Expanded playoffs over 18 game season. It could happen.

[Palmetto]

Coaches are already up set that practice time has been cut back

And now they want to cut 2 preseason games 

[run-run-pass-punt]

39 minutes ago, SCO96 said:

Most of the people on the PFT website were against it as well. But, with the decreasing quality of preseason play and the risk of injury it's possible the preseason could be shortened in the future. Would you rather have an 18 game regular season or 2 extra playoff teams and two extra games on wild card week? The lost revenue from the preseason has to come from somewhere.
 

Personally I'd rather have an 18-game regular season without expanding the playoffs. The playoffs can sometimes feel watered down as it is with a team or two getting in that you know doesn't really belong there. (not every year, but it does happen)

I think much of the prestige of the playoffs is lost when they grow too large - like we see in some other sports.

[Ricky Spanish]

Of all the compromises, I like this one the best. 

1 extra team in each division won't ruin the playoffs, it would provide another chance at revenue for the owners, and will get rid of the sloppy football that is the preseason. 

I'm ok with it. 

[MHS831]

Here is what I would do--

Cut the preseason from 4 to 2 games, add one game (17) to the schedule.  That game is played in Europe or Mexico--giving Goodell his international influence.   1 home game might be lost in this scenario--a preseason game--but the owners split the revenue earned from the international game--so the loss is about half a preseason game.  I think if we eliminated the bye by adding a team or two to the playoffs, that is not a bad thing.  The teams recoup losses from that half-preseason games in playoff TV revenues.

Preseason hurts the league--a month of boring games, injuries, etc.  2 games is plenty, especially if the veterans are going to sit out.

 

[Captain Morgan]

9 minutes ago, Cracka McNasty said:

Of all the compromises, I like this one the best. 

1 extra team in each division won't ruin the playoffs, it would provide another chance at revenue for the owners, and will get rid of the sloppy football that is the preseason. 

I'm ok with it. 

 

agreed....seems like the best compromise

[MHS831]

25 minutes ago, run-run-pass-punt said:

Personally I'd rather have an 18-game regular season without expanding the playoffs. The playoffs can sometimes feel watered down as it is with a team or two getting in that you know doesn't really belong there. (not every year, but it does happen)

I think much of the prestige of the playoffs is lost when they grow too large - like we see in some other sports.

Since regular season games are harder on the starters that preseason games, this has been blocked by the player's union--say it shortens careers.  I played in college, and at the end of an 11 game season, we were beaten and sore.  I can't imagine being 32 years old and having played 18 NFL games....

[run-run-pass-punt]

9 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Since regular season games are harder on the starters that preseason games, this has been blocked by the player's union--say it shortens careers.  I played in college, and at the end of an 11 game season, we were beaten and sore.  I can't imagine being 32 years old and having played 18 NFL games....

Well, I guess that ties into the whole idea of roster expansion. I think it's doable if there's significantly more flexibility there. But yeah, the NFL can be brutal on the body. I'm all for player safety.

[Devil Doc]

I say make Playoffs best 2 out of 3. or a Losers Bracket and a Winners Bracket. That way you get 4 chances to make the SuperBowl.

[Palmetto]

2 minutes ago, Devil Doc said:

I say make Playoffs best 2 out of 3. or a Losers Bracket and a Winners Bracket. That way you get 4 chances to make the SuperBowl.

So even More Games??????

[SCO96]

1 hour ago, Scum of the Turf said:

You could also add 1 neutral site game in London to make 17 game schedule.  Add bye week after London game

The players don't want to go beyond the 16 games per season. The NFPLA doesn't want ANY additional regular season games.

[Captroop]

2 hours ago, Cracka McNasty said:

Of all the compromises, I like this one the best. 

1 extra team in each division won't ruin the playoffs, it would provide another chance at revenue for the owners, and will get rid of the sloppy football that is the preseason. 

I'm ok with it. 

To me it seems like the risk outweighs the benefits. If I'm an owner I wouldn't like it. Because if I'm the owner of the 3rd wild card, I don't get any extra revenue anyway because my team is playing away ball the whole playoffs.

And if I'm the owner of one of the bye teams, I don't like because I run the risk of losing a Divisional home game.

I don't know if there's a huge difference between revenue between a Wild Card and Divisional game. But I'm not sure I'd want to give that that higher profile home game up, and increase my likelihood of missing out on a Super Bowl by 50%.

For that reason I don't see the owners going for it.

[parker]

I'd like to make a few changes.  No preseason games, 3 more regular season games, one extra bye week.  I would like to see teams play 3 games against division foes to build those rivalries and cut out the non-head to head tie breakers.  Wouldn't you rather get one more shot at the Falcons/Saints instead of playing a team like the Bengals or the Jets?  Wishful thinking, but preseason is antiquated.

[Peon Awesome]

I think the likelihood of them adding a 7th playoff team from each conference while removing 1-2 preseason games is incredibly high. And I for one would wholeheartedly support it.

First off, let's clarify what it would mean for the post-season. The wildcard weekend would be completely unchanged for seeds 3-6. You get the same 4 games you get now: 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 in each conference. But on top of that you now get a 2 vs 7 game in each conference. Seem lame? Let's see what that would have been last year: Pittsburgh vs New England and New Orleans vs Minnesota. Big Ben vs Brady and a rematch of the minneapolis miracle? Are you honestly telling me the playoffs would be more interesting if you just gave New Orleans and New England a bye that week rather than making them play those games? And if you're the 2 seed, can you really complain if you can't beat a 7 seed at home? You have no one to blame but yourself if you can't win that game.

For the later rounds, it also increases the chances that a lower seed can host a playoff game. In the current system, seeds 3 or lower will never host in the divisional round. If the 7 seed wins in the wildcard round, one of those seeds is guaranteed to host in the divisional round. So more chances for everyone to have a home playoff game. Hell, the 3 or 4 seed could potentially play every playoff game at home until the super bowl if all the cards fall the right way.

Now let's shift gears and think about what that means for the regular season. You now have 3 or 4 more teams in each conference who are actually playing for something at the end of the year. For owners, that means a lot more fans excited and willing to come and pay to watch in weeks 14-17 whereas in years past they might've already been eliminated from the playoffs. 

So let's recap: more fans invested later into the regular season, 2 more potentially exciting matchups during wildcard weekend and more teams with a chance to host a playoff game. Win-win across the board. 

[Ricky Spanish]

1 hour ago, Captroop said:

To me it seems like the risk outweighs the benefits. If I'm an owner I wouldn't like it. Because if I'm the owner of the 3rd wild card, I don't get any extra revenue anyway because my team is playing away ball the whole playoffs.

And if I'm the owner of one of the bye teams, I don't like because I run the risk of losing a Divisional home game.

I don't know if there's a huge difference between revenue between a Wild Card and Divisional game. But I'm not sure I'd want to give that that higher profile home game up, and increase my likelihood of missing out on a Super Bowl by 50%.

For that reason I don't see the owners going for it.

It would result in 1 less bye team and means 1 more game to be played by the #2 seed because they wouldn't get a bye. 

Would look similar to this:

So only 1 team gets a bye, the playoffs don't go on forever like the NBA because it can be completed in the current time frame that it's in, and the #1 seed becomes more coveted due to them being the ONLY team that gets a break. This provides the opportunity for the 2nd seed to host an additional playoff game and provide more playoff revenue.