Schedule/playoff format suggestion:

[Dkollidas]

With all the discussion we’ve been hearing regarding adding games to the schedule in the new CBA, and the playoff format as well, I figured to make a topic on it.

 

Honestly I like the schedule as it is now, except for having 4 pre-season games. It is overkill. But with regard to the regular season, it just works so well. Even number of games played, 16 games each in a 32 team league is nice and divisible. 

 

My suggestion would be to go to 8 playoff teams per conference, and get rid of the bye weeks. 

 

Bye weeks, in such a physically demanding game, give far too much advantage to the team with the week off. 

 

These teams are already getting home field against everyone else, which is also a major advantage in a game where crowds can easily make it hard for the road teams offense to make calls and checks on the field.

 

Currently, the league plays 11 playoff games. 4 Wild Card games, 4 Divisional Games, 2 Conference Championships and the Super Bowl.

 

Adding two teams and doing a traditional 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 setup in each conference would put the total at 15 playoff games. Adding 4 playoff games to the total. This would be huge for revenue with the ability to televise 8 playoff games per weekend. Networks would be going hard after that as ratings for playoff games are usually quite a bit higher than regular season. 

 

 

I think players might be in favor of this because it gives more teams a chance to win. Adding playoff teams and taking away the bye weeks helps level the field. 

 

The teams would like this because it adds revenue league wide from TV deals, and with more teams making the playoffs, I would lead to more teams having a chance at playoff revenue (ticket sales, merchandise and concessions, etc). 

 

 

 

[MDH]

My preference has long been to get rid of divisions and play every team in your conference once plus one game vs. an out of conference team.

 

Divisions are just a dumb way of deciding who the best teams are and handing out home games to division winners when they beat up on a bad division gives teams too much of an advantage in the post season. If every conference team has pretty much the same schedule it makes seeding those teams in the post season as fair as it can be.

[Punching Bag]

Divisions are so some teams can have some accomplishments they can brag about. It is good for sales, etc.  That some are unhappy about playoffs is not reason to remove divisions.

[Locomark]

Never ever ever ever remove a first round bye from 1 or 2 teams. That's what the best team should be playing for. It is what makes it more likely you will see the best teams in the Super Bowl. Go to 7 playoff teams per conference. 1 Bye week for the best team and seed the next six 1-6. There needs to be a reward for being the best.

[Buffalo03]

3 hours ago, MDH said:

My preference has long been to get rid of divisions and play every team in your conference once plus one game vs. an out of conference team.

 

Divisions are just a dumb way of deciding who the best teams are and handing out home games to division winners when they beat up on a bad division gives teams too much of an advantage in the post season. If every conference team has pretty much the same schedule it makes seeding those teams in the post season as fair as it can be.

I've always agreed with this as well. I've always found divisions kind of pointless. Like technically I've always looked at it as, let's say one team in a division wins the division at 10-6 but they go 0-6 against divisional opponents and let's say another team in the division goes 6-10 but 6-0 in the division. Wouldn't you say at that point that the 6-10 team actually won that division since they won all division games? Obviously, I'm not saying that the 6-10 team should make the playoffs, but how do you call a team that went 0-6 in their division as division champs? I get they have the better record of the two teams but it makes no sense. I've always felt like for playoff purposes that the teams with the top 6 records in each conference should make it. Divisions shouldn't even matter in all that. So that means if you have a 9-7 team in the 7th spot in each conference and there's a division winner at 8-8 that the 9-7 team would basically take that teams spot which they deserve based on having the better record. That's why divisions should be eliminated 

[billsfanmiami(oh)]

It’s perfect the way it is

[Doc Brown]

The only change I'd make is the division winner should make the playoffs but shouldn't be guaranteed a home playoff game.  The WC home games should be given to the teams with the better record.

[djp14150]

4 hours ago, MDH said:

My preference has long been to get rid of divisions and play every team in your conference once plus one game vs. an out of conference team.

 

Divisions are just a dumb way of deciding who the best teams are and handing out home games to division winners when they beat up on a bad division gives teams too much of an advantage in the post season. If every conference team has pretty much the same schedule it makes seeding those teams in the post season as fair as it can be.

 

 

The only way this would work....

 

you basically have 4 8 team divisions. One division vs other for 15 games thrn play one game against other 2conferences as positional games.

 

then p,ayoffs eoukd be

 

4 divisional winners get byes. Thr next 3-4 teams among these two merged divisions get wild cards 

 

then cross over playoffs

 

2 division  winners from the two division pairing p,ay otherdivision wild card teams. 

