The new playoff format...

Welshers · Dec 28, 2020

It sucks, I really hate it. Giving only one team a bye makes the 1st seed so much more important and leads to things coming down to the semantics of tiebreakers. There was more wiggle room to avoid that with two byes and things wouldn't be so unbalanced. The Saints, Seahawks, and Packers may very well all finish 12-4. Is it really fair for one team to get such a giant advantage because of tiebreakers?

It also takes a little bit away from how scared the playoffs are in the NFL. Making them was a difficult and big accomplishment. I just hate changes like this all for $$$ and yes it may hurt the Seahawks this year. Although I was thoroughly against it before a down of this season had ever been played. I hate the extra regular season game next year as well. I mean I'm happy to watch another game of football, but it just messes with things such as statistical records and adds to injuries. All this is for $$$ by the league. Might as well just increase the season to 32 games so we can have Football for half the year, LOL!

$$$

TraderGary · Dec 28, 2020

No question, whoever gets the #1 seed is going to have a HUGE advantage over the other playoff teams. I don't like the new format either, but every team knew this going into the season. I'm elated that we're NFC West champions which is a hell of an accomplishment given all the difficulties this year, and I think we're peaking at the right time, at least defensively. But if the Hawks had gotten it done against the Giants, they would be in a great position for that #1 seed and I don't think anyone here would be complaining about the new format then.

I wasn't aware of the extra regular season game next year. Does that mean there will only be 3 preseason games? (Assuming there will be a preseason next year).

Welshers · Dec 28, 2020

TraderGary":39fwjoju said:
No question, whoever gets the #1 seed is going to have a HUGE advantage over the other playoff teams. I don't like the new format either, but every team knew this going into the season. I'm elated that we're NFC West champions which is a hell of an accomplishment given all the difficulties this year, and I think we're peaking at the right time, at least defensively. But if the Hawks had gotten it done against the Giants, they would be in a great position for that #1 seed and I don't think anyone here would be complaining about the new format then.

I wasn't aware of the extra regular season game next year. Does that mean there will only be 3 preseason games? (Assuming there will be a preseason next year).

Yes, they are cutting a preseason game and giving everyone a big pay bump, more than that of just one game. It was the only way they could get the players to agree. Like I said, I was against the change from the very start of the year, well before we were fighting for the 1 seed.

Yes the Giants and 1st Cards games are biting us in the ass now, but I think things evened out considering we very easily could have lost to the Pats and Vikings.

TraderGary · Dec 28, 2020

Welshers":rg2fkwfy said:
TraderGary":rg2fkwfy said:

No question, whoever gets the #1 seed is going to have a HUGE advantage over the other playoff teams. I don't like the new format either, but every team knew this going into the season. I'm elated that we're NFC West champions which is a hell of an accomplishment given all the difficulties this year, and I think we're peaking at the right time, at least defensively. But if the Hawks had gotten it done against the Giants, they would be in a great position for that #1 seed and I don't think anyone here would be complaining about the new format then.

I wasn't aware of the extra regular season game next year. Does that mean there will only be 3 preseason games? (Assuming there will be a preseason next year).

Click to expand...

Yes, they are cutting a preseason game and giving everyone a big pay bump, more than that of just one game. It was the only way they could get the players to agree. Like I said, I was against the change from the very start of the year, well before we were fighting for the 1 seed.

Yes the Giants and 1st Cards games are biting us in the ass now, but I think things evened out considering we very easily could have lost to the Pats and Vikings.

Thanks for the info on the extra game, and yes that's a fair point regarding the Pats and Vikings games.

TypeSly · Dec 28, 2020

Welshers":2rq1g8nr said:
It sucks, I really hate it. Giving only one team a bye makes the 1st seed so much more important and leads to things coming down to the semantics of tiebreakers. There was more wiggle room to avoid that with two byes and things wouldn't be so unbalanced. The Saints, Seahawks, and Packers may very well all finish 12-4. Is it really fair for one team to get such a giant advantage because of tiebreakers?

It also takes a little bit away from how scared the playoffs are in the NFL. Making them was a difficult and big accomplishment. I just hate changes like this all for $$$ and yes it may hurt the Seahawks this year. Although I was thoroughly against it before a down of this season had ever been played. I hate the extra regular season game next year as well. I mean I'm happy to watch another game of football, but it just messes with things such as statistical records and adds to injuries. All this is for $$$ by the league. Might as well just increase the season to 32 games so we can have Football for half the year, LOL!

$$$

I'm not sure where I stand on the playoff format, until I actually see how it goes this season. As for the extra game, I totally agree. It doesn't just affect the records (which I think is huge, and that's really unfair to players of the past), but it also affects many unwritten things, like how we regard certain milestones such as a 1000 yard receiver or a 1000 yard runner. This extra game will make a big difference in how many players reach these milestones, and the record books will be re-written needlessly. The only advantage here isfor the pocket-books of the NFL. Money is more important than history, I guess...

Welshers · Dec 28, 2020

TypeSly":2gue3wuu said:
Welshers":2gue3wuu said:

It sucks, I really hate it. Giving only one team a bye makes the 1st seed so much more important and leads to things coming down to the semantics of tiebreakers. There was more wiggle room to avoid that with two byes and things wouldn't be so unbalanced. The Saints, Seahawks, and Packers may very well all finish 12-4. Is it really fair for one team to get such a giant advantage because of tiebreakers?

It also takes a little bit away from how scared the playoffs are in the NFL. Making them was a difficult and big accomplishment. I just hate changes like this all for $$$ and yes it may hurt the Seahawks this year. Although I was thoroughly against it before a down of this season had ever been played. I hate the extra regular season game next year as well. I mean I'm happy to watch another game of football, but it just messes with things such as statistical records and adds to injuries. All this is for $$$ by the league. Might as well just increase the season to 32 games so we can have Football for half the year, LOL!

$$$

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where I stand on the playoff format, until I actually see how it goes this season. As for the extra game, I totally agree. It doesn't just affect the records (which I think is huge, and that's really unfair to players of the past), but it also affects many unwritten things, like how we regard certain milestones such as a 1000 yard receiver or a 1000 yard runner. This extra game will make a big difference in how many players reach these milestones, and the record books will be re-written needlessly. The only advantage here isfor the pocket-books of the NFL. Money is more important than history, I guess...

Yep. I completely agree on the milestones. It sucks.

TraderGary · Dec 28, 2020

Welshers":30avdkye said:
TypeSly":30avdkye said:

Welshers":30avdkye said:

It sucks, I really hate it. Giving only one team a bye makes the 1st seed so much more important and leads to things coming down to the semantics of tiebreakers. There was more wiggle room to avoid that with two byes and things wouldn't be so unbalanced. The Saints, Seahawks, and Packers may very well all finish 12-4. Is it really fair for one team to get such a giant advantage because of tiebreakers?

It also takes a little bit away from how scared the playoffs are in the NFL. Making them was a difficult and big accomplishment. I just hate changes like this all for $$$ and yes it may hurt the Seahawks this year. Although I was thoroughly against it before a down of this season had ever been played. I hate the extra regular season game next year as well. I mean I'm happy to watch another game of football, but it just messes with things such as statistical records and adds to injuries. All this is for $$$ by the league. Might as well just increase the season to 32 games so we can have Football for half the year, LOL!

$$$

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where I stand on the playoff format, until I actually see how it goes this season. As for the extra game, I totally agree. It doesn't just affect the records (which I think is huge, and that's really unfair to players of the past), but it also affects many unwritten things, like how we regard certain milestones such as a 1000 yard receiver or a 1000 yard runner. This extra game will make a big difference in how many players reach these milestones, and the record books will be re-written needlessly. The only advantage here isfor the pocket-books of the NFL. Money is more important than history, I guess...

Click to expand...

Yep. I completely agree on the milestones. It sucks.

:ditto:

Sports Hernia · Dec 28, 2020

Not sure about the record books thingy.
First 2 seasons of Hawks existence were 14 game seasons. :les:

Grahamhawker · Dec 28, 2020

Somewhere in a backroom meeting:
"Then we'll just have to make double sure the Packers are the 1 seed, won't we...Muuuuhahahaha"

[youtube]MSXOIf1YHmo[/youtube]

TypeSly · Dec 28, 2020

Sports Hernia":1rvt1ms6 said:
Not sure about the record books thingy.
First 2 seasons of Hawks existence were 14 game seasons. :les:

Then people were having this conversation just before their 3rd season :mrgreen:

renofox · Dec 28, 2020

TypeSly":2x3wp5e3 said:
Sports Hernia":2x3wp5e3 said:

Not sure about the record books thingy.
First 2 seasons of Hawks existence were 14 game seasons. :les:

Click to expand...

Then people were having this conversation just before their 3rd season :mrgreen:

I remember lots of pissing and moaning from the sports media about this issue when the change was made.

Welshers · Dec 29, 2020

renofox":1894plll said:
TypeSly":1894plll said:

Sports Hernia":1894plll said:

Not sure about the record books thingy.
First 2 seasons of Hawks existence were 14 game seasons. :les:

Click to expand...

Then people were having this conversation just before their 3rd season :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I remember lots of pissing and moaning from the sports media about this issue when the change was made.

It seems like no one is even talking about it now. We are just so used to constant change in American sports. But if it ain't broke, why fix it? The NFL is already the highest grossing sports league in the history of the world. I don't see anything good coming from messing with the formula. Clearly they will make a lot more cash I suppose.

Polaris · Dec 29, 2020

Actually at least for this year the change is nearly invisible. If we had the old system, the playoff picture for both the AFC and NFC would be almost identical. In the case of the NFC, Chicago, Arizona, and the Rams would still be chasing for the last playoff spot only it would be one rather than two. Likewise in the AFC, you would have the same four teams chasing for two wildcard spots rather than three.

RiverDog · Dec 29, 2020

One of the things I don't like about the expanded playoffs is that by eliminating one of the first round byes, that it makes for more irrelevant games in Week 17. The first round bye is a valuable commodity, much more valuable than a simple shuffling of the lower seeds. Teams would have a lot more motivation to play all out vs. mailing it in and resting players.

Erebus · Dec 29, 2020

I'm not overly OCD, but I loved the symmetry of the 16 game schedule and the W/L records it produced. It worked perfectly with the 32 team league divided into two conferences, four divisions per conference, and four teams per division. Next thing you know, they'll expand to 33 teams and really mess everything up, forcing someone to be on a bye every week (like back around 2000/01).

They're doing their best to break a good thing.

Welshers · Dec 29, 2020

Polaris":39k3gbgv said:
Actually at least for this year the change is nearly invisible. If we had the old system, the playoff picture for both the AFC and NFC would be almost identical. In the case of the NFC, Chicago, Arizona, and the Rams would still be chasing for the last playoff spot only it would be one rather than two. Likewise in the AFC, you would have the same four teams chasing for two wildcard spots rather than three.

I don't think you can call the change nearly invisible. It means the #2 seed doesn't get a first round bye and isn't even guaranteed to be in the divisional round. It's conceivable the #2 could get upset by #7 and suddenly you have a team that would never be in the playoffs in previous years as one of the final 8 teams in the NFL. The lack of a bye is huge

Polaris · Dec 29, 2020

Welshers":6id6vbvx said:
Polaris":6id6vbvx said:

Actually at least for this year the change is nearly invisible. If we had the old system, the playoff picture for both the AFC and NFC would be almost identical. In the case of the NFC, Chicago, Arizona, and the Rams would still be chasing for the last playoff spot only it would be one rather than two. Likewise in the AFC, you would have the same four teams chasing for two wildcard spots rather than three.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can call the change nearly invisible. It means the #2 seed doesn't get a first round bye and isn't even guaranteed to be in the divisional round. It's conceivable the #2 could get upset by #7 and suddenly you have a team that would never be in the playoffs in previous years as one of the final 8 teams in the NFL. The lack of a bye is huge

I would still contend that the change is nearly invisible. Yes the #2 seed is a lot less desirable, but it doesn't really seem to affect a lot of teams which was one of the fears. The old and new playoff pictures are nearly the same in both conferences.

andyh64000 · Dec 29, 2020

With the 17 game schedule is every team going to play 1 neutral site game?

Polaris · Dec 29, 2020

andyh64000":6hhxhca6 said:
With the 17 game schedule is every team going to play 1 neutral site game?

Given how enamored the NFL brass is of international games (i.e. London, Mexico City), I would not at all be surprised.

RiverDog · Dec 30, 2020

Polaris":3mag9jzw said:
andyh64000":3mag9jzw said:

With the 17 game schedule is every team going to play 1 neutral site game?

Click to expand...

Given how enamored the NFL brass is of international games (i.e. London, Mexico City), I would not at all be surprised.

I think that's the primary motivation behind the 17th game. The league desperately wants to expand the international series, but teams are reluctant to give up a home game. Our Hawks are a prime example. We've played just one game in the international series and haven't sacrificed a single home game yet teams like Jacksonville are donating a game a year. It's not fair for one team to forfeit multiple home games while others cling to them. It affects competitiveness.

I could also envision a scenario where the NFL has a few games at neutral sites stateside in an area where the NFL is not very well represented, like Lincoln, Nebraska or Boise, Idaho. With 16 games that do not have an assigned home team, they'll need more neutral sites. That's a lot of venues, and I'm not sure they can find that many abroad that meet the league's criteria, at least not right away.

The new playoff format...

Welshers

Guest

Active member

Welshers

Guest

Active member

Active member

Welshers

Guest

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Welshers

Guest

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Welshers

Guest

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads