Analysis of the 14-team NFL Playoff Proposal

[Football Frontier RSS Feed]

Roger Goodell has indicated the NFL might expand its playoff system from 12 teams to 14 teams as early as the 2015 season. He is promising more competitive matches at the end of season as well as more memorable moments for fans. He didn’t give any specifics, but it’s likely that the expansion would come [...]

More... (http://www.solecismic.com/frontierblog/?p=671)

[APC]

I hate this idea. The playoff system right now is close to perfect: Regular season games have meaning, the great teams are rewarded, good teams still have a chance to make a run at the end. It's a great set-up for having parity, but still ensuring that regular season success is rewarded.

There is very little value to real football fans in having a bunch of muddling 6-8 teams still in contention over the last two weeks. I know this is just another money grab from the NFL, but I wish they'd think a little harder and come up with another way to fleece us for more cash.

[Gallifrey]

I agree. Why does half the league have to get into the playoffs? Well Goodell works for the owners, and his job is to make them more money. I hate the idea too.

[Dutch]

The #14 ranked NFL team winning the Super Bowl doesn't make the NFL awesome.

Be careful that you don't make the end of year tournament so important that the regular season becomes too weak (NCAA basketball and the NHL come to mind.)

[TRO]

Be careful that you don't make the end of year tournament so important that the regular season becomes too weak (NCAA basketball and the NHL come to mind.)

Yup.

[Julio Riddols]

This is the same problem America has now. Companies are beholden to their shareholders and probably care much less what their customers think.

So far, every single idea Goodell has had has been total shit in my opinion.

[mtolson]

I say get rid of the divisions and have less teams. Green Bay getting into the playoffs at 8-7-1 in a week division with Arizona sitting at home watching at 10-6 in a strong division is stupid.

[Solecismic]

I say get rid of the divisions and have less teams. Green Bay getting into the playoffs at 8-7-1 in a week division with Arizona sitting at home watching at 10-6 in a strong division is stupid.

The idea behind the divisions is to compile a subset of the league where schedules are very similar and home-and-aways exist. The "winner" of a division is a valid concept.

Wild cards exist to advance the teams unlucky enough to have a strong division winner. So a balance exists between number of wild cards and number of division winners.

It's hard to determine a completely valid balance of these concepts.

We've had six-seeds win the Super Bowl. I'm sure we'll have seven-seeds win one eventually. Maybe one every 15 years?

For your above example, Arizona played the weak AFC South and a 4th-place NFC schedule. The Cards went 5-1 against those teams, 5-5 otherwise. Green Bay played the mediocre AFC North and a 1st-place NFC schedule. The Pack went 3-3 against those teams, 5-4-1 otherwise.

But Arizona had a much higher adjusted strength of schedule (130 versus 107) and a +3.4 scoring differential to Green Bay's -0.7, not to mention a top-notch run defense.

My complaint about this proposal is the same as mentioned here: dilution of the validity of the regular season. I don't even bother with the NHL or the NBA until playoff time. College basketball is all about making the tournament. We can create a algorithm to include all the "worthy" teams, grabbing some 7-9 and 8-8s along the way. Or we can not include the occasional 10-6 Arizona. Or we can do it by committee.

I like it at 12. I'd like it a little more at 8 with some realignment.

[stevew]

If they are going to expand the playoffs to 14, they should at least allow the #2(and then the #3) seed to choose which of the wildcard teams they wish to play. Would make for a great made for TV event, and I'd think there would be all kinds of "they're ducking us" and "they think we're a pushover, nobody believes in us" type of stuff. It would add a lot to the build up for the first week of games.

[mrtourette]

It's a dumb idea, it dilutes and demeans both the regular season and the playoffs and "more competitive matches at the end of season as well as more memorable moments for fans" is simply PR speak for "more games and advertsiing revenue for our media partners".

[QuikSand]

I'm anti expansion like most, but there is one semi-redeeming factor here worth mentioning.

Right now the massive "cliff" in the NFL playoff setup is in an odd place - between the #2 and the #3 seeds. #2 gets a bye week and a home game, #3 has to win a play-in game for the right to go play at the #2 seed. That's a huge differential, for two teams that are often separated by a tiebreaker, or even one win.

The 7-team (per conference, of course) setup would give the big advantage to seed #1 over the whole field. Again, it's an unreasonable cliff effect overall, but the higher you place the break point, the more sensible it is to have one at all.

One of the biggest problems with going to 7 teams, though, is that it's too psychologically close to going to 8, that it makes that move all but inevitable. And then you *really* have a massive depreciation of the regular season, a la hockey and basketball -- not just the too-deep playoffs, but eschewing the bye makes the playoff "home field" differentials just way way too small for football. The whole thing is a bad direction, overall, in no small part for this reason - the move to 8 teams is just awful, awful, awful.

[Hoya1]

I like the fact that it just isn't easy to make the playoffs.
Wasn't it only a few years ago that Seattle upset the highly touted Saints?
isn't there always a divisional worst to first?
wasn't this years late regular season games still meaningful?


I hope the NFL doesn't "fix" this problem of having good teams make the playoffs.

[APC]

Hell, a lot of NFL folks will tell you that even with the current set-up, the regular season doesn't mean much until Thanksgiving. The goal is to not fall too far behind the pack before Thanksgiving, then make a run the rest of the way.

Some coaches even prefer to go through adversity early to toughen their teams up and test their depth.

A meaningful regular season is the NFL's most underrated asset.

[TRO]

I'm anti expansion like most, but there is one semi-redeeming factor here worth mentioning.

Right now the massive "cliff" in the NFL playoff setup is in an odd place - between the #2 and the #3 seeds. #2 gets a bye week and a home game, #3 has to win a play-in game for the right to go play at the #2 seed. That's a huge differential, for two teams that are often separated by a tiebreaker, or even one win.

The 7-team (per conference, of course) setup would give the big advantage to seed #1 over the whole field. Again, it's an unreasonable cliff effect overall, but the higher you place the break point, the more sensible it is to have one at all.


Interesting thought. Personally, I view the current set up as having 2 break points instead of 1. Bye week, home in first round and road in first round. I like it because it is split evenly amongst all six teams. If you go to 7, the breakdown is 1-3-3 which creates a bigger cliff between 1 & 2 and as you note, there isn't always that much to back up that big of a difference.

[schwantz]

I say make it variable. Top 6 always make it, but up to 8 can make it as long as they have at least 10 wins. Could make an interesting week 17 game where #1 seed is playing a 9-7 team that if the #1 seed wins they get a bye, if not might have to face the same team again the next week.

[conception]

As a fan of one of the teams who could have gotten into the playoffs as an extra team, I can say that the new system would still stink. If you can't make the playoffs right then you don't deserve to be in them, plain and simple. I never seen a team that barely missed the playoffs that didn't lose a game or two to a contender that would have been the difference between them being in and not. Not winning those games makes them undeserving. There are four divisions that you can win, and the second best teams can still get in if you are good enough. Be good enough, you know what is required before the season starts.

I didn't mind what MLB did recently because so few teams got in before that, and it gave division winners a reward whereas in the old system it really meant very little, but in general widening a playoff field just dilutes the quality of both the playoffs and the regular season.

[stevew]

If they are going to make changes, also they should eliminate home field guarantee to division winners. Determine the 7 playoff teams the normal way.

In the NFC you'd have
1. Seattle
2. Carolina(div winner)
3. San Francisco
4. New Orleans
5. Philly(div winner)
6. Arizona
7. Green Bay(div winner)