Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 25 Available - FHM 10 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Out of the Park Developments > Talk Sports

Talk Sports Discuss everything that is sports-related, like MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, NCAA sports and teams, trades, coaches, bad calls etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-21-2020, 10:18 PM   #1
kenyan_cheena
Hall Of Famer
 
kenyan_cheena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 9,038
What do you all think of this 17-game season nonsense?

I’m interested to see WHO the game is played against? Conference opponent or non-conference opponent?

They’ve had the revolving schedule in place for a while now, so how will it affect that?
kenyan_cheena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2020, 10:43 PM   #2
Cobra Mgr
Hall Of Famer
 
Cobra Mgr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 6,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena View Post
I’m interested to see WHO the game is played against? Conference opponent or non-conference opponent?

They’ve had the revolving schedule in place for a while now, so how will it affect that?
I don't like it. But knowing the NFLPA and how 20yr old men think, they'll cave.
__________________
If a man is guilty
4 what goes on inside of his mind,
then let me get the electric chair
4 all my future crimes.

- Prince
Batdance
June 7, 1958 - Apr 21, 2016
Cobra Mgr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 11:12 AM   #3
low
Hall Of Famer
 
low's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 5,719
And more teams in the playoffs... lame, lame, and more lame.
low is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 04:24 PM   #4
Ragnar
Hall Of Famer
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,989
Hopefully they don't go for it. There's no reason for either. Neither improves the game. The only reason to do it is to stuff more money in the pockets of the owners and further render the regular season meaningless.
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 04:48 PM   #5
thehef
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,750
From this fan's perspective, here's what I like:

- With seven teams instead of six in each conference making the playoffs, this will make for more teams in the hunt over the last several regular-season weekends, typically making for many more meaningful games between teams shooting for a playoff berth as the season winds down.
- Whereas the current system - sort of "to make the numbers work" rather than making strategic sense - rewards half of the division winners with a bye, the new system will reward only the best team in the conference with a bye, and then all three other division winners are treated the same by hosting an opening playoff-weekend game. This seems more-sensible & equitable, valuing the regular-season accomplishments of the best team in each conference.
- Presumably, both Saturday and Sunday of the first playoff weekend will now have three playoffs games instead of two. As a fan who looks forward to NFL playoff bbq's & get-togethers with friends in January, I don't see a problem with this at all.
- Trading a meaningless exhibition game for a regular season game. Seems like a plus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
Hopefully they don't go for it ... The only reason to do it is to ... further render the regular season meaningless.
A valid argument for the current number of teams that reach the postseason in the NBA, NHL, and MLB - or any ideas of expanding those. For the NFL, though, each and every one of 16 games is vitally important (until a team is eliminated), and I don't see where a 17th game does much to alter that.

Any type of increase in playoff teams - in any sport - predictably meets with get off my lawn types of reactions here and elsewhere. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm just wondering: If the NFL moves forward with these ideas, where/when - specifically - will y'all be going "this really sucks?" Will it be during that 18th weekend? "Those first 17 weeks were fun, but this 18th weekend of regular season football is a real drag." Or when the playoff teams are known? "That 9-8 #7 seed in the NFC has no business in the playoffs, despite the fact that the #7 seed in the AFC is 11-6." Or on the first weekend of playoff football? "Two games per day was perfect, but three games is just viewer overload." Or on the 2nd weekend of the playoffs? "No fair! The Packers and Chiefs shouldn't be the only teams off this weekend. The #2 seeded Niners and Ravens should be off, too!"
thehef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 05:40 PM   #6
Cobra Mgr
Hall Of Famer
 
Cobra Mgr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 6,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehef View Post
From this fan's perspective, here's what I like:

- With seven teams instead of six in each conference making the playoffs, this will make for more teams in the hunt over the last several regular-season weekends, typically making for many more meaningful games between teams shooting for a playoff berth as the season winds down.
I'm for more good teams vying for the playoffs. Not more teams. Right now, though it has happened before, I'm not seeing a lot of 10 win teams sitting at home when the playoffs start. I don't want to see mediocrity rewarded.