[GunnerBill]

I 100% disagree with the OP. I am pro more regular season games and anti an expanded playoffs. 

[TroutDog]

Thoughts:

 

1. There has to be two preseason games, in my opinion. 

 

2.  Bye weeks have to stay. Can’t see the NFLPA letting go of those (nor should they). 

 

3. I like the addition of playoff games. Would definitely make for intriguing viewing and increasing player pay. Win-win. 

[Punching Bag]

15 minutes ago, TroutDog said:

Thoughts:

 

1. There has to be two preseason games, in my opinion. 

 

2.  Bye weeks have to stay. Can’t see the NFLPA letting go of those (nor should they). 

 

3. I like the addition of playoff games. Would definitely make for intriguing viewing and increasing player pay. Win-win. 

 

No not less bye weeks but more with guarantee that any team on TNF will have weekend before off.

[TroutDog]

1 minute ago, Limeaid said:

 

No not less bye weeks but more with guarantee that any team on TNF will have weekend before off.

I was responding to the OP.  

 

Altering how they would work should be part of the discussion.  

[Aussie Joe]

Half the teams making the playoffs each year would reward mediocrity..

[MJS]

The absolute last thing I want is to have the playoffs diluted by having more teams. It's perfect now. Making the playoffs is actually an accomplishment. In the NHL if you don't make the playoffs you pretty much suck.

 

I want to keep it as strong as possible. I don't want the Bills or any other team to get into the playoffs with an 8-8 record because we allow 16 teams on. That's hogwash.

 

Weak teams occasionally sneak in to the playoffs as it is. Expanding the playoffs ensures that weak teams will get in almost every year.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

What about 7 playoff teams? Only one team gets a bye so it keeps competition going through week 17 and you add an extra wildcard team, and an extra 2 playoff games.

[BigDingus]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

The only change I'd make is the division winner should make the playoffs but shouldn't be guaranteed a home playoff game.  The WC home games should be given to the teams with the better record.

 

This. Division winners shouldn't get auto home games, best record should determine that.

And while I'm not against adding more teams to the playoffs in theory, I am against getting rid of the bye week. Those teams earned that spot, and it helps ensure the best teams make the Super Bowl.

There have been times in other sports (especially the NBA) that a great team gets knocked out by a lousy bad match-up, then that lousy team goes on to get swept in the next round. The NBA has adjusted their playoff seating quite a bit. Their old formatting also made it to where the two best teams in each conference rarely met up in the Conference Finals and instead got matched up in the Divisional round.

That was problematic because it diluted the excitement and competitiveness of the Conference Finals, as everyone already saw the great series in the previous round & weren't interested in what's supposed to be the 2nd most important series of the year. 

Anyway, I'm not a fan of not rewarding teams who do well in the regular season. 

[RiotAct]

3 hours ago, Aussie Joe said:

Half the teams making the playoffs each year would reward mediocrity..

I agree 100%.  Don’t cheapen the postseason 

[Doc Brown]

12 minutes ago, dneveu said:

What about 7 playoff teams? Only one team gets a bye so it keeps competition going through week 17 and you add an extra wildcard team, and an extra 2 playoff games.

Six is perfect as you have a 62.5% chance of missing the playoffs so it rarely rewards mediocrity.  Keeps the regular season meaningful and you get a lot of dramatic week 17 games for that final Wild Card spot.  Giving the two best teams in each conference a bye followed by a home game gives them a huge advantage reinforcing the importance of the regular season.  You can also have that 5th or 6th seed Cinderella story, but they're going to have to win four straight games away from home to take the Super Bowl.  It's the best format of any of the four major sports by far.

 

[BillsVet]

It's extremely doubtful the union would permit the removal of the bye week.  Player injuries are a major issue and providing a week break during the season isn't going anywhere.

 

Any schedule changes must result in increased revenue or the discussion doesn't even get off the ground.  

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, BillsVet said:

It's extremely doubtful the union would permit the removal of the bye week.  Player injuries are a major issue and providing a week break during the season isn't going anywhere.

 

Any schedule changes must result in increased revenue or the discussion doesn't even get off the ground.  

The NFL wouldn't want that either as it's one less week of TV revenue.  Adding a bye week for more tv revenue is more likely as discussed in another thread.

[purple haze]

NO.  I love hoops.  I'll observe hockey.  But half the league making the playoffs should remain with those sports.

 

The NFL playoffs are exclusive and should be.  If one's team can't make the post season one's team should work to do better, Bills included.  And I'm not for more regular season games either.  16 is enough.  Football is king because of its urgency.  Limited opportunities makes each game more meaningful.

