U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2019, 09:22 AM
 
440 posts, read 263,517 times
Reputation: 552

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggermatt15 View Post
I think the league needs to pick a focus, either the regular season (adding more games) or the playoffs (adding more teams). Can't do both because that puts more wear and tear on players. Personally I say add more teams to the playoffs, get it up to 8 just like the NBA and the NHL. Fans love the postseason more than the regular season, I reckon. That would also enhance tv ratings, revenue, merchandise sales, ticket sales, etc.
The only way that adding a playoff game would add wear and tear to the players would be that the #2 seed would now have to play in the first round instead of getting a bye and the #7 seed that now gets to play instead of staying at home. Adding two seats per conference would be the same, with every playoff team having to play in the first round. Only if the playoffs are expanded beyond that (with another round) would there really be an addition to the season with more playoff teams.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-30-2019, 07:57 PM
 
379 posts, read 173,430 times
Reputation: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyXY View Post
The only way that adding a playoff game would add wear and tear to the players would be that the #2 seed would now have to play in the first round instead of getting a bye and the #7 seed that now gets to play instead of staying at home. Adding two seats per conference would be the same, with every playoff team having to play in the first round. Only if the playoffs are expanded beyond that (with another round) would there really be an addition to the season with more playoff teams.
I think it makes more sense adding another round with a #7 seed. So would the top 3 seeds each have a wild card round bye?


#4, #5, #6, #7 play wild card round.... so divisional round #1 also has a bye... so top seed has a "double bye"? Hmm makes for an interesting discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 02:20 AM
 
Location: Emmaus, PA
3,208 posts, read 2,216,283 times
Reputation: 2331
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggermatt15 View Post
I think it makes more sense adding another round with a #7 seed. So would the top 3 seeds each have a wild card round bye?


#4, #5, #6, #7 play wild card round.... so divisional round #1 also has a bye... so top seed has a "double bye"? Hmm makes for an interesting discussion.
NO. The 2 seed would not get a bye. You're over thinking this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Here or There
3,971 posts, read 2,526,816 times
Reputation: 1658
I am still on the side of leaving everything alone as it is--with the exception of a seventh playoff team (not eight). I would consider that. However, and I know it has been discussed somewhere around here before--how often would that seventh playoff team be dangerously close to being under .500?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 04:57 PM
 
379 posts, read 173,430 times
Reputation: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F S View Post
NO. The 2 seed would not get a bye. You're over thinking this.
I understand what you're saying. I was thinking of a scenario where the #2 seed isn't penalized, having to play in the wild card round. I mean it would not be fair for the #2 to not have a wild card round bye. Then what's the point of finishing second in the conference? None. With what I was thinking, you reward the Top 3 seeds with wild card round byes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 10:18 PM
 
4,333 posts, read 1,881,884 times
Reputation: 2411
Quote:
Originally Posted by IXCell View Post
However, and I know it has been discussed somewhere around here before--how often would that seventh playoff team be dangerously close to being under .500?
Under .500? Extremely rare to almost impossible I think. More likely a division winner gets in under .500.

Even .500 would be rare for the 7th best team in the conference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 10:20 PM
 
4,333 posts, read 1,881,884 times
Reputation: 2411
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggermatt15 View Post
Then what's the point of finishing second in the conference? None. With what I was thinking, you reward the Top 3 seeds with wild card round byes.
The reward is playing the #7 seed which on paper should be the worst team in the wild card round.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 02:19 AM
 
Location: Emmaus, PA
3,208 posts, read 2,216,283 times
Reputation: 2331
and the 1 seed would play the 8 seed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 09:53 AM
 
379 posts, read 173,430 times
Reputation: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher View Post
The reward is playing the #7 seed which on paper should be the worst team in the wild card round.
I can see it. The NFL would love 6 games on wild card weekend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 03:11 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,849 posts, read 4,341,511 times
Reputation: 10158
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
NFL franchise owners have pushed for an 18 game schedule for years now. With CBA talks now underway, this is once again working its way to the forefront of negotiations. The new proposal features a minor twist: an 18 game schedule which limits players to 16 games.


I'll put my cards on the table now: I hate this idea.


If they want to expand to 18 games, then expand the rosters and add a second bye week for every team and be done with it. Don't water down what are supposed to be meaningful regular season football games by forcing teams to start backups.


Personally I'm not a big fan of the 18 game schedule. I like the symmetry the league has: 16 games, 32 teams and a very logical rotation that makes opponent slates easy to predict years in advance. I imagine the players will not be too thrilled about 18 games, and I hope they can maintain the current, near perfectly balanced methodology.


But if the league does make the change to 18 games, then I hope they make the change without trying to water down the product.
If they eliminate two preseason games, go 18 for the regular season, and limit players to 16 games, that seems like a pretty good idea. It's an idea that might happen, because of.... $$$$$$$$$$$$. I would rather see this happen, than go 18 games and water down the product with larger rosters. JMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top