[NFL] League to add 2 more teams to playoffs?

By StaticX
in The Sporting Arena

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

StaticX

Posted
Posted

A proposal to let two more teams into the NFL playoffs could have a chance at passing at the league meetings after all. The Kansas City Chiefs will propose an increase in postseason qualifiers from 12 to 14 at this week's meetings. The NFL Competition Committee is against it, and the committee carries much sway.

But several team officials said Sunday they would like to see more playoff teams.

"I'm for anything that gives my team a better chance to make the playoffs," San Francisco 49ers coach Dennis Erickson said.

"I think two more teams in the playoffs would increase the excitement in those cities," added Miami Dolphins president Eddie Jones.

Bob Kraft, owner of the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots, co-sponsored the proposal a year ago, when it was voted down. He's indicated he still favors it.

But Rich McKay, co-chairman of the competition committee and general manager of the Atlanta Falcons, doesn't expect passage of the proposal.

"We feel like the current system has worked very well," McKay said. "The playoff number at 12 is a good number and, for competitive reasons, we don't recommend expansion."

The biggest concern is that with 14 teams, only the team with the best record in each conference would get a first-round bye.

"Yes, that would create a potential unreasonable advantage for the No. 1 seed," McKay said. "When you look at the advantage for the bye of the one and two seeds, certainly you see it. To then give it to the No. 1 seed alone definitely is a concern to all of us."

Increasing the playoff field requires 24 of 32 votes. So does making permanent instant replay to aid officials, which also is on the agenda.

That is considered more likely to happen than adding two playoff berths. If it doesn't pass, well ...

"There's always plan 1-B," said John Mara, executive vice president of the New York Giants. "We think we have more than enough votes to get it in permanently, but if we feel there's enough opposition, we're open to compromise."

That compromise probably would be approving replay for five years. It was first used to help officials in the 1986 season, but was voted out in 1992. It returned, with the current system of coaches' challenges, in 1999.

In 2001, the format was approved for three years. Now, the competition committee has voted 8-0 for permanent installment.

"I have my reservations, because we've been hurt by replay a couple of times," Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian said. "So yes, I'm for it, but I can see some people still wondering."

Replay could include a third coaches' challenge, too, but only if a team is successful on its first two challenges. That must be voted on by the owners, too

Grand Master

CatnipOligarchy

Posted
Posted

it either needs to be 12 or 16. only one team getting a bye isnt really a good idea.. as it is, if you finish 10-6 youre almost guaranteed a playoff spot, and you can still get in with a 9-7 sometimes.. i think its a great system. the lower seeds have a hard enough time advancing as it is, and if you added more teams, thats going to dilute the quality of play. 12/32 teams, just over a 3rd, its fine.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • This new cabinet design lets you run AMD, Intel, and Nvidia PCs inside one case

      By ChickyBoom · Posted

      Guess it's one of those things best used by devs to thoroughly test stuff.
    • Hi my name is Olivia and I am from Australia

      By WITHOUT-ME · Posted

      is it all upside down there? traffic lights reverted too?
    • I Can't Wrap My Head Around This Number - Google to buy computing from SpaceX at $920 million per month

      By WITHOUT-ME · Posted

      just 0.035% of their budget
    • Bluesky COO warns social media regulations could destroy competition from small startups

      By zikalify · Posted

      Bluesky COO warns social media regulations could destroy competition from small startups by Paul Hill Fears that increasing government control of social media risks regulatory capture by the biggest social media firms were raised again recently. Bluesky’s chief operating officer said in an interview that social media bans for children and tighter regulations for social media firms risk creating a world where there are only a few social media platforms run by companies with the deepest pockets. Regulations on social media firms have been very lax since they appeared for mainstream users in the 2000’s. This gave Meta, Snapchat, and Google time to build up their user bases and get entrenched, with Meta being the most successful. Now that Meta has succeeded, it has been attempting regulatory capture. By pushing for more regulations of social media, Meta hopes to make it more difficult for rivals to challenge it. For its part, it doesn’t need to worry about the cost of regulation because it has a lot of money to spend, whereas startups do not. Speaking to CNBC, Rose Wang, Bluesky’s chief operating officer, said: “I support the protection and the safety of youth, the question that we have then is at what cost, because essentially what I’m scared of is in the long term, we’re headed to a world where there’s about three to five platforms, and extreme heavy regulation of those platforms, and basically the whole compliance teams of these platforms are 10 times the size of our entire team. So, basically, we’re living in a world where it’s almost impossible for smaller entrants to come in and build healthier spaces. These platforms have led to a place where the bottom line is the thing that drives what they do... so I understand why governments have to step in and regulate, because the platforms have done nothing right.” She said that while she is not against regulation, there needs to be more channels between the small to mid-sized players and regulators to help protect them. She says that big tech players, on the other hand, “who we know are circumventing regulation,” need to be regulated. Essentially, the Bluesky position is one of nuance, rather than absolutes. While Bluesky’s proposal may preserve competition in the social media space, it still doesn’t address the massive privacy implications these age verification measures introduce, such as handing over sensitive identity documents to access age-gated content. Source: CNBC
    • Politically funny images of the World

      By Michael Scrip · Posted

  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      249
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      71
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      70
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      69
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!