You’re doing WHAT to the playoffs?!
/Most of the people I know, myself included, are guilty of not remembering that the sports industry is a business above all else. If you’re anything like me, then you treat sports as an emotional outlet, and forget that everything is really just about dollars and cents. For such a profitable league, the NFL only has a fraction of the number of games its competitors do, which means the NFL is obligated to squeeze as much money as they can out of these games. It’s only natural that the league is considering modifying the schedule to maximize profits, but what they’re considering may surprise you.
Let’s start at the beginning – the preseason. In speaking with fans, I think it’s safe to say that the NFL preseason has always just been abysmal. It’s even a step below the nonsense Pro Bowl which is a topic for another day. Even worse is the fact that season ticket holders are still required to pay full price for tickets to the preseason “games." After some especially pathetic performances by players in these games, the NFL has recently started to seriously consider eliminating two preseason games to open up the possibility of adding some extra regular season games. So my first question of the day for you readers is, what do you think of the preseason? Should it be shortened? Is there any way to increase its entertainment value?
As of right now, there’s no time table set for making changes to the preseason schedule, but this writer at least hopes that the issue finds its way back onto the agenda in the very immediate future.
Now to the regular season. Since 1978, the NFL has played a regular season consisting of 16 games. For as terrible as the preseason is, the NFL knows how to make its regular season a roller coaster thrill ride. In 2010, the league schedule was changed to make the final game of the regular season a divisional game for each team, which decreased the chances of a team having its playoff position locked up and resting its starters in preparation for the playoffs. Although there are still some teams playing their second string players in week 17, there’s been significant improvement in the quality of play that week since the change was implemented. If the NFL took out two pre-season games, should there be additional regular season games? Would this make for a few more entertaining games? Would this be fair to players who are already asked to lay their bodies on the line for at least 16 weeks already?
In my opinion – a big fat “no” to all of the above. One of the things I love the most about the NFL is how high stakes everything is. MLB plays 162 regular season games, the NBA and NHL each play 82 games. This means a baseball team could go on a twenty game losing streak and still easily make the playoffs, which is not exactly a recipe for riveting entertainment when you’re at a game. Football stands alone in most modern sports for having the shortest regular season by far. It’s not a coincidence that football is also vastly more profitable than all of the other major sports organizations. Just one extra loss in the NFL can easily mean that your team will be watching the postseason on the couch. It’s not in the best interest of entertainment to add in any extra regular season action as it would take away from the importance of each game. Additionally, the extra strain it would put on the players health is unimaginable. Think about how few players are actually able to make it through a 16 game season. Do you really want to do something that will make that number even smaller?
This brings us to the really thrilling stuff – the post season. The NFL has the absolute best playoff model of any sport. Every game is a one and done. Have an off day? Sorry but you’ll get another chance next season, assuming you can make it back here. Even non-football fans can appreciate the excitement and adrenaline rush you get as you watch teams face off in the brutally competitive post season. Should anything be done to change the post season? Is there an opportunity to make the playoffs even better?
It might surprise you that my response here is a very big “YES!" How about we add a 7th seed to the playoffs? Think about it - the best thing about football is that anything can happen. Since 2005, there have been three Super Bowl champions who were NOT division winners in the regular season. An impressive recent example is the 2010 Green Bay Packers, who got hot and healthy at exactly the right time to decimate opponents in the post season. It is completely possible for a team with a rocky start to turn things around, play their best football when they need to and go on a thrilling playoff run. Isn’t that what we want more of? Adding in an extra playoff team ensures that we get to see even more crazy competitions.
Still not convinced? Let’s take a look back at the playoff seeding from some recent seasons and see what a 7th seed would have looked like.
The NFC wild card playoff picture in 2013 was the following:
#1 Seattle (bye week)
#2 Carolina (bye week)
#5 San Francisco @ #4 Green Bay
#6 New Orleans @ #3 Philadelphia
The seventh seed was Arizona, and look closer at the 2013 Cardinals before you immediately dismiss them and say “They should have won more games." After a week 9 bye, the Cardinals played four playoff teams in the second half of their schedule and went 2-2 against those teams. Although 2-2 doesn’t sound like a great record, let’s analyze those games a bit more. A blow out win over the Colts, close losses by a cumulative six points to San Francisco and Philadelphia, and most importantly, a seven point win over power house Seattle in Seattle. The Cardinals were remarkably the first team to beat the Seahawks in Seattle since 2011, and it wasn’t good enough to earn them a spot in the post season. Wouldn’t it have been thrilling to see a team like that in the post season? Playing with house money, being in a place they couldn’t have imagined being, the Cardinals could have shocked the world by being a part of the 2013 playoffs.
Let’s assume adding in a seventh seed to the playoffs would mean that only the number 1 seed would be afforded the coveted bye week heading into the playoffs. Not only would we get another dark horse team in the playoffs, another great wild card match up, but we’d also be treated to even better competition as teams would have to battle each other even more aggressively to obtain the top seed.
Here’s what the new playoff picture would have looked like:
#1 Seattle (bye week)
#7 Arizona @ #2 Carolina
#5 San Francisco @ #4 Green Bay
#6 New Orleans @ #3 Philadelphia
Let’s assume that Arizona was able to outlast Carolina, which seems reasonable considering the 22-6 beat down the Panthers suffered to the Cardinals early in the regular season. Let’s also assume San Francisco and New Orleans still win as they did. This means the divisional slate would have been the following.
#7 Arizona @ #1 Seattle
#6 New Orleans @ #5 San Francisco
Think about the fantastic games the 49ers and Saints have played against one another recently. Isn’t that exactly the quality you’d want to see in the playoffs? Let alone power house Seattle opening their playoff experience against the only team strong enough to defeat them at home. Who wouldn’t want to see more of this?
If you’re wondering about what it would have looked like in the AFC, the playoff picture would have changed by New England hosting Pittsburgh in the opening round of the post season. These two teams have had some historic games, and this could have been an excellent chapter in their conference rivalry.
The NFL has already agreed to give ESPN broadcast rights to one of the wild card games this year. The change is coming, but a lot of logistics are up in the air.
For one thing, when do you play this extra game? Monday? Friday? Extra games on Saturday and Sunday?
Another major issue – how do you change the playoff bracket? Should there be a win and in type of game between the 6 and 7 seeds? Should the 2 seed host the 7 seed, thereby only giving a number 1 seed the bye week?
