Saturday, December 25, 2004
The tastefully named Gregg Easterbrook has written in his Tuesday Morning Quarterback column that the playoffs should be held with the teams with the best records, not necessarily making an even split among conference lines.
For example, this year, as of today, the representatives in the playoffs would be Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New England, San Diego, Indianapolis, Atlanta, New York B, Green Bay, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Denver and Buffalo -- assuming that the division winners do not get an automatic berth, as Seattle leads its division with a 7-7 record. This would mean that of the 12 playoff teams, nine would be from the AFC and only three from the NFC, a disproportionate number.
Now, I tend to agree with the tastefully named NFL.com columnist, but I have a question regarding his argument for the above playoff restructuring: How would the playoffs be restructured?
If this were to be instituted, it would be the instant death of the AFC and NFC Championship games -- not that I'm saying that's a bad thing, however, it's just a natural conclusion. If an even split of teams were to enter the playoffs, six from each conference, the championship games could be held, but there's no guarantee that they will be held each year. I don't have a problem with losing the championship games so long as it means the best teams enter the playoffs each year.
However, I think that simply eliminating an even split for playoff teams from the playoffs would not be a far enough push. With 12 teams earning playoff bids, that's currently 37.5% of the teams who earn a spot in the playoffs -- way too many. The playoffs should be for the elite football teams -- and that's what Easterbrook is pushing with his argument. I think only eight teams should earn playoff berths in the new system, meaning only 25% of the teams earn a playoff spot.
However, if the league were to implement that, it would be hard to format the post-season scheduling. Consider: say only the top two teams earn a first-round bye, that would mean six teams must play. But three games? That would give an odd number of winners.
With 10 teams, 31.25% of the league, either two teams would need to play twice in one week or the top two teams would earn byes for the firs two weeks, both of which are fringe scenarios. With six teams, 18.75% of the league, the format would work out nicely, but only six teams would earn playoff spots, meaning the playoffs would be quite short. I'm not sure where I was going with this other than to put my thoughts in words.
8:39:00 AM
|
|
