The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

One of the suggestions in the upcoming owners meeting is to expand the playoffs to 7 teams per Conference.  Thoughts?

The one thing that I like about the NFL (and MLB for that fact, although I dislike baseball) is that only a limited number of (good and deserving) teams make the playoffs. It keeps it special; its an achievement. I always found it retarded that an NBA team that went .500 could make the playoffs. Further, the more teams in the playoffs might lower the standard of play. In the NBA, for example, the #1 seed usually destroys the #8 in the first round. I don't want to see that equivilent in the NFL.

I agree.  I think the number of 6 each is right on.  Look at the teams that made the playoffs, and those that didn't.  There is a fine line -- the KCs of the league shouldn't be in the playoffs, nor should last year's Dolphins.

i dont know ....   1 more team a side wouldnt hurt anything.  sometimes teams get screwed out of a playoff berth for technicalities, or for being in an extremely competitive division.  i think it would be better

I vote no way. Eddie jones brought this up a couple of years ago. If your not good enough after 16 games to bad.!!!!!

Booyah, I am the lone "1".  After thinking about it for 2 seconds and almost hitting "no",  (last year) occurred to me.  Ever since they expanded the divisons to 4 someone every year is getting screwed,  in this case Kansas City (10-6) and Minnesota (9-7) were left high and dry with their nuts in their hand looking in on the outside. 

These records were good enough to get you in any year before,  and in the NFL today, since every game basically counts, it stings when you know you just had / have no chance against the division 4 winner just because they're IN another division. 

I don't think that KC or Minnesota deserved to be in the playoffs.  KC had no defense, and lost some big games down the stretch, and Minnesota was horrendous to open the year.  Neither of those teams matched the quality of the teams that advanced in the playoffs (not even close), so why water down the playoffs like that?

Totally agree.  No way should a 9-7 team be considered the league's elite.  Only the "elite" should be considered for the title.

Now, losing a big game late in the season is disasterous for playoff chances.  The one extra would lessen the importance of late games, and allow more teams to rest their starters the last few weeks.  Boo to that.

In addition, it takes away the first round bye.  There'd be 3 wild card games and 2 divisional games.  Only the #1 seed would get the first round bye. 

I think its fine the way it is.

Now, I would be in favor of adding 2 games to the regular season.

Something I wouldn't mind seeing, though, to avoid "teams getting screwed" is to eliminated conference segregation for playoff seeding and just take the 12 best teams overall regardless of conference.  I think that'd make it better, since typically one conference is really good and the other is cupcake.  However, I can understand why that's a terrible idea.

Well said.

I'm all for expanding to eight teams per conference.  Four division winners, four wild cards, and NO first round bye for anyone.  This will create even more parity as the #1 and #2 seeds no longer have a week off to their advantage.  Also, it will make the weaker divisions more competitive because they know that they'll have to win their division to make the playoffs. 

I'm sorry guys but I have to disagree on your views against playoff expansion.  Ten wins should get you into the playoffs, bar none.

Dude,  KC still won 10 games, and in a tough division. I think you start watering it down when you let 8-8 teams in like there's no tomorrow.  The only reason I included MN was to counter KC going in.  Besides they let Washington in (10-6) and they really weren't all that impressive.  New England (10-6)  was less than stellar (IMO)  where 8 of their 10 wins came vs. teams w/ losing records (a loss to KC) AND they were in a crappy division.

Dunno.  Just as long as it doesn't get to where the NBA and NHL are, like Househead said.  

I'm fine with keeping it as it is... That part of the game isn't broke...no need to screw it up by trying to fix it.

do you guys remember when we got screwed out of the playoffs a few years ago?  we were only the 2nd 10-win team to miss the playoffs in a decade.

I am mixed on this. Since they went with the 4 division set in each conference, that is 4 automatic seeds for winning your division regardless of record. So if you have 3 bubble teams at say 10-6 or 9-7 but the worst division winner is 8-8 I do not believe that this is fair that they get in for being the winner of a shitty division. I think we leave it at 6, and the top 6 teams go no matter the division in each conferece, or they should consider expansion.

So, then, would it be better if it went to 6 wild card teams, regarldess of division winner?

I say still expand to 8, with no first round bye. 

Um...yeah, what I said. Great minds...    ;D

Given that a #6 seed just won the Super Bowl (beating both #1s, a #2, and a #3 on the way) it's hard to argue that teams just on the outside of the bubble don't deserve to be in contention.  Had KC won one more game, this year's Super Bowl winner wouldn't have even qualified for the postseason.  That's a pretty fine line.

Yeah, but keep in mind that most years, you don't have #6 seeds as capable and physical as this year's Pittsburgh Steelers.  Pittsburgh winning the Super Bowl as a #6 seed is clearly the exception, not the rule. 

Sorry I skimmed through and posted my thoughts, so yeah.....I agree with Thundergod!!!!!  ;)



In essence yes. Top 6 teams make it, I wouldn't mind that at all!!!!!