How can you be against expanding the playoffs after these stats..

[PantherTrain84]

Truth.

So 11-5 and 10-6 isnt considered good enough? so in that case all teams should just tank for the draft if they have no shot at 12-4?

[rayzor]

Because the playoffs should be hard to get to, and only the absolute best should be there.

I'd rather have good teams missing out than bad teams getting in.

like the bad/mediocre teams that get in because they "won" (read: "sucked less than everyone else in") their sucky division?

[PantherTrain84]

9-7 means you should get into the playoffs? Winning 56% of games played is good?

Actually yes.. The 9-7 Giants just won the SB.

[rayzor]

crap.

i'm agreeing with PT.

[PantherTrain84]

The problem is you guys paint broad picture of what defines the "sucky" teams and what defines "the best team". So what, should Roger Voddell have prohibited the 9-7 Giants going to the SB after beating the 15-1 Packers? so according to your logic we should eliminate playoffs all together and just have the SB of the two teams with the best record.m

[Kettle]

Because the playoffs should be hard to get to, and only the absolute best should be there. I'd rather have good teams missing out than bad teams getting in.

They should just have conference standings and the top X teams in the conference get in. That way you get the top teams no matter what "division" they are in.

^ You're 2 games over .500 What about teams that have a better record than the division leader, but the division leader gets home-field That poo is stupid

I agree with all this. I have always thought the conferences should be east and west with north and south divisions too, or at least something along those lines. Four divisions total instead of Eight with overall record mattering more than what teams you play twice a year.

[Keith Moons Liver]

I think we should cancel the playoffs and have a computer algorithm decide who the champion is.

[Panths]

The way it is now puts more emphasis on divisional games, making 6 games a year more meaningful and, in turn, more exciting. Divisional games are always the best because they're always the hardest fought, teams trying to get to the top of the division to get that playoff spot. Winners of divisions should go to playoffs regardless of record. There should just be 2 more wildcard spots based on wins.

[Mr. Scot]

like the bad/mediocre teams that get in because they "won" (read: "sucked less than everyone else in") their sucky division?

Pretty much.

I like the format as it is. I don't think we need half the league in the playoffs.

And I'm pretty sure the rationale behind it has to do with more money, not improving the quality of the playoffs.

[bleys]

^ You're 2 games over .500

What about teams that have a better record than the division leader, but the division leader gets home-field

That poo is stupid

makes perfect sense if you are in the NFC South or East and have a brutal schedule within the divison whereas someone like the Patriots who can win more games and play no one worth a damn 6 times a year within their division.

[megadeth078]

Actually yes.. The 9-7 Giants just won the SB.

If they expanded the playoffs, then some 8-8 teams would have been in the playoffs that season.

8-8 teams deserve to go to the playoffs?

[C47]

The only one that really bothers me they didn't make it in was the 11-5 Pats. Sorry, but like others said, getting to the playoffs should be a big achievement.....

[KJ89]

Don't think they should do it, but not totally against it if they do. It would be interesting

[jasonluckydog]

I heard the Saints just as of yesterday was still trying to tackle Marshawn Lynch