Why NFL should expand playoff field
ESPN INSIDER
The NFL has no shortage of critics on player safety, commissioner-ordered discipline and the push to leverage public funds for billionaire owners seeking new stadiums. For some, a ramped-up Thursday night schedule came off as just another money grab for a league that paid $44.2 million to its commissioner in 2012 alone.
Next on the NFL agenda is a plan to grow the playoff field from 12 teams to 14 in time for the 2015 season. It looks like another play for cash, and it surely is, but it’s not a shameless one. In fact, the NFL would be smart to expand the playoffs not just because of the money, but because it would improve the quality of teams in the field.
Here's why: Recent history shows little difference between 7-seeds and 4-seeds. And while we know that the 2014 season won't see an expanded playoff field, we can spin that history forward to identify teams likely to benefit from an expanded format in 2015.
Seventh seeds are like fourth seeds
The NFL currently welcomes 37.5 percent of its teams into the postseason, lower than the percentages for the NBA and NHL (both 53.3 percent). One-third of Major League Baseball teams qualify. Expanding the NFL playoff field by two teams would up the percentage to 43.8, in line with the other leagues.<!--offer-->
Seventh seeds since 2002 were generally playoff-worthy relative to teams that earned No. 4 seeds as the division winners with the worst records.
[h=4]Average Wins by Conference Seeding[/h]
<THEAD>
</THEAD><TBODY>
</TBODY>
Since 2002, 18 of the 24 No. 7 seeds finished the regular season with winning records. None had a losing record. These No. 7 seeds averaged 9.1 victories per season, pretty much in line with the 9.6 average for No. 4 seeds. Those 4-seeds included 21 teams with winning records, plus two 8-8 teams and the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks of 2010. Don’t tell the league office this, but since 2002, even the No. 8 seeds have never averaged fewer than eight victories in a given season.
The gap between Nos. 4 and 7 seeds closed recently. Both averaged 9.2 victories per season over the past six seasons. No. 8 seeds were at 8.4.
Over the past five years, seventh seeds have averaged plus-46.3 points in scoring differential, compared to plus-6.6 for fourth seeds. Since 2002, the worst 4-seed has had a negative point differential five times, compared to twice for 5-seeds, once for 6-seeds and three times for 7-seeds (all from 2004-2006).
Legacies on the line
Coaches and quarterbacks are usually the most important figures in an organization. Since 2002, the current playoff format has narrowly excluded some of the best ones.
Jay Cutler has missed the playoffs three times as the starting quarterback for a seventh seed, once with Denver and twice with Chicago. Whether or not you think Cutler is a top quarterback, he’s certainly a compelling one. Ben Roethlisberger, a Super Bowl winner as a No. 6 seed, twice missed the playoffs when his Pittsburgh Steelers finished in the AFC's seventh slot. Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning, Trent Green, Matt Hasselbeck and a pre-catastrophic-injury Daunte Culpepper also missed the playoffs with seventh-seeded teams.
The NFL could use more playoff games featuring these QBs, not fewer of them.
On the coaching front, Mike Shanahan, Mike Tomlin and Lovie Smith are among the two-time leaders of seventh-seeded teams since 2002, joining Jim Haslett and Mike Tice on that list. Bill Belichick, Tom Coughlin, Mike McCarthy, Jon Gruden, Mike Smith, Bruce Arians and Dick Vermeil have also missed the playoffs as head coaches for No. 7 seeds.
Those 12 men have combined to win 11 Super Bowls as head coaches. Smith, Gruden and Tice lost their jobs after finishing as 7-seeds with winning records. Vermeil retired from coaching following the 2005 season after his Kansas City Chiefs missed the playoffs as a seventh-seeded team with a 10-6 record. Was that any way to go out?
Who stands to benefit from expansion?
Second-tier teams from the strongest divisions will benefit the most from playoff expansion. Projecting two years ahead with great specificity is impossible, but in taking a stab at it, I singled out divisions featuring at least three franchises set up favorably both on the sideline and behind center.
First, though, I wondered whether playoff expansion might enable all four teams from one division to reach the postseason. It could happen, but an entire division has never placed four teams among the top seven seeds since realignment in 2002. Three teams from a single division have reached the playoffs five times since then, a number that would have been 12 had a 14-team format been in place.
