After Seattle won the NFC West this year with a lame 7-9 record, and the Giants and Buccaneers missed the NFC playoffs both with a 10-6 record, a lot of football fans were upset. They complained about the division set-up and the current playoff system.
Well, the NFL does have an answer for this, but it's not realignment. They want to expand the playoffs to 7 or 8 teams per conference. They also want to expand the season to 18 games, but you probably heard about that already (it will be a key debate in the upcoming negotiations). The NFL has actually been talking about playoff expansion for a few years, and in the wake of this year's debacle, they will certainly push for this to happen. It makes sense for them, because more playoff games equal more money they can make. Every other major sports league has made their playoffs longer and/or involved more teams. No one has ever shortened it.
But will it help? Would having an extra 2 or 4 teams in the playoffs really guarantee that all the good teams get in? Ever since 2002, when they went to an eight-division format, they have dealt with some weak division winners. Some good teams have been left out. But would it really solve everything? I found a lot of talk about this in various forums, but I didn't find anyone who actually went through and computed what would have happened if we had expanded playoffs for the past 9 years. So I did it (not that it was that hard, with ESPN having the standings for these years still up).
I'm going to show the teams that made the playoffs the past 9 years, since the NFL expanded to 32 teams and 8 divisions, and the teams that would've made it under the proposed system. Let's see if an extra team or two would really provide a lot of help.....
2010
NFC
1. Falcons 13-3
2. Bears 11-5
3. Eagles 10-6
4. Seahawks 7-9
5. Saints 11-5
6. Packers 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Giants 10-6
8. Buccaneers 10-6
AFC
1. Patriots 14-2
2. Steelers 12-4
3. Colts 10-6
4. Chiefs 10-6
5. Ravens 12-4
6. Jets 11-5
NEXT IN:
7. Chargers 9-7
8. Jaguars 8-8
Like I said, this may be the tipping point that convinces people to expand the playoffs. In the NFC, a 7-9 team got in while two separate 10-6 teams were left out. But in the AFC, the six best teams made it. Did we really need to see an underachieving Chargers team, and an 8-8 Jags team that blew their chances by losing to the Redskins late? I don't know.
2009
NFC
1. Saints 13-3
2. Vikings 12-4
3. Cowboys 11-5
4. Cardinals 10-6
5. Packers 11-5
6. Eagles 11-5
NEXT IN:
7. Falcons 9-7
8. Panthers 8-8
(Note: 49ers, Giants also finished 8-8 but would lose on tiebreaker)
AFC
1. Colts 14-2
2. Chargers 13-3
3. Patriots 10-6
4. Bengals 10-6
5. Jets 9-7
6. Ravens 9-7
NEXT IN:
7. Texans 9-7
8. Steelers 9-7
Here, the top 6 teams in both conferences made it. There were some okay teams left out, but no one really special.
2008
NFC
1. Giants 12-4
2. Panthers 12-4
3. Vikings 10-6
4. Cardinals 9-7
5. Falcons 11-5
6. Eagles 9-6-1
NEXT IN:
7. Buccaneers 9-7
8. Bears 9-7
(Note: Cowboys also finished 9-7 but would lose to Bears on tiebreakers)
AFC
1. Titans 13-3
2. Steelers 12-4
3. Dolphins 11-5
4. Chargers 8-8
5. Colts 12-4
6. Ravens 11-5
NEXT IN:
7. Patriots 11-5
8. Jets 9-7
This was another year with controversy that had people talking about expanding the playoffs. The Patriots won 11 games but missed a very narrow tiebreaker with the Dolphins for the division and lost out on the playoffs entirely, while the Chargers made it with an 8-8 record. Boston fans were wicked pissed. The Jets also finished better than the Chargers (this was the one year they had Favre). You could make a case for both teams. In the NFC, though, there were no big upsets, although some complained that the Cardinals had an easy ride in.... but then, they made the Super Bowl, so it didn't matter.
