Is the PlayOff Bye week too much of an Advantage? (1 Viewer)

[nerangers]

My son and I were discussing this, and wondering what others think. Putting everything aside with the need to have a bye week due to wild card scheduling and all, is it an unfair advantage? With the two teams with bye weeks splitting yesterday it would seems like the bye week might not as much an automatic advantage like in the past. Would the outcome have been different without the team having a bye week?

Just trying to get others thoughts on the matter.

Expanding Playoff field

Why? So the NFL could wave bye-bye to the idea of postseason byes. With 16 playoff teams, everybody would be playing in the first week of the playoffs, with eight big games unfolding and absolutely nobody receiving a free pass into the divisional round.

Crazy? Not really. What could be fairer than making everyone travel roughly the same road to the Super Bowl?

 

[BigTex]

More of a Privileged for being the best in your division.

Privilege to have an extra week to:

Rest

Heal

Prepare

 

[nerangers]

More of a Privileged for being the best in your division.Privilege to have an extra week to:RestHealPrepare

If you are the best, then why do you need the extra week? This was a lot of our discussion. You have to admit, the rest definitely helped the Saints against the Eagles. The Eagles played last Sunday, and then drew the short week to have a playoff game on Saturday.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Going to a 16-team playoff is a terrible idea; you're looking at 3 8-8 or worse NFC teams in the playoffs this season and 8-8 teams shouldn't be in the playoffs in the first place.

I'm guessing this does happen sometime in the next 20 years, though. Too much money on the table.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This is a legitimate question. Lamar Hunt has rallied against the current system, and his 8 team per conference playoff model would eliminate bye weeks. The 80% number is huge, but the ultimate question is what is good for the league?

Personally, I believe you should want the best team to win the Super Bowl as often as possible. This system greatly benefits the 1 and 2 seeds, and helps them win it all. When the best team in the league is not the 1 or 2 seed, this hurts the chances of the best team to win it all.

Doug Drinen over at the PFR blog looked at this issue. There's a lot of prerequisite reading material, so I won't quote all of the post. For starters, he said that roughly 24% of the time the best team wins the SB in the current format.

If you were to eliminate the wildcard (that means only the four division winners make it per conference), the best team wins about 23% of the time.

If the best team is a #1 or #2 seed, then the existence of wildcard teams doesn’t affect their chances much. They still just have to win three games. If the best team is a #5 or #6 seed, then the existence of the wildcard obviously increases their chances, from zero to nonzero. So the only scenario in which the wildcard system decreases the best team’s chances is if they are the #3 or #4 seed.

His http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=84 last post on the subject might be most interesting. If you have 4 wild card teams (i.e., the Hunt plan) the best team still wins the SB 23% of the time. And what if you let in every team? With no re-seeding, the best team still wins about 21% of the time, and Doug believes that with re-seeding, it might be over 24% of the time.So to sum things up, the playoff format doesn't really change the odds of the best team winning the Super Bowl very much. The way most of us see it, then, the more chances for playoff football, the better. I certainly wouldn't eliminate the two wildcards, as that would be a very rough move in certain years. I think having 8 teams per conference make it would devalue the regular season too much.

The real problem, IMO, is not getting the best 12 teams into the playoffs. But I don't see the NFL getting rid of the conferences anytime soon.

 

[nerangers]

Going to a 16-team playoff is a terrible idea; you're looking at 3 8-8 or worse NFC teams in the playoffs this season and 8-8 teams shouldn't be in the playoffs in the first place.I'm guessing this does happen sometime in the next 20 years, though. Too much money on the table.

16 teams is definitely too many...agreed. What if there were not wild card teams? that brings it to eight and no need for a bye week.

 

[Assani Fisher]

It is a big advantage, but it rewards a SIXTEEN GAME regular season. Without the bye week, football would be too much determined by one lucky playoff game imo.

 

[RBM]

[if you are the best, then why do you need the extra week?

They dont need it, but they have rightfully earned it

 

[thesurfshop19]

Going to a 16-team playoff is a terrible idea; you're looking at 3 8-8 or worse NFC teams in the playoffs this season and 8-8 teams shouldn't be in the playoffs in the first place.I'm guessing this does happen sometime in the next 20 years, though. Too much money on the table.