[Guest]

If I had carte blanche:

 

Week 18 (Franchise Bowl @ Superbowl Venue)
Each Conference, to stop tanking for the draft.

#13 v. #16 (auto OT)

#14 v. #15 (auto OT)

Winners play for #1 draft pick and auto franchise tag for their QB paid by the league.  Losers get picks #2 - #16, then normal draft.

 

Week 19

Each Conference
#11 v. #12 (auto OT) @ # 1
#9 v. #10 (auto OT) @ #  2
#7 v. #8 (auto OT) @ #  3

#5 v. #6 (auto OT) @ #  4

 

Week 20

Each Conference
To be played at division champions home field by the four winners of Week 19, whether they won or not. Winner gets a silver helmet trophy of the home field

Week 21 AFC/NFC Championships @ Superbowl Venue
Winner gets a golden helmet of the team they defeated

Week 21 Night Game: NFL Probowl @ Superbowl Venue
Winning team has two players eligible for single game roster addition of each conference champion, with best record picking first. You get:

• a meaningful Probowl
• added star power to the Superbowl
• a night game on conference championship Sunday
• Home field advantage in the Superbowl
• Which conference gets #1 pick from Week 18.

 

Week 22 Superbowl as usual, no bye before SB. Keep that fire burning!

 

Week 23 Ownership Game @ Honolulu

NFL retirees' draft a team of the upcoming eligible rookies. The winners get shares in the next team that goes 0-12, like Green Bay does, enough to elect representation in football operations.

I would move something like this to college, where you had auto OT and 64 teams. Final 4 get a bye, and you expand it to 8 games.

 

Also I want to see football:

• Get more of a club atmosphere. Sponsorships in public schools, and you get rid of the betting and make it buying equity into the regional club.
• If you play a pro sport, you are eligible for military service draft. You can play for one of the colleges, or go into service. Not combat, you could build stuff or go into medicine like they do in the reserves. Just all that money, why does it have to just go to rich cut throats who then just give it to charity cases to be used against us?

Edited September 29, 2019 by Guest

[HardyBoy]

2 hours ago, purple haze said:

NO.  I love hoops.  I'll observe hockey.  But half the league making the playoffs should remain with those sports.

 

The NFL playoffs are exclusive and should be.  If one's team can't make the post season one's team should work to do better, Bills included.  And I'm not for more regular season games either.  16 is enough.  Football is king because of its urgency.  Limited opportunities makes each game more meaningful.

 

I agree with you, but the Premier League has a lot more games, and the sense of urgency is there. Granted they have relegation, split the season in half and have a bunch of side tournaments throughout the season. They don't have playoffs though, so regular season is super important.

[Rochesterfan]

19 hours ago, Dkollidas said:

With all the discussion we’ve been hearing regarding adding games to the schedule in the new CBA, and the playoff format as well, I figured to make a topic on it.

 

Honestly I like the schedule as it is now, except for having 4 pre-season games. It is overkill. But with regard to the regular season, it just works so well. Even number of games played, 16 games each in a 32 team league is nice and divisible. 

 

My suggestion would be to go to 8 playoff teams per conference, and get rid of the bye weeks. 

 

Bye weeks, in such a physically demanding game, give far too much advantage to the team with the week off. 

 

These teams are already getting home field against everyone else, which is also a major advantage in a game where crowds can easily make it hard for the road teams offense to make calls and checks on the field.

 

Currently, the league plays 11 playoff games. 4 Wild Card games, 4 Divisional Games, 2 Conference Championships and the Super Bowl.

 

Adding two teams and doing a traditional 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 setup in each conference would put the total at 15 playoff games. Adding 4 playoff games to the total. This would be huge for revenue with the ability to televise 8 playoff games per weekend. Networks would be going hard after that as ratings for playoff games are usually quite a bit higher than regular season. 

 

 

I think players might be in favor of this because it gives more teams a chance to win. Adding playoff teams and taking away the bye weeks helps level the field. 

 

The teams would like this because it adds revenue league wide from TV deals, and with more teams making the playoffs, I would lead to more teams having a chance at playoff revenue (ticket sales, merchandise and concessions, etc). 

 

 

 

 

 

The difficulty is that it is nearly impossible to show 8 individual games in a weekend.  The 4 games currently played allow you to show 2 individual games Saturday and 2 individual games on Sunday.

 

With 8 games - you are forced to double up and therefore you split viewership for at least 1 game on each day.  Drop 1 team from your idea and have 7 on each side with the top seed getting a bye and you have 6 games on wild card weekend 3 on Sat and 3 on Sunday and that works.