Quote:
- Whereas the current system - sort of "to make the numbers work" rather than making strategic sense - rewards half of the division winners with a bye, the new system will reward only the best team in the conference with a bye, and then all three other division winners are treated the same by hosting an opening playoff-weekend game. This seems more-sensible & equitable, valuing the regular-season accomplishments of the best team in each conference.
I think the homefield is the advantage of the best record. The bye, I'm not so sure helps unless a key player is hurt and the extra week gives him time to recover. Football success is so geared towards timing and momentum and routine that I think the bye is a hinderance. I feel those bye teams win because they are better, not because of extra rest.

Quote:
- Trading a meaningless exhibition game for a regular season game. Seems like a plus.
In all the reports I heard about this, not one did I hear mention they were cutting a preseason game. If this is so, then I would be for it.





Quote:
Any type of increase in playoff teams - in any sport - predictably meets with get off my lawn types of reactions here and elsewhere. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm just wondering: If the NFL moves forward with these ideas, where/when - specifically - will y'all be going "this really sucks?" Will it be during that 18th weekend? "Those first 17 weeks were fun, but this 18th weekend of regular season football is a real drag." Or when the playoff teams are known? "That 9-8 #7 seed in the NFC has no business in the playoffs, despite the fact that the #7 seed in the AFC is 11-6." Or on the first weekend of playoff football? "Two games per day was perfect, but three games is just viewer overload." Or on the 2nd weekend of the playoffs? "No fair! The Packers and Chiefs shouldn't be the only teams off this weekend. The #2 seeded Niners and Ravens should be off, too!"
Admittedly, most people who complain about change have no reason to oppose it other than "I don't like it." Which I think is a valid reason. To claim there is something wrong with a particular change is where we sometimes stretch things.

My feeling is I don't want players playing more football. It is my favorite sport. But what I now know about their lives post career, I just don't want them to put themselves through anymore physical trauma than they do now. Until we can "nascar" the equipment so that the players can walk away from their crashes w/barely a scratch, let's pretend we've reached the limit.

I prefer a playoff to have teams that I feel truly could claim to be champion with a straight face. Not someone who barely gets their foot in the door then proceeds to get hot. To me, any playoff that has a third of the teams in it is too much. Not saying that is right. Saying that is my preference. I'd prefer 10 in the NFL/NFL/NBA, 8 in MLB.
__________________
If a man is guilty
4 what goes on inside of his mind,
then let me get the electric chair
4 all my future crimes.

- Prince
Batdance
June 7, 1958 - Apr 21, 2016
Cobra Mgr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 05:59 PM   #7
Ragnar
Hall Of Famer
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehef View Post
Any type of increase in playoff teams - in any sport - predictably meets with get off my lawn types of reactions here and elsewhere. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm just wondering: If the NFL moves forward with these ideas, where/when - specifically - will y'all be going "this really sucks?" Will it be during that 18th weekend? "Those first 17 weeks were fun, but this 18th weekend of regular season football is a real drag." Or when the playoff teams are known? "That 9-8 #7 seed in the NFC has no business in the playoffs, despite the fact that the #7 seed in the AFC is 11-6." Or on the first weekend of playoff football? "Two games per day was perfect, but three games is just viewer overload." Or on the 2nd weekend of the playoffs? "No fair! The Packers and Chiefs shouldn't be the only teams off this weekend. The #2 seeded Niners and Ravens should be off, too!"
My personal opinion is that I do not like average teams making the playoffs. The NBA and NHL are embarrassments. The NHL used to be worse. The 27-39-14 Minnesota Northstars were in the Stanley Cup! They had no business in the playoffs if you value the regular season.

I just don't want the NFL to go down the route that says if you play ok, you get a shot at the title. You're .500? Sure, you're good enough to be in the playoffs.

The NFL already has more than enough 8-8 and 9-7 teams make the playoffs, you want to guarantee them? Yes sometimes a 10-6 or an 11-5 team doesn't qualify, but how often does that happen? The NFL has already had 2 teams with losing records make the playoffs, you want more?

