Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Jones was asked on 105.3 The Fan (via ESPN.com) whether he would support expanding the playoffs from six teams per conference to eight teams per conference, and he said he likes that idea because it would allow more teams to enter the playoffs and give more fan bases a reason to get excited about the NFL in January.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... s/related/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Or is the real reason he likes the idea is that the Cowboys (under his guidance) might make the playoffs which puts more money in his pocket?



IMO the NFL playoffs have enough teams already. I don't think you need to add a bunch of mediocre teams that don't have a ghosts chance in heck of advancing, to the play off system. Some years it is unfortunate that some 10 - 6 teams miss the playoffs but oh well.........When this happens there is usually some 8 - 8 conference champions that do make the playoffs.....Maybe better to remove the "auto-bid" from the conference champions and just base the playoffs on W/L record?

Removing the auto-bid for conference champions is a horrible idea.

Reseeding the playoffs by W/L record once all participants are known is a better idea. So a conference champion may have to travel to a wildcard team if the WC team had a better record.

VictorG wrote:Jones was asked on 105.3 The Fan (via ESPN.com) whether he would support expanding the playoffs from six teams per conference to eight teams per conference, and he said he likes that idea because it would allow more teams to enter the playoffs and give more fan bases a reason to get excited about the NFL in January.

Wouldn't this just make the regular season even more meaningless? Much like the NBA and NHL.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

VictorG wrote:Jones was asked on 105.3 The Fan (via ESPN.com) whether he would support expanding the playoffs from six teams per conference to eight teams per conference, and he said he likes that idea because it would allow more teams to enter the playoffs and give more fan bases a reason to get excited about the NFL in January.

Wouldn't this just make the regular season even more meaningless? Much like the NBA and NHL.

Yeah, half of the league in the postseason just seems silly.

Vidav wrote:Removing the auto-bid for conference champions is a horrible idea.

Reseeding the playoffs by W/L record once all participants are known is a better idea. So a conference champion may have to travel to a wildcard team if the WC team had a better record.

You mean DIVISION champion, right? By definition, the CONFERENCE champion has the best overall record in the entire conference and therefore has the #1 seed.

FYI: I would support seeding based on record IF the next-round re-seeding were eliminated. I like a nice, straight-forward bracket. Finding out how the bracket looks AFTER the tournament is done is dumb, IMO. My PREFERENCE, though, would be folding a few teams and reverting to three divisions per conference, so that the Wild Card Round would consist of ONE game: the Wild Card teams in what we would today call a "play-in" game for the distinction of facing the #1 seed in the next round....

SuperHornet wrote:

Vidav wrote:Removing the auto-bid for conference champions is a horrible idea.

Reseeding the playoffs by W/L record once all participants are known is a better idea. So a conference champion may have to travel to a wildcard team if the WC team had a better record.

You mean DIVISION champion, right? By definition, the CONFERENCE champion has the best overall record in the entire conference and therefore has the #1 seed.

FYI: I would support seeding based on record IF the next-round re-seeding were eliminated. I like a nice, straight-forward bracket. Finding out how the bracket looks AFTER the tournament is done is dumb, IMO. My PREFERENCE, though, would be folding a few teams and reverting to three divisions per conference, so that the Wild Card Round would consist of ONE game: the Wild Card teams in what we would today call a "play-in" game for the distinction of facing the #1 seed in the next round....

Yes I meant division. Stupidly, I just copied the wording from Victor's post.

My thought is get the teams into the playoffs using the same criteria we use now. Then reseed those teams based on record. That seeding doesn't change after each round, it's just done at the start of the tournament.

Vidav wrote: Yes I meant division. Stupidly, I just copied the wording from Victor's post.

My thought is get the teams into the playoffs using the same criteria we use now. Then reseed those teams based on record. That seeding doesn't change after each round, it's just done at the start of the tournament.

HA,Ha....teach you to copy what I say!!!! Sorry, I meant Division Champs as well.

I like the system as is and it doesn't need to be watered down any.....More often than not W/L records in the regular season can be miss leading.......The only change to the current system I might support would be to ban Dallas.....Oh wait, I don't think that's an issue with their current ownership!

100% agree they should reseed the teams. It seems like every year there's a bullshit situation where a clearly superior team has to go on the road to play a team that got lucky that they played in a weak division. This year it's extremely bad.

Also not 100% against expanding the playoffs. This year, it would have been great. Specifically because there's no reason in a logical world that Arizona doesn't make the playoffs. The problem is that every year isn't like this year where there's crazy parity. And even this year, there's some questionable 8-8 teams that would get the nod. Wouldn't it kill the byes for the seeds, too? Not that that's a terrible thing, but I think a couple owners might see it as their team having earned the chance to not play in the first week.

Why don't you go play with Nessie for a while, Vic?

SuperHornet wrote:Why don't you go play with Nessie for a while, Vic?

Who's Nessie?

VictorG wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Why don't you go play with Nessie for a while, Vic?

Who's Nessie?

Some imaginary bitch that is the only thing in the world that can properly mix grenadine and 7up.

SH has been looking for this bitch for years. I think that's why they keeps telling people to go with with "her". They wants to stalk you there so they can find Nessie (who's probably been purposefully hiding from they) and torment the poor bitch until she makes a "proper" Shirley Temple....

When the best Jerrah's team can go is 8-8 why wouldn't he want 8 teams in. Fine like it is.

clenz wrote:

VictorG wrote:
Who's Nessie?

Some imaginary bitch that is the only thing in the world that can properly mix grenadine and 7up.

SH has been looking for this bitch for years. I think that's why they keeps telling people to go with with "her". They wants to stalk you there so they can find Nessie (who's probably been purposefully hiding from they) and torment the poor bitch until she makes a "proper" Shirley Temple....

Oh, Dianne Feinstein. Why didn't you say so!!!

clenz wrote:

VictorG wrote:
Who's Nessie?

Some imaginary bitch that is the only thing in the world that can properly mix grenadine and 7up.

SH has been looking for this bitch for years. I think that's why they keeps telling people to go with with "her". They wants to stalk you there so they can find Nessie (who's probably been purposefully hiding from they) and torment the poor bitch until she makes a "proper" Shirley Temple....

Nope. Nessie is the resident of Loch Ness. It's a way of telling Vic to go jump in a lake....

SuperHornet wrote: Nope. Nessie is the resident of Loch Ness. It's a way of telling Vic to go jump in a lake....

Oh cool...word games.......


Then byte me!!!!

See I used the word byte because it deals with computers and we're using computers to communicate here......but the real meaning of my message should still get through!

VictorG wrote:

SuperHornet wrote: Nope. Nessie is the resident of Loch Ness. It's a way of telling Vic to go jump in a lake....

Oh cool...word games.......


Then byte me!!!!

See I used the word byte because it deals with computers and we're using computers to communicate here......but the real meaning of my message should still get through!

Wildcard teams have won the superbowl.

Two extra games is hardly watering things down and the regular season would still have huge meaning. We're not talking about 7 game playoff series here.

Me like more football.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

VictorG wrote:Jones was asked on 105.3 The Fan (via ESPN.com) whether he would support expanding the playoffs from six teams per conference to eight teams per conference, and he said he likes that idea because it would allow more teams to enter the playoffs and give more fan bases a reason to get excited about the NFL in January.

Wouldn't this just make the regular season even more meaningless? Much like the NBA and NHL.

Yes. And with an expanded field would the top 2 seeds lose their opening week bye? This is a money grab idea plain and simple.