1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Point, counterpoint: Expand Playoffs to 16 Teams?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by El Guapo, Nov 6, 2012.

  1. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,614
    Ratings:
    +1,470
    http://www.packers.com/news-and-eve...16-teams/344a7821-f200-46e2-b2c3-dc88e1f5dd83

    I always like these Point/Counterpoint articles on Packers.com. If anything, it forces you to argue a point that you wouldn't typically do, which is what Vic had to do to argue FOR expanding the playoffs.

    I like the current format but Vic makes some good points, especially related to long shots winning in a game hammered into "parity" mode. I also think that Mike is wrong when referencing the Seahawks 7-9 playoff birth in 2010....they beat down the Saints. At the time I thought that it was an abomination to allow the Seahawks into the playoffs, but they created one of the most exciting playoff games that season. Even though Vic makes the more persuasive argument, I don't like diluting the playoff pool. Sometimes it does a team good to stew over the offseason about what coulda shoulda happened, if they had played better earlier. Otherwise sub-500 teams make the playoffs and get a gold star on their team refrigerator.

    What do you all think?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. weeds

    weeds Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,130
    Ratings:
    +1,071
    I'm right there with you. On the same note, as ridiculous as it was that the Seahawks made the playoffs that year, they DID win an extremely weak division but still came out and beat the Saints.... I'm with you in that diluting the playoff pool is a dumb idea.
     
  3. North44

    North44 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    115
    Ratings:
    +33
    I agree with you too. I read that article- never miss a Point/Counterpoint!- and think that the number of teams that make the playoffs of a total of 32 is just perfect.
     
  4. 60six

    60six DIE HARD

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    250
    Ratings:
    +65
    Keep it the way it is. Leave the 16 field playoff teams to NBA and NHL.
     
  5. Aaron rodgers is god

    Aaron rodgers is god Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    786
    Ratings:
    +154
    Football should not add more playoff teams. It's perfect right where it is. nuff said BOOM
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,244
    Ratings:
    +4,116
    Takes away from the importance of the regular season to a point if you add more teams, as well as winning the division.

    NBA has waaaay too many playoff teams... In addition to teams in general
     
  7. Chicocheese

    Chicocheese Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    615
    Ratings:
    +209
    Yeah, allowing half the league to be in the playoffs is just ridiculous. What is the point of playing a regular season? What does winning your division get you?

    As far as the 2010 Seahawks go, well, they got into the playoffs because they WON THEIR DIVISION! Every one else in the NFC West was WORSE than 7-9.
     
  8. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Ratings:
    +1,022
    The real travesty is the baseball playoffs. The Phillies had the best record in baseball in 2009 and 2010 and didn't get to the World Series. That is the league where the regular season has been reduced to being pretty much meaningless after 162 games. A short season of 16 games, where chance can play a much greater part in records (see the Bears), would be harmed much less by an expanded playoff tournament, where the hottest team at playoff time could win it all, as we and the Giants have proven the last 2 years. It wouldn't bother me to see a shorter regular season of 14 games, and 5 rounds of playoff games.
     
  9. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,899
    Ratings:
    +1,433
    How about a compromise, add one Wild Card for a 7 playoff team field? Would add one extra game per conference. The first overall team in each conference still gets a bye, then 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. Top seed hosts lowest seeded remaining team in the divisional round, highest seed after that hosts next lowest, etc.
     
  10. Creepy

    Creepy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +3
    Expand to 16 teams is too much. An extra week and do you have a wild card round to see what two team will meat for the secodn week. While the best teams sit two weeks waiting for the division games. Or do you have all champions play wild card teams. You could end up with a Seahawk/Chief SB and everybody watching sichronized swimming on SB Sunday. Yes the Seahawks made it with a 7-9, the Cardinals made it and almost won the SB and was 8-8 as a division winner. Both teams did someth9ing unexpected (Seahawks beat Saints & Cardinal in SB). Lets not get more in and have more tie breakers because 5 teams fiish with 8-8 records and two are to go forward. What the NFL has isn't perfect, but it is perfect for the NFL.
     
  11. VolvoD

    VolvoD Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,087
    Ratings:
    +643
    expand it to 30 teams...just to re-enforce how shi**y the lowest AFC and NFC teams are.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Ratings:
    +1,022
    If you want to reward the regular season, give the team with the best record points for the number of wins over the opponent. So, if the Packers went 15 and 1, and played the Giants at 9 and 7; the game would start at 6-0 Packers. They still lose, but now you're talkin' a real advantage for performance in the regular season. Kind of like the NASCAR points system.
     
  13. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,222
    Ratings:
    +847
    And on top of that, lets make it a best 2 out 3 games. That way they can play games right up till the time training camp starts. And as fans we can have football 50 weeks out of the year.
     
  14. toolkien

    toolkien Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    97
    Ratings:
    +66
    1) with 16 teams, parity, and all it taking is winning the turnover margin in the playoffs to win it all, there will be a team to win it all with a losing regular season record within a decade of moving to 16 teams. I will bet $1,000 on that.

    2) There is already a breakdown between the regular season and the post season as is, and 16 teams will make that worse. You might as well structure the NFL season like this - play 2 preseason games, a 16 game season, then week 17 will be "rivalry week" where the same two teams play every year, the home field given to the team with the better record (so the regular season has SOME meaning). The winner moves on to the "sweet sixteen" and so forth. Why not? With 16 teams over 8 4-team divisions, you're, again, bound to have a team with a losing record wind their way through and win it all, so you might was well let everyone in. Is a team that "got hot" at the right time winning it all with a 7-9 record that much worse than a team doing the same with a 4-12 record? Not in my book. If the NFL wants to increase its revenue, it will eventually have to water down the meaning of champion to a point or no return.
     
  15. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,614
    Ratings:
    +1,470
    As soon as I read your first sentence, it sounded like the Cup point system.

    Here is an interesting twist. What if instead of "rewarding" the top teams with a BYE week, you give the #1 and #2 seeds the option of a BYE week. If they don't use it, they can pass their BYE down to the next highest seed. Eventually, if the top four seeds in each conference pass on the BYE week then the #5 and #6 seeds must accept it. It would introduce an interesting strategy for teams. It also doesn't "penalize" teams that would rather keep their momentum going instead of sitting idle for a week. I don't know if many teams would pass up the BYE, but it would make things more interesting if they had the option....much like going for a 2-point PAT.
     

Share This Page