Woody's plan to get the Jets into the play offs

[BurnleyJet]

Expand the play offs from 12 to 14 teams.

NFL owners tabled talks of playoff expansion in 2014 during the Spring League Meeting in May, but Commissioner Roger Goodell said at the time he expects the postseason to expand in the 2015 season.

Mark down New York Jets owner Woody Johnson among those in favor of expanding from 12 to 14 teams.

"There are good arguments on both sides, and I haven't gone into it in maybe the depth that we will," Johnson said this week at Jets minicamp, per The Star Ledger. "We're going to study it hard. But I kind of like it. I kind of like the idea of more playoff games. We're still below other sports (in terms of the number of teams that make the playoffs)."

The NFL sits below the NBA and NHL, which both have more than 50 percent of their teams making the playoffs (16 of 30 teams), while just 10 of 30 MLB teams make the postseason.

Legitimate questions arise about the NFL diluting the so-called "second season" with lesser-caliber teams making it to the tournament round. However, expansion could be coming, despite those concerns.

Johnson echoed Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who noted in May that expansion "would help my Cowboys."

It's not a surprise that owners whose teams both finished 8-8 and outside the playoffs last season would like to crack the postseason window open just a bit further.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000360783/article/jets-owner-woody-johnson-likes-playoff-expansion-idea

[T0mShane]

Remember: it's what the fans want.

[slats]

It's ALL about the money, but at some point these guys have to realize that watering the sport down is no good for business. People don't give a crap about regular season hockey or basketball, but view every NFL game as critically important. A concept that should be critically important to the owners. It's what sets their sport apart from every other one.

[Lizard King]

He said that the NFL is under basketball and hockey in terms of percentage of teams making the playoffs, then neglected to mention that both of those sports fall miserably in comparison of popularity to the NFL.

[New York Mick]

Enough sh*tty teams already make it into the playoffs.

[Gastineau Lives]

Enough sh*tty teams already make it into the playoffs.

 

Misconception. Just as many good teams get shut out of the playoffs. All of these teams finished 10-6 or better and didn't make it.

 

2013 - Arizona

2012 - Chicago

2010 - Tampa Bay and Giants

2008 - New England (11-5)

2007 - Cleveland

2005 - KC

2003 - Miami

 

It's a happenstance of division winners getting in automatically. Almost all of the "sh*tty" teams that get in win very poor divisions while more deserving teams from stronger divisions get shut out.

[Jolot]

He said that the NFL is under basketball and hockey in terms of percentage of teams making the playoffs, then neglected to mention that both of those sports fall miserably in comparison of popularity to the NFL.

exactly, there is literaly no reason to watch a regualar season nba or nhl game, people like us watch because we're fans but there's no meaning at all

[Gastineau Lives]

He said that the NFL is under basketball and hockey in terms of percentage of teams making the playoffs, then neglected to mention that both of those sports fall miserably in comparison of popularity to the NFL.

 

One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

[Gastineau Lives]

In the NBA, more teams make the playoffs than do not 16 out of 30. Same for the NHL.

 

If the NFL expanded by one team, 14 out of 32 would make it. Way different.

[RSJ]

There just are not enough teams to expand the playoffs. Perhaps a better idea would be to make two divisions and have every team play each other once in the regular season? Then just take the same amount of top teams as they currently do for the playoffs? College rivalries are more exciting imho, where one team plays another once, and the home field rotates every season. 

[RSJ]

Also, in the above scenario perhaps realigning the teams geographically would be a good idea? For example, having the Jets play NE, NYG, PHI, BUF, Balt every season just once would be pretty awesome and would put even more emphasis on each and every game. In that scenerio The problem ofcourse is about 6 teams in each conference would be set for the playoffs earlier than the current format so maybe it is a horrible idea. lol I know the NFL likes to spread out its markets in hopes to get each area of the country excited about the NFL playoffs.

[RutgersJetFan]

Brady is never going to retire, this is the only way.

[Bleedin Green]

While it would certainly be to the benefit of the Jets, I have no interest in seeing a playoff expansion.  While there be the rare occurrence of deserving teams missing out, there's just as many, if not more, instances of decidedly mediocre teams making it.  You could just as easily argue it would be a similar injustice to have a team who tied for the most wins in the league having to play an extra round of playoffs because another team they didn't play won just as many games.

