Report: NFL to add 7th team to playoffs in 2014 | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Report: NFL to add 7th team to playoffs in 2014

Overall I like the idea of a 7th playoff spot. Just hate that the #2 seed misses out on a bye week - but who knows maybe it will make competition for the #1 spot that much more interesting.

Agree with many that 8 spots is just too many. A 7th spot virtually guarantees that the playoff race will continue through the final week of the season.
 
Every year it becomes more and more clear, that there will never be enough revenue for these owners.

There greed is killing this sport.

NFL doesn't pay any taxes.
They get tax payers to pay for there stadium, even though they can afford it without breaking a sweat.
Then they tell you, buy tickets, or I'll black the game out.

It's just out of control what these owners will do for an extra buck.
 
Even though I like the concept of having division rivalries, I almost think if anything was going to be changed in the playoff structure it should just be that the 6 teams with the best record from each conference get in. Because certain divisions have such dominate teams in them (New England) that you'd practically have to go undefeated to sneak in, where as other divisions 8-8 can almost guarantee a spot.

As far as adding an extra spot though, I think it's beyond ridiculous, at that point you might as well just let half the league in to the post season. It just screams cash in.
 
I really like the idea! Add a 7th team.......with all the excitement that was the final week of the season, and all of the different scenarios that were possible....adding a 7th team would almost guarantee that would occur most years. I would also keep the divisions exactly where they are. The rivalries between divisional teams are a huge part of the game and you see upsets on a regular basis when division opponents play each other.
 
xXwarXx said:
Every year it becomes more and more clear, that there will never be enough revenue for these owners.

There greed is killing this sport.

NFL doesn't pay any taxes.
They get tax payers to pay for there stadium, even though they can afford it without breaking a sweat.
Then they tell you, buy tickets, or I'll black the game out.

It's just out of control what these owners will do for an extra buck.
Click to expand...

More football = more fun. No need to be political with it.
 
This is great news, regardless of how Miami performs. It increases the number of important games at the end of the season. Much fewer teams will be eliminated by week 14 or so.
 
Have always hated this idea. Why do we need more mediocre teams in the playoffs?

This also warps the incentive structure built into the playoff seeding, which I think is almost perfect now, providing progressively greater rewards as your seed improves. With a 7th team, getting the #1 seed would become massively important, while the reward for the #2 seed would be far diminished.
 
WVDolphan said:
For everyone screaming about how Tannehill needs a running game. The good QBs in the playoffs DO NOT.
Click to expand...
The problem with this statement is teams have not in fact deemphasized the run, the teams that won this past week averaged 162 yards rushing while the losers averaged 125 yards. The difference is how the carries are distributed among the rb core and you can pretty much guarantee there would have been one had Jamall Charles not gotten hurt. So yes, even good qbs need a running game, and average ones like T-Hill at the moment need a running game worse.
 
Since the shake-up in divisions in 2002, six teams have won 10 games, but missed the playoffs. That's probably one reason why they are considering adding another team, as that was one the reasons the NFL added another seed in 1990. However, I think what's needed more is Playoff Reform rather than just adding another team. A better idea might have been to start with the 6 teams, and then every team that wins 10 games automatically makes the playoffs and the playoffs are formatted around that. I think such formatting would make things interesting late in the season, especially for teams seeking a bye. If applied to this season, we would have 7 NFC teams and 6 AFC teams and thus takes into consideration the weakness of the lower teams in the AFC.
 
phinfan13 said:
Since the shake-up in divisions in 2002, six teams have won 10 games, but missed the playoffs. That's probably one reason why they are considering adding another team, as that was one the reasons the NFL added another seed in 1990. However, I think what's needed more is Playoff Reform rather than just adding another team. A better idea might have been to start with the 6 teams, and then every team that wins 10 games automatically makes the playoffs and the playoffs are formatted around that. I think such formatting would make things interesting late in the season. If applied to this season, we would have 7 NFC teams and 6 AFC teams and thus takes into consideration the weakness of the lower teams in the AFC.
Click to expand...
This is the craziest idea regarding the playoffs i've ever heard. Not sure if I like the fluid nature of it but it would be fun every year.
 
I dont think it is that big of a deal.. it could enhance the play offs.

