The 2020 NFL Season saw the 7th seed introduced and it's pointless.

2020
(7) Colts 24 at (2) Bills 27
(7) Bears 9 at (2) Saints 21

2021
(7) Steelers 21 at (2) Chiefs 42
(7) Eagles 15 at (2) Buccaneers 31

This isn't helping the NFL product at all. It's putting 2nd seed teams on the field unnecessarily against inferior teams. Imagine if Tom Brady tore his ACL this weekend in a money grab game. There's really zero benefit to this. Even if a 7th seed beats a 2nd seed, they will get trounced the following week against the 1st seed.

I didn't watch much football this weekend, mainly because I was spending time with my daughter, but even if she was at her mothers, I wouldn't have watched much. It feels sickeningly greedy. GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

In the perfect world, the NFL would drop the 7th seed, go back to 16 game regular season and go with just two preseason games AND STOP FOOKING WITH IT. It wasn't broken so stop trying to fix it!

If the NFL expands the playoffs again, just don't do it. They'll end up with a damn tournament and call it Winter Madness!

---

I think it’s getting ridiculous.
It’s getting to be like the NBA, where it’s like, why have a regular season, when almost everyone makes the playoffs.
Just my opinion, of course.

---

I think it’s getting ridiculous.
It’s getting to be like the NBA, where it’s like, why have a regular season, when almost everyone makes the playoffs.
Just my opinion, of course.

I agree!!
Good to have you back Cheesey👌

(7) Colts 24 at (2) Bills 27

That wasn't a bad game, but yes the rest have been.

I think the best part (so far) with the additional playoff team, has been that the additional competition for playoff seeding has lasted longer during the regular season.

Teams have competed for longer in the regular season, both for the last playoff spots but also better seeding...

Of course, this could of just been the circumstances of this year and other years need to be proven more.

But Jaguars knocking the Colts out of the playoffs was an interesting story for the AFC, which left the door open for the Steelers. I think the Colts would of had a better game game than the Steelers.

Colts against playoff teams this year,
Lost to Rams by 3
Lost to the Titans by 9
Beat the 49ers by 12
Took Titans to overtime, before a loss of 3
Beat the Bills by 26
Loss to the Buccaneers by 7
Beat the Patriots by 10
Beat the Cardinals by 10
Loss to the Raiders by 3


As for the NFC, what if the Saints stayed healthy at QB? That would of given a 7th and interesting team, they killed the Packers and beat the Buccaneers twice. With backup QB lost to the Titans by 2 points, and with the third QB lost to the Cowboys by 10. Better than the Eagles whom went 0-6 against playoff teams in the regular season.


So I think there can be interesting matchups, but yeah it didn't happen this year

---

Do we need a 7th team? Yes.
Why? MONEY!
The NFL doesn't care one bit about Brady. Or Rodgers. Or Mahomes. Or Watt. Or anyone. There is always someone else ready and waiting to step into the limelight. The NFL doesn't need any specific player. What they need is fans willing to part with their cash. And there are plenty of us. If the NFL makes $8 billion dollars they want to make $9 billion. If they make $9 billion then they will go for $10. On it goes. It's never ending. They will keep riding this horse until the whole system collapses in on itself. When it does they will take their cash and sell out to a new group of billionaires looking for the prestige and notoriety.
There will be an 8th team added to each conference within 10 years. Why? fans demand it. They want their team to be in competition to make the playoffs. It doesn't matter who they will face. Colts and Saints fans would have loved it if their teams got in. Same for 9th place Vikings and Dolphins fans.

---

I'm not seeing where fans wanted a 7th seed, or even the 17th or 18th game. In fact, I've been seeing the exact opposite. I would presume only those who bet on sports care about the extra games.

I'll watch the Divisional Round, but didn't watch much more than a quarter or so of the Wild Card Round. The NFL rules and officiating and over saturated product are not that interesting.

---

I'm not seeing where fans wanted a 7th seed, or even the 17th or 18th game. In fact, I've been seeing the exact opposite. I would presume only those who bet on sports care about the extra games.

I'll watch the Divisional Round, but didn't watch much more than a quarter or so of the Wild Card Round. The NFL rules and officiating and over saturated product are not that interesting.

TV contracts, seriously seriously wanted more games and fans have watched the games more this year, so fans might not verbally want them, but their actions say they welcomed more, as they were watched.

---

I'm not seeing where fans wanted a 7th seed, or even the 17th or 18th game. In fact, I've been seeing the exact opposite. I would presume only those who bet on sports care about the extra games.

I'll watch the Divisional Round, but didn't watch much more than a quarter or so of the Wild Card Round. The NFL rules and officiating and over saturated product are not that interesting.

"Fans" is too subjective. Did the Lions or NY teams want a 7th team? Not really. But the fans of the teams I listed did.

Kevin you are not a typical NFL fan. You are a Green bay Packers fan. (Me too. I can not tell you who the QB or WR1 RB1 is for most teams.) A significant segment of the people who watch games every week watch every single game they can. Even if it is as little as 10% statistic gurus say THAT is significant. My younger brother is a Dr. When we discuss health benefits he is always talking about meds or lifestyle changes that improve well-being. He is always looking at 10% as being a creditable number. I tell him to come back to me when it is truly creditable such as 40 or 50%. They don't look at it that way. Even presidential polls. The survey is usually about 500 people. That is statistically significant.

Getting back to your comment about watching the games, I watched about half of the Dallas game and half of the KC game. But I was busy last weekend and not near a tv. If I had a chance to watch every game, I wouldn't have. I don't watch to spend 3 hours on every game. Too many other things to do. I still will check in and see what is happening. If it is late in the game and there is an upset brewing I will watch. If it is a blow out for the favorite, not.

---

There are a lot of good points in this thread.
WPR made me really think.
Back in 1989, the Packers went 10-6, and by the rules then, did not make the playoffs. Who knows what might have happened had they got in?
2010, also 10-6 and won the Super Bowl.
Maybe if there were more NFL teams, 14 making the playoffs wouldn’t seem so high.
But as also was stated, look at how some of the teams that did make the playoffs this year didn’t seem to really belong. Like the Steelers for example.
Could a 7th seