We just finished a Wild Card Weekend that featured a ridiculous 28-point comeback, two games decided on last-second field goals, and three road teams (including both six seeds) win. In other words, the NFL playoffs began just the way we all have come to expect. It also offered further proof that the NFL playoffs are pretty freakin' awesome just the way they are.
In the week leading up to the Green Bay-San Francisco game, most of the talk situated around how unfair it was that the 8-7-1 Packers were hosting the 12-4 49ers. Evidently, those people think that winning your division should only guarantee you a playoff spot. Not a playoff home game. That's utterly ridiculous. Why have divisions then? You win your division, you earn the right to play a playoff game in front of your own fans. You'll occasionally have a situation like the one we had on Sunday, but having a wild card team with a record that good is rare. The 49ers just caught the unfortunate break of being in the same division as Seattle this season. Besides, if the wild card team is that much better, they should be able to win on the road, which San Francisco, New Orleans and San Diego did.
Fortunately, that idea has only gotten traction amongst members of the media (who then have the platform to talk about it). The owners don't seem to be on board with that plan, probably because they rightly feel that the emphasis should be placed on winning the division and division winners deserve to be rewarded as such. (That's one of the reasons baseball added a playoff team in each league.) However, the owners have discussed another idea that seems to have a growing amount of support. They want to add a playoff team in each conference. Jerry Jones has even advocated adding two in each to make it eight, but Jerry Jones likes to hear himself talk. No one takes him seriously when he says stupid things like that.
They're very serious about the seventh team, though. And I think that would be a mistake. If the wild card games showed us anything, it's that six is the perfect number. Sure, Arizona missed the playoffs at 10-6. But that only happens once every few years. And the seventh-place team in the AFC was 8-8 Pittsburgh. Is there anybody who actually thinks the 2013 Steelers would've had a chance at winning the Super Bowl?
Sure, we've seen a team that played on Wild Card Weekend win the Super Bowl in each of the past four seasons. But all that indicates is that there's very little difference between the good teams. Adding another team to the playoffs, though, wouldn't add another good team. It would add a "good" team that finished 9-7 or 8-8 and water-down the field in the process. Instead of creating more games like we had in the weekend that just finished, we'd have less. Because the disparity between the two teams would be that much more drastic. (How do you think Arizona at Carolina or Pittsburgh at New England would've gone?)
To illustrate that last point, here's what the 2-7 games would've been in each of the past five seasons, with the record of the third wild card team in parentheses: 2013-Pittsburgh (8-8) at New England, Arizona (10-6) at Carolina; 2012-Pittsburgh (8-8) at New England, Chicago (10-6) at San Francisco; 2011-Tennessee (9-7) at Baltimore, Chicago (8-8) at San Francisco; 2010-San Diego (9-7) at Pittsburgh, N.Y. Giants (10-6) at Chicago; 2009-Houston (9-7) at San Diego, Atlanta (9-7) at Minnesota.
Furthermore, a playoff field of seven teams per conference gives the 1-seed too much of an advantage. I know some would say that's a good thing, especially with the lack of No. 1 seeds even making it to the Super Bowl in recent years, but it's not. The difference between No. 1 and 2 usually isn't that great, and they often finish with the same record, only to have the seeds determined by tiebreakers. Now imagine if that tiebreaker (between two 13-3 teams) meant one of them had to win two home games before going on the road for a Conference Championship Game against an opponent that only had to play once. Talk about a major advantage, especially if it's over an evenly-matched team, just because you won a tiebreaker. (Sure, we have the possibility of that now, but the only way you have to play three in a row is by winning at least one on the road. That's the difference.)
This being the NFL, more specifically, NFL owners and their never-ending quest for more of the American public's money, it seems likely that a seventh playoff team in each conference is inevitable. It's not that they can't do it. Adding a 1:00 game on Saturday and an 8:00 game on Sunday during Wild Card Weekend is easy enough. It's that they shouldn't.
There are a lot of reasons why the NFL is King. The playoffs, which are compelling and competitive every year, are one of them. And the playoffs work so well because of the way they're structured. Don't mess with that structure just because. Whatever argument expanded playoff advocates might want to make for why it's a good idea, they're not going to convince me. Two extra playoff teams (especially ones that would be mediocre compared to the rest of the field) is not something the NFL needs.
If given my choice between 14-team playoffs and an 18-game schedule, I'll take the two extra playoff games. Although, my preference would be (c) None of the above. Hopefully common sense prevails and the NFL playoffs stay the way they are. Which is about as perfect as they can get.
No comments:
Post a Comment