Why Wild Card??

[Mick Fan]

Okay, I know there are more serious problems in the world. Why are this weekend's playoffs called "Wild Card" playoffs when Division winners play in them as well?

By definition, a "wild card" team is one that doesn't win its division but qualifies for the playoffs. This was well and good from 1978 to 1993, when only wild card teams played in the first weekend. But when the sixth playoff team in each conference was added (because ABC wanted some playoff games) you had division winners playing on the first weekend as well.

It just seems strange on Saturday for the Raiders and Eagles to be playing "wild card" games on "Wild Card Saturday" when they won their division. Don't they get any credit for that? Mike Patrick of ABC more accurately referred to the game as a "First Round" game, which it should be called.

We'll see what happens next year, when two division winners and two wild cards play in the first round. Will it still be called "Wild Card Weekend?" Should it be? Stay tuned ...

(edited to correct silly typo)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mick Fan on 2002-01-13 20:58 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mick Fan on 2002-01-13 21:00 ]</font>

[The Drunken Actuary]

I agree. There are more serious problems in the world. :smile: However, I too have wondered that same thing. It doesn't give the division winners much credit. But more importantly, why did my fantasy football team consistently kick ass until the playoffs costing me lots of $$$? What the hell happened to Isaac Bruce this year anyway? OK, I'm rambling, must be the left over egg-nog.

[E. Blackadder]

If memory serves, the Raiders and Eagles get the benefit of playing at home, even if one (or more) of the wild cards has a better record.

The trick is to construct a playoff mechanism that is short and reasonably fair. With six teams in each confrence, there isn't really that much choice. You can't, (for instance) play a 3-way game among the wild cards; and a ladder format a la bowling would take a while. So one of the divisional winners has to drop down. (I guess they could add a 4th wild card and have a two-week wild-card knockout, with the winner playing the conference champion...)

What's next year's playoff structure? (I really haven't been paying attention, though I heard about the realignment) There seems little need for a wild card if there are four divisions per conference. "Need" is used in a tournament mechanism sense -- not in the television revenue sense.
_________________
The Tao that can be defined is not the Tao.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2002-01-13 23:15 ]</font>

[CJL]

This week's sign of the apocalypse: Mike Patrick was more correct than other anouncers.

I think next year's format is to continue with 6 playoff teams in each conference, but instead of 3 div. winners and 3 wild cards, it will be 4 div. winners and 2 wild cards.

In the current 3-div. format, I prefer only 2 wild cards, so that all of the division winners have a bye and all of the wild cards do not. However, if I were an owner or a network or the league, there would probably be enough $$$ to change my mind.

[E. Blackadder]

Next year with 32 teams in the league, there's a perfect playoff opportunity:

Put all the teams into the playoffs.
Use the regular season to seed the teams from 1 to 32, using NFL tiebreakers -- and play it like the NCAA. 5 weeks. 31 thrilling games. 1 winner.

[Han Solo]

Put all the teams into the playoffs.


This ain't hockey, you know. :wink:

[Cosmo]

Put all the teams into the playoffs.


This ain't basketball, you know. :wink:

[moj]

On 2002-01-14 12:05, E. Blackadder wrote:
Next year with 32 teams in the league, there's a perfect playoff opportunity:

Put all the teams into the playoffs.
Use the regular season to seed the teams from 1 to 32, using NFL tiebreakers -- and play it like the NCAA. 5 weeks. 31 thrilling games. 1 winner.



I am not in favor of putting all the teams in, but why not consider the 4 divisional winners + 4 wildcard teams. Then, they all play in the first round with the strongest divisional winner playing the weakest wildcard, and so on.

The major downfall to this is that you will have 4 games on the first Saturday and 4 on the first Sunday, so there will have to be some overlap of coverage. In my opinion, this is a small price to pay to have a a larger playoff.

The upside is that we get more teams with a shot at the Superbowl. Also, it takes the same number of weeks of playoffs.

[Abducens]

No one has mentioned this yet, so I guess I will. They had been looking at having 7 teams in each conference in the playoffs. 4 division champs and 3 wild cards. Then there would only be 1 team per conference with a first round bye.

Also, under this format, they are talking about seeding according to records, so a 9-7 division winner would get seeded beneath an 11-5 wild card.

[3rookie]

As you keep adding playoff teams, the quality of regular season play declines. Players start 'mailing it in', knowing that they will make the playoffs. We've already seen the NFL regular season go from 12 to 14 to 16 games. That's enough games to figure out who's worthy. I don't need more mediocre teams getting rewarded as in B-ball and hockey. Having a first round bye is a serious advantage that a team would lose in a 16 team format.

[Mick Fan]

On 2002-01-14 15:45, Abducens wrote:
No one has mentioned this yet, so I guess I will. They had been looking at having 7 teams in each conference in the playoffs. 4 division champs and 3 wild cards. Then there would only be 1 team per conference with a first round bye.

Also, under this format, they are talking about seeding according to records, so a 9-7 division winner would get seeded beneath an 11-5 wild card.


I haven't heard that. That would call for revising the league TV contract. I'd be surprised if that happened. As far as I know, there will be only six teams per conference.

Personally, I think that Division Winners should get the top 4 seeds in the playoffs. If you can't win your division (no matter how strong or weak), you don't deserve a home game.