 

If things like that are so much of a concern, you could shuffle around the criteria for playoff qualifications so that a 7-win team doesn't get in just because the rest of their division is utter dog sh*t, or similar things to that.  Plenty of teams currently make it and the format makes for a neat and clean playoff structure.  I don't see a whole lot of benefit to it other than the NFL making money off of two more games while ultimately diluting the overall playoffs.

[New York Mick]

Misconception. Just as many good teams get shut out of the playoffs. All of these teams finished 10-6 or better and didn't make it.

2013 - Arizona

2012 - Chicago

2010 - Tampa Bay and Giants

2008 - New England (11-5)

2007 - Cleveland

2005 - KC

2003 - Miami

It's a happenstance of division winners getting in automatically. Almost all of the "sh*tty" teams that get in win very poor divisions while more deserving teams from stronger divisions get shut out.

To bad for them, they should have played better.

[Maxman]

Misconception. Just as many good teams get shut out of the playoffs. All of these teams finished 10-6 or better and didn't make it.

 

2013 - Arizona

2012 - Chicago

2010 - Tampa Bay and Giants

2008 - New England (11-5)

2007 - Cleveland

2005 - KC

2003 - Miami

 

It's a happenstance of division winners getting in automatically. Almost all of the "shitty" teams that get in win very poor divisions while more deserving teams from stronger divisions get shut out.

 

Sounds like a great topic for JN Radio this week.  

[neckdemon]

Misconception. Just as many good teams get shut out of the playoffs. All of these teams finished 10-6 or better and didn't make it.

 

2013 - Arizona

2012 - Chicago

2010 - Tampa Bay and Giants

2008 - New England (11-5)

2007 - Cleveland

2005 - KC

2003 - Miami

 

It's a happenstance of division winners getting in automatically. Almost all of the "sh*tty" teams that get in win very poor divisions while more deserving teams from stronger divisions get shut out.

 

 

the better solution is to use the divisions to make the schedule but set the standings in terms of the conference.

[Larz]

bad idea

[stugotz81]

This is just as good as of an idea as having NFL regular season games on Saturday's. 

[Jetlife33]

As much as I want a better chance for the Jets to get in, I don't like the idea. It's all about the money though.

[Gastineau Lives]

Sounds like a great topic for JN Radio this week.  

 

I already went toe to toe with Tom and Braindon on this, albeit briefly.

[Maxman]

I already went toe to toe with Tom and Braindon on this, albeit briefly.

 

That's right....I forgot about that.

 

The good thing about hosting a show with Tom is he won't remember what he said on previous shows. So just bring up the topic again and you will at least know what he is going to say next. Should be easy for you to win the debate.

[JerryK]

...or we could simply be good.

[faba]

I could be sarcastic and say sell the team to new owners.

[Lizard King]

exactly, there is literaly no reason to watch a regualar season nba or nhl game, people like us watch because we're fans but there's no meaning at all

I don't watch basketball for a lot of reasons, I do enjoy hockey. But my point on the NFL is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

[Lizard King]

One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

 

Ok thanks for clarifying

[Gastineau Lives]

That's right....I forgot about that.

 

The good thing about hosting a show with Tom is he won't remember what he said on previous shows. So just bring up the topic again and you will at least know what he is going to say next. Should be easy for you to win the debate.

okay, quick, delete this thread

 

[Gastineau Lives]

While it would certainly be to the benefit of the Jets, I have no interest in seeing a playoff expansion.  While there be the rare occurrence of deserving teams missing out, there's just as many, if not more, instances of decidedly mediocre teams making it.  You could just as easily argue it would be a similar injustice to have a team who tied for the most wins in the league having to play an extra round of playoffs because another team they didn't play won just as many games.

 

If things like that are so much of a concern, you could shuffle around the criteria for playoff qualifications so that a 7-win team doesn't get in just because the rest of their division is utter dog sh*t, or similar things to that.  Plenty of teams currently make it and the format makes for a neat and clean playoff structure.  I don't see a whole lot of benefit to it other than the NFL making money off of two more games while ultimately diluting the overall playoffs.