I’ve sketched in a few thoughts on the long-term outlook for each division, ordered loosely by the likelihood of producing three or more playoff contenders when the playoff field is expected to expand in 2015.
First, the NFC:
The AFC isn’t as clearly defined at the top:
The NFL's motives deserve our scrutiny. For example, it's difficult to reconcile what the league says about player safety with its continuing efforts to expand the regular season to 18 games. I don't see any hypocrisy in letting a couple more teams into the playoffs. There is no real down side.
Not much has separated 7-seeds from 4-seeds. That could change, and if it does, there will be an opportunity to reassess. But in looking at the chart above, it seems to clear to me that a reasonable cutoff falls between the seventh and eighth seeds. In that context, increasing the playoff field to 14 teams can be both a money grab for the league and good for the game.
ESPN INSIDER
The NFL has no shortage of critics on player safety, commissioner-ordered discipline and the push to leverage public funds for billionaire owners seeking new stadiums. For some, a ramped-up Thursday night schedule came off as just another money grab for a league that paid $44.2 million to its commissioner in 2012 alone.
Next on the NFL agenda is a plan to grow the playoff field from 12 teams to 14 in time for the 2015 season. It looks like another play for cash, and it surely is, but it’s not a shameless one. In fact, the NFL would be smart to expand the playoffs not just because of the money, but because it would improve the quality of teams in the field.
Here's why: Recent history shows little difference between 7-seeds and 4-seeds. And while we know that the 2014 season won't see an expanded playoff field, we can spin that history forward to identify teams likely to benefit from an expanded format in 2015.
Seventh seeds are like fourth seeds
The NFL currently welcomes 37.5 percent of its teams into the postseason, lower than the percentages for the NBA and NHL (both 53.3 percent). One-third of Major League Baseball teams qualify. Expanding the NFL playoff field by two teams would up the percentage to 43.8, in line with the other leagues.<!--offer-->
Seventh seeds since 2002 were generally playoff-worthy relative to teams that earned No. 4 seeds as the division winners with the worst records.
[h=4]Average Wins by Conference Seeding[/h]
| Seed | 2002-2007 | 2008-2013 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13.3 | 13.3 | 13.3 |
| 2 | 12.2 | 12.0 | 12.1 |
| 3 | 11.0 | 10.8 | 10.9 |
| 4 | 10.1 | 9.2 | 9.6 |
| 5 | 10.3 | 11.1 | 10.7 |
| 6 | 9.4 | 10.0 | 9.7 |
| 7 | 9.0 | 9.2 | 9.1 |
<THEAD>
</THEAD><TBODY>
</TBODY>
Since 2002, 18 of the 24 No. 7 seeds finished the regular season with winning records. None had a losing record. These No. 7 seeds averaged 9.1 victories per season, pretty much in line with the 9.6 average for No. 4 seeds. Those 4-seeds included 21 teams with winning records, plus two 8-8 teams and the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks of 2010. Don’t tell the league office this, but since 2002, even the No. 8 seeds have never averaged fewer than eight victories in a given season.
The gap between Nos. 4 and 7 seeds closed recently. Both averaged 9.2 victories per season over the past six seasons. No. 8 seeds were at 8.4.
Over the past five years, seventh seeds have averaged plus-46.3 points in scoring differential, compared to plus-6.6 for fourth seeds. Since 2002, the worst 4-seed has had a negative point differential five times, compared to twice for 5-seeds, once for 6-seeds and three times for 7-seeds (all from 2004-2006).
Legacies on the line
Coaches and quarterbacks are usually the most important figures in an organization. Since 2002, the current playoff format has narrowly excluded some of the best ones.
Jay Cutler has missed the playoffs three times as the starting quarterback for a seventh seed, once with Denver and twice with Chicago. Whether or not you think Cutler is a top quarterback, he’s certainly a compelling one. Ben Roethlisberger, a Super Bowl winner as a No. 6 seed, twice missed the playoffs when his Pittsburgh Steelers finished in the AFC's seventh slot. Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning, Trent Green, Matt Hasselbeck and a pre-catastrophic-injury Daunte Culpepper also missed the playoffs with seventh-seeded teams.
The NFL could use more playoff games featuring these QBs, not fewer of them.
