[Bigfish]

A Division Winner is awarded with a play-off spot, regardless of the record, and then there are two wild card teams.  The wild card teams must travel unless the two wild card teams meet each other in the Division Championship Game.  I believe the NFL should keep the same 12 team playoff format (4 division winners and two wild cards from each conference.  However, I believe the NFL should seed the teams in the playoffs purely based on record. 

This year we have a 7 - 9 team hosting a playoff game.  Unfortunately, we have had several similar situations over the past 10 years.  I think the value of winning a "weak division" is too high with the winner obtaining both a playoff spot and at least one home game.

Ken

[soundbitten1]

The Bucs and Giants are the first teams since 1991 to win 10 games and not make the playoffs.   

[Rob Babcock]

I agree.  The division winners should automatically make the playoffs or there's no point to breaking things up by division.  But once the teams are determined seeding by record should decide the schedule.  That would be a pretty minor rules tweak IMO.  Of course, with the CBA expiring and a lockout potentially around the corner the NFL may have bigger fish to fry.

[jackman]

Rob,
I agree, this is a relatively minor issue compared to some of the other ones NFL is facing.  I bet the NFL is going try to expand the playoff pool and have more wild-card teams make it to the post-season.   They are a money-machine and a couple extra playoff games would be millions of extra $$$'s for the league. 

For the record, I am against any additional changes or expansion of the number of teams playing in the post season.  With a couple exceptions, the level of play has deteriorated and expanding the # of teams in the post season would water down the level of play even more.  There is something special about NFL playoff football and expanding the post season to more teams would water down the brand. 

It sucks that teams like NYG and the Bucks are out, while sucky teams like the Seahawks and the Chiefs go to the playoffs because they play in weak divisions, but them's the breaks.  In fairness, the Giants had so many chances to take care of business and choked.  The G-Men were spanked by the Pack, lost twice to the Eagles and lost to Dallas.  It must be frustrating because a win over any of those teams would have put them in the playoffs.  It makes the crushing loss to the Eagles even more crushing...ouch.

[Letitroll98]

Winners of the weak divisions have one home game guaranteed, if they get past that, then they go on the road.  If they win that game, and a wildcard team is the opponent for the conference championship, then they have earned another home game.  It's not broke, quit crying if your team is not in the playoffs, they should have won their division.  Wildcard is just that, a wildcard bone thrown out to a couple of lucky teams, they're not entitled to anything past a puncher's chance.

The NFL having one pitiful and one weak division on the west coast is more to the point than changing the playoff system.  But even this should just fix itself in short order.  But if the west continues to be weak for a number of years, then reorganizing the divisions makes more sense than changing a playoff system that has worked very well for a long time.

[launche]

Not looking forward to my Ravens having to go to Arrowhead. The Chiefs are 7-1 at home.  But I'd still rather play them them have to deal with the Colts.  If we beat the Chiefs then we gotta play the stinkin' Steelers "again".  Those darn Steelers are always there standing between us and the Superbowl.  Ravens vs Steelers now that's a rivalry and one I hope we see again, no offense to the Chiefs. 

The Saints should handle the Seahawks.
I say put the sub .500 team on the road.

[sanjaygolf]

The Bucs and Giants are the first teams since 1991 to win 10 games and not make the playoffs.   

2008 Patriots were 11-5 and missed the playoffs. Parity is what makes the NFL so great. Complaints can made from everywhere about teams making or missing the playoffs. At the end of the day it doesnt matter. People complain about a 7-9 team making the playoffs but would anyone have said anything if the Bucs made it with their overly-inflated 10-6 record? They played 4 winning teams and 6 games total against teams with a winning record. They got to play the NFC West, the lowly Panthers twice, two of the worst teams in the AFC, the Browns and Bungals, and two of the worst teams in the NFC, the Redskins and Lions. They basically won one big game and that was their last one against the Saints. Of all the major sports the NFL playoffs does it right and in comparison makes the college football system look like it was conceived by monkeys.

[Bigfish]

I have no problem with the manner in which the NFL selects the 12 teams for the playoffs.  I think they should leave the selection process alone.  However, all teams play teams outside of their divisions and outside of their conference during the regular season.  My argument is since this is a fact then the teams with the best records should host the playoff games.  Why does a team with a losing record, 7-9, have the right to host a home playoff game?  Purely because the NFL states a team winning a division gets to host a playoff game!

[Rob Babcock]

I think the Chiefs will be fun to watch.  They have the best running game in the NFL and a 4,000 yard passer at the helm.  The new management there has turned the organization around pretty quickly.  I don't think they're the equal of the Ravens, though.

[Bigfish]

I think the Chiefs will be fun to watch.  They have the best running game in the NFL and a 4,000 yard passer at the helm.  The new management there has turned the organization around pretty quickly.  I don't think they're the equal of the Ravens, though.

I think the timing of Charlie Weis announcement that he has accepted the Offensive Coordinator's Job at Florida kinda sucks!  Will he be concentrating on his job for the Chiefs or will he be at his desk calling recruits for Florida?

Ken

[jackman]

I think the timing of Charlie Weis announcement that he has accepted the Offensive Coordinator's Job at Florida kinda sucks!  Will he be concentrating on his job for the Chiefs or will he be at his desk calling recruits for Florida?

Ken

I think he is leaving because he can't take the temptation of KC BBQ!  Pulled pork, ribs, brisket, burnt ends...that's some slow cooked goodness you can't find in FL.  You better believe Charile is distracted by the move.  He's probably loading up on KC BBQ. 

The Chiefs were fun to watch this year but they are one and done this playoff season.  I'm sorry because the Chiefs have a great tradition and I was pulling for them.  I hate the Ravens!

Cheers,

J

[chadh]

Wow - I had never realized how things were organized in the NFL.  The thirty-two team competition is whittled down to twelve after each team plays sixteen games.  Each team plays three division rivals twice, and ten other teams once.  That means that playoff teams are selected after playing less than half of the opposing teams in the competition.

I always wondered why so many people support the idea of college football playoffs.   I guess the answer is that people don't see the need for teams actually to play each other to establish their relative strengths.  Are NFL supporters actually satisfied that the luck of the draw at the beginning of the season is just as important as performances on the field?

Chad

[Rob Babcock]

I always wondered why so many people support the idea of college football playoffs.   I guess the answer is that people don't see the need for teams actually to play each other to establish their relative strengths.  Are NFL supporters actually satisfied that the luck of the draw at the beginning of the season is just as important as performances on the field?

Chad

That's a tough one.  Obviously much of the schedule is predetermined (ie six games will be played within your division).  The other ten are supposed to be based on your record.  Strength of schedule can be a dicey thing, though.  For instance, when the schedule was made last year it would have appeared that playing the Lions, Raiders and Chiefs would be gimmees, but this year those teams are much improved.  Likewise facing the Vikings should have been a very tough draw...and that didn't really work out!   It would be impractical to play many more games than the NFL already plays.  The owners want an 18 game season which the players really oppose- football is so brutal that adding games will almost certainly result in more serious injuries.  It's not like basketball or baseball where you can play over 70 or even a 150 in the course of a season.

[launche]

  I hate the Ravens!

Cheers,

J

How Drew Carey of you.
 
The Ravens play inconsistently so the Chiefs have every chance to win.
But we'll try to send ol' Charlie out in a way that's let's him know he made the right choice. Charlie draw up the play where Ed Reed gets the ball a lot.

[chadh]

That's a tough one.  Obviously much of the schedule is predetermined (ie six games will be played within your division).  The other ten are supposed to be based on your record.  Strength of schedule can be a dicey thing, though.  For instance, when the schedule was made last year it would have appeared that playing the Lions, Raiders and Chiefs would be gimmees, but this year those teams are much improved.  Likewise facing the Vikings should have been a very tough draw...and that didn't really work out!   It would be impractical to play many more games than the NFL already plays.  The owners want an 18 game season which the players really oppose- football is so brutal that adding games will almost certainly result in more serious injuries.  It's not like basketball or baseball where you can play over 70 or even a 150 in the course of a season.

I appreciate your point about the length of the season.  But...

The National Aussie Rules competition in Australia has 16 teams each playing 22 games over 24 weeks.  In addition, top players are selected for serious state-level representative games through the season. 

The Australian Rugby League competition has 16 teams and each team plays 26 games in 26 weeks.  Again, top players are selected to state and national representative teams which significantly increase the number of games they play each year. 

Top level European soccer players play WAY more than NFL players.  For example, Barcelona this year will play each of the other 19 members of Spain's Primera Division twice.  Plus they will play some number of rounds yet to be determined in the Spanish Cup and the European Champion's League.  That might mean another 24 games or so.  So that's as many as 62 games for the season, not including the many international duties that many of the players will face.

These examples suggest that a longer season is possible, but may require increasing the depth of teams' rosters (which the players' association wouldn't like, due to reduced salaries).

Of course, a longer season wouldn't be such a big deal if there were fewer teams.  If I ruled the world, I'd get rid of bunch of NFL teams, increase the length of the season, and significantly increase the size of the team rosters.

For many people, the current arrangement might actually be the best.  I'm not really trying to be too critical.  But it's hard to know what success in a competition actually means when the winning team doesn't play against most of the competition.

Chad

[Rob Babcock]

I appreciate your point about the length of the season.  But...

The National Aussie Rules competition in Australia has 16 teams each playing 22 games over 24 weeks.  In addition, top players are selected for serious state-level representative games through the season. 

The Australian Rugby League competition has 16 teams and each team plays 26 games in 26 weeks.  Again, top players are selected to state and national representative teams which significantly increase the number of games they play each year.

Well, as I said- the NBA plays more than 70.  There are God knows how many MLB games- 150?  But football is far more violent than that.  I don't know much about rugby- it looks like there's a lot of contact.  But an NFL play isn't concluded until whoever has the ball either scores or if physically knocked to the ground.  Soccer it ain't.  Since nearly every play is finished by violently knocking the opponent down or out it's unlikely that you could play 40 games.  Yeah, you could add to the roster, either by slashing salaries or jacking up costs, but you can't do this at all positions.  Consider that even with only 32 teams in the NFL, there aren't enough good QBs that every team has even one!  Imagine trying to field six or seven of them per team.

I can't imagine having even less teams than we already do.  There are several markets that could support teams yet lack one.  Personally I think the season is plenty long as it is.  The NFL wants more to generate more cash, which is understandable.  But I fail to see how it would benefit the quality of the game.  Already you see teams leading their divisions resting players for the last couple games...this would be even more prevalent with an 18-20 game season.

[Bigfish]

Consider that even with only 32 teams in the NFL, there aren't enough good QBs that every team has even one!

I actually started to write that very comment a few minutes ago.  Take a look at the 12 teams in the Playoffs and with the possible exception of Seattle all of the teams have gotten very good to excellent play from their quarterbacks.  Let me be generous and claim that 16 of the 32 teams have quarterbacks that are capable of leading a team into the playoffs (Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers come to the top of my mind when I think of quarterbacks whose teams did not make it this year).  That leaves 16 teams unsettled at the quarterback position - the most vital position on the team!

[jackman]

Chad,
I appreciate Australian Rugby League, and the fitness of European Soccer but no major team sport on the planet is as violent or demanding as NFL football.  The hits they take and dish out are equivalent to being in an auto accident.  Even with today's "softer" rules, the players are bigger, stronger and faster than ever and the hits they dish out are, in many cases, more brain-scrambling than ever.  Even so, I would love to see an Austrailan Rugby player take a hit from someone like Ray Lewis, Lawrence Taylor, John Lynch (one of my favorites), Ronnie Lott or the baddest, hardest hitting player of all time, Dick Butkis.  I'd love to see someone not familiar with American Football take a helmet to helmet shot, the kind that Lynch dished out in his career and try to play 2 games in a year, forget about 25 because that would be lethal. 

Also, part of the allure of NFL football is the relatively few games they play (16) during the regular season.  There is so much strategy, film study, and game preparation that goes into every game.  Each game, even regular season, is more of an event than other sports like basketball or regular season baseball.  Playoff games are like prize fights (the good ones at least) and the level of violence and atheticism is pushed to an even higher level than the regular season.  In my opinion (I'm heavily biased of course), this is one of the things that separates the NFL from other major sports.

The downside is what happens to many players when they are out of the game.  Life expectancy of former NFL players, especially the big guys, is much lower than other atheletes and the general population.  I recall reading that life expectancy,depending on position, is 53-59 years for ex-NFL players, compared to 75 years for average US men.  The life expectancy for an ex-lineman is 52 years.  The average player plays 3.5 years and loses 2 to 3 years life expectancy for each year played. 

http://www.nowpublic.com/sports/average-lifespan-football-player-52

NFL players are modern day gladiators.  Many enjoy lavish lifestyles, women, $$$, and all of the benefits of fame, but the price is very steep.   

[jackman]

How Drew Carey of you.
 
The Ravens play inconsistently so the Chiefs have every chance to win.
But we'll try to send ol' Charlie out in a way that's let's him know he made the right choice. Charlie draw up the play where Ed Reed gets the ball a lot.

Hate is a strong word, plus I'm a Chicago guy and could care less about Cleveland.  I actually enjoy some things about the Ravens. 

How can I not like a team that has Ed Reed, one of the best safeties to ever play the game.  I recently learned that he doesn't have an agent and negotiates his own deal.  That's crazier than the stuff I've seen him do on the field.  It doesn't get any better than Ed Reed in my book.  Bad dude with an eye for the ball like I've never seen in a safety.  He doesn't get the publicity some other safeties get, but he's as good as I have ever seen.

[Mike Nomad]

Wow - I had never realized how things were organized in the NFL.  The thirty-two team competition is whittled down to twelve after each team plays sixteen games.  Each team plays three division rivals twice, and ten other teams once.  That means that playoff teams are selected after playing less than half of the opposing teams in the competition.

I always wondered why so many people support the idea of college football playoffs.   I guess the answer is that people don't see the need for teams actually to play each other to establish their relative strengths.  Are NFL supporters actually satisfied that the luck of the draw at the beginning of the season is just as important as performances on the field?

Chad

I've always thought the NFL game/records structure is hooey. Just like college ball. The NFL needs to be knocked back down to 16 teams. No divisions/conference/etc. Straight up, random draw: each team plays 16 games. During the regular season, no two teams can play each other more than twice.

The 4 teams with the best record make the playoffs, inverted bracket (1st plays 4th, 2nd plays 3rd). Home Field is determined by the best record. The two winning teams go to the Super Bowl.