2007
NFC
1. Cowboys 13-3
2. Packers 13-3
3. Seahawks 10-6
4. Buccaneers 9-7
5. Giants 10-6
6. Redskins 9-7
NEXT IN:
7. Vikings 8-8
8. Eagles 8-8
(Note: Cardinals also finished 8-8 but would lose to Eagles on tiebreakers)
AFC
1. Patriots 16-0* (AHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... sorry... I had to...)
2. Colts 13-3
3. Chargers 11-5
4. Steelers 10-6
5. Jaguars 11-5
6. Titans 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Browns 10-6
8. Texans 8-8
I do remember feeling really bad for the Browns this year. They had a great year (for them) and just barely missed out on the playoffs. They don't get many chances like that. But that's about it. The other teams in would be 8-8 and not that good. I am a hardcore Eagles fan, and I'll admit that this team was NOT playoff-worthy.
2006
NFC
1. Bears 13-3
2. Saints 10-6
3. Eagles 10-6
4. Seahawks 9-7
5. Cowboys 9-7
6. Giants 8-8
NEXT IN:
7. Packers 8-8
8. Rams 8-8
(Note: Panthers also finished 8-8 but would lose to Rams on tiebreaker)
AFC
1. Chargers 14-2
2. Ravens 13-3
3. Colts 12-4
4. Patriots 12-4
5. Jets 10-6
6. Chiefs 9-7
NEXT IN:
7. Broncos 9-7
8. Bengals 8-8
(Note: Steelers, Titans, Jags were also 8-8 but would lose on tiebreaker)
If you ever wondered how Rex Grossman made it to the SB, just remember how much the NFC sucked this year. No team besides the Bears won more than 10 games. The NFC already had an 8-8 team make it. I don't think they needed more. The AFC was stronger, and their best teams did make it in.
2005
NFC
1. Seahawks 13-3
2. Bears 11-5
3. Buccaneers 11-5
4. Giants 11-5
5. Carolina 11-5
6. Redskins 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Vikings 9-7
8. Cowboys 9-7
AFC
1. Colts 14-2
2. Broncos 13-3
3. Bengals 11-5
4. Patriots 10-6
5. Jaguars 12-4
6. Steelers 11-5
NEXT IN:
7. Chiefs 10-6
8. Chargers 9-7
Now this year was the first year I remember people talking about playoff expansion. The Steelers won it all as a 6 seed, and the Chiefs and Chargers were shut out despite being pretty good teams. But, still, the Chiefs weren't any better than any of the playoff teams. And in the NFC, the best teams made it. So, it's not like anyone undeserving got in. WORTH NOTING: This is the only year that would feature 16 playoff teams that all won 9 games or more.
2004
NFC
1. Eagles 13-3
2. Falcons 11-5
3. Packers 10-6
4. Seahawks 9-7
5. Rams 8-8
6. Vikings 8-8
NEXT IN:
7. Saints 8-8
8. Panthers 7-9
AFC
1. Steelers 15-1
2. Patriots 14-2
3. Colts 12-4
4. Chargers 12-4
5. Jets 10-6
6. Broncos 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Ravens 9-7
8. Jaguars 9-7
(Note: Bills also finished 9-7 but would lose out on tiebreakers)
In retrospect, I'm kinda pissed the Eagles made the gamble for T.O. They probably would've won this crappy conference anyway. Two 8-8 teams made it! And they both won a game! What a down year, and having a 7-9 team in the mix wouldn't help. In the AFC, the top 6 teams made it.