I liked baseball years ago when just making the playoffs was reason to celebrate. Now not so much. Making the playoffs in the NBA and NHL is no more exciting than taking a dump. But hey, people like it.
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 06:22 PM   #8
dkgo
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,152
Every year there are two or three teams I think "wait they are in the playoffs?"

we dont need more
dkgo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 07:12 PM   #9
thehef
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
I'm for more good teams vying for the playoffs. Not more teams. Right now, though it has happened before, I'm not seeing a lot of 10 win teams sitting at home when the playoffs start. I don't want to see mediocrity rewarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
My personal opinion is that I do not like average teams making the playoffs... The NFL already has more than enough 8-8 and 9-7 teams make the playoffs, you want to guarantee them? Yes sometimes a 10-6 or an 11-5 team doesn't qualify, but how often does that happen? The NFL has already had 2 teams with losing records make the playoffs, you want more?
FWIW, somebody on one of the national radio sport talk shows - I think it was on Will Cain's show - did an analysis of the last several years and found that, had the seven-teams-per-conference plan been in place for the last 10 (?) years, the same number of 8-8 and 10-6 teams would have reached the playoffs. So I guess the trade-off of too many more unworthy teams making the postseason would be that the more worthy teams would make it, too. Depending upon your perspective of worthy, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
I think the homefield is the advantage of the best record. The bye, I'm not so sure helps unless a key player is hurt and the extra week gives him time to recover. Football success is so geared towards timing and momentum and routine that I think the bye is a hinderance. I feel those bye teams win because they are better, not because of extra rest.
Perhaps. But the general consensus is that the bye is seen as a reward. If nothing else, it's much-easier to advance to the divisional round when you have a bye And, given that, it just seems to make more sense (to me, anyway), that the bye is given for a particular accomplishment - winning the conference - as opposed to how it is now: two best of four division winners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
In all the reports I heard about this, not one did I hear mention they were cutting a preseason game. If this is so, then I would be for it.
From what I've read & heard, this is definitely part of the trade-off. In fact, from a CBS Sports article: "The preseason would be truncated to two games, but there is also strong support for each team participating in one scrimmage with another NFL team that would be officiated by NFL crews and could be held at NFL stadiums. Some league sources believe those scrimmages could end up being held for free to expose the game to young fans and segments of the market who may not be able to afford regular-season tickets."

EDIT: The idea of going to just 2 exhibition games plus an official public practice was from an article from a few months ago, not a recent report. So I don't know if that's actually on the table right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
My feeling is I don't want players playing more football. It is my favorite sport. But what I now know about their lives post career, I just don't want them to put themselves through anymore physical trauma than they do now. Until we can "nascar" the equipment so that the players can walk away from their crashes w/barely a scratch, let's pretend we've reached the limit.
Makes sense. Given the proposed pre-season reduction, there wouldn't be any more football with a 17-game regular season. Perhaps more snaps for established players (who would play more in a 17th-game that scrubs would in the potentially-eliminated 4th exhibition game), and thus more quality and meaningful football, but no more snaps for players, total.

In addition, the 17-game regular-season would likely bring an additional bye week for teams, which would be an additional rest & recovery week for players. (And rosters would be expanded, leading to more jobs and - I'm just speculating - perhaps less practice snaps & special teams snaps for established players.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
I prefer a playoff to have teams that I feel truly could claim to be champion with a straight face. Not someone who barely gets their foot in the door then proceeds to get hot. To me, any playoff that has a third of the teams in it is too much. Not saying that is right. Saying that is my preference. I'd prefer 10 in the NFL/NFL/NBA, 8 in MLB.
I hear you. But we all know that playoff contraction is not the trend, and probably won't be any time soon. Given that, if one sport is going to expand their playoffs by 6.25% of teams, I'd prefer that it be the NFL, which would see their % of playoff teams rise to 44%, vs the NBA and NHL which have been over 50% years, or the MLB, which although it's at a relatively low 33%, has a 162-game schedule that is, IMO, therefore devalued more than other sports by increasing it's number of playoff teams.

