Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Guapo" data-source="post: 472934" data-attributes="member: 5830"><a href="http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/top-five/article-1/Point-counterpoint-Should-the-NFL-playoff-field-be-expanded-to-16-teams/344a7821-f200-46e2-b2c3-dc88e1f5dd83" target="_blank">http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/top-five/article-1/Point-counterpoint-Should-the-NFL-playoff-field-be-expanded-to-16-teams/344a7821-f200-46e2-b2c3-dc88e1f5dd83</a> 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?</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 480 (members: 0, guests: 480)