 

I also have no issue with adding a 17th game - especially if they do some neutral fields/large college stadium set-ups or some outside the US.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Rochesterfan

[SoCal Deek]

The only immediate change I’d make is to either get rid of Thursday night games, or at least set the schedule so that both teams would have their bye week the Sunday before.  That would at the least limit Thursday night games to just the middle weeks of the season. 

 

(A minor improvement would be where Division would have their bye weeks all on the same weekend.)

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

8 playoff games in one weekend would be terrible for league revenue. Not everyone can watch NFL football for 13-14 straight hours on a Saturday and Sunday, and that's what would need to happen to play 8 games in 2 days. They won't want multiple games played at the same tine because that splits viewership. 

 

IF a change was made, IMO, instead of adding a regular season game, and a 3rd Wild Card. Almost every year, on or two teams narrowly miss out on the post season, due to tie breakers, or simply one less win. Many of those teams finish with 9 wins, which isn't great, but could be a team that lost key players for a while, got healthy, won several late season games, but too little too late. However, even with a worse record, the team may actually be better (and even "hotter") than the team that gets in as the 6th seed. WC#2 hosts WC#3 to see who advances to what is currently the WC round.

 

[BUFFALOKIE]

17 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

I've always agreed with this as well. I've always found divisions kind of pointless. Like technically I've always looked at it as, let's say one team in a division wins the division at 10-6 but they go 0-6 against divisional opponents and let's say another team in the division goes 6-10 but 6-0 in the division. Wouldn't you say at that point that the 6-10 team actually won that division since they won all division games? Obviously, I'm not saying that the 6-10 team should make the playoffs, but how do you call a team that went 0-6 in their division as division champs? I get they have the better record of the two teams but it makes no sense. I've always felt like for playoff purposes that the teams with the top 6 records in each conference should make it. Divisions shouldn't even matter in all that. So that means if you have a 9-7 team in the 7th spot in each conference and there's a division winner at 8-8 that the 9-7 team would basically take that teams spot which they deserve based on having the better record. That's why divisions should be eliminated 

Yeah but, has that EVER happened?

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

22 hours ago, Dkollidas said:

My suggestion would be to go to 8 playoff teams per conference, and get rid of the bye weeks. 

 

Bye weeks, in such a physically demanding game, give far too much advantage to the team with the week off. 

 

These teams are already getting home field against everyone else, which is also a major advantage in a game where crowds can easily make it hard for the road teams offense to make calls and checks on the field.

 

Totally disagree for exact reasons you mention.

 

I like that you're giving a big reward to the teams that actually played the best all season.  I prefer seeing the best two teams meeting in the conference championship games and the Super Bowl instead of some years having the 8th seed playing the 6th seed in the SB.

 

There's talk of college football expanding their playoffs, and most often you hear 8 teams.  If I were in charge I'd go to 6 teams and again award byes to the top two for the same reasons. 

 

Let the best teams meet for the championship.

[iinii]

As I have stated in the past; play everyone in conference like the EPL and PAC-10 do, 1 to 3 out of conference games as needed to meet revenue deals, and only 8 playoff teams per. Skip the WC weekend so that it’s a dog fight to get in. 1s don’t get a bye, sorry. If you feel they should then just play 1v2 and be done with it. An extra week off in the NFL is HUGE especially as the playoffs start. 

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, Drunken Pygmy Goat said:

8 playoff games in one weekend would be terrible for league revenue. Not everyone can watch NFL football for 13-14 straight hours on a Saturday and Sunday, and that's what would need to happen to play 8 games in 2 days. They won't want multiple games played at the same tine because that splits viewership. 

 

IF a change was made, IMO, instead of adding a regular season game, and a 3rd Wild Card. Almost every year, on or two teams narrowly miss out on the post season, due to tie breakers, or simply one less win. Many of those teams finish with 9 wins, which isn't great, but could be a team that lost key players for a while, got healthy, won several late season games, but too little too late. However, even with a worse record, the team may actually be better (and even "hotter") than the team that gets in as the 6th seed. WC#2 hosts WC#3 to see who advances to what is currently the WC round.

 

 

What about WC4 who just had an unlikely bounce and played in a tough division? 

[Nextmanup]

The only thing I would add is that a Super Bowl is, by far, the easiest championship to win among the 4 major sports in America.

 

Stanley Cup is, by far, the hardest.

 

Any system change that makes it harder to win a Super Bowl is OK in my book.

 

I'd love to see more playoff teams and more playoff games.