Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

Options
1…146147149151152…258

Comments

  • Options
    #4442
    Ohmeha
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭Ohmeha


    I don't see any real need to expand the play-offs considering there is still enough competition in weeks 15/16/17 and wildcard teams struggle to make the Superbowl anyway

    I take it would be 3 games on both Saturday & Sunday for wildcard weekend?


  • Options
    #4443
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The NFL had the advantage over a lot of sports because the regular season meant something. It barely will now. They’ve completely forgotten the big picture in order for a few more dollars now and it will weaken the sport.


  • Options
    #4444
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,857 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    The NFL had the advantage over a lot of sports because the regular season meant something. It barely will now. They’ve completely forgotten the big picture in order for a few more dollars now and it will weaken the sport.

    I'm inclined to agree, I think the Rams and the Steelers, for instance, would have added very little to this year's playoffs, and I'm betting if you go back the years that holds true as well. Could see it benefiting some mediocre teams every year but overall just diluting the value of regular season games. As it stands there's usually very few teams that know they're safe in the playoffs from a ways out, and even then the seeding is such a huge element that it's rare a team gets to rest their starters. This will lead to more of that for sure.


  • Options
    #4445
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »
    I'm inclined to agree, I think the Rams and the Steelers, for instance, would have added very little to this year's playoffs, and I'm betting if you go back the years that holds true as well. Could see it benefiting some mediocre teams every year but overall just diluting the value of regular season games. As it stands there's usually very few teams that know they're safe in the playoffs from a ways out, and even then the seeding is such a huge element that it's rare a team gets to rest their starters. This will lead to more of that for sure.

    I don't get your logic here at all.

    Seeding still matters, as you're playing for home field advantage just like you always were. The proposal takes away one benefit but can you really now see a team resting their starters and risking being a 3rd seed rather than 2nd, potentially playing 2 games on the road instead of guaranteeing a maximum of 1?


  • Options
    #4446
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    The NFL had the advantage over a lot of sports because the regular season meant something. It barely will now. They’ve completely forgotten the big picture in order for a few more dollars now and it will weaken the sport.

    That is some next level hyperbole.

    The proposal is 1 extra game in the regular season and 1 extra team in the play-off in each conference. If passed, it is a tiny change to a sport that has the shortest seasons in high-level professional team sport worldwide, in many cases by multiples.

    I'm not saying it is a great thing but some of the over dramatic reactions are ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4447
    The_Honeybadger
    Registered Users Posts: 4,157 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Expanding playoffs to fourteen teams make it an even greater advantage to get the #1 seed, possibly too great. The #1 seed is not always the best team as we saw this year with the Ravens / Chiefs, injuries, strength of schedule etc all factors.

    It’s all about money at the end of the day, if they do make this change it’s probably the first step in the road to a nice round sixteen team playoffs with the top two in each division qualifying. Yes it will undoubtedly dilute the quality of the opening weekend of the playoffs and you’ll get some dead rubbers but people will still watch and it’s extra revenue for the league and it’s stakeholders (including players).

    The season is short with few games relative to other sports, if people don’t like the offering in the opening playoff weekend they can opt out of watching. I don’t get the negativity around the proposal personally.


  • Options
    #4448
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,925 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    The negativity comes the fact that in almost all cases where a tournament expands too much the quality as a whole takes a nosedive.

    The euros, champions League, Heineken cup, world cup, all Ireland hurling and football (super 8s); all have been ruined or diluted by expanding too much.

    The NFL season and playoffs are right at a quality/quantity sweet spot.


  • Options
    #4449
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,878 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Extra teams in the playoffs is a joke imo.
    All you do is potentially move the bye week to weeks 16 and 17 of the regular season.
    If you are not going to get the first seed then what's the point in playing anybody the last week of the regular season. This could potentially have knock on consequences with so many teams making the playoffs. If you have two teams close together fighting for the second seed, and they are not interested as they end up meeting each other regardless if they win on wildcard weekend, and they are both playing wildcard contenders whilst another wildcard contenders is facing a full team it's quite unfair.


  • Options
    #4450
    OAOB
    Registered Users Posts: 1,286 ✭✭✭OAOB


    Crazy to think that with the expanded playoffs every team from a division could make the post season, unlikely but possible


  • Options
    #4451
    raze_them_all_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,744 ✭✭✭raze_them_all_


    More players will just get injured and miss the sb I reckon which isn't good for the sport


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4452
    MrKingsley
    Registered Users Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭MrKingsley


    Obviously for the league its a money spinner and we shouldnt really expect anything more from them.

    But I don't see it as a massive problem regarding the quality in the playoffs.

    This is the first year I can remember, in quite a few, where one of the wildcard teams wasnt a complete dud. Even the Eagles who were butchered by injuries made a decent stab at it against the seahawks. At the end of the day it will be two more games that people dont need to watch if they dont want.

    Ive heard people saying that it will render more of the latter regular season games pointless meaning more starters will be benched for them. Then some people saying that the extra game will increase the risk of injuries and weaken the latter stages of the playoffs. Well i'm not sure it can go both ways in that regard.

    Surely if players are getting another rest week then they are giving their bodies a chance to heal. If they don't then we will be seeing starters throughout the entirety of the season.


  • Options
    #4453
    Guffy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,046 ✭✭✭Guffy


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    Just had a retrospective look. The extra wildcard games this year would have been:
    Steelers @ Chiefs
    Rams @ Packers

    Was expecting worse

    Steelers were pants this year


  • Options
    #4454
    The_Honeybadger
    Registered Users Posts: 4,157 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Guffy wrote: »
    Steelers were pants this year

    In fairness they led the league in a lot of the defensive categories including sacks and turnovers and were brilliant to watch on that side of the ball. The fact that absolutely everyone got injured on offence was their issue, they were taking guys off other teams practice squads mid week and starting them on the Sunday at one stage. Even at that were they any worse than the eagles or rams? They beat the rams during the season.

    They’d have had no chance against the chiefs and I’d agree they would have added little to the post season but I’d still bet that game would have had one of the highest viewerships of the opening weekend. That’s what it comes down to for the league, more games, more tv money for everyone.


  • Options
    #4455
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,892 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Guffy wrote: »
    Steelers were pants this year

    Indeed though the Rams probably should have been in as inconsistent as they were. They were better than the battered Eagles who were largely in by default due to the state of the NFC east.


  • Options
    #4456
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,878 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Guffy wrote:
    Steelers were pants this year

    And the Rams too.


  • Options
    #4457
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Extra teams in the playoffs is a joke imo.
    All you do is potentially move the bye week to weeks 16 and 17 of the regular season.
    If you are not going to get the first seed then what's the point in playing anybody the last week of the regular season. This could potentially have knock on consequences with so many teams making the playoffs. If you have two teams close together fighting for the second seed, and they are not interested as they end up meeting each other regardless if they win on wildcard weekend, and they are both playing wildcard contenders whilst another wildcard contenders is facing a full team it's quite unfair.

    Again, your logic here has been proved to be wrong based on how teams approach the current playoffs format.

    If your logic held we'd have all teams currently not caring and resting their players as soon as they fell out of contention of being 1st or 2nd seed.

    Home field advantage matters and teams do and will fight for it. In the new format by getting 2nd seed you are guaranteed every playoff game would be at home, aside from if you have to face the 1st seed. However, by coming 3rd seed it could mean you only get 1 game at home for the whole playoffs.


  • Options
    #4458
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    OAOB wrote: »
    Crazy to think that with the expanded playoffs every team from a division could make the post season, unlikely but possible

    With how the league is set up, there will always be potential for some very strange circumstances to happen

    As it stands right now a team with a losing record could make the playoffs, while a team with 4 or 5 more wins than them could miss out.


  • Options
    #4459
    The_Honeybadger
    Registered Users Posts: 4,157 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Yeah whatever about diluting the quality, the argument that teams will down tools the moment the top seed is out of reach has no credible basis at all. It doesn’t happen now and won’t happen in the future.

    Some years a seventh seed will bring nothing to the party, some years they could make a run. Titans got in by the skin of their teeth this year and were able to make an impact for example. You just never know, any given Sunday and all that.


  • Options
    #4460
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    The_Honeybadger wrote: »
    Some years a seventh seed will bring nothing to the party, some years they could make a run. Titans got in by the skin of their teeth this year and were able to make an impact for example. You just never know, any given Sunday and all that.
    From a quick google search: Since the Wild Card System began in 1970, only ten wild card teams have advanced all the way to the Super Bowl. Of those, six won the Super Bowl.

    It’s a low percentage return which will be even less for the 7th seed when you add those weaker teams.


  • Options
    #4461
    The_Honeybadger
    Registered Users Posts: 4,157 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    From a quick google search: Since the Wild Card System began in 1970, only ten wild card teams have advanced all the way to the Super Bowl. Of those, six won the Super Bowl.

    It’s a low percentage return which will be even less for the 7th seed when you add those weaker teams.
    I doubt the statistics would be vastly better for the fourth and fifth seeds. Most seasons there is a handful of genuine contenders and the rest are hoping to pull off a surprise run like the Titans did this year. I don’t think a couple of extra games is going to ruin the sport or the post season, especially if the teams and players are supportive of it. Just a personal view.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4462
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    From a quick google search: Since the Wild Card System began in 1970, only ten wild card teams have advanced all the way to the Super Bowl. Of those, six won the Super Bowl.

    It’s a low percentage return which will be even less for the 7th seed when you add those weaker teams.

    How much of those low returns is because the wild card teams regularly must face 2 teams that are more rested than they are in order to get to the Super Bowl?

    In the new scenario, the number of teams with greater rest in each conference is halved, which should make a potential wild card run a lot more likely.

    Given the vast difference in strength of schedule between teams, the less teams with huge rest advantage on top of home field advantage the better.


  • Options
    #4463
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    http://www.nfl.com/superbowlchamps/seeding

    Here is the breakdown of seeds (regardless of conference) of the champions: 1990-2012

    1 (9),
    2 (6),
    3 (1),
    4 (4),
    5 (1),
    6 (2).

    Adding 2013 to 2020
    1 (14),
    2 (8),
    3 (1),
    4 (4),
    5 (1),
    6 (2).


  • Options
    #4464
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    The_Honeybadger wrote: »
    I doubt the statistics would be vastly better for the fourth and fifth seeds. Most seasons there is a handful of genuine contenders and the rest are hoping to pull off a surprise run like the Titans did this year. I don’t think a couple of extra games is going to ruin the sport or the post season, especially if the teams and players are supportive of it. Just a personal view.
    I agree, which is why I don't want those extra teams in. It would hurt the regular season and post season IMO.
    Teams and players will see it as extra money, so they will want it.


  • Options
    #4465
    jack presley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    The ESPN Daily podcast was great today and well worth a listen. It was about the stupidity that is the weight teams put into the size of a quarterback's hands.


  • Options
    #4466
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,690 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Tony romo is staying with CBS and will be paid $17 million a year. I mean I think that's mad money for any commentator but also if it was offered to any of us we'd take it.


  • Options
    #4467
    Oat23
    Registered Users Posts: 15,216 ✭✭✭✭Oat23


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Tony romo is staying with CBS and will be paid $17 million a year. I mean I think that's mad money for any commentator but also if it was offered to any of us we'd take it.

    ER59J9KX0AAlF7x?format=jpg&name=small


  • Options
    #4468
    raven136
    Registered Users Posts: 1,929 ✭✭✭raven136


    jack presley wrote: »
    The ESPN Daily podcast was great today and well worth a listen. It was about the stupidity that is the weight teams put into the size of a quarterback's hands.


    Mina Kimes is a fantastic contributor on espn and well worth listening to


  • Options
    #4469
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,925 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Tony romo is staying with CBS and will be paid $17 million a year. I mean I think that's mad money for any commentator but also if it was offered to any of us we'd take it.

    What was his largest contract with Dallas?


  • Options
    #4470
    wawaman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭wawaman


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Tony romo is staying with CBS and will be paid $17 million a year. I mean I think that's mad money for any commentator but also if it was offered to any of us we'd take it.

    Romo and Nantz are the best duo by a mile


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4471
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,878 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    wawaman wrote:
    Romo and Nantz are the best duo by a mile
    They are very good but I prefer Michaels and Collinsworth. I like Tirico and Dungy too. Catalon and Lofton is a good pairing as well.


Advertisement