Last edited by thehef; 02-22-2020 at 07:32 PM.
thehef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 07:39 PM   #10
Cobra Mgr
Hall Of Famer
 
Cobra Mgr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 6,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehef View Post
FWIW, somebody on one of the national radio sport talk shows - I think it was on Will Cain's show - did an analysis of the last several years and found that, had the seven-teams-per-conference plan been in place for the last 10 (?) years, the same number of 8-8 and 10-6 teams would have reached the playoffs. So I guess the trade-off of too many more unworthy teams making the postseason would be that the more worthy teams would make it, too. Depending upon your perspective of worthy, of course.
I don't see it. Look at last season and tell me opening an extra spot for the Rams & Steelers would have enhanced the playoff. If they don't make the top 6 in their conference there is a reason.


Quote:
Perhaps. But the general consensus is that the bye is seen as a reward. If nothing else, it's much-easier to advance to the divisional round when you have a bye And, given that, it just seems to make more sense (to me, anyway), that the bye is given for a particular accomplishment - winning the conference - as opposed to how it is now: two best of four division winners.
Again, the reward is playing at home and playing, according to record, the worst team left. How many times have we seen a team lock up home field with 2-3 games to spare then come up flat their 1st playoff game? Teams get into a rhythm. I think the Titans & Ravens are a good example of that. Baltimore coasted at the end, Tennessee was fighting til the end. I'd rather keep playing if not for the home field and the easier opponent.


Quote:
From what I've read & heard, this is definitely part of the trade-off. In fact, from a CBS Sports article: "The preseason would be truncated to two games, but there is also strong support for each team participating in one scrimmage with another NFL team that would be officiated by NFL crews and could be held at NFL stadiums. Some league sources believe those scrimmages could end up being held for free to expose the game to young fans and segments of the market who may not be able to afford regular-season tickets."
Not disputing it. I'm just saying I wasn't informed. But I admit I lol'd at free scrimmages. As if......



Quote:
Makes sense. Given the proposed pre-season reduction, there wouldn't be any more football with a 17-game regular season. Perhaps more snaps for established players (who would play more in a 17th-game that scrubs would in the potentially-eliminated 4th exhibition game), and thus more quality and meaningful football, but no more snaps for players, total.

In addition, the 17-game regular-season would likely bring an additional bye week for teams, which would be an additional rest & recovery week for players. (And rosters would be expanded, leading to more jobs and - I'm just speculating - perhaps less practice snaps & special teams snaps for established players.)
I'm all for more rest. But it has to be in writing. If the NFLPA learned anything from Goodell and the conduct policy, everything needs to be jotted down. Don;t give them a chance to wing it. The roster expansion is more likely an attempt to keep watering down the other leagues. But I guess giving regulars fewer snaps would be a fortunate by product.



Quote:
I hear you. But we all know that playoff contraction is not the trend, and probably won't be any time soon. Given that, if one sport is going to expand their playoffs by 6.25% of teams, I'd prefer that it be the NFL, which would see their % of playoff teams rise to 44%, vs the NBA and NHL which have been over 50% years, or the MLB, which although it's at a relatively low 33%, has a 162-game schedule that is, IMO, therefore devalued more than other sports by increasing it's number of playoff teams.
As I said, I'm not saying my opinion is what should be. Just what my preference is.
__________________
If a man is guilty
4 what goes on inside of his mind,
then let me get the electric chair
4 all my future crimes.

- Prince
Batdance
June 7, 1958 - Apr 21, 2016
Cobra Mgr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 08:49 PM   #11
thehef
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
I don't see it. Look at last season and tell me opening an extra spot for the Rams & Steelers would have enhanced the playoff. If they don't make the top 6 in their conference there is a reason.
I get your perspective. I'm just saying that I would've rather seen this on the playoff schedule...

