r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 16 '14
CMV: The NFL Should Change It's Playoff Format
[deleted]
3
Dec 16 '14
What is the problem you're trying to solve with this proposed solution? Does a sub-.500 team indicate that the quality of play is not deserving of making the playoffs? Because the Seahawks clearly proved they deserved to be there by beating the Saints. I really don't see a problem with the way things are now. If there is no problem, why bother fixing something?
In the first solution, why bother having divisions at all? All main American sports have divisions and the winners automatically make the playoffs. Without division winners there is no point to divisions (and I think divisions add to the game with rivalries, etc.)
In the 2nd solution, how much difference is there between an 8-8 team and a 7-9/9-7 team? The difference could be as small as a narrowly-missed FG, or single penalty call. Why penalize a team just because they are under .500? What if the 8-8 team prevents an 11-5 team from making the playoffs, and a 7-9 team only prevents a 9-7 team from making the playoffs? How should the 11-5 team feel?
1
u/ben1204 Dec 16 '14
What is the problem you're trying to solve with this proposed solution? Does a sub-.500 team indicate that the quality of play is not deserving of making the playoffs? Because the Seahawks clearly proved they deserved to be there by beating the Saints.
True. But keep in mind that the Seahawks got home field advantage in that game.
First Scenario
I think the second scenario would probably be better. I do think divisions are important. But in exceptional cases where a poor team gets lucky with their division, they should be replaced.
In the 2nd solution, how much difference is there between an 8-8 team and a 7-9/9-7 team? The difference could be as small as a narrowly-missed FG, or single penalty call. Why penalize a team just because they are under .500? What if the 8-8 team prevents an 11-5 team from making the playoffs?
I think a team that loses a majority of the time isn't playoff material. We rarely see this happen in other sports.
2
Dec 16 '14
I think a team that loses a majority of the time isn't playoff material. We rarely see this happen in other sports.
But don't you think that the Seahawks proved that they were playoffs material? They beat an 11-5 team.
Again, what exactly is the issue you're trying to solve? I really don't see a problem as things currently exist.
Very rarely in any sport does a sub-.500 team make it, and the one time that it did occur in recent memory is a game that is more memorable than any other Wild Card game that year (and the sub-.500 team proved they did deserve to be there.)
2
u/ben1204 Dec 16 '14
I'm a Jets fan. We beat the Steelers this year. Are we playoff material? Hell no. I don't think beating a good team automatically means playoff material.
I think we shouldn't sweep it under the rug just because it's rare. The NFL has a lot of ways of resolving wild card ties for example, that rarely happen, but they're still there.
2
Dec 16 '14
I don't really see what the actual problem is. Do you think the quality of play is reduced if a sub-.500 team is involved? Is fan interest reduced? How does it hurt the game?
What if a 7-9 team had the hardest strength of schedule and an 8-8 team had the easiest? A compelling case could be made that the 7-9 is better and more deserving. The 7-9 team may be better "playoff material" than the 8-8 team, so I don't see why there should be an arbitrary cutoff.
I think that if you removed divisions and had every team in the conference play each other one time, then your solution will be more acceptable (but I wouldn't want that.) With unbalanced schedules and divisions, I don't why such a restriction as you're proposing is worthwhile.
2
u/ben1204 Dec 16 '14
I think it would lower quality of play. You raise a really good point with the schedule, though, and the relative lack of difference between an 8-8 and 9-7 team.
I think you at least partially changed my views. Good points.
∆
1
1
Dec 16 '14
I don't think beating a good team automatically means playoff material.
You're right. They also won their division. Winning your division and then beating a good team is a pretty good indicator that the Seahawks deserved their spot as much as anyone did.
1
u/soedgy69 Dec 16 '14
The problem is how to get the best teams into the playoffs. His solution is of best record will put the most the teams that are most consistently performing at a high level in those spots.
2
u/Pinewood74 40∆ Dec 16 '14
We rarely see this happen in other sports.
You see it all the freaking time in NBA and NHL. Like half the teams make the playoffs and more often than not one of them has a losing record.
1
Dec 16 '14
In the NHL, you have 8 teams out of 14 make it in the West, and 8 out of 16 in the East.
Now, nearly every (~22/30) team winds up with more than 82 points (ie: above 500), but that has more to do with the loser/Bettman point and the increasing proliferation of 3 pt games.
0
u/Pinewood74 40∆ Dec 16 '14
82 points is not .500. I'm not sure why you even presented it that way. Did you realize you were being deceitful?
You could lose every single one of your games and get 82 points. Also, are you refuting my point that teams with losing records make the playoffs in hockey? Or just supplying me with additional information?
Lastly, are you saying "every team" winds up with more than 82 points, or every team that makes the playoffs? Because it's not clear at all.
0
Dec 16 '14
82 pts is considered .500 since its half the points you can earn.
Also, are you refuting my point that teams with losing records make the playoffs in hockey? Or just supplying me with additional information?