2003
NFC
1. Eagles 12-4
2. Rams 12-4
3. Panthers 11-5
4. Packers 10-6
5. Seahawks 10-6
6. Cowboys 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Vikings 9-7
8. Saints 8-8
AFC
1. Patriots 14-2
2. Chiefs 13-3
3. Colts 12-4
4. Ravens 10-6
5. Titans 12-4
6. Broncos 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Dolphins 10-6
8. Bengals 8-8
I forgot that the Dolphins won 10 games and lost out. But they didn't finish above anyone that did make it. In the NFC, 8 teams would've ruined one of the best stories this decade: the Packers needed to win the division to get in, and had trailed Minnesota most of the season, but on the last game, an awful Cardinals team upset the Vikings on a last-second play and helped the Packers get in. Later that week, Packers fans invited the Cards' third-string wide receiver who made the big play to Wisconsin to party it up and thanked him for helping send the Vikings home. They had a giant bash in his honor. See, that fun stuff never would've happened if the Vikings had made it in anyway.
2002
NFC
1. Eagles 12-4
2. Buccaneers 12-4
3. Packers 12-4
4. 49ers 10-6
5. Giants 10-6
6. Falcons 9-6-1
NEXT IN:
7. Saints 9-7
8. Rams 7-9
AFC
1. Raiders 11-5
2. Titans 11-5
3. Steelers 10-5-1
4. Jets 9-7
5. Colts 10-6
6. Browns 9-7
NEXT IN:
7. Dolphins 9-7
8. Patriots 9-7
(Broncos also finished 9-7 but would lose on tiebreakers)
The first year in the current format produced a lot of craziness in the AFC. The Jets started out horribly but somehow won the division on multiple tiebreakers over the Dolphins and Pats. The Browns clinched the last playoff spot by several other tiebreakers. During the season, it looked like the Pats, Fins, and Broncos were maybe the best teams in the conference, and they all missed out. The NFC, however, made sense.
FINAL ANALYSIS
Expanding the playoffs would get some good teams in, but it would more likely include a lot of mediocre teams. There have been only 2 instances (2010 NFC and 2008 AFC) where a team that has not made the playoffs has finished better than a team that made it in. There was only one year (2005) where all 16 teams would be 9-7 or better. In 9 years of the current system, with a possible 36 extra teams to make it in, there have been only 6 teams that won 10 games or more and didn't make it. If we had those extra teams (a total of 8 per conference) in the playoffs for the past 9 years, we would've had a breakdown like this by record:
11-5: 1 team
10-6: 5 teams
9-7: 17 teams
8-8: 11 teams
7-9: 2 teams
We would have had more 8-8 teams than 10 + teams, and a lot of 9-7 teams. 9-7 isn't so bad, but it shouldn't necessarily guarantee you a playoff spot.
Let's see how those numbers compare if we only had an extra playoff team, for 7 per conference:
11-5: 1 team
10-6: 4 teams
9-7: 10 teams
8-8: 3 teams
That's a little better. Having 7 playoff teams would keep most of the good (10 wins) teams and eliminate most of the mediocre (8 wins) ones.
I think we can say that having 7 teams in the playoffs instead of 6 might help things out. It would get mostly 9-wins-and-over teams in there. But we should remember that a situation like this year is very rare.
One final aside: Look, I don't love the divisions as they are set up, but it would be hard mathematically to change them. The NFL is not going to add any teams soon, just move some around. 32 is a hard number to divide into anything but multiples of 4. I liked the old format with 6 teams making it from 3 divisions in each conference because it left less possibilities for crappy divisions. It also gave one wild card team a home game in the playoffs, which was nice when the two best teams were in one division. The way it is now, no wild card team can finish better than 5th, no matter how good they are. As the Seahawks just showed, you can't deny the importance of getting a home crowd for a playoff game. One solution to that would be to have the team with the better record host the game, even if they are the lower seed. But I digress. The 3 division format just won't work unless the NFL drops 2 teams or adds 4 more, and neither of those are going to happen. They'll just add extra playoff games and hope for the best.
Like I said, playoff expansion is very likely. No league has ever said no to expanding playoffs, and I don't see why the NFL would. I guess we can just hope that they stop at 7 spots and not 8, because the numbers show that 8 spots allow for too many sub par teams.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment