Are you saying 12 teams per conference? I assume so if the division winners all get byes... and that would be absurd. There's usually not even 6 playoff caliber teams in a conference, much less already adding the 7th.

It most likely wouldn't shake up things that much in terms of having some 5-win team win multiple games... but, still. The Chiefs win the division and get a bye, I don't want to watch them (and certainly not pay money to see them) play the Jets in the freakin' playoffs. And WC weekend is already mostly a shitshow... I still remember that Texans/Bills game a couple seasons ago. Those were playoff teams.

I do like the idea of division winners getting a bye, but not at that cost.
[Reply]

Yep. He's saying he wants 24 of the 32 teams to make the playoffs. It's absurd.
[Reply]

Just like hockey
[Reply]

I think all the teams should get a bye.
[Reply]

What kind of shit were you smoking when it was decided that 75% of the league should be in the playoffs?
[Reply]

you should switch to decaf
[Reply]

The only thing it would "shake up" is giving the fans of average teams something to root for at the end...keeping them engaged in the season.

The NFL is all about parity for this reason...

The best teams teams would still likely be in the divisional rounds...

I like the idea of "win or go home" for the middle-level teams. It would be entertaining...with a Cinderella team emerging every few years.

Look at a team like the Seahawks...they lose their QB for a month. Their season is essentially over...with 3 months left.
[Reply]

What if the division winner in question finishes at or below .500?

If they're going to change the playoff format, it should be solely based on record. Winning a shit division like the NFC Least last year shouldn't count for dick in playoff seeding. If the winner of a bad division doesn't make the playoffs, then tough shit. Give 'em a hat and a t-shirt and tell them to go away.
[Reply]

If the NHL wanted to be like the NFL and let in garbage .500 or sub-.500 teams, they would have to expand the playoffs a decent amount, since it never happens.
[Reply]

They're all about wanting and advertising parity... there's actually very little of it.

I don't know why any diehard-ish fan who regularly watches football and knows what they're watching (in other words, knowing when a game is actually a great game and not just because the score is close) would want to cater to entertaining the masses.

The NFL is already the Bud Light of sports leagues given how they've neutered defenses and made the game all about the few QBs who are actually worth anything..... it really doesn't need to be watered down even more.
[Reply]

That would negate divisional rivalries...which is part of the territorial fun. Rivalries are important in the dynamic...

There has always been the chance of a sub .500 team winning their division...nothing changes.

What about a top team that gets hit early with injuries....then comes on strong at the end? There are only 16 games...it would help mitigate having an entire season washed out because of bad luck....or a young QB that finds his footing in the middle of a season.
[Reply]

I tried getting a formula with less teams but the numbers didn't match unless the #1 seed had two weeks off.

This why the NFL went with only one team having a bye...
[Reply]

No it wouldn't. I'm not advocating getting rid of divisions or altering the regular schedule.

A sub-500 team from a bad division should not only not make the playoffs, but absolutely NOT get to host a playoff game against a 13 win team that happened to be in a good division with a 15 win team. That is just completely fucked.
[Reply]

I'm trying to understand how this would water down the product...it would actually make the games more entertaining for a LOT of fan bases. Teams would have something to work towards instead of throwing in the towel with 5 games left...if anything, it would make it more competitive in the final month.

Hope is important..and why fans are excited at the beginning of every season.

The top teams would essentially be unaffected.....
[Reply]

Well, the entire purpose of watering down a product is making that product more entertaining for as many people as possible.

You can look at the seeding from last year and play it out to see what happens... instead of having the 2nd-4th seeds playing WC weekend (or even just 3rd and 4th with the two bye system), the first weekend is almost straight garbage.

And then you would guaranteed advance one team that wouldn't have made the playoffs last season and two that wouldn't have made the playoffs under the two-bye format.

It wouldn't be until weekend 3 where you might see division winners play each other, where as now there's at least a decent chance of it happening in the 2nd round.

Again, if your target audience was the likes of /r/nfl and people who watch ESPN talk shows all day and can't wait to see what Skip Bayless says about their team... then I'm sure there will be some fans of underdog teams and more games to watch and so forth. January Madness.

But, you're not convincing anyone who wants to watch quality football that the solution here is to add more teams to the playoffs.

I already look forward to very few marquee matchups every regular season, followed by shit games WC weekend, followed by hoping for a couple of quality games, then finally the real potential of great games in the CG and SB rounds.... no need for more shit leading up to that or any chance above 0% that some shit team would ruin the best rounds of the playoffs. (granted, the NFL did enough to ruin the excitement after last year's SB)
[Reply]