SATURDAY
7 rams @ 2 packers, 10am
5 bills @ 4 texans, 1:30pm
6 titans @ 3 patriots, 5:15pm

SUNDAY
7 steelers @ 2 chiefs, 10am
6 vikings @ 3 saints, 4:30pm
5 seahawks @ 4 eagles, 5:15pm

... than this...

SATURDAY
5 bills @ 4 texans, 1:30pm
6 titans @ 3 patriots, 5:15pm

SUNDAY
6 vikings @ 3 saints, 4:30pm
5 seahawks @ 4 eagles, 5:15pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
Again, the reward is playing at home and playing, according to record, the worst team left. How many times have we seen a team lock up home field with 2-3 games to spare then come up flat their 1st playoff game? Teams get into a rhythm. I think the Titans & Ravens are a good example of that. Baltimore coasted at the end, Tennessee was fighting til the end. I'd rather keep playing if not for the home field and the easier opponent.
Sounds like you are arguing against the playoff bye. If so, fair enough, but the new plan would reduce byes... Regardless of how much of a help or hindrance a bye is, if you ask a team that's heading into the playoffs if they prefer to advance to the divisional round via game or via bye, pretty sure they will take the bye. So I guess my point is that if you are going to have byes at all as incentives, the new plan at least awards them for a particular accomplishment, rather just as a convenient way to format your 6-team-per-conference playoff. So, the 7-team playoff format as it relates to the bye, is a good thing, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
I'm all for more rest. But it has to be in writing. If the NFLPA learned anything from Goodell and the conduct policy, everything needs to be jotted down. Don;t give them a chance to wing it. The roster expansion is more likely an attempt to keep watering down the other leagues. But I guess giving regulars fewer snaps would be a fortunate by product.
I would think that goes without saying. The NFLPA doesn't sound like they're going to give in on a 17th game without getting something in return, if at all... That said, as for the playoff expansion, the NFL seems to think they can implement that without NFLPA approval. We'll see...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
As I said, I'm not saying my opinion is what should be. Just what my preference is.
Right, understood. I'm just sayin' that if one of the big four is going to expand their playoffs, I can see some merits in the NFL doing it, over any of the others (esp. NBA & NHL).

On a related note, more troubling than any other aspect, I'd think, is that with a 17-game regular season, some teams will have an 8/9 home/away split, whereas others will have a 9/8 split (and some will have an 8/8 split with one international game). Some teams are already at an advantage or disadvantage based upon strength of schedule. This could even that out in some cases, but make it worse in others...
thehef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 09:13 PM   #12
kq76
Global Moderator
 
kq76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 10,662
I like it. I'm just surprised they didn't go with 18 games like the CFL. I like the symmetry of 9 and 9. Is a 3rd preseason game really that necessary?

I do agree with some talking heads that the max # of games players can play should be 16 though. Imagine the talk there'd be about when should your team rest your QB or other star? Do you play them most of the season thinking chances are they'll get injured for one game sooner or later or do you rest them against a opponent you'll definitely will or lose against? Then imagine if you left it to the last game and you were forced to rest them and you had to win that game to get into the playoffs. Oh boy!
kq76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 09:24 PM   #13
Ragnar
Hall Of Famer
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehef View Post
FWIW, somebody on one of the national radio sport talk shows - I think it was on Will Cain's show - did an analysis of the last several years and found that, had the seven-teams-per-conference plan been in place for the last 10 (?) years, the same number of 8-8 and 10-6 teams would have reached the playoffs. So I guess the trade-off of too many more unworthy teams making the postseason would be that the more worthy teams would make it, too. Depending upon your perspective of worthy, of course.
The Philly station 94.1 did something similar to this. I'm not sure if it's the one you're talking about since I didn't stick around until after the break to hear it.

The guy in particular was in favor of adding teams. And this is why statistics is considered one of the three greatest lies. Because you can cherry pick what you want in order to make a point. Yes, five 8-8 and five 10-6 teams did not make the playoffs in the last 10 years. But that's forgetting (conveniently) the eight 9-7 teams, one 8-7-1 team, and one 9-6-1 team that would also have made the playoffs under the new system.

