NFL changing playoff format (2 Viewers)

RKNSaint

Idle Wild
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,822
Reaction score
1,919
Offline
Player safety is their highest priority
Since when? Making $ is the highest priority for owners and players. It is professional football. Everyone gets paid. More games = more $. Why is everyone up in arms. Silly to get upset about this.
 

SHOE21

Channel Rat
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Messages
756
Reaction score
354
Location
Austin Tx. via Irish Channel
Offline
Since when? Making $ is the highest priority for owners and players. It is professional football. Everyone gets paid. More games = more $. Why is everyone up in arms. Silly to get upset about this.
One news report said they were going to eliminate one preseason game if this is implemented.
 

boutrous

the only way I know how
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
5,590
Reaction score
6,694
Age
43
Location
Kenner, Brah
Offline
I kind of like it, byes in football is too strong, then 2 teams each conference was getting them almost insuring thats who was going to get matched up in the title games.

Before anyone tells me about how many times a bye team has lost in the divisional, need I also state that because they have rested the team far too long prior to the next game, like Baltimore.

Theirs also dangerous teams left out of that 7th seed, like one person stated in my post about the SB matchups, theirs just not that much difference between a 10-6 team and 13-3 team, that 10-6 team had hard schedule, but will be at disadvantage playing at the 13-3 one.

What I will find funny to make these shenanigans backfire is the 7th seed AFC team that gets in.
The home team coming off a bye wins ~80% of the time in the playoffs making it the most unbalanced advantage in all of sports. Home teams win ~53% of the time in any other NFL game including all other playoff rounds. Having less byes is a great thing for competitive balance.

Now they need to seed according to record and not have automatic home games for division winners.
 

2fya

Bench Warmer
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
3,163
Reaction score
2,960
Age
34
Location
Duson, LA
Online
The home team coming off a bye wins ~80% of the time in the playoffs making it the most unbalanced advantage in all of sports. Home teams win ~53% of the time in any other NFL game including all other playoff rounds. Having less byes is a great thing for competitive balance.
you also have to take into account that the team having a bye is just a better team as well. There is a reason why they have that bye.

it should also be a major advantage to have a bye for having the best record in the regular season
 

boutrous

the only way I know how
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
5,590
Reaction score
6,694
Age
43
Location
Kenner, Brah
Offline
you also have to take into account that the team having a bye is just a better team as well. There is a reason why they have that bye.

it should also be a major advantage to have a bye for having the best record in the regular season
The "better" (home) team only wins 53% of the time in other playoff rounds without the benefit of a bye compared to 80% of the time when they have a bye. No narrative can overcome those kind of statistics.
 

2fya

Bench Warmer
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
3,163
Reaction score
2,960
Age
34
Location
Duson, LA
Online
The "better" (home) team only wins 53% of the time in other playoff rounds without the benefit of a bye compared to 80% of the time when they have a bye. No narrative can overcome those kind of statistics.
The further you go in the playoffs, the better teams you play. And the top teams SHOULD have that advantage
 

IceHot

Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
9,106
Reaction score
3,947
Age
52
Offline
Since then, after moving to the four division per conference format, having a 9-7/8-8 division winner is common place, as is having a 9-7/10-6 non-division winner being left out of the playoffs altogether. And to top it off, and admittedly I need to go do the research on this, but I would bet that it has happened more times than not that even the #7 team in the conference has had a better or near identical record than division winner #4 since 2002.
Here is the data on all .750 (win%) teams that didnt make the playoffs for one reason or another since 1934. Only 9 of the 15 were bumped by division winners. You might note the most significant casualty was the 1967 Colts that got bumped by the Lomabardi Packers. Thus if we change the system too much perhaps we should also discuss whose name should even be on the trophy.

