUST WATCH.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...-playoffs/

 

It looks like expansion is coming, like it or not.

---

LEONARD FOURNETTE FAN CLUB PRESIDENT. I WAS BEHIND HIM WHEN YOU ALL SAID HE WAS BRANDON JACOBS. QUIT HATING ON THE JAGUARS. GUS IS GONE. COUGHLIN HAS RESTORED ORDER. FOURNETTE IS FRED TAYLOR. DONT BELIEVE ME JUST WATCH.