Outsports Discussion Board > More Playoff Teams?

Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Football, Pro

George Twins fan

Mar 18 2003, 12:36 PM

Read in today's paper that the NFL may vote to add one extra team to each conference's playoffs as soon as next season. This would have put Denver and New Orleans in last season.

The article also says their is not enough support to change the current OT format. What do you think?

QUOTE

NFL owners might vote on a plan to expand the playoffs next season at their meetings in Phoenix, the Daily News reported Tuesday.

The playoffs would increase from six teams to seven for each conference if the plan is approved next week, the newspaper reported, citing anonymous sources. The current playoff format has been in place since 1990.

The newspaper reported that the league's competition committee discussed the issue at its meeting in Florida last week, and members were split on the idea. The News said sources indicated the playoff structure will change eventually but weren't sure when that would happen.

When the eight-division format was instituted this past season, commissioner Paul Tagliabue and other top officials said the NFL most likely would use the playoff system for several years to see if there were inequities to be addressed. He said at the time that change, if any, was several years away.

With seven teams, the newspaper said, only the No. 1 seeds in each conference would get first-round byes -- instead of two under the current format. The other teams would play in the wild-card round.

The newspaper also reported that owners probably will turn down a plan to change overtime rules. The proposal would guarantee each team at least one possession.

pat125

Mar 18 2003, 12:47 PM

Twelve teams for the playoffs are enough. I'd keep it the way it is. As for the overtime proposal, the advantage would simply switch to the team that doesn't get possession first. Not sure how much the advantage would be.

[ March 18, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

George Twins fan

Mar 18 2003, 01:02 PM

More on the OT proposal: The change would be that if the team that gets the first possession scores, the other team would get a possession. If the score is still tied after each team ahs had one possession, the rules would revert back to sudden death.

Last year, there were 25 OT games. The team winning the toss won on the first possession 9 times (36%). May not seem like alot, but to me that's 9 times too many. The paper also reports that the team winning the toss won 15 of the 25 games overall.

Seph

Mar 18 2003, 02:42 PM

Why not put the top eight teams from each division in the playoffs? Do away with any single team getting a first round bye, and reward the top four teams with home-field advantage. That way, the fans get a few extra meaningful games, and the League gets a ton of extra revenue$ without having to add another week to the season.

As for overtime formats, this summary comes from football.com:

QUOTE

\"In respect to overtime, the NCAA only uses it to break ties between teams in championship level games, where a winner must be determined to play the next round. The winner is the team with the most points into overtime after each team has had an equal number of possessions, that is, if one team gets the ball first into overtime and immediately scores, the other team gets a chance to tie it up again, and so forth.

In the NFL, the so-called \"sudden death\" method of determining a tie breaker, where the first to score into overtime wins, is used in all games. That is, a tie game goes into an overtime period (also 15 minutes), and the next team to score wins the game. College ball is a bit more forgiving, allowing each team their chance to score into overtime. Obviously, an NCAA game has the potential to go on a lot longer than an NFL game. This is why the NCAA does not use the tie breaker for every single game, as does the NFL.

In Arena football, the overtime scoring starts like the NCAA and then goes to a sudden death system. Each team gets one possession to score, and whoever scores highest wins. If they are still tied after the first possession, the next team to score wins.

In the CFL, the highest scoring team after two five-minute overtime periods wins, these ten minute overtimes continuing until a winner is found. In other words, play continues until a winner emerges, but in very short periods, to keep from going into excessive amounts of overtime.\"

Football.com needs to update their website, because that's how it used to be in the CFL. As of last season, the Rulebook states in Rule 1, Section 8:

QUOTE

\"In the event that the score is tied at the end of the second half of a game each team will be given the opportunity to score using the following procedure. The first team, as determined by coin toss, shall scrimmage the ball at the opponent's 35-yard line, and may advance by consecutive series of downs until it makes a score or loses possession. The second team will then scrimmage at the same 35-yard line and proceed as above. If the score is still tied the procedure shall be repeated, not more than once, or a winner is determined after both teams have had equal opportunities to score. If a winner is not determined after two attempts the game will be declared a tie. If the game is a playoff or championship game and a winner must be determined the same procedure shall continue until a winner is finally declared.\"

I like these new CFL rules, except that there's no kick-offs or punting, which to me are integral to the game itself and reward good special teams, or a defense that can hold their opponent to no gain, etc. So I guess there is no single system that will please everyone, but these new CFL rules really provided for some exciting finishes to OT games last season, once everyone (including the refs) finally figured out what the heck was going on.