Bumped by Division Winner
1​
1934​
Lions10-3Giants8-5
2​
1936​
Bears9-3Redskins7-5
3​
1939​
Redskins8-2-1n/a
4​
1942​
Packers8-2-1n/a
5​
1943​
Packers7-2-1Redskins/Giants6-3-1
6​
1944​
Eagles7-1-2n/a
7​
1948​
Bears10-2Eagles9-2-1
8​
1951​
Giants9-2-1Rams8-4
9​
1953​
49ers9-3n/a
10​
1956​
Lions9-3Giants8-3-1
11​
1962​
Lions11-3n/a
12​
1963​
Packers11-2-1Giants11-3
13​
1964​
Cardinals9-3-2n/a
14​
1967​
Colts11-1-2Browns/Packers/Cowboys9-5/9-4-1
15​
1968​
Rams10-3-1Browns/Vikings10-4/8-6

I would rather just take the 4 division winners and get rid of the wild card altogether.
 

BoNcHiE

Every team's Elixor
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Messages
56,630
Reaction score
68,286
Offline
If that happens then we deserve what we get. As good as some people around here insist we are, we've now gone eight straight playoff games without being able to win convincingly. Our last playoff victory that wasn't a coin-flip going into the final minute was against the Lions in the 2011 season.
That's a dumb standard. Almost all playoff games are coin flips that are close into the 4th quarter.
 

Saintaholic

<><><><><><><><><><><>
Joined
Jul 8, 2000
Messages
16,795
Reaction score
27,705
Online
Here is the data on all .750 (win%) teams that didnt make the playoffs for one reason or another since 1934. Only 9 of the 15 were bumped by division winners. You might note the most significant casualty was the 1967 Colts that got bumped by the Lomabardi Packers. Thus if we change the system too much perhaps we should also discuss whose name should even be on the trophy.

Bumped by Division Winner
1​
1934​
Lions10-3Giants8-5
2​
1936​
Bears9-3Redskins7-5
3​
1939​
Redskins8-2-1n/a
4​
1942​
Packers8-2-1n/a
5​
1943​
Packers7-2-1Redskins/Giants6-3-1
6​
1944​
Eagles7-1-2n/a
7​
1948​
Bears10-2Eagles9-2-1
8​
1951​
Giants9-2-1Rams8-4
9​
1953​
49ers9-3n/a
10​
1956​
Lions9-3Giants8-3-1
11​
1962​
Lions11-3n/a
12​
1963​
Packers11-2-1Giants11-3
13​
1964​
Cardinals9-3-2n/a
14​
1967​
Colts11-1-2Browns/Packers/Cowboys9-5/9-4-1
15​
1968​
Rams10-3-1Browns/Vikings10-4/8-6
I would rather just take the 4 division winners and get rid of the wild card altogether.
.750 is not the proper percentage to use for this exercise. That's a 12-4 record in today's game, so this data is not surprising - A 12-4 team missing the playoffs literally has never happened, especially after the institution of Wild Card teams in 1970 (and the advent of the 16-game season in 1978). So once again, no surprise that the cut off of your data is 1968.

The proper percentages to use for this data analysis would be <= .625 (10-6) or .5625 (9-7) versus >= .5625 (9-7) or .500 (8-8).
 

IceHot

Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
9,106
Reaction score
3,947
Age
52
Offline
.750 is not the proper percentage to use for this exercise. That's a 12-4 record in today's game, so this data is not surprising - A 12-4 team missing the playoffs literally has never happened, especially after the institution of Wild Card teams in 1970 (and the advent of the 16-game season in 1978). So once again, no surprise that the cut off of your data is 1968.

The proper percentages to use for this data analysis would be <= .625 (10-6) or .5625 (9-7) versus >= .5625 (9-7) or .500 (8-8).
I happened to have that data on hand to answer a different but somewhat related question. It will be interesting to compare. You are more answering whether adding a new team will degrade the bottom of the field under the newly proposed format and I was addressing whether any deserving teams were getting excluded by the current format.

Also its worth noting in 1967 they had 4 divisions with 4 teams each (no wildcards), this is the system that shut the Colts who had an 11-1-2 record (tied for the best record in the NFL) out of the playoffs.

Furthermore if your premise is that the best team should have the easiest path should you not consider the following..

The #1 seed currently faces the lower ranked of the winner in #5 seed vs #4 seed or #3 seed vs #6 seed. Presumably in cases where the 4 seed is sliding in the 5 seed should have the better record and be favored. This increases the odds that the 1 seed will play the 5 seed .