When I started watching the NFL as a young lad in England in the very early 80s you had 28 teams and 10 made the playoffs. The league has expanded by 4 teams and now you have 12 of 32 teams getting in. If they move this up to 14 of 32 the ratio is still the same as the 10/28 format years ago. Lets be honest some very good 10-6 and 9-7 teams have missed out on the post season, most noteably and recent of course are the 10-6 Cards.. under the new proposed system we would have seen them play - and rightly so in my view.

I have heard it said .500 teams would get in enmasse and ruin the party.. lets look back to the year 2000 and chart team records on those who under this 14 team playoff window could have been in to gage the sort of quality we might see in the future:

2013
AFC: Steelers (8-8)
NFC: Cardinals (10-6)

2012
AFC: Steelers (8-8)
NFC: Bears (10-6)

2011
AFC: Titans (9-7)
NFC: Eagles/Bears or Cardinals (8-8)

2010
AFC: Chargers (9-7)
NFC: Giants (10-6)

2009
AFC: Texans/Steelers (9-7)
NFC: Falcons (9-7)

2008
AFC: Patriots (11-5)
NFC: Cowboys, Bears or Buccs (9-7)

2007
AFC: Browns (10-6)
NFC: Cardinals, Vikings or Eagles (8-8)

2006
AFC: Broncos (9-7)
NFC: Rams, Panthers or Packers (8-8)

2005
AFC: Chiefs (10-6)
NFC: Cowboys or Vikings (9-7)

2004
AFC: Bills, Ravens or Jaguars (9-7)
NFC: Saints (8-8)

2003
AFC: Dolphins (10-6)
NFC: Vikings (9-7)

2002
AFC: Patriots, Dolphins or Broncos (9-7)
NFC: Saints (9-7)

2001
AFC: Seahawks (9-7)
NFC: Redskins (8-8)

2000
AFC: Jets or Steelers (9-7)
NFC: Packers or Lions (9-7)

so in 14 years of the extra 28 teams we could have seen .500 (8-8) teams make it in:

2001 x 1 team
2004 x 1 team
2006 x 1 team
2007 x 1 team
2011 x 1 team
2012 x 1 team
2013 x 1 team

just 7 of 28 teams would have been at .500

I think there is more quality being left behind than admitted and I dont have an issue having a 14/32 ratio which as I stated earlier matches a 10/28 ratio we had in the 80s in terms of the number of teams left out - 18....
some folks are resistent for the pure sake of resisting.. my glass is half full folks how is yours?.. Were some of you this anti a league expansion from 28 teams? How are you with those teams now.. have you adapted.. were you ok with going from 10/28 to 12/32.. - adapted.. good.. ok now lets try 14/32 let the number 2 seed play a week earlier giving only the #1 seed the bye (and rightley so) and seeing how that works out.. if the league try to pump this up to 50% then I can see the issue, but it is still only about 40% making the post season so it's ok.. imho
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nublar7 said:
Tough for the NFL to back up this new format when the 7th AFC team this year would have been 8-8, but I actually think this is a smart move.
Click to expand...

I don't think this has anything to do with being smart or not. I think it has everything to do with being greedy.

Adding another team to the playoffs increases the chances that teams that win Super Bowls aren't necessarily going to be the best team in the league, but rather the team that managed to suffer less from injuries and got hot at the right moment. When the league makes moves like this, I'm not sure what winning the SB is really supposed mean anymore.

I understand the logic behind adding the wildcard spots to allow for the chance that two great teams can get into the playoffs despite the fact that they're in the same division. I didn't totally agree with it, but then I'm not a fan of "divisions" anyway. It's divisions that made the wild cards seem necessary because divisions allow inferior teams to make the playoffs. This year for example, Green Bay gets in at 8-7-1 while Arizona does not at 10-6. Green Bay gets in, not because they were a great or even a good team this year; they got in because the NFC North was a weak division. Divisions make this injustice, imo. a repetitive occurrence.

Adding a WC team makes the regular season less meaningful. It also makes winning your division less meaningful since only one team of the four division winners will get a bye. It dilutes the pool of talent in the playoffs. And while it may be nice for the fans of the 7th team in to see their teams in the playoffs, the rest of us will be treated to 2nd seed vs. 7th seed games which hold less promise to be entertaining.

In the end, the quality of the end product isn't as important as the amount of money that can be extracted from the fans. Adding another WC spot adds two games to the playoff schedule. I don't know what that amounts to in terms of revenue in the NFL's profit-sharing system, but I have no doubt the revenue was the only motivation.

NFL, welcome to the NHL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom