OT - Goodell considering expanding playoffs

**lobachevsky** · 12-13-2012, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Yes, at the behest of the owners.

The league doesn't see a dime in profits. The individual teams do.

All revenue the league brings in (fines, TV deals, etc) pays for the league operational costs and what's left over gets spread out amongst the 32 teams.

Mmm, doesn't the fine money go to a charity of the player's choice?

He's put in place to be their lightning rod. He takes the hits; that's what he's paid to do.

He's the CEO but they're the Board of Directors & they can vote him out at any time.

Next time y'all start bitching about "greedy players" & strikes & lawsuits, try to keep in mind that as much money as they make, they're still only employees, mostly very short-term hires, who when contracts are violated or working conditions unsafe have no ultimate recourse except the threat of court action.

**Dade** · 12-13-2012, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

Remember how everyone screamed when a 7-9 Seahawks team made the playoffs a couple of years ago? Imagine that almost every year. Last year for example there were 6 AFC and 6 NFC teams with winning records. More spots means setting things up for .500 or losing teams to make the playoffs.

Exactly.

**mmi16** · 12-13-2012, 06:00 PM

Why not emulate baseball and have a 162 game regular season - that should improve safety!

**HoustonRaven** · 12-13-2012, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

Mmm, doesn't the fine money go to a charity of the player's choice?

Yes. I simplified my remarks for the sake of brevity. I'd lump all of that under what I called operational costs.

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

Next time y'all start bitching about "greedy players" & strikes & lawsuits, try to keep in mind that as much money as they make, they're still only employees, mostly very short-term hires, who when contracts are violated or working conditions unsafe have no ultimate recourse except the threat of court action.

When has a players contract been voided without cause?

And they do have recourse. They have a union. If they wanted better working conditions or more of a meaningful recourse, they should have found a way to get it in the CBA.

**purplepoe** · 12-13-2012, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

Remember how everyone screamed when a 7-9 Seahawks team made the playoffs a couple of years ago? Imagine that almost every year. Last year for example there were 6 AFC and 6 NFC teams with winning records. More spots means setting things up for .500 or losing teams to make the playoffs.

The issue most had was the Seattle was hosting a playoff game with a 10-6 New Orleans team, not that Seattle was in the playoffs.

Seattle won their division which not only gets you into the playoffs but guarantees at least the 4 seed and a home game.

IMO they need to tweak it so that division winners do get into the playoffs (if they don't then there is no point in having divisions) but the 6 teams from each conference are seeded based on record.

That puts more value on the regular season and rewards teams (for this example the 10-6 Saints) for their play in the regular season.

Seattle is one hell of a place to play and New Orleans felt the wrath of Lynch.

As far as the thread topic.

Leave it alone.

PP

**lobachevsky** · 12-13-2012, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by purplepoe

IMO they need to tweak it so that division winners do get into the playoffs (if they don't then there is no point in having divisions) but the 6 teams from each conference are seeded based on record.

That puts more value on the regular season and rewards teams (for this example the 10-6 Saints) for their play in the regular season.

Then you're penalizing teams for playing in a really tough division (where the teams routinely beat up on one another) or playing a particularly tough extra-divisional schedule compared with other teams in the same conference. And you're also telling two teams in the same division with very good records that jockeying for the division championship isn't worth much. There's a downside to nearly every alternative that's been proposed.

As far as the thread topic.

Leave it alone.

The NFL scheduling & playoff arrangements are IMHO about as perfect as system as can be devised. Thirteen games in & look how many teams are still alive for playoff spots or jockeying for higher seeding that is actually worth something. The problem (if you can call it that) is it requires 32 teams in 2 conferences of 4 divisions each playing 16 games apiece--you can't mess with any of those factors without upsetting the applecart.

**purplepoe** · 12-13-2012, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

Then you're penalizing teams for playing in a really tough division (where the teams routinely beat up on one another) or playing a particularly tough extra-divisional schedule compared with other teams in the same conference. And you're also telling two teams in the same division with very good records that jockeying for the division championship isn't worth much. There's a downside to nearly every alternative that's been proposed..

I still think it beats the current system.

Winning the division should only guarantee a playoff spot, not a home playoff game IMO.

Either way, you gotta have division winners in the playoffs no matter what their record is.

PP

**grandraven** · 12-13-2012, 09:57 PM

Goodell is an ass imo.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2

**redmike34** · 12-13-2012, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

Remember how everyone screamed when a 7-9 Seahawks team made the playoffs a couple of years ago? Imagine that almost every year. Last year for example there were 6 AFC and 6 NFC teams with winning records. More spots means setting things up for .500 or losing teams to make the playoffs.

While this is true, you're only looking at the Seahawk side of it. The flip side is the teams like the 2008 Pats (11-5) and the 2010 Bucs (10-6) couldn't get in.

That was particularly hard to swallow in 2010. The Seahawks were a bad team that won a bad division. I'll concede that winning the division makes them a playoff team, but making a 10-6 team sit at home while a 7-9 division winner in name only got a home playoff game? Particularly when the 10-6 team crushed the 7-9 team in week 16 that season?

If that happened to the Ravens this board (among others) would melt, and rightfully so. If adding two teams to the mix can prevent that from happening again, I'm all for it.

**Boulderraven** · 12-14-2012, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by redmike34

While this is true, you're only looking at the Seahawk side of it. The flip side is the teams like the 2008 Pats (11-5) and the 2010 Bucs (10-6) couldn't get in.

That was particularly hard to swallow in 2010. The Seahawks were a bad team that won a bad division. I'll concede that winning the division makes them a playoff team, but making a 10-6 team sit at home while a 7-9 division winner in name only got a home playoff game? Particularly when the 10-6 team crushed the 7-9 team in week 16 that season?

If that happened to the Ravens this board (among others) would melt, and rightfully so. If adding two teams to the mix can prevent that from happening again, I'm all for it.

You need to win your division. Making HALF the NFL teams make the playoffs is stupid, make the regular season more boring than already is.

**redmike34** · 12-14-2012, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Boulderraven

You need to win your division. Making HALF the NFL teams make the playoffs is stupid, make the regular season more boring than already is.

By that line of reasoning, why have wild cards?

If the regular season is boring you, I'd suggest you stop watching it...

**PerpetuallyBored74** · 12-14-2012, 06:06 AM

If it ain't broke...

**wickedsolo** · 12-14-2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by purplepoe

I still think it beats the current system.

Winning the division should only guarantee a playoff spot, not a home playoff game IMO.

Either way, you gotta have division winners in the playoffs no matter what their record is.

PP

I agree with this.

**Dade** · 12-14-2012, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by purplepoe

I still think it beats the current system.

Winning the division should only guarantee a playoff spot, not a home playoff game IMO.

Either way, you gotta have division winners in the playoffs no matter what their record is.

PP

The whole point having divisions is to create rivals and the reward of a home playoff game. Take away the reward for winning the division, then the NFL should do away with divisions and the top 6 teams in each conference go to the playoffs.

Personally I would like to see them eliminate inter conference play and add more games in the division.

**Mista T** · 12-14-2012, 12:14 PM

Against expanding playoffs anymore. What we have today is just marginal.

I would rather see the 17 game schedule with neutral sites for one game, and two bye weeks.

**Boulderraven** · 12-14-2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by redmike34

By that line of reasoning, why have wild cards?

If the regular season is boring you, I'd suggest you stop watching it...

You need to be rewarded for winning your division, that being a HOME game. Having 2 WC's balances the playoffs to 6 teams. WC weekend where WC travels to seed 3 and 4. A pretty big disavantage. A WC team has to win 3 consecutive road playoff games, a tough act to do, but it has been done. Teams should be rewarded or having thier seeding determined by having best record AND winning your division. Lets not make this the NBA, which barely gets watched til the playoffs.

**Captain Silver** · 12-14-2012, 02:36 PM

I'm telling you, this will be the trade off for dropping two preseason games and not going to an 18 game season.

**Ravenswintitle** · 12-14-2012, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Mista T

Against expanding playoffs anymore. What we have today is just marginal.

I would rather see the 17 game schedule with neutral sites for one game, and two bye weeks.

How about 18 games? The expanded playoffs would be part of a revamped schedule which would likely add regular season games and remove preseason. Also likely to add a bye. This proposal doesn't stand on its own

**mmi16** · 12-14-2012, 04:55 PM

If more playoff games are what the owners want - why not a double elimination tournement with all teams seeded - best to worst - highest seeded team plays the game at home until you get down to the Final game and call that the Goodell Bowl!

**Mista T** · 12-14-2012, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

How about 18 games? The expanded playoffs would be part of a revamped schedule which would likely add regular season games and remove preseason. Also likely to add a bye. This proposal doesn't stand on its own

Players were too bitchy about 18/2. If NFL went 17/2 with two byes, there would be one less dressed game, a minor hit in attendance, but two more weeks of TV regular season programming.

Keep the playoffs as is. Watered down playoffs is a major reason I don't watch winter sports.