A more realistic way of looking at it is to say only 5 teams out of 20 over the past 10 years should have made the playoffs. 6 if you want to stretch it. But by no means is it the same amount. Unless, and like you said, you consider a 9-7 team worthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr View Post
Again, the reward is playing at home and playing, according to record, the worst team left. How many times have we seen a team lock up home field with 2-3 games to spare then come up flat their 1st playoff game? Teams get into a rhythm. I think the Titans & Ravens are a good example of that. Baltimore coasted at the end, Tennessee was fighting til the end. I'd rather keep playing if not for the home field and the easier opponent.
I agree with you. We've seen it on multiple occasions. But this is something relatively new. Over the past decade or two. Years ago 3 teams (division winners) would get a bye every year. Only the wildcards played in the first week. Those teams didn't seem to have too much of a problem, why recently? I don't know.

Last edited by Ragnar; 02-22-2020 at 09:26 PM.
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 10:33 PM   #14
Cobra Mgr
Hall Of Famer
 
Cobra Mgr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 6,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehef View Post
Sounds like you are arguing against the playoff bye. If so, fair enough, but the new plan would reduce byes...
My point is that byes aren't a reward. The advantage is the homefield and opponent. The bye is a take it or leave it thing for me. I realize I'm in the minority.


Quote:
I would think that goes without saying.
If it was any other union, I'd agree. The NFLPA? Again, the conduct policy is exhibit A




Quote:
On a related note, more troubling than any other aspect, I'd think, is that with a 17-game regular season, some teams will have an 8/9 home/away split, whereas others will have a 9/8 split (and some will have an 8/8 split with one international game). Some teams are already at an advantage or disadvantage based upon strength of schedule. This could even that out in some cases, but make it worse in others...
That would worry me if the league hadn't already caused that imbalance by playing in London & Mexico City. Any team that whines about that would sound hollow to me.
__________________
If a man is guilty
4 what goes on inside of his mind,
then let me get the electric chair
4 all my future crimes.

- Prince
Batdance
June 7, 1958 - Apr 21, 2016
Cobra Mgr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2020, 10:55 PM   #15
rudel.dietrich
Hall Of Famer
 
rudel.dietrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 8,596
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
The Chargers wish they could play 17 games on the road
rudel.dietrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2020, 01:57 AM   #16
ezpkns34
All Star Reserve
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 693
17 games is retarded and so is 7 playoff teams

A good part of winning the Super Bowl is already just avoiding too many injuries, adding more games is only going to further emphasize that. If you're insistent on adding more game$ then at least have the sense to keep an even number though
ezpkns34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2020, 02:56 PM   #17
Ragnar
Hall Of Famer
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezpkns34 View Post
17 games is retarded and so is 7 playoff teams

A good part of winning the Super Bowl is already just avoiding too many injuries, adding more games is only going to further emphasize that. If you're insistent on adding more game$ then at least have the sense to keep an even number though
The 17 games, extra bye week, more playoff teams, all of that is about making more money with no regard to how it improves the league. That's all it is.

I'm a fan of the sport. I don't care what players or owners make. But if you're going to compromise the game I love to make more money, then I have a problem. None of these proposals has any positive impact on the game itself.

That said. If the league expanded to 36 teams I could see a reason to move to an 18 game schedule. Because it improves the game.
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2020, 06:34 PM   #18
thehef
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
The 17 games, extra bye week, more playoff teams, all of that is about making more money with no regard to how it improves the league. That's all it is.
Moving from 16 to 17 games is just one more football viewing weekend. Obviously, it's a money-maker for the league. Personally, I wouldn't mind the extra weekend of watching football, but I don't really care whether it's added or not. I'd lean towards not doing it because 17 games leads to imbalanced home-away scheduled. And 18 games seems like just too many games.

A second bye week, without adding a 17th game, makes more sense to me. Owners win (more $$$), fans win (another weekend of games), and players win (a rest week, plus they will surely get a slice of the additional $).