Theo

Mar 18 2003, 02:50 PM

I say increase the playoff system to 8 teams and eliminate the bye week. I think home field advantage is enough of a reward for a great regular season.

Joe in Philly

Mar 18 2003, 06:37 PM

QUOTE

Seph:
Why not put the top eight teams from each division in the playoffs? Do away with any single team getting a first round bye, and reward the top four teams with home-field advantage. That way, the fans get a few extra meaningful games, and the League gets a ton of extra revenue$ without having to add another week to the season.

That would mean 16 of the 32 teams make the playoffs. I'm not sure having half of the teams (or more, prior to recent expansions) make the playoffs has really helped the NBA or NHL.

The other problem with this is you'd have 8 games in the first round of the playoffs, which means you couldn't have national coverage of every game without overlaps. I don't think the NFL or the networks want playoff games competing against each other.

Charlie in the Trees

Mar 18 2003, 06:58 PM

The great thing about six play-off teams, with the top two teams getting byes, is that the bye week is a tremendous reward. Teams play full-throttle the entire schedule because they want the bye week. It keeps the last week or two of the regular season more interesting. It is much more of an advantage than simple home field.

Just say no to rewarding mediocrity, while dminishing the level of competition in weeks 16 and 17.

[ March 18, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

phillyrunner

Mar 18 2003, 09:04 PM

I agree with CITT a bye week is a great reward for winning the most during the regular season. I am satisfied with the six team format. I don't think football needs to go the way of the NHL or NBA with half the teams making the playoffs. The NHL and NBA ratings are lower than the NFL, those sports need all the exposure they can get.

exfballplayer

Mar 19 2003, 12:10 AM

Seth, the statement from Football.com about OT in the NCAA is incorrect. I only need to refer you to the NCAA record setting 7 OT game between Arkansas and Ole Miss in 2001, and the 6 OT game between Tennessee and Arkansas in 2002 to prove that. These were regular season games, without conference or national championship implications at the time. In the NCAA, each team gets possession of the football starting at the opposing 25 yard line. 1st down rules apply, and the first team with possession can either kick a field goal or TD. If they score a TD, they only have to go for the 1 point conversion until the 3rd OT period, then they MUST attempt a 2-point conversion. If the first team scores, the second team then has the opportunity to score to either win or tie the game.

I feel that in the NFL, the current proposal on OT is a good one, at least a much better one than is in play right now. In the NFL, the winner is basically decided by fate, unless the opposing team was one hell of a defense.

As far as adding more playoff teams, I feel that they should only add more teams IF the NFL adds expansion teams. I mean the NFL playoffs is starting to remind me of the Collegiate Bowl games. It doesnt mean much to make it to a Bowl Game in the NCAA anymore, and I remember when that wasnt so. Hell, when I played it was a huge honor for a school to go to a bowl game. I just do not want to see the NFL do that to the playoffs by adding more teams. Pretty soon, going to the playoffs will not mean anything if they keep adding teams.

David
exfballplayer

[ March 18, 2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: exfballplayer ]

BigBucBoy

Mar 19 2003, 07:23 PM

Leave it the way it is. Adding more teams to the mix is lessening the prestige of making the playoffs. . having 9-7 teams make the playoffs already is close enough to mediocrity in my opinion.

George Twins fan

Mar 26 2003, 12:46 PM

Update from ESPN.com:

QUOTE

The NFL's new overtime proposal failed to pass Wednesday at the NFL owners meetings.

To be approved, the proposal needed affirmative votes from 24 of the 32 teams. The final vote was 17-14 in favor of making the change. The Raiders abstained from the vote.

Also, the proposal to increase the number of playoff teams from 12 to 14 was tabled for further discussion at a later date.

Too bad about the OT proposal. Both teams should have at least one shot at scoring.

pat125

Mar 26 2003, 02:39 PM

I agree that it's too bad. I don't know if the new OT proposal was better, but it was worth a shot.

Theo

Mar 26 2003, 03:30 PM

The first word that comes to mind when I think about the OT rule is archaic. Then, I think about who is voting. frown

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.