I forgot did the nfl expand the playoffs this yr?

[Snoops]

I think they did to 7 I can't rmbr if it's this yr or next?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not yet, according to one source in the following article, its a 50/50 chance to happen this year.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25073436/report-nfl-playoffs-unlikely-to-expand-in-2015

 

[Snoops]

Thanks man it's not like we need anymore bottom feeders in the league just means if u don't secure the number 1 seed u get no bye week

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not yet, according to one source in the following article, its a 50/50 chance to happen this year.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25073436/report-nfl-playoffs-unlikely-to-expand-in-2015

There is no way the NFL will expand to seven playoff teams for the 2015 season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think your prediction is correct Captain. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the top 2 teams from each conference getting a first round bye. I'm sure history or someone here, will prove me wrong, but in my mind its just too big of an advantage for those 4 teams. Obviously, to eliminate the byes the number of teams in the playoffs would have to either drop back to 8 or increase to 16. 8 is too few in my mind and 16 too many, but I would choose 16 if it eliminates the byes.

<EDIT> The current talks center around shifting to 14 teams in the playoff, which means that only 1 team in each conference gets a bye. Again, IMO way too big of an advantage for those 2 teams.

 

[El Guapo]

Good point. However, the NFL also sees the need to have an incentive in place so that good teams don't coast and rest players for multiple games at the end of the season if they've already locked into the playoffs. Some already sit stars for the final game, and those games tend not to be watched or attended as much.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Agreed EG, but home field and momentum can be enough incentive for teams not to coast. A team that is 14-1 and guaranteed the top playoff spot, is going to coast no matter what system is in place. Plus, isn't getting a bye, kind of like coasting and resting players?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think your prediction is correct Captain. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the top 2 teams from each conference getting a first round bye. I'm sure history or someone here, will prove me wrong, but in my mind its just too big of an advantage for those 4 teams. Obviously, to eliminate the byes the number of teams in the playoffs would have to either drop back to 8 or increase to 16. 8 is too few in my mind and 16 too many, but I would choose 16 if it eliminates the byes.

<EDIT> The current talks center around shifting to 14 teams in the playoff, which means that only 1 team in each conference gets a bye. Again, IMO way too big of an advantage for those 2 teams.

The NFL introduced the current playoff format before the 1990 season. Since then 17 of the 25 Super Bowl champions had a bye week in the first round after finishing either first or second in their conference. You have to realize that the main reason these teams won the title is that they were more talented than their opponents and not because of having a week off.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree with most of that Captain, but its hard to argue that a week off at the end of the season did not in some way help to contribute to 17 of the 25 Super Bowl champions since 1990 having a bye week, along with home field advantage of course.

I would be curious to know more about playoff results between 1970-1978 when there were no byes and just 8 teams that got into the playoffs.

 

[TJV]

I like that the two division winners with the best regular season records get a bye because it adds importance to the regular season. Still if a team gets hot for the playoff run like the 2010 Packers they can win it all without a home playoff game. Should getting hot at the end of the season matter more than being one of the best teams for the entire regular season? I’m not sure but I like the current set up and hope they don’t add more playoff teams.

 

[RRyder]

The NFL introduced the current playoff format before the 1990 season. Since then 17 of the 25 Super Bowl champions had a bye week in the first round after finishing either first or second in their conference. You have to realize that the main reason these teams won the title is that they were more talented than their opponents and not because of having a week off.

I can't be the only one that doesn't care if the top two seeds in each conference get a bye week in the playoffs. It's called a reward for being one of the top 2 teams in your conference and with parity and the "any given sunday" type upsets that happen in the NFL then no simply getting to play a lower seed in the Wildcard round is not that great of a reward.

 

[adambr2]

The NFL introduced the current playoff format before the 1990 season. Since then 17 of the 25 Super Bowl champions had a bye week in the first round after finishing either first or second in their conference. You have to realize that the main reason these teams won the title is that they were more talented than their opponents and not because of having a week off.

That and the fact that it's that much easier to win 3 straight games after the season than 4.

I like the current system, as far as the number of teams allowed in. 12 out of 32 is the perfect combination of keeping the playoffs free of poor quality teams while still having a good number of games. I wish they wouldn't change it, but they will -- eventually. It's more revenue, and that'll win every time in the end. I'd be surprised if there aren't 14 playoff teams within 3 years from now.

I realize we have 7-9 and 8-8 teams sneak in now and then, but that's more of a product of how divisions are structured 4 per team.

 

[Carl]

I don't care if it moves to 14. More games for me to watch.

 

[Poppa San]

The NFL introduced the current playoff format before the 1990 season. Since then 17 of the 25 Super Bowl champions had a bye week in the first round after finishing either first or second in their conference. You have to realize that the main reason these teams won the title is that they were more talented than their opponents and not because of having a week off.

That means 83 teams with a bye did NOT win the SuperBowl that season.

 

[Carl]

The NFL introduced the current playoff format before the 1990 season. Since then 17 of the 25 Super Bowl champions had a bye week in the first round after finishing either first or second in their conference. You have to realize that the main reason these teams won the title is that they were more talented than their opponents and not because of having a week off.

The homefield is probably a huge factor also.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That means 83 teams with a bye did NOT win the SuperBowl that season.

No matter if all 25 SB's were won by bye teams. there would 3 bye teams each year (75) didn't/couldn't win, so 83 doesn't really statistically say much.

 

[adambr2]

That means 83 teams with a bye did NOT win the SuperBowl that season.

Yes, 83 out of 100 did not. And 192 out of 200 teams without a bye did not.

So put in those terms, if you do not get a bye you have a 4% chance of winning the Super Bowl. With a bye your chances are over 4 times greater, 17%.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Thanks for doing the math Adambr......makes my point lol

 

[Zartan]

I hope its not expanded. We will get more 7 and 9 teams in the playoffs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would be curious to know more about playoff results between 1970-1978 when there were no byes and just 8 teams that got into the playoffs.

The 1974 Pittsburgh Steelers are the only Super Bowl champion which didn't finish with one of the two best records in their conference when only eight teams made the playoffs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Thanks for doing the research Captain.....might have thrown out my whole "bye conspiracy theory" lol

But I am still not a big fan of the bye. I just think its too big of a reward for the top two teams, especially when you throw in the added incentive and advantage of home field. However, I prefer it over the 8 or 16 teams it would take to not have a bye.

 

[adambr2]

I agree with the advantage the bye allows. I think it helps give the proper reward to the top regular season teams in a one and done playoff like the NFL has, versus the best of 7's in the other leagues that almost always eventually result in the best team coming out on top.

However, if they just went to 7 playoff teams, just the top seed would get the bye which is fine with me, I just prefer the current format. Either is better than 8 teams from each conference, no byes, which is just too watered down.

 

[Half Empty]

Thanks for doing the research Captain.....might have thrown out my whole "bye conspiracy theory" lol

But I am still not a big fan of the bye. I just think its too big of a reward for the top two teams, especially when you throw in the added incentive and advantage of home field. However, I prefer it over the 8 or 16 teams it would take to not have a bye.

For the youngsters, the top teams didn't used to get the bye as an advantage, they won the whole thing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

One thing I would like to see changed is playoff seating. A team that goes 8-8 and wins a weak division, should not host a wildcard team that went 11-5 in a strong division, IMO.

 

[TJV]

One thing I would like to see changed is playoff seating.

Me too - I think the regular seats should be replaced with leather recliners with a cup holder - gotta have a cup holder!

Seriously, as I've posted before, I'd like to see a re-seeding based upon regular season record for each round of the playoffs. That, again, puts an emphasis on the regular season. Division winners should continue make the playoffs but I don't think they deserve HFA unless they're matched against a team with an equal or worse regular season record.