NFL (2024 Season)

[webny99]

Historically the "early slot" has been regarded as less desirable.

Maybe whichever conference has the more interesting matchups (the AFC this year IMO) would play at 4:25 ET and the other conference would be relegated to 1:00 ET.

[1995hoo]

It would make by far the most sense to have all AFC games in one time slot and all NFC games in the other, then just pick one game without cross-implications for the night.

The problem with this is that it could mean starting West Coast games at 10:00 AM local time unless all games were scheduled for other time zones in that week (which may not be possible if the goal is to have all in-division games in the final week of the season, seeing as how the NFC West has three Pacific Time teams–Seattle, San Francisco, and LA–and one Mountain Time team in Phoenix).

Edited to add: I guess if the AFC had the early slot it would be feasible as long as Los Angeles always had a road game to end the season, since the rest of the AFC West is Las Vegas, Denver, and Kansas City.

[Roadgeekteen]

Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?

[hotdogPi]

Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?

No. 16 games eliminate half the teams, then a single game eliminates the next half of the teams?

[thspfc]

Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?

No, but to be honest, I've really enjoyed the expansion from 12 to 14 so far. If this year is any indication, it will make playoff races much more enticing. Just take last season as an example. In week 17 there would have been one wild card spot up for grabs in the NFC. The Rams, Eagles, Cowboys, Bears, and Buccaneers all would have been fighting for it. Instead, there was no wild card spot to play for.

[hotdogPi]

With that many teams in the playoffs, the first round of playoffs should consist of more than one game. If it's two games, and each team wins one, compare the margin of victory; this is equivalent to the way soccer handles 2-game playoffs. If it's three games, the typical two out of three works well.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Also, the Eagles are eliminated. I can already see the future: the Hurts novelty wears off midway through 2021. He finishes 2021 with 21 touchdowns and 16 interceptions or some below average statline like that. The media babies him for two more years, focusing on a four game stretch when he was good instead of the rest of his career, before it becomes apparent that he's not the answer, and the cycle repeats itself with a different quarterback. I will be revisiting this post in 2023.

Yeah, we played that game in Philadelphia already.     

[webny99]

Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?

No, but to be honest, I've really enjoyed the expansion from 12 to 14 so far.

Absolutely same here. I like only one team getting the bye and the spiciness of the Week 17 matchups.
This year in particular is crazy in the AFC with five 10-5 teams. It certainly worked out for maximum chaos this time, but I'd expect in the future that at least some of those wild card berths would be clinched by now.

No. 16 games eliminate half the teams, then a single game eliminates the next half of the teams?

But it wouldn't be that different from what we have now. The only difference is the #1 seed would play the #8 seed instead of having the bye.

[Big John]

There is a problem with television showings.  Three games per Saturday and Sunday is fit table.  But if a 4th game per weekend were added, that would be a scheduling nightmare

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Should the NFL expand to a 16 team playoff?

No. 16 games eliminate half the teams, then a single game eliminates the next half of the teams?

Baseball plays 162 games and then eliminates two of the 10 playoff teams in single games. That's arguably worse.

[Alps]

There is a problem with television showings.  Three games per Saturday and Sunday is fit table.  But if a 4th game per weekend were added, that would be a scheduling nightmare

Baseball doesn't have a problem with it, somehow. Start the east coast game at noon and go every 3 hours.

[webny99]

I disagree pretty strongly with the Chiefs resting their starters. Having "nothing to play for" because you've already clinched the bye is a trap, and I'm really surprised Andy Reid fell for it after what happened to the Ravens last year.

Mahomes is going to roll into the divisional round having not played in three weeks,  and if I was a Chiefs fan, I'd be pretty mad about it. After their mediocre performance last week, why not get back on track by dropping a 50-burger on the Chargers, and then use the bye to rest up?

[jeffandnicole]

I disagree pretty strongly with the Chiefs resting their starters. Having "nothing to play for" because you've already clinched the bye is a trap, and I'm really surprised Andy Reid fell for it after what happened to the Ravens last year.

Mahomes is going to roll into the divisional round having not played in three weeks,  and if I was a Chiefs fan, I'd be pretty mad about it. After their mediocre performance last week, why not get back on track by dropping a 50-burger on the Chargers, and then use the bye to rest up?

The Ravens example is a one-off, compared to what normally happens. The risk of having an injury to a starter in a meaningless game is much greater than the risk of losing the first playoff game after sitting the starters and then a week off.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

It works out for some teams and not for others. Maybe with the Chiefs sputtering a bit lately, best to take a week off and come back with a fresher mind.

[thspfc]

I disagree pretty strongly with the Chiefs resting their starters. Having "nothing to play for" because you've already clinched the bye is a trap, and I'm really surprised Andy Reid fell for it after what happened to the Ravens last year.

Mahomes is going to roll into the divisional round having not played in three weeks,  and if I was a Chiefs fan, I'd be pretty mad about it. After their mediocre performance last week, why not get back on track by dropping a 50-burger on the Chargers, and then use the bye to rest up?

I can answer this in three words: football is painful.

[plain]

I disagree pretty strongly with the Chiefs resting their starters. Having "nothing to play for" because you've already clinched the bye is a trap, and I'm really surprised Andy Reid fell for it after what happened to the Ravens last year.

Mahomes is going to roll into the divisional round having not played in three weeks,  and if I was a Chiefs fan, I'd be pretty mad about it. After their mediocre performance last week, why not get back on track by dropping a 50-burger on the Chargers, and then use the bye to rest up?

I can answer this in three words: football is painful.

Basically. It's always smart to rest the best players and save them for the more important game.

[webny99]

Interesting. I kind of figured I'd be in the minority here, it will be interesting to see what happens.

Are there any other high profile examples prior to the Ravens last year?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

2009 Saints rested starters for Week 17 and won the Super Bowl.

[thspfc]

2009 Saints rested starters for Week 17 and won the Super Bowl.

Same with the 2017 Eagles and 2014 Patriots.

[webny99]

The Bills dropped 56 points on the league's best defense to wrap up the season with 501 points (a team record); finished 13-3 for the first time since 1991; swept the division for the first time this century, and remain undefeated (6-0) since Hail Murray, with a +119 point differential (avg. +19.83) in those six wins.

Josh Allen is now the Bills' single-season passing yards leader with 4,543, surpassing Drew Bledsoe's 2002 campaign.

[thspfc]

I can't find the post but webny99 said a while ago that the Packers beat the Bears four times in 2011. That could potentially happen with the Browns and Steelers in 2021. It has been confirmed that the Browns will play the Steelers in the wild card next weekend. Browns might be favored in that game considering Pittsburgh's recent struggles. Long term the Browns seem to be trending up with a good coach, a young QB, and a solid roster overall, while the Steelers are nearing the end of an era and Roethlisberger retiring this offseason is a possibility.

[webny99]

I can't find the post but webny99 said a while ago that the Packers beat the Bears four times in 2011. That could potentially happen with the Browns and Steelers in 2021. ...

I think I remember the discussion you're referring to. Could very well be true, but it wasn't me that said it.

On the subject of the Browns, with them and the Bucs now ending their postseason droughts, the Jets are the only team not to have made the postseason in the last 6 years.

31/32 teams in 6 years (and 29/32 teams in 5 years, subtracting the Bengals and Broncos) has to be a record. It certainly is a record this century given the long droughts the Bills and Browns endured, and it could possibly be an all-time record.

[NWI_Irish96]

I can't find the post but webny99 said a while ago that the Packers beat the Bears four times in 2011. That could potentially happen with the Browns and Steelers in 2021. It has been confirmed that the Browns will play the Steelers in the wild card next weekend. Browns might be favored in that game considering Pittsburgh's recent struggles. Long term the Browns seem to be trending up with a good coach, a young QB, and a solid roster overall, while the Steelers are nearing the end of an era and Roethlisberger retiring this offseason is a possibility.

In the 2010 season, the Bears and Packers played three times, but the Packers only won 2. In 2011, they only played twice.
In 1941, they played three times with the Bears winning two.

They've never played 4 times in a season.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Dolphins end up on the outside at the end of the day, and Ryan Fitzpatrick reaches 16 seasons without a playoff appearance. He twice has been win and in Week 17 and both times his team lost (2014 Jets).

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I can't find the post but webny99 said a while ago that the Packers beat the Bears four times in 2011. That could potentially happen with the Browns and Steelers in 2021. It has been confirmed that the Browns will play the Steelers in the wild card next weekend. Browns might be favored in that game considering Pittsburgh's recent struggles. Long term the Browns seem to be trending up with a good coach, a young QB, and a solid roster overall, while the Steelers are nearing the end of an era and Roethlisberger retiring this offseason is a possibility.

In the 2010 season, the Bears and Packers played three times, but the Packers only won 2. In 2011, they only played twice.
In 1941, they played three times with the Bears winning two.

They've never played 4 times in a season.

What he means is calendar year: Week 17 of the 2010 season when Green Bay beat the Bears was technically in January 2011. Then three weeks later the Packers beat Chicago again in the MFC Championship game. Several months later during the scheduled 2011 season Green Bay beat Chicago twice more.