16 teams is definitely too many...agreed. What if there were not wild card teams? that brings it to eight and no need for a bye week.

I like this idea, makes division matchups even bigger. But asking the NFL to get rid of playoff games and anything $$ is pretty futile.

 

[x260bm]

Going to a 16-team playoff is a terrible idea; you're looking at 3 8-8 or worse NFC teams in the playoffs this season and 8-8 teams shouldn't be in the playoffs in the first place.I'm guessing this does happen sometime in the next 20 years, though. Too much money on the table.

16 teams is definitely too many...agreed. What if there were not wild card teams? that brings it to eight and no need for a bye week.

I like this idea, makes division matchups even bigger. But asking the NFL to get rid of playoff games and anything $$ is pretty futile.

I don’t like this idea because the best wild card team is often better than some of the division winners. There have been some pretty weak divisions in the past.

 

[BigTex]

More of a Privileged for being the best in your division.

Privilege to have an extra week to:

Rest

Heal

Prepare

If you are the best, then why do you need the extra week? This was a lot of our discussion. You have to admit, the rest definitely helped the Saints against the Eagles. The Eagles played last Sunday, and then drew the short week to have a playoff game on Saturday.

This is an assumption in your thinking. Because your the best does not mean you need an extra week. Like I said earlier it's more of a reward for being the best in your division just like recieving the homefield advantage, it comes with the reward (privilege).When your son does well in school or in atheletics don't you reward him somehow, with words or gifts? Same principle.

:twocents:

 

[BigTex]

[if you are the best, then why do you need the extra week?

They dont need it, but they have rightfully earned it

I just saw this, this is what it's all about.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Why would you get rid of one of the few remaining advantages for a good team?

They have already geared everything towards parity. Salary cap, worst teams pick first in the draft, divisional teams play 14 of the 16 same opponents....

if a team can get through all of that and be an elite team, a #1 or #2 seed, why not get that advantage?

Moreover, why are you going to disincentivize the top teams from playing hard down the stretch? Do you think Indy or SD would have played as they did this year in Weeks 16 and 17 if nothing was on the line? Same with Baltimore.

 

[BigTex]

Why would you get rid of one of the few remaining advantages for a good team?

They have already geared everything towards parity. Salary cap, worst teams pick first in the draft, divisional teams play 14 of the 16 same opponents....

if a team can get through all of that and be an elite team, a #1 or #2 seed, why not get that advantage?

Moreover, why are you going to disincentivize the top teams from playing hard down the stretch? Do you think Indy or SD would have played as they did this year in Weeks 16 and 17 if nothing was on the line? Same with Baltimore.

It would be a fantasy football hell! Think of the threats to the NFL from the Shark Poll, it would be insane.

 

[nerangers]

More of a Privileged for being the best in your division.

Privilege to have an extra week to:

Rest

Heal

Prepare

If you are the best, then why do you need the extra week? This was a lot of our discussion. You have to admit, the rest definitely helped the Saints against the Eagles. The Eagles played last Sunday, and then drew the short week to have a playoff game on Saturday.

This is an assumption in your thinking. Because your the best does not mean you need an extra week. Like I said earlier it's more of a reward for being the best in your division just like recieving the homefield advantage, it comes with the reward (privilege).When your son does well in school or in atheletics don't you reward him somehow, with words or gifts? Same principle.

:twocents:

Remember, my premise is not based on the current bye week situation...we have bye weeks because of the amount of teams we send to the playoffs. When we are talking reward here, isn't home field advantage enough? Isn't the possibility of having all your playoff games at home enough? The 12th player by having the crowd? Not having to travel? The extra rest could be considered over the top though. Using your school example, just because a student gets straight A's on all their tests, does not mean they get an extra week to study over all of the other students.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Why would you get rid of one of the few remaining advantages for a good team?

They have already geared everything towards parity. Salary cap, worst teams pick first in the draft, divisional teams play 14 of the 16 same opponents....

if a team can get through all of that and be an elite team, a #1 or #2 seed, why not get that advantage?