Furthermore under the new system it would be 2 vs 7, 3 vs 5, and 4 vs 6 with the favored outcoming pitting 1 vs 6 in the second round (assuming squeak in 4th division winner). So now instead of 5th seed with a strong record moving on to round 2, we get a 6th seed with a slightly better record then the 4th seed advancing to the next round.

Really adding a 7th team, the comparison should be in the drop of from the 5th seed to the 6th seed team, not the 4th to the 7th...which I imagine is much more substantial. Or in the case of the 5 seed winning we now have a 3 seed bumped in favor of a 6 seed in round 2.

But its your point to make so make it as you will.

And Ill hang my hat on getting rid of the whiny wildcard teams altogether and just stick with the 4 division winners that "Lombardi" trophy is based on.
 

ilvdsnts

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
2,088
Reaction score
1,952
Age
49
Location
New Orleans, LA
Offline
The home team coming off a bye wins ~80% of the time in the playoffs making it the most unbalanced advantage in all of sports. Home teams win ~53% of the time in any other NFL game including all other playoff rounds. Having less byes is a great thing for competitive balance.

Now they need to seed according to record and not have automatic home games for division winners.
Except they are not getting rid of the bye, they are giving it to 1 team instead of 2(per conf) so all that advantage is going to 1 team instead of spreading it out over 2 teams. I think this will virtual assure a 1v1 matchup in the SB most years. As it is now, after the divisional rd, you have, most likely, 2 teams in the Conf CG that each had a bye so it was even except for home field. But now in every round the 1 seed will be 1 game fresher than their opponent.
 

boutrous

the only way I know how
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
5,590
Reaction score
6,694
Age
43
Location
Kenner, Brah
Offline
Except they are not getting rid of the bye, they are giving it to 1 team instead of 2(per conf) so all that advantage is going to 1 team instead of spreading it out over 2 teams. I think this will virtual assure a 1v1 matchup in the SB most years. As it is now, after the divisional rd, you have, most likely, 2 teams in the Conf CG that each had a bye so it was even except for home field. But now in every round the 1 seed will be 1 game fresher than their opponent.
They are getting rid of 2 out of 4 byes. That sets the odds back for 2 games to 53% instead of 80% for those 2 games, so only 2 games are really unfair instead of all 4. Yes this means the 1st seed is basically assured to get to the Conference Championship, but still only has a 53% chance of getting to the SuperBowl from there, same as before, so that doesn't change.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
7,090
Reaction score
15,495
Location
29° 57′ 3″ N, 90° 4′ 52″ W
Offline
I think a play in game between the 6th and 7th seed to gain entry into the playoffs would be a good idea. Then the winner goes to the WC. Meanwhile the top 2 seeds don't play until the divisional round.
Would prefer that over an extra week of Regular season football and only one seed having a bye.
The problem with that is let’s say the winner of that 6th seed vs. 7th seed game just so happens to make it to the Super Bowl in their conference. The Super Bowl would be that team’s 21st game of the season where they very possibly could be playing a 1st or 2nd seed from the other conference that’s only playing in their 19th game of the year since they had a first round bye.

That’s major disadvantage having had to play 2 extra games more than your opponent has.
 

black_floyd

Veteran Starter
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
2,104
Offline
That's a dumb standard. Almost all playoff games are coin flips that are close into the 4th quarter.
Your criticism is dumb. All those close games are a HUGE part of why we've only had ONE SEASON in our 53-year history where we've won more than one playoff game. Were you even aware of that stat? That's right. Aside from our Super Bowl year, we've gotten bounced the next week following every single playoff victory in team history. Our inability to seize momentum and step on our opponents' necks as well as flat out starting numerous games horribly have collectively cost us at least two rings (2011 and 2018).

Also, you're moving the goalposts. I'm not complaining because the games were close going into the fourth quarter. I'm complaining cuz they were close at almost the end of the game. If you give up a touchdown when there's still 13 minutes left in the fourth, you've probably got 2 or 3 more possessions left to do something about it. You give up a TD in a one-possession game with a minute left and you have a very good chance of losing unless you were up by 7 or 8.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom