# Jerry Jones would support expanding playoffs for more teams.



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

I somehow support this idea. Not for the sake of the cowboys but I have always hated the advantage it gives the bye teams. Personally I would just eliminate the bye teams.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Well duh, how else is he going to get his team in the playoffs? :grin:


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> Well duh, how else is he going to get his team in the playoffs? :grin:


Have all 32 teams in the playoff.


----------



## toricred (Feb 12, 2004)

Even with all 32 teams in the playoffs the Cowboys would find a way to miss them. I love the Cowboys, but until Jerry Jones is gone they will go nowhere.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Potentially self-serving motivation aside...

I've been in favor of expanding the playoffs since they went to the 4x4 AFC/NFC divisions.

You play teams in your division twice... so that's 6 division games and 10 out-of-division games. It results in an uneven spread of games on your schedule.

Back before the last expansion... there were 3x5 AFC/NFC divisions... and so you played 8 division games and 8 non-division games.

Because of the inequality... and the scenarios where teams with 8-8 or worse records are winning divisions and 10-6 or better teams are missing the playoffs...

I would favor an expansion from 12 to 16 teams.

It does get weird, in that expansion to 16 teams means half the teams make the playoffs!

So... IF that seems unpalatable... then I say instead of expanding stop the automatic division-winner scenario... and go strictly on the best 12 records... which means in a year like this an 8-8 division winner would miss the playoffs if a team in another division had a better record.

With the quality of play across the league... I also would be willing to think outside the box and consider contraction... and dropping 2 teams and going back to the 3x5 AFC/NFC breakdown. Before anyone says "contraction is bad"... think about the worst team in each conference the last few years and ask yourself if it really would be bad to not have that.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NHL and NBA have 16 teams int he playoffs.. I see no reason to not do it other than it does mean the top four seeds dont get the extra bye week. Maybe expand them to just the top 14? Still give he top two conference winners a bye, but no
one else. 

Hockey's new playoff and divisional formats may also be worth exploring for the nba, nfl, and mlb. Its very different in how they have organized it and their playoffs than the other leagues.. Of course I also liked how they always reseeded after every round in the playoffs too.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

I'm totally against it. As far as I am concerned only the division winners should be in the playoffs (best record plays the worst of the 4).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

fluffybear said:


> I'm totally against it. As far as I am concerned only the division winners should be in the playoffs (best record plays the worst of the 4).


I haven't been for that since the restructuring. It's far too easy now to win your division and not be worthy of playoffs. That's my only problem with that scenario. You have a lot of years where a couple of teams in other divisions are far better than the other teams... but someone has to win each division so we get 9-7, 8-8, 8-7-1, 7-9 teams in as division winners who are clearly sub-par when compared to teams outside their division.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> NHL and NBA have 16 teams int he playoffs.


And those are lesser Sports to the NFL. No need to emulate them. Jerry Jones is looking to serve his own cause and the proposition is laughable.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I haven't been for that since the restructuring. It's far too easy now to win your division and not be worthy of playoffs. That's my only problem with that scenario. You have a lot of years where a couple of teams in other divisions are far better than the other teams... but someone has to win each division so we get 9-7, 8-8, 8-7-1, 7-9 teams in as division winners who are clearly sub-par when compared to teams outside their division.


That's the risks which come with having divisions of 4 teams. If you want the best teams then go back to 2 divisions and have a single playoff game in order to determine who goes to the Super Bowl.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Honestly... I'm more in favor of contraction like that but I think that goes too far.

If you had 8-team divisions... then you'd play 14 games in division and only have 2 games to play outside your division... I don't think that's a good mix and I don't think anybody wants to go beyond 16 games really.

Like I said earlier... I would be happier if they contracted 2 teams... dropped back to 30 total NFL teams... then had 3 5-team divisions so half your games were in-division and half outside division... then I would be ok with the playoffs as they exist today... albeit changing back to the "old" format of 3 division winners + 3 "wild card" entries.

I think those made for more quality teams in the playoffs each year than the way it works now.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

I wouldn't mind seeing contraction in all of the 'professional' leagues. personally, I don't think any league should have more than 24 teams but since that would result in a major contraction for all of them I can live with 28 teams so that would be 4 teams gone from the NFL with each conference having 2 divisions of 7 teams.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That would be fine for me also. Getting rid of 2-4 NFL teams *should* improve competitive balance too and get rid of the bottom-feeding 1-2 win teams I would think.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Oh, like the bottom-feeding Chiefs who made the playoff this year? 

Or, in baseball, like the last-place Red Sox who won the World Series this past season?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

djlong said:


> Oh, like the bottom-feeding Chiefs who made the playoff this year?
> 
> Or, in baseball, like the last-place Red Sox who won the World Series this past season?


I'm thinking more of the bottom-feeding Jacksonville Jaguars who manage to stay on the bottom year after year.

Some teams have ups and downs... but some teams seem to be almost always on the bottom.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

what if we went the europan route and all leagues had relagation/promaton


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

boukengreen said:


> what if we went the europan route and all leagues had relagation/promaton


Where would Jacksonville be relegated to?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

boukengreen said:


> what if we went the europan route and all leagues had relagation/promaton


I thought about that too... actually, I really have thought about it for the NBA since they do have a D-league... The NBA could relegate much of the eastern conference to the D-league! 

The NFL doesn't really have a farm system the same way Baseball and to some extent the NBA do... Given the level of contact and potential for injury, I'm not sure the NFL really could have a farm-system in any meaningful way because you wouldn't want to play anyone and risk them getting hurt in the developmental league.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

yosoyellobo said:


> Where would Jacksonville be relegated to?


Gone all together.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

yosoyellobo said:


> Where would Jacksonville be relegated to?


LA. You know that's what the NFL wants.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

bidger said:


> LA. You know that's what the NFL wants.


I'm not sure on that! One would think if the NFL really wanted a team there they would have done more in the last 20 years than they have..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I thought about that too... actually, I really have thought about it for the NBA since they do have a D-league... The NBA could relegate much of the eastern conference to the D-league!
> 
> The NFL doesn't really have a farm system the same way Baseball and to some extent the NBA do... Given the level of contact and potential for injury, I'm not sure the NFL really could have a farm-system in any meaningful way because you wouldn't want to play anyone and risk them getting hurt in the developmental league.


the nhl does have a minor league they use.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> I'm not sure on that! One would think if the NFL really wanted a team there they would have done more in the last 20 years than they have..


Los Angeles has offered the nfl tons of options. They just don't like any of them because none included public money (which is the way it should be) and none made them overly additionally rich to buy in. The nfl is greedy and Los Angeles can afford to say we aren't going to over pay. We already overpay everyone else!


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> the nhl does have a minor league they use.


yep the ahl is the aaa and the echl and chl the aa


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

A little off topic but a am still trying to understand the deal that brought in the new ownership of the Dodgers.


----------



## Cyber36 (Mar 20, 2008)

If an NFL city loses a team due to lack of support, they shouldn't ever be allowed to have a team in that sport again I.M.H.O.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Cyber36 said:


> If an NFL city loses a team due to lack of support, they shouldn't ever be allowed to have a team in that sport again I.M.H.O.


Perhaps...

But the corollary to that would be... IF the NFL puts a team in a city and that team consistently underperforms, then the NFL should never be allowed to put a team anywhere again.

A lot of these teams that want to move because the people "aren't supporting them" boils down to teams wanting tax dollars to pay for a new stadium for them, people still have to pay for tickets even after paying the cost of building the stadium, and the prices for those tickets going up and up year after year... meanwhile, the team paying millions of dollars to players who are not successful on the field year after year.

If a restaurant fails, do you never build another restaurant? More specific, if a McDonald's fails would you never build another McDonald's? Or perhaps would a better owner come around and hire better employees and do a better job and succeed with his McDonald's where the previous owner failed?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Cyber36 said:


> If an NFL city loses a team due to lack of support, they shouldn't ever be allowed to have a team in that sport again I.M.H.O.


I know your not. Talking about Los Angeles. We didn't lose our
Teams For lack of support. We lost them because we wouldn't throw millions of taxpayer Dollars at them. That should be illegal everywhere!!!


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> I know your not. Talking about Los Angeles. We didn't lose our
> Teams For lack of support. We lost them because we wouldn't throw millions of taxpayer Dollars at them. That should be illegal everywhere!!!


Exactly! lack of support was never an issue in Los Angeles.


----------