 

Well that's the thing, there have been six 8-8 teams (and no losing teams) over the last ten years that would have made the playoffs if expanded to seven teams. There have been seven teams at 10-6 or better that would have made it over the same time period. I'd rather have those seven teams make it and live with the .500 teams making it as a consequence. I don't think a .500 team making it is nearly as much of an injustice as having a very good team lose out.

 

Is it really such a terrible thing to have millions of fans in two cities enjoy a game they shouldn't be watching because their team only finished with a .500 record. Is it better to have millions of fans feel (and be) robbed of the playoffs?

 

All I know is that if the Jets finished 11-5 or 10-6 and didn't make the playoffs, I'd be upset and so would any one of us, if we're being honest.

[Sperm Edwards]

Well that's the thing, there have been six 8-8 teams (and no losing teams) over the last ten years that would have made the playoffs if expanded to seven teams. There have been seven teams at 10-6 or better that would have made it over the same time period. I'd rather have those seven teams make it and live with the .500 teams making it as a consequence. I don't think a .500 team making it is nearly as much of an injustice as having a very good team lose out.

 

Is it really such a terrible thing to have millions of fans in two cities enjoy a game they shouldn't be watching because their team only finished with a .500 record. Is it better to have millions of fans feel (and be) robbed of the playoffs?

 

All I know is that if the Jets finished 11-5 or 10-6 and didn't make the playoffs, I'd be upset and so would any one of us, if we're being honest.

 

It's an interesting point that most of the ones who missed out were winning teams.  I actually like the idea of some formula to bounce out division winners that get in with 8-8 records (or worse).  Maybe if you're on the outside looking in, but have a better record than one of the division winners by 2 or 3 games, then you're the 6 seed and they're out.  Maybe a further qualifier that this is only if one of the division winners is 8-8 or worse.  Not winning half of one's games, and then making the playoffs, is a joke.  Not only is it more rewarding to the better teams, it would make more games relevant in weeks 16-17.  

 

Further, anyone can get lucky for a week or just is the better team that one game.  Look at the Jets in the playoffs with Sanchez.  Were we really better teams overall than everyone we beat?  Of course not.  I think more or less leveling the playing field between a 7-8 win team and a 12-win team (in a division with another 12+ win team) is nuts.  Home field advantage isn't THAT much of an advantage, except maybe for Seattle.

 

But while 14 out of 20 had 9-7 records or better, I'd be more moved if 14 out of 20 had 10 wins or better.  Really the only way I'd be totally for it (other than perhaps benefitting the Jets) is to make up for a 10-win team missing out while a 7 or 8 win team making it.  Like Arizona missing out while Green Bay got to go.  I don't think that needs a 7th playoff spot to correct this, but no one believes this is getting done purely (even mostly) to right a wrong.

 

Sucked for Arizona.  They were in a division with the SB champs and another 12-win team (went 1-4 in those games).  Not only Green Bay, but even the Eagles.  They won the same # of games, but no one believes they would have still won 10 games playing SF and Seattle twice apiece instead of 4 games vs Dallas and the Giants (where they still only split them both).  I wouldn't bounce a 10-win division winner, as there could also be years where the division is really tough and because of that no one wins 11+.  Or like the NFC East in '02 when there were three 9-win teams.  Replace one of them with a 3-win doormat and you've likely got a minimum of one 10-11 win team in the division.  But you can't have playoff spots subject to opinion or judgment like in college.  WIn the division and you're in if you've won more games than you lost.  Win 8 or less, and you could be on the outside looking in, if the #3 wildcard team has 10-11 wins.   Beyond that, I think the current setup is good as it is.

 

Doesn't matter what any of us think, though.  They're expanding the playoffs and that's that.  

[slats]

Well that's the thing, there have been six 8-8 teams (and no losing teams) over the last ten years that would have made the playoffs if expanded to seven teams. There have been seven teams at 10-6 or better that would have made it over the same time period. I'd rather have those seven teams make it and live with the .500 teams making it as a consequence. I don't think a .500 team making it is nearly as much of an injustice as having a very good team lose out.

 

Is it really such a terrible thing to have millions of fans in two cities enjoy a game they shouldn't be watching because their team only finished with a .500 record. Is it better to have millions of fans feel (and be) robbed of the playoffs?

 

All I know is that if the Jets finished 11-5 or 10-6 and didn't make the playoffs, I'd be upset and so would any one of us, if we're being honest.

Watering down the playoffs is not a good thing, even if it benefits the Jets once in a while.

I get the complaint about a 7-9 Seattle team winning the division while a 10-6 team is on the outside looking in, but in actuality, I think that's part of what's good about the NFL. Standings in the division matter, division rivalries matter. It's part of the charm of the league. Sometimes that .500 record division winner just sucks, but sometimes maybe it's just that the division as a whole had a really tough schedule. Many times we've seen 8-8 teams that are better than 10-6 teams. It happens every year.

It took a while to get here, but the current configuration of the league is really nice. Every division has four teams, and all the teams in each division face almost identical opponents. So when a team wins the division, they do it playing the same schedule as their division rivals - as opposed to comparing it to another team that might have a couple weak sisters and played a weaker schedule overall. The teams with the two best records in each conference get a bye week in the post-season. Letting in one more team in each conference strips that bye from the second best record team. I don't like that, either.

I'm all for progress, but staunchly against any more league expansion or playoff expansion. They have something good here. Don't screw it up for a couple short-term dollars.

[Sperm Edwards]

Watering down the playoffs is not a good thing, even if it benefits the Jets once in a while.

I get the complaint about a 7-9 Seattle team winning the division while a 10-6 team is on the outside looking in, but in actuality, I think that's part of what's good about the NFL. Standings in the division matter, division rivalries matter. It's part of the charm of the league. Sometimes that .500 record division winner just sucks, but sometimes maybe it's just that the division as a whole had a really tough schedule. Many times we've seen 8-8 teams that are better than 10-6 teams. It happens every year.

It took a while to get here, but the current configuration of the league is really nice. Every division has four teams, and all the teams in each division face almost identical opponents. So when a team wins the division, they do it playing the same schedule as their division rivals - as opposed to comparing it to another team that might have a couple weak sisters and played a weaker schedule overall. The teams with the two best records in each conference get a bye week in the post-season. Letting in one more team in each conference strips that bye from the second best record team. I don't like that, either.

I'm all for progress, but staunchly against any more league expansion or playoff expansion. They have something good here. Don't screw it up for a couple short-term dollars.

 

Agree.  Kind of my post above yours as far as expansion, but I wouldn't oppose overriding the division winner if they were literally 7-9 and someone else won 10 or more games.  Truth is it doesn't happen often so most of the time no one would notice the change.  But fixing a problem of a team getting shortchanged now and then is not what playoff expansion is about.  At some point you should reward the teams that took care of business during the season and playoff expansion counteracts that by making the regular season just a little bit less important.

[Gastineau Lives]

Watering down the playoffs is not a good thing, even if it benefits the Jets once in a while.

I get the complaint about a 7-9 Seattle team winning the division while a 10-6 team is on the outside looking in, but in actuality, I think that's part of what's good about the NFL. Standings in the division matter, division rivalries matter. It's part of the charm of the league. Sometimes that .500 record division winner just sucks, but sometimes maybe it's just that the division as a whole had a really tough schedule. Many times we've seen 8-8 teams that are better than 10-6 teams. It happens every year.

It took a while to get here, but the current configuration of the league is really nice. Every division has four teams, and all the teams in each division face almost identical opponents. So when a team wins the division, they do it playing the same schedule as their division rivals - as opposed to comparing it to another team that might have a couple weak sisters and played a weaker schedule overall. The teams with the two best records in each conference get a bye week in the post-season. Letting in one more team in each conference strips that bye from the second best record team. I don't like that, either.

I'm all for progress, but staunchly against any more league expansion or playoff expansion. They have something good here. Don't screw it up for a couple short-term dollars.

 

Can you feel the water??? You feel the water, Slates?  AAAHHH there's water in these playoffs!!

[Gastineau Lives]

I don't think six is a magic number. Seven is just as good.

 

if man is 5 [3x]
then the devil is 6 [5x]
then god is 7 [3x]
this monkey's gone to heaven

[jgb]

anything approaching 50% of teams in the postseason is a farce. you think resting players is an issue now, just wait if they expand.

[Bleedin Green]

It's an interesting point that most of the ones who missed out were winning teams.  I actually like the idea of some formula to bounce out division winners that get in with 8-8 records (or worse).  Maybe if you're on the outside looking in, but have a better record than one of the division winners by 2 or 3 games, then you're the 6 seed and they're out.  Maybe a further qualifier that this is only if one of the division winners is 8-8 or worse.  Not winning half of one's games, and then making the playoffs, is a joke.  Not only is it more rewarding to the better teams, it would make more games relevant in weeks 16-17.  

 

Further, anyone can get lucky for a week or just is the better team that one game.  Look at the Jets in the playoffs with Sanchez.  Were we really better teams overall than everyone we beat?  Of course not.  I think more or less leveling the playing field between a 7-8 win team and a 12-win team (in a division with another 12+ win team) is nuts.  Home field advantage isn't THAT much of an advantage, except maybe for Seattle.

 

But while 14 out of 20 had 9-7 records or better, I'd be more moved if 14 out of 20 had 10 wins or better.  Really the only way I'd be totally for it (other than perhaps benefitting the Jets) is to make up for a 10-win team missing out while a 7 or 8 win team making it.  Like Arizona missing out while Green Bay got to go.  I don't think that needs a 7th playoff spot to correct this, but no one believes this is getting done purely (even mostly) to right a wrong.

 

Sucked for Arizona.  They were in a division with the SB champs and another 12-win team (went 1-4 in those games).  Not only Green Bay, but even the Eagles.  They won the same # of games, but no one believes they would have still won 10 games playing SF and Seattle twice apiece instead of 4 games vs Dallas and the Giants (where they still only split them both).  I wouldn't bounce a 10-win division winner, as there could also be years where the division is really tough and because of that no one wins 11+.  Or like the NFC East in '02 when there were three 9-win teams.  Replace one of them with a 3-win doormat and you've likely got a minimum of one 10-11 win team in the division.  But you can't have playoff spots subject to opinion or judgment like in college.  WIn the division and you're in if you've won more games than you lost.  Win 8 or less, and you could be on the outside looking in, if the #3 wildcard team has 10-11 wins.   Beyond that, I think the current setup is good as it is.

 

Doesn't matter what any of us think, though.  They're expanding the playoffs and that's that.  

 

Yeah, this is basically my thought as well.  The issue isn't a matter of not enough playoff teams making it, it's which teams currently are or are not making it in.  To let more mediocre teams in just because there are already mediocre teams making it in ahead of better teams doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  As great as they are now, let's not forget that it wasn't all that long ago that the Seahawks were a crappy team in the playoffs at 7-9 and, worse yet, got a freakin' home game on top of that.  As ridiculously awesome as that run by Lynch in the playoffs was, the fact that the 11-5 Saints were on the road in Seattle to begin with was an absolute joke.  Adding even more teams into the playoffs isn't going to help that in the least.

 

Not that I think it will happen this way, but cleaning up the qualification rules for the current number of playoff teams will do more to fix the issues than simply adding more teams.  Either way I think a revising how they seed teams is an absolute must, as situations like the aforementioned Saints/Seahawks one was a complete joke, and could only get worse with the #2 seeds having to play in the wild card round.

[Sperm Edwards]

Yeah, this is basically my thought as well.  The issue isn't a matter of not enough playoff teams making it, it's which teams currently are or are not making it in.  To let more mediocre teams in just because there are already mediocre teams making it in ahead of better teams doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  As great as they are now, let's not forget that it wasn't all that long ago that the Seahawks were a crappy team in the playoffs at 7-9 and, worse yet, got a freakin' home game on top of that.  As ridiculously awesome as that run by Lynch in the playoffs was, the fact that the 11-5 Saints were on the road in Seattle to begin with was an absolute joke.  Adding even more teams into the playoffs isn't going to help that in the least.

 

Not that I think it will happen this way, but cleaning up the qualification rules for the current number of playoff teams will do more to fix the issues than simply adding more teams.  Either way I think a revising how they seed teams is an absolute must, as situations like the aforementioned Saints/Seahawks one was a complete joke, and could only get worse with the #2 seeds having to play in the wild card round.

 

 

Well, again, adding more teams to the playoffs likely has little to do with justice being done to otherwise deserving teams. There are ways around that without adding to who makes it.

And I forgot all about division winners getting home field advantage over #5/#6 seed teams no matter what.  The game you cite is just the worst example of it.  Even if they want to push a 7-9 team to the playoffs for winning a division, once they make the seed rankings, that stuff should go out the window.