On the coaching front, Mike Shanahan, Mike Tomlin and Lovie Smith are among the two-time leaders of seventh-seeded teams since 2002, joining Jim Haslett and Mike Tice on that list. Bill Belichick, Tom Coughlin, Mike McCarthy, Jon Gruden, Mike Smith, Bruce Arians and Dick Vermeil have also missed the playoffs as head coaches for No. 7 seeds.
Those 12 men have combined to win 11 Super Bowls as head coaches. Smith, Gruden and Tice lost their jobs after finishing as 7-seeds with winning records. Vermeil retired from coaching following the 2005 season after his Kansas City Chiefs missed the playoffs as a seventh-seeded team with a 10-6 record. Was that any way to go out?
Who stands to benefit from expansion?
Second-tier teams from the strongest divisions will benefit the most from playoff expansion. Projecting two years ahead with great specificity is impossible, but in taking a stab at it, I singled out divisions featuring at least three franchises set up favorably both on the sideline and behind center.
First, though, I wondered whether playoff expansion might enable all four teams from one division to reach the postseason. It could happen, but an entire division has never placed four teams among the top seven seeds since realignment in 2002. Three teams from a single division have reached the playoffs five times since then, a number that would have been 12 had a 14-team format been in place.
I’ve sketched in a few thoughts on the long-term outlook for each division, ordered loosely by the likelihood of producing three or more playoff contenders when the playoff field is expected to expand in 2015.
First, the NFC:
- West: The two best teams in the division, Seattle and San Francisco, have promising outlooks at quarterback. The other two teams are earlier in their growth and headed in the right direction. The NFC West finished plus-359 in point differential last season, 65 points better than any division has finished since realignment. At issue is whether Arizona and St. Louis can elevate their long-term QB outlooks.
- South: Matt Ryan and Cam Newton are still young. Drew Brees should have a few more good seasons remaining. In Tampa Bay, the new leadership inherited a solid foundation and added good scheme fits. History has shown Lovie Smith can keep a team in the playoff hunt without a top quarterback.
- North: On its best day, the NFC North has three highly productive quarterbacks. Consistency is the big concern for Cutler and Matthew Stafford. No one knows what to expect from Teddy Bridgewater in Minnesota. The division features three QB-friendly head coaches and a high-profile offensive coordinator in Norv Turner.
- East: All four teams could plausibly possess above-average (or better) quarterbacks when playoff expansion comes, but there’s a lot of potential volatility here. The odds are stacked against stability in Dallas. Philadelphia seems to have a clear vision. The Giants are scrambling a bit and Coughlin will turn 70 before the 2015 season. Washington has an unproven head coach in Jay Gruden, questions on defense and durability concerns at QB.
The AFC isn’t as clearly defined at the top:
- North: It’s unclear what the long-term future holds at quarterback for Cincinnati and Cleveland. Baltimore will have a hard time winning big while paying MVP money to Joe Flacco unless he performs closer to the way he did in the playoffs following the 2012 season. Browns general manager Ray Farmer has made a positive first impression, but what will Johnny Manziel become?
- South: This could be a sleeper division in the longer term. Andrew Luck will keep the Colts competitive. Jacksonville is on the rise. Ken Whisenhunt and Bill O’Brien were highly regarded head-coaching candidates this offseason. It’s just tough to know what the future holds at QB for three of the AFC South teams.
- West: Peyton Manning will turn 40 before the 2015 season, making it tougher to bank on the Broncos. I’m curious to see what Whisenhunt’s departure from San Diego means for Philip Rivers. Kansas City’s long-term QB outlook is not yet settled. Oakland does not yet know what Derek Carr will become.
- East: At least two head coaches and three starting QBs could easily turn over in the AFC East by 2015. That could be good for the division, but there are too many unknowns to make much of a projection. Brady will be 38.
The NFL's motives deserve our scrutiny. For example, it's difficult to reconcile what the league says about player safety with its continuing efforts to expand the regular season to 18 games. I don't see any hypocrisy in letting a couple more teams into the playoffs. There is no real down side.
Not much has separated 7-seeds from 4-seeds. That could change, and if it does, there will be an opportunity to reassess. But in looking at the chart above, it seems to clear to me that a reasonable cutoff falls between the seventh and eighth seeds. In that context, increasing the playoff field to 14 teams can be both a money grab for the league and good for the game.
