Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

So who likes this playoff format?

TheBigKat

By TheBigKat,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

trueblade Grand Master

trueblade

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, TheBigKat said:

I kinda like it

only 1 seed gets bye

an extra team gets into the playoffs

 

One of the few tweaks of ‘the game’ that I actually appreciate 

I like it. I think it keeps teams playing longer (not resting guys, not playing the rookies because the team is eliminated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saX man Mentor

saX man

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, PantherBoy95 said:

Personally I don't.  I think if you play well enough to be the #2 seed in the conference you also deserve that bye.
Ultimately this is just a money grab, the more games the more tv revenue.

However, at the same time I'll never complain about more football.

When they announced it, I was thinking a play-in game between the two lowest seeds would be fun but they wanted to capitalize and make it a big single wildcard weekend and not stretch out the schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peon Awesome Experienced

Peon Awesome

Posted
Posted

No brainer. I didn't get why so many complained at first. Makes the season much more interesting with teams playing for more whether it's the final playoff spot or the 1st round bye. Remember how they moved like half of week 17 to the late slot since they all had playoff implications? Meanwhile every other year, there are teams resting their starters in week 16.

And how can you dislike an entire weekend of nonstop football? The 1st 2-7 game, Buffalo-Indy, was the best game of the weekend so far. How can anyone have preferred Buffalo having a week off over playing that game? They should have changed this years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kass Mentor

kass

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, PantherBoy95 said:

Personally I don't.  I think if you play well enough to be the #2 seed in the conference you also deserve that bye.
Ultimately this is just a money grab, the more games the more tv revenue.

However, at the same time I'll never complain about more football.

Isn't that sort of "unamerican"? Either you win or you do not. No reward for the losers! Haha... 

If they keep the 16 games format. I want the NFL to consider a condition for the division winners. Only division winners with 0.500 or better go to the playoff. Otherwise that spot goes to the team with the highest winning percentage.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...