This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
One less game in the playoffs is HUGE. I'd take a shot at that, and give other (mostly lesser) teams an extra week of rest. That's not a big deal. So much so, that rest-vs-rust is usually a conversation when teams have nothing to play for the last week of the season.
devil's advocate...one could argue....if you take care of business earlier in the year and only have 2 loses instead of 3.....you wouldn't be in this situation....kind of like the "don't leave it up to the refs" mentality when a late controversial call "costs you the game".....you could have played better earlier in the game and not be in that situation where a tough call affects the outcome...
Couldn't agree more. I wish they would just go back to a dual-bye arrangement. I know the math gets weird, but it would not bother me at all to see the field go back to six playoff teams.
Yeah. I've joked for the last several years with my friends about this.
How about 8?
That apparently would be one of the proposed options for this year. 8 teams, no bye in the AFC. Can't imagine they would add a team in the NFC.
There aren't 8 playoff teams in either conference IMO. The NFC barely has four. Seven is already too many IMO.
CLE lost to Miami, New York Jets and New England. They have no tie breakers.
$$$$$
What issue is this idea solving? I guess I have no idea why they are even looking into this
i think it's the idea that 3 teams believe they have a claim to the #1 seed depending on the outcome of a 17 game season. currently 2 of the teams would only have a 16 game season.
I suppose we are collectively best suited to just wait and see what the actual solution is before we all go crazy over all the things that were proposed and considered. I did chuckle at someone on Twitter that said the best solution is to pare down the AFC field to 6 teams and go back to the old system. Give KC and BUF byes. Eliminate the 7th seed because they don't deserve to be there anyway (NE, MIA, or PIT). I actually like that idea better than pretty much any of the ones actually under consideration (although I realize that will never happen).
yes it would be. someone actually suggested this yesterday or the day before but i can't find the post right now.
I proposed that two days ago...Has anyone ever seen Joe Bryant and Roger Goodell in the same room or Lazy-boy at the same time?
:golfclap:
They could donate a portion of the proceeds from the extra game to charity.
Now what fun would that be????
They might as well go back to a 16-game schedule and have all 32 teams make the playoffs. All teams play the regular season for tournament seeding instead . . . 1 seed vs 32 seed, NCAA tournament style. Nothing gained by winning a division, conference affiliation not a part of the seeding or tournament game schedule. Would actually be the same number of weeks as they play now. They could have a host city for the SB and Final Four. Reseed after each round so top remaining seed would get the lowest remaining seed. All games prior to Final Four played at higher seed. No byes.
Because it's the NFL and there is a dollar to be made.
why would they look to punish both teams like that?
wouldn't the seeding be mostly irrelevant by the time they played this game?
Send them someplace they would enjoy . . . Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami. I get it, they are both cold weather teams and any of those spots would make the weather a non-factor. But still better than having to go to Cleveland.
As things stand now, KC would get a bye. The Jags would likely be the 4 seed hosting the 5 seed Ravens. Not a stretch to think KC ends up advancing to the AFCCG. If BUF and CIN both won their first-round games, they would face each other in the second round. Winner would go to the AFCCG. If the Bills won, counting a win against CIN, they would hold the tiebreaker over KC and earn homefield advantage for the AFCCG. It probably wouldn't help CIN unless the Chiefs lost Week 18 vs. LV.
But in essence the game against Cincinnati would be an extra playoff game (it would be happening after the season ended as well) - and the loser would then still have to play the extra playoff game.
Can't really have it both ways. They played a few minutes the other night and essentially got a bye this week while all the other teams had to play. I get it, their mental state was nowhere near the same as having an actual bye this week, but the physical wear and tear on their bodies was minimal. Other teams that are fighting for a playoff spot this week didn't get to rest. It sort of works out in the end if they all got in 17 regular season games (which doesn't look like will happen).
I was responding to one specific statement that was made.
Adding an 8th team in the NFC doesn't make any sense. But on the AFC side, I think the same candidates (NE-MIA-PIT-TEN/JAX loser) would be the same whether there are 7 spots or 8 spots. They are all still fighting and playing to win.
I'd strongly prefer this to expanding the playoff field.
while it helps to differing degrees, and obviously it helps KC by far the most, you may be right that doing nothing is the simplest and least harmful of the options.