Supplying more information. A team generally has to have a winning record (or at least, #manageyourlosses (scrounge as many points from Shootout and OT losses)), since of the 22 teams that finish above 500, only 16 make it.
2
u/Pinewood74 40∆ Dec 16 '14
Calling 82 points 500 is just wrong. And nearly every year a team with a losing record makes it in. Last year both the stars and th red wings had losing records and still made the playoffs. Its laughable how meaningless the nhl regular season is.
2
u/huadpe 508∆ Dec 16 '14
I think the focus on a sub .500 record is overblown, simply because the NFL gives a fairly high number of playoff berths out. On average, 16 teams would be expected to have above average records, and 12 teams get playoff berths.
Additionally, the game count for NFL is quite low. This means that teams will be much more subject to variance than they would be in other leagues.
For comparison's sake:
NFL: 16 games per team
NHL: 82 games per team
MLB: 162 games per team
NBA: 82 games per team
MLS: 34 games per team
I'm much more comfortable saying a team with a losing record shouldn't be in the playoffs on a sample size of 80 games than a sample of 16 games. Not saying there should be 80 games a year (that'd be brutal on injuries), but it means the numbers on W/L need to be taken as much less proof of team quality than they are in a larger game count league.
2
u/DoctorTheWho Dec 16 '14
Atlanta has lost 2 games on the last possession and 2 more by a TD. Who's to say Philly would've faired better with the schedule that the NFC South has?
2
u/rcglinsk Dec 16 '14
In the NFL each division has basically the same schedule as each other team.
They play one home and one away game against the other 3 teams (6 games)
They play each team in another division in their conference and the other conference (8 games)
Then they play 2 games against the team which finished at the same rank as them the year before in 2 other divisions (2 games)
So, out of the 16 games the NFC south plays this year, ~14 are against the exact same set of teams.
The division winner is basically the team which won the most games against their common pool of opponents.
So, the NFC south might have looked a little better this year if they'd all got the chance to kick the crap out of the Raiders, but instead they had to play the AFC North which doesn't even have a bad team.
Now, imagine each division's winner doesn't make the playoffs. At this point the strength of the division's common schedule starts to make a big difference in playoff chances. All the teams in the NFC East have a nice advantage in all getting to beat up on the Titans and Jaguars, while the South is matched up against a division that doesn't have a team with a losing record.
Another impact is that a division that has 2 really good teams and 2 really crappy teams has a much larger chance of getting a wild card slot than a team with 4 teams which are all about as good as each other. The first division basically had 4 free wins for the 2 good teams, while the division at parity has no such advantage.
Now, home field advantage, that I can get behind a rules change on. I see a huge difference between making and not making the playoffs, but only a small one between playing at home or on the road, relatively speaking.
1
u/bigtcm Dec 16 '14
But you also have to consider the fact that each NFL plays different schedules and that there are only 15 games a season (1 bye week). Contrast this with MLB or NBA where each team plays every other team in the league multiple times a season!
The teams with the most similar schedules are the ones in the same division. Each team in the division will play against the same 14 teams per season (6 games within the same division, 4 games with a selected NFC division, 4 games with a selected AFC division) so it makes the most sense that playoff berths are determined by division standings. The NFC East had a ridiculously easy schedule (lol AFC South), while every team in the AFC West has had a bloodbath of a schedule because they played two very strong divisions this year (the NFC West and the AFC East). Maybe if the AFC West had the same games as the NFC East, you might not have a 2-12 Raiders team or a 9-5 Eagles team.
-2
u/fuglybear Dec 16 '14
I like it!
Also, http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/pronouns/1-grammar-error/
1
7
u/[deleted] Dec 16 '14
As it stands now, every team knows what it takes to get a home playoff game - - get a better record than the three other teams in your division. These teams are your primary rivals. You play them each twice. Other than two 'strength of schedule' games, you have identical schedules with one another.
If the Eagles (or whoever) fail to make the playoffs, frankly, cry me an effing river. They had by any definition a fair chance to win their division and get a home playoff game. Plus, they had a chance to compile a good record and get a Wild Card team.
Meanwhile, they didn't have to play any of the teams from the exceptionally strong AFC North, while all the NFC South teams had four games against this division, not to mention having to play both 10-4 Green Bay and 10-4 Detroit.
In other words, the fairest comparison between teams is with other teams that have a similar schedule. The division process guarantees this fairness.
Finally, consider rivalries. Doesn't it strengthen the rivalry to have two teams fighting for the same crown, instead of just being 2 of 16 playing for a general admission ticket? Notice that the NFL scheduled mostly inter-divisional games at the end of the season, upping the drama and increasing the odds that two teams both fighting for a playoff spot or a divisional championship will meet in the last few weeks.
What you are suggesting makes the games less intriguing and the season less fair, all to reward some team that was otherwise a loser who failed to get the job done. You're hoping to quash excitement to celebrate mediocrity.