As for adding the 7th playoff team in each conference, I realize I'm in the minority here, but I simply do not see how it hurts. One more playoff game on both the first Saturday & Sunday of the opening playoff weekend, and the likelihood that one of the best teams from each conference still makes the Super Bowl, albeit the chance that there's one more barely-made-it team that could get hot. It's all "win" from my perspective. Bring it.
thehef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2020, 11:46 PM   #19
Ragnar
Hall Of Famer
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehef View Post
As for adding the 7th playoff team in each conference, I realize I'm in the minority here, but I simply do not see how it hurts. One more playoff game on both the first Saturday & Sunday of the opening playoff weekend, and the likelihood that one of the best teams from each conference still makes the Super Bowl, albeit the chance that there's one more barely-made-it team that could get hot. It's all "win" from my perspective. Bring it.
Hey, my opinion is no better than yours. In fact yours improves the revenue stream. Several years ago I talked to a guy that loves the fact half the league in the NBA and NHL make the playoffs. Absolutely loved it. He didn't care how many .500 teams made it.

I went all the way back to the realignment and added an extra team to each conference. 27 of the 36 had records between 8-8 and 9-7. I love the playoffs too. Best time of the year. I just don't think those teams deserve the chance based on their regular season record.

If a league is going to allow .500 or close to .500 teams make the playoffs then the regular season is just for home field advantage. The playoffs original intent was to have the best teams battle it out for a championship. Not half the league.
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2020, 06:25 AM   #20
thehef
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
I went all the way back to the realignment and added an extra team to each conference. 27 of the 36 had records between 8-8 and 9-7. I love the playoffs too. Best time of the year. I just don't think those teams deserve the chance based on their regular season record.
To neither discredit your numbers or bolster my case, just some fyi numbers to chew on...

In that same time period, since realignment:

- 33 teams made the playoffs with a record worse than 10-6
- only three times since realignment have the playoffs featured only 10+ win teams (2003, 2004, 2012). In each of those years, the flip side of "diluting" the playoffs had they allowing a sub-10-win into the playoffs as a 7th seed would have been also allowing a "deserving" 10-6 team into the playoffs as a 7th seed...
- the average number of wins for playoff teams since realignment is 11.1, and had the seven-teams-per-conf been in place, the avg number of wins would've been 10.8...
- if we loosely define playoff teams' worthiness (of being in the playoffs) as follows and count them since realignment, we have...

12+ wins, Elite = 84 teams, 39%
10-11 wins, Solid = 99 teams, 46%
<10 wins, Sketchy = 33 teams, 15%

Under expanded playoffs, those numbers would've been...

12+ wins, Elite = 84 teams, 33%
10-11 wins, Solid = 108 teams, 43%
<10 wins, Sketchy = 60 teams, 24%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
Several years ago I talked to a guy that loves the fact half the league in the NBA and NHL make the playoffs. Absolutely loved it. He didn't care how many .500 teams made it.
I suppose I'm somewhere in between that ^^^ and where you, CobraMgr and others here are. I think it's kinda ridiculous that the NBA & NHL have 82-game regular seasons, and then let 53% and 52%, respectively, of thier teams into playoffs (although I do enjoy the playoff series' and realize that playoff contraction is not in the foreseeable future). And even the MLB, at 33%, is too high IMO given the 162-game regular season. But in the NFL, where in a 16-game regular season the difference between 9-7 and 11-5 can be a missed kick and blown call, I don't have a problem at all with a move from 37.5% to 43.8%.

I guess I look at it this way:

a) If a 9-7 or 10-6 seventh seed is just as good as an 11-5 team, then there's no harm because we should be in for a good game against the #2 seed.
b) If, OTOH, a 9-7 or 8-8 seventh seed has no real business being in the playoffs, then the #2 seed that will face them should have a relatively easy, rust-preventing trip to the divisional playoffs.

That's how I see it. YMMV
thehef is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:45 PM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments