Football (North America: NFL, CFL, Arena Football, minor leagues)

[roadman]

I used to be in favor of expanding the playoffs to 14 or 16 teams. But I just realized that 29 out of 32 teams have made it in the past five years. Only the Jets, Browns, and Bucs, have not made it since 2014 or before.
Plus, it's kind of cool to have an intense race for the playoffs, which makes the regular season matter more.

I would, however, be in favor of wild cards hosting in the first round if they have a better recond than a division winner. The "seeding" would work the same, but it would just be the best 2 records among the 3-6 seeds that get to host. So this year the Seahawks would be hosting instead of the Eagles, while the AFC would remain unchanged.

Actually, ALL playoff games from the first round should be held on a neutral field.

That would make for a boring NFL weekend for the teams.  One of the highlights of football is the crowd intensity.  It also is a revenue generator for the teams that hosts the games.  Also, how and when would you determine where a game would be held?  If you pick a neutral site beforehand, it could easily be very close to one of the participating teams anyway, if not in their own stadium.  If you wait until after the teams and seedings are announced, a random stadium and city has less than a week to prepare for the game.  It basically becomes a logistical nightmare for all teams involved.

How is having NFL playoff games on a neutral field any different from the NCAA's March Madness?  The myriad of games held for that event are all played on a neutral court, yet don't seem to lack in attendance or create cries of "How in the world can we accommodate the event?" from the various host cities that participate.

[Max Rockatansky]

I used to be in favor of expanding the playoffs to 14 or 16 teams. But I just realized that 29 out of 32 teams have made it in the past five years. Only the Jets, Browns, and Bucs, have not made it since 2014 or before.
Plus, it's kind of cool to have an intense race for the playoffs, which makes the regular season matter more.

I would, however, be in favor of wild cards hosting in the first round if they have a better recond than a division winner. The "seeding" would work the same, but it would just be the best 2 records among the 3-6 seeds that get to host. So this year the Seahawks would be hosting instead of the Eagles, while the AFC would remain unchanged.

Actually, ALL playoff games from the first round should be held on a neutral field.

That would make for a boring NFL weekend for the teams.  One of the highlights of football is the crowd intensity.  It also is a revenue generator for the teams that hosts the games.  Also, how and when would you determine where a game would be held?  If you pick a neutral site beforehand, it could easily be very close to one of the participating teams anyway, if not in their own stadium.  If you wait until after the teams and seedings are announced, a random stadium and city has less than a week to prepare for the game.  It basically becomes a logistical nightmare for all teams involved.

How is having NFL playoff games on a neutral field any different from the NCAA's March Madness?  The myriad of games held for that event are all played on a neutral court, yet don't seem to lack in attendance or create cries of "How in the world can we accommodate the event?" from the various host cities that participate.

There is a huge difference between trying to sell out a 15,000-18,000 Area versus a 60,000 plus stadium.  Do the majority NCAA Bowl games even sell out at this at this point?  You probably could count on a sell out for a couple good teams but some of these 8-8/9-7 division winners would be a tough draw on a neutral field for the asking price of an NFL ticket. 

[Beltway]

Especially since it is only the last 20 years or so that Dallas/Fort Worth has shed (or mostly shed) its "wild west" image, no matter whether deserved or not. 
After all, from the perspective of an Easterner like myself, what does the name "Cowboys" itself connote?

Amusingly I associate "Cowboys"  with their more truer origins in Florida rather than Texas.  Dallas itself is one of the least "western"  cities in Texas, at certainly way less so than San Antionio or El Paso.  The best I can figure is that the team (especially the name) somehow endears to those who consider themselves "rugged Americans."    Of course I would venture a guess that many Cowboys fans outside of Texas would be hugely disappointed with how domestic Dallas really is. 

Dallas has grown into a world-class city of over 1.3 million population.

Fort Worth touts itself -- "Where the West Begins", the motto for Fort Worth.

Think back to 1960 when the team began, was there even any NFL team between the West Coast and St. Louis?

They got the name Cowboys before anyone else got it, and at a time when Texans were widely thought of as cowboys.

[ilpt4u]

Think back to 1960 when the team began, was there even any NFL team between the West Coast and St. Louis?

There really aren't that many to this day

Oilers/Texans (matched by Location, not Franchise), Chiefs, Broncos all hail from the Legacy AFL side of things. The Raiders are moving a bit inland to go to Vegas

The Cardinals are a twice relocated team (so far) that has set up shop in the Phoenix area, after starting on Chicago's South Side and also spending time sharing Busch Stadium with the Baseball Cardinals in St Louis

I'm crediting the Vikings and the Saints as being Due North and South of St Louis - not perfect, geographically, but at least in relation to the Mississippi it works out

Where else would you conceivably place an NFL Franchise in the Western Plains or Rockies? Fargo? OKC? Tulsa? Omaha? Albuquerque? Colorado Springs? Salt Lake City? Boise? I'm thinking "no" to any and all of those

[jeffandnicole]

I used to be in favor of expanding the playoffs to 14 or 16 teams. But I just realized that 29 out of 32 teams have made it in the past five years. Only the Jets, Browns, and Bucs, have not made it since 2014 or before.
Plus, it's kind of cool to have an intense race for the playoffs, which makes the regular season matter more.

I would, however, be in favor of wild cards hosting in the first round if they have a better recond than a division winner. The "seeding" would work the same, but it would just be the best 2 records among the 3-6 seeds that get to host. So this year the Seahawks would be hosting instead of the Eagles, while the AFC would remain unchanged.

Actually, ALL playoff games from the first round should be held on a neutral field.

That would make for a boring NFL weekend for the teams.  One of the highlights of football is the crowd intensity.  It also is a revenue generator for the teams that hosts the games.  Also, how and when would you determine where a game would be held?  If you pick a neutral site beforehand, it could easily be very close to one of the participating teams anyway, if not in their own stadium.  If you wait until after the teams and seedings are announced, a random stadium and city has less than a week to prepare for the game.  It basically becomes a logistical nightmare for all teams involved.

How is having NFL playoff games on a neutral field any different from the NCAA's March Madness?  The myriad of games held for that event are all played on a neutral court, yet don't seem to lack in attendance or create cries of "How in the world can we accommodate the event?" from the various host cities that participate.

Here's everything one can know about attendance for the NCAA tournaments. The link is for 2019 games.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/2020/Attendance.pdf

Also note...in the early rounds, multiple games are played each day at the same arena, so you have attendance figures that count on up to 8 teams playing in one day. They're not selling 15,000 tickets for one game, they're selling 15,000 tickets to watch 4 games. People generally only watch the game they're interested in, so the arena is relatively empty.

The final 4 and the final game are more Superbowl-type games and can draw much larger crowds.

I'll have to look up at a later time stories I've read from teams talking about the travel issues that go along with these games. They have to start out a few weeks in advance to make the travel arrangements with hotels, just hoping they get to play the game.

But don't forget...the original statement was to play neutral site games for the first series of games, not a Superbowl-type gsme. Using that link above, you'll see that overall they're not well attended games for Division I schools (when factoring in the multiple games played in one day), and the arena are virtually empty for Div. II & III schools.

I have tickets to the Wildcard game this weekend. The ticket price is the SAME as a regular season game!  So if the NFL won't increase the price for Wildcard series games, they know people aren't going to travel to a neutral site for these same games!

[Buck87]

I'll take the Tigers to win the CFP National Championship, and I'll also take the team with the red, white and blue bovine logo to win this first game of the NFL wildcard round

[SSOWorld]

I'll take the Tigers to win the CFP National Championship, and I'll also take the team with the red, white and blue bovine logo to win this first game of the NFL wildcard round

Could you please be more specific? 😉

[webny99]

I have a lot of respect for the Houston Texans and especially Deshaun Watson for the huge comeback they mounted today.

But, I still have more respect for the Buffalo Bills, because ABSOLUTELY NOTHING would have been more on-brand, at the end of their first successful season in 25 years, than building up a comfortable 16-pt third quarter lead in the playoffs, completely blowing it in gut wrenching fashion, rallying to force overtime, getting a possession in overtime, going nowhere, and then the league-best D allowing an incredible play to seal the loss. What else could anyone have expected?? Gotta love it. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Well I'd say that's the end of the Evil Empire, way to go out with a thud. 

[Beltway]

Pick 6 !

[Ben114]

As a MA resident, everyone will hate me (at first), but I am happy that the Patriots lost. I say this because I do not watch football and don't have to listen to everyone else rant about them for the next month.

[Max Rockatansky]

As a MA resident, everyone will hate me (at first), but I am happy that the Patriots lost. I say this because I do not watch football and don't have to listen to everyone else rant about them for the next month.

I don't think those rants will stop, they'll just be oriented if the Patriots are done. 

[webny99]

Was that Tom Brady's last game ever?

It has been an emotional evening to say the least...
The 2 AFC South teams advance, shutting out the AFC East, and... the Pats are NOT Super Bowl bound. 

Who had the better win, Texans or Titans?
Both did it in style. Bill's fans totally expect this type of defeat, but it's a massive, massive reality check for Pats fans.

Wow, wow, and more wow.

[Buck87]

This will be the first time since the 2010-11 season that the Patriots will not appear in the AFC Championship game

[DaBigE]

As a MA resident, everyone will hate me (at first), but I am happy that the Patriots lost. I say this because I do not watch football and don't have to listen to everyone else rant about them for the next month.

I don't think those rants will stop, they'll just be oriented if the Patriots are done.

And what will happen to Brady

[US 89]

As a MA resident, everyone will hate me (at first), but I am happy that the Patriots lost. I say this because I do not watch football and don't have to listen to everyone else rant about them for the next month.

I don't think those rants will stop, they'll just be oriented if the Patriots are done.

And what will happen to Brady

He should have retired after they won last year.

[cl94]

How about them Patriots? Shame we can't tag other users...   

[Max Rockatansky]

As a MA resident, everyone will hate me (at first), but I am happy that the Patriots lost. I say this because I do not watch football and don't have to listen to everyone else rant about them for the next month.

I don't think those rants will stop, they'll just be oriented if the Patriots are done.

And what will happen to Brady

He should have retired after they won last year.

Contrary to popular perception most athletes don't retire at the pinnacle of their career or with a championship.  Looks like John Elway and Peyton Manning knew when to call it quits, the decline in Brady's performance this year was just as noticeable. 

[nexus73]

I have a lot of respect for the Houston Texans and especially Deshaun Watson for the huge comeback they mounted today.

But, I still have more respect for the Buffalo Bills, because ABSOLUTELY NOTHING would have been more on-brand, at the end of their first successful season in 25 years, than building up a comfortable 16-pt third quarter lead in the playoffs, completely blowing it in gut wrenching fashion, rallying to force overtime, getting a possession in overtime, going nowhere, and then the league-best D allowing an incredible play to seal the loss. What else could anyone have expected?? Gotta love it. 

When Buffalo lost their first Super Bowl, the game ended with a 47 yard FG that missed.  This time around sees Houshka, who was a great kicker in Seattle, tie the game from 47.  Even making the longish FG was not enough to help the hapless Bills. 

Things could be worse.  Think Cleveland...

Rick

[texaskdog]

How about them Patriots? Shame we can't tag other users...   

Hey it was a historic run

[jakeroot]

I remain a Tanny fan after his time in Miami. Very happy for him today (even if he wasn't completely responsible for their win).

[thspfc]

How about them Patriots? Shame we can't tag other users...   

Yeah, they suck. Winning six super bowls in 20 years? Anyone could do that.

[Alps]

How about them Patriots? Shame we can't tag other users...   

Yeah, they suck. Winning six super bowls in 20 years? Anyone could do that.

With the right relationships with the NFL commissioner, sure.

[Beltway]

How about them Patriots? Shame we can't tag other users...   

Yeah, they suck. Winning six super bowls in 20 years? Anyone could do that.

With the right relationships with the NFL commissioner, sure.

The first 3 under the shadow of high-level cheating, at that.

[cl94]

With the first NFC game in the books, I only have one thing to say...

BLEW DAT!