I'm not sure I agree with much of that, Jeff. In reverse order..1) Getting a 1 or 2 seed isn't like reaching a mark (say, 13 wins). Every year, no matter how terrible a conference is, two teams will be a 1 or a 2 seed.

2) To the extent that pre-season SOS is predictable (it isn't), the current schedule is geared away from parity than towards parity. Only two games per year are assigned based on a team's record, whereas before realignment a much greater percentage of your schedule was based on your record. Now the best team in the league and the worst have largely the same schedule, if they're in the same division.

3) Worst teams pick first may not be geared towards parity, either. See The Loser's Curse, documenting how the extremely high salaries for the top picks is not commensurate with their production.

4) I'm not convinced that the salary cap promotes parity. Parity's difficult to define, but I think there are decent arguments on both sides of the debate.

 

[bostonfred]

The playoffs aren't about whether the #1 seed needs an extra week to prepare, or about earning a priviledge. The playoffs are a way of having the best teams in the NFL play against each other in the conference championships and Superbowl. The two best teams in the division throughout the regular season are probably those two teams, but the playoff system exists to give the best of the rest a shot at knocking them off their regular season throne.

The NBA and NHL regular seasons are boring and meaningless. Teams jockey for position so they can have home court/ice, but it doesn't really matter. The NFL regular season is more meaningful because fewer teams make the playoffs, and even after a team has locked up a berth, there's something extremely valuable to play for. A regular season matchup between the Colts and Patriots decided who would play whom in the AFCCG if it comes down to that. A regular season matchup between San Diego and Baltimore had a huge impact on the race for the #1, #2 and #3 seeds.

As for how much of an advantage it is, on the one hand, a team that plays in the wildcard round can still make up that advantage. A team with momentum going into the second week of the playoffs can beat a team with rest. It's two different kinds of advantages - if a #1 seed gets knocked off by a #4, people say they were rusty. If the #4 seed gets knocked off, people say they were tired.

On the other hand, the NFL has one of the most physically taxing regular seasons. Nobody wants to watch the best team in the NFL lose because they had injuries. Nobody wants to watch any team lose because they have injuries, but the best two teams in each conference get an extra week to rest, heal, and avoid injury by staying off the field. That's a big advantage, yes, but I don't think it's so much of an advantage that the practice has to be stopped.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Why would you get rid of one of the few remaining advantages for a good team?

They have already geared everything towards parity. Salary cap, worst teams pick first in the draft, divisional teams play 14 of the 16 same opponents....

if a team can get through all of that and be an elite team, a #1 or #2 seed, why not get that advantage?

I'm not sure I agree with much of that, Jeff. In reverse order..1) Getting a 1 or 2 seed isn't like reaching a mark (say, 13 wins). Every year, no matter how terrible a conference is, two teams will be a 1 or a 2 seed.

2) To the extent that pre-season SOS is predictable (it isn't), the current schedule is geared away from parity than towards parity. Only two games per year are assigned based on a team's record, whereas before realignment a much greater percentage of your schedule was based on your record. Now the best team in the league and the worst have largely the same schedule, if they're in the same division.

3) Worst teams pick first may not be geared towards parity, either. See The Loser's Curse, documenting how the extremely high salaries for the top picks is not commensurate with their production.

4) I'm not convinced that the salary cap promotes parity. Parity's difficult to define, but I think there are decent arguments on both sides of the debate.

I agree on 2 - that puts the focus on divisional play, not parity. However, the byes only go to divisional winners, and the best two at that. If one div winner gets a cake schedule (one can argue Chicago), then the 1/2 may be weaker than the 3. Still, incentivizing the 1/2/3 teams is a big factor to me.As for the cap - good teams in the salary cap era are good managed teams (NE and Philly are common examples), and they're there year over year. They still lose talented players to free agency every year, and the 80s and 90s dynasties are much harder to replicate.

Yes the bye is an advantage - 2 wins, at least 1 at home, is much easier than winning 3 to get to the Supe. Sure an "unbalanced" schedule happens as no one can play everyone (and the same team could be different in Week 15 vs. Week 5), but I think the current system is better than one without byes.

 

[Bri]

Moreover, why are you going to disincentivize the top teams from playing hard down the stretch? Do you think Indy or SD would have played as they did this year in Weeks 16 and 17 if nothing was on the line? Same with Baltimore.

There have been times where I felt neither team truly played in week 17 and the bye was too much extra then. IIRC Your Eagles and the Bucs did just that years ago then met the next week in the playoffs.Some believe that by buying a ticket, the team should produce the best players they can for your entertainment. I don't have a prob with that line of thinking. I understand the people that like the rest for their team and think they'll be healthier for the playoffs +think long term. However, not everyone is like us around here checking the football news every day, several times a day. Tickets aren't cheap and to take a whole family....yeah I can see how they'd be furious if the stars sat in week 17 or only played a quarter or somesuch.I'm not disagreeing with your post. Just....I hate it when teams make up their own bye week.

 

[nerangers]

Moreover, why are you going to disincentivize the top teams from playing hard down the stretch? Do you think Indy or SD would have played as they did this year in Weeks 16 and 17 if nothing was on the line? Same with Baltimore.

Jeff, I still think the chance of playing at home vs. on the road is still initiative to play hard down the stretch. There are a lot of advantages to it. The additional rest that a bye week gives is something I don't think most teams could overcome (although the Colts did yesterday).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Coming off a bye doesn't seem to be much of an advantage, if any. What's the winning percentage of teams coming off a bye in the regular season? (I think it's almost exactly 50%, but I don't remember exactly.)

(You can't use winning percentage from the playoffs since the better team generally gets the bye and is thus more likely to win anyway.)

 

[nerangers]

Coming off a bye doesn't seem to be much of an advantage, if any. What's the winning percentage of teams coming off a bye in the regular season? (I think it's almost exactly 50%, but I don't remember exactly.)(You can't use winning percentage from the playoffs since the better team generally gets the bye and is thus more likely to win anyway.)

I would like to see those stats...anyone have them? I know the Pats struggled against teams that just had the bye week prior to playing them.

 

[trader jake]

The NFL playoffs have a perfect balance right now. Rewarding the teams that earned it throughout the year, but still giving a shot to teams that play their way in. Keep the system intact...do not change a thing.

 

[Cajun Heat]

I think the system is fine. The home/road teams split this weekend, and every game went down to the wire and could have gone either way. That's pretty darn balanced.

On a semi-related note - I don't think I can ever remember a better weekend of playoff football. WOW

GEAUX SAINTS!!!!

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Coming off a bye doesn't seem to be much of an advantage, if any. What's the winning percentage of teams coming off a bye in the regular season? (I think it's almost exactly 50%, but I don't remember exactly.)(You can't use winning percentage from the playoffs since the better team generally gets the bye and is thus more likely to win anyway.)

The advantage is more in not having to fight to win 3 games but rather only winning two.All the games should be (and usually are) hard fought and tough wins in the postseason.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Going to a 16-team playoff is a terrible idea; you're looking at 3 8-8 or worse NFC teams in the playoffs this season and 8-8 teams shouldn't be in the playoffs in the first place.I'm guessing this does happen sometime in the next 20 years, though. Too much money on the table.

16 teams is definitely too many...agreed. What if there were not wild card teams? that brings it to eight and no need for a bye week.

I like this idea, makes division matchups even bigger. But asking the NFL to get rid of playoff games and anything $$ is pretty futile.

I don’t like this idea because the best wild card team is often better than some of the division winners. There have been some pretty weak divisions in the past.

Sometimes this is true (wild cards are better than div winners). This year in the AFC, Jets and Chiefs were definitely several notches below the 4 div winners. In fact (just my opinion) I think Jax, Cinncy, Dev and Pitt were all better teams than the Jets and Chiefs. Regardless though, those 4 teams I mentioned that missed the playoffs weren't as strong as the 4 div winners in the AFC. It all works itself out.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

If you have a problem with it....then win during the regular season.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

It's not like they had 51 days off like the Buckeyes did.

 

[H.K.]

It's not like they had 51 days off like the Buckeyes did.

It looked like they took off day 52, as well.