New 14 Team playoff going into effect?

[Cali-Steeler]

   


New 14 Team playoff going into effect? 


I dont care for this. 

They will also only have 1 team per conference with a 2 week bye  AFC NFC


Link > https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2873...aQQekolCWQ

[Rollers]

with that many teams in maybe we can get there!

[mcmillenandwife]

with that many teams in maybe we can get there!

[mcmillenandwife]

New 14 Team playoff going into effect? 


I dont care for this. 

They will also only have 1 team per conference with a 2 week bye  AFC NFC

Agreed, this blows. Teams with losing records in the playoffs should NEVER happen, and it will become more with this many teams getting in. 

More watered down bullshit from the NFL. When will they start handing out participation trophies?

[bksteeler]

From the Ringer NFL site-->https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2020/2/19/...m-schefter

Here are the teams from the last 10 years that missed the postseason as the no. 7 seed but would have made the playoffs under the proposed format.

2019: Pittsburgh (8-8) and Los Angeles (9-7)
2018: Pittsburgh (9-6-1) and Minnesota (8-7-1)
2017: Baltimore (9-7) and Detroit (9-7)
2016: Tennessee (9-7) and Tampa Bay (9-7)
2015: New York Jets (10-6) and Atlanta (8-8)
2014: Houston (9-7) and Philadelphia (10-6)
2013: Pittsburgh (8-8) and Arizona (10-6)
2012: Pittsburgh (8-8) and Chicago (10-6)
2011: Tennessee (9-7) and Chicago (8-8)
2010: San Diego (9-7) and New York Giants (10-6)

I love the Steelers, but have no desire to see three 8-8 Steeler teams, (or any 8-8 team for that matter) make the playoffs. It's bad enough in those years when there are 7-9 teams making the playoffs.

[Garrett Garlits]

If you want to get technical, every single-elimination playoff format that's ever existed waters sports down, not to mention every series. In a pure format, the regular-season team with the best record should be declared the champion for that season. How often has that happened in American professional sports?

I, for one, will take the Steelers in the playoffs regardless of their record or how they played to attain that record. If an 8-8 or 7-9 seventh-seeded Steeler team can win three games on the road plus the Super Bowl, they deserve to be called the best team in football for that year, just like any of the other six Super Bowl champion teams were and still are. (That goes for any other team that can do the same thing, too.)

[mcmillenandwife]

I, for one, will take the Steelers in the playoffs regardless of their record or how they played to attain that record. If an 8-8 or 7-9 seventh-seeded Steeler team can win three games on the road plus the Super Bowl, they deserve to be called the best team in football for that year, just like any of the other six Super Bowl champion teams were and still are.

I concede that I would be happy to see the Steelers in the playoffs, pretty much no matter what. 

That said, this rule change -- if approved -- blows. I have no desire to see mediocrity rewarded more than it already is. 6 teams from each conference is plenty.

If you want to get technical, every single-elimination playoff format that's ever existed waters sports down, not to mention every series. In a pure format, the regular-season team with the best record should be declared the champion for that season. How often has that happened in American professional sports?

Riiiiiiiiiiight... so if you end the season with 4 teams tying for the best record, all 4 would be co-champions? 

Sometimes I think you post things like this to be intentionally obtuse, because I know you're an intelligent person.

[Garrett Garlits]

I was being sarcastic, Tim. If you want it spelled out in plain English, such a thing has never happened, should never happen, and will never happen. There will always be playoffs, and the winner of hose playoffs always should and always will be known as the best team in that sport, whether they played well enough in the regular season to "deserve" a playoff spot or not.

[mcmillenandwife]

I was being sarcastic, Tim. If you want it spelled out in plain English, such a thing has never happened, should never happen, and will never happen. There will always be playoffs, and the winner of hose playoffs always should and always will be known as the best team in that sport, whether they played well enough in the regular season to "deserve" a playoff spot or not.

 Sarcasm requires an element of irony. I don't see anything ironic in your comment.... just an implausible, unconvincing scenario. 

Sometimes the best team doesn't win. The '07 Giants weren't a better team than the '07 Patriots. But "sort of" to your point, they still won a championship, rendering their 9-7 regular season record irrelevant. 

My point is simply that teams who finish with a losing record in the regular season don't deserve to be rewarded with a trip to the playoffs.

[Garrett Garlits]

Does that include division winners too? It's only happened once, but it could conceivably happen again. Is that entire division out of luck?

Also, the winner of the Super Bowl is the best team in football. The regular season is just a seeding exercise designed to provide television product for the league and money for the owners and players. If they could find a way to get rid of it and make the same amount of money, they'd do it in nothing flat. It means nothing once the playoffs start, as the '07 Patriots can tell you.

[necron99]

I'd be super interested to see the difference between this 7th seed team vs. the "worst" division winner. I'd bet the 7 seed wouldn't be as "bad" as the worst division winner in many years. So, while I'm not in love with the idea, it's not a hill to die on either, IMO.

[necron99]

There's a reason it's called "NFL Champion" or "Super Bowl Champion" not "Best Team in the League." As has been stated, sometimes the "best" team doesn't win. Many times. Because the margin of difference between the teams is INCREDIBLY CLOSE, in all actuality. Even the difference between 1 and 32 in the NFL is super close, regardless of how it looks.

[Noll and Cowher teams no more]

I'd be super interested to see the difference between this 7th seed team vs. the "worst" division winner.  I'd bet the 7 seed wouldn't be as "bad" as the worst division winner in many years.  So, while I'm not in love with the idea, it's not a hill to die on either, IMO.

First of all, welcome!

I kinda like it. I see this as a way to get the teams that might finish 9-7 or 10-6 and do not get in because a division winner with an 8-8 record does.

2015 season comes to mind where the 9-7 Texans made it into the playoffs and the 10-6 jets stayed home or in 2014 the Panthers at 7-8-1 got in and the Eagles at 10-6 and San Fran at 8-8 stayed home.

It's not as bad as becoming bowl eligible with just needing a 6 win season the way college football has it now.

Just click on the link https://www.nfl.com/standings/conference/2019/REG and look through the past seasons. I just stopped at 2014 but 2013 had the same deal with the packers at 8-7-1 making it in with the cardinals at 10-6 sitting home for the playoffs.

[dbsfgyd1]

I'd be super interested to see the difference between this 7th seed team vs. the "worst" division winner.  I'd bet the 7 seed wouldn't be as "bad" as the worst division winner in many years.  So, while I'm not in love with the idea, it's not a hill to die on either, IMO.

First of all, welcome!

I kinda like it. I see this as a way to get the teams that might finish 9-7 or 10-6 and do not get in because a division winner with an 8-8 record does.

2015 season comes to mind where the 9-7 Texans made it into the playoffs and the 10-6 jets stayed home or in 2014 the Panthers at 7-8-1 got in and the Eagles at 10-6 and San Fran at 8-8 stayed home.

It's not as bad as becoming bowl eligible with just needing a 6 win season the way college football has it now.

Just click on the link https://www.nfl.com/standings/conference/2019/REG and look through the past seasons. I just stopped at 2014 but 2013 had the same deal with the packers at 8-7-1 making it in with the cardinals at 10-6 sitting home for the playoffs.

Wait  a minute, maybe we should set the playoff teams by the strength of their schedule, determined at the end of the season. This way we will never know which teams make it in. Let’s make this really convoluted, sort of on the lines of what is a catch, pass interference, or holding. LOL!!!

[mcmillenandwife]

I'd be super interested to see the difference between this 7th seed team vs. the "worst" division winner.  I'd bet the 7 seed wouldn't be as "bad" as the worst division winner in many years.  So, while I'm not in love with the idea, it's not a hill to die on either, IMO.

You know what? This is legit. You're exactly right, and I hadn't though of it that way. 

This change would've allowed the 2008 Patriots (11-5) to get into the playoffs as the 7th seed. The Chargers won their division at 8-8 and weren't nearly as good as the Matt Cassell-led Patriots. 

You've officially changed my mind on this.

[Jbsptfn]

If they are gonna do this, they should just go ahead and add an eighth team so nobody gets a bye.

[RaynorShyne]

Also, the winner of the Super Bowl is the best team in football. 

This is a highly suspect statement.   I think it's best reworded as, "The winner of the Super Bowl was the last team standing", or "The winner of the Super Bowl was the team that won THAT game"

[Barney]

Meh.. I don't think the players will go for it.

[Garrett Garlits]

I meant exactly what I said; there's no need to reword it. If regular season records meant anything, the team with the best record would be the one to get the trophy and be recognized as the league champion. As all of us know perfectly well, that's not the case.

[Krunch]

This new system will help Tomlin get into Canton. First Coach Elected based on most Participation Trophies in a career.

[mcmillenandwife]

This new system will help Tomlin get into Canton.  First Coach Elected based on most Participation Trophies in a career.

[necron99]

I'd be super interested to see the difference between this 7th seed team vs. the "worst" division winner.  I'd bet the 7 seed wouldn't be as "bad" as the worst division winner in many years.  So, while I'm not in love with the idea, it's not a hill to die on either, IMO.

You know what? This is legit. You're exactly right, and I hadn't though of it that way. 

This change would've allowed the 2008 Patriots (11-5) to get into the playoffs as the 7th seed. The Chargers won their division at 8-8 and weren't nearly as good as the Matt Cassell-led Patriots. 

You've officially changed my mind on this.

Just wanted to say it's nice to be back on M&W... it's been a long time.  I don't know that I'm TOTALLY sold on it.  I think the players would go for it because it's more money...extra playoff checks in their pockets. 

[RaynorShyne]

I meant exactly what I said; there's no need to reword it. If regular season records meant anything, the team with the best record would be the one to get the trophy and be recognized as the league champion. As all of us know perfectly well, that's not the case.

Keep it however you want.  You're wrong.

[mcmillenandwife]

Just wanted to say it's nice to be back on M&W... it's been a long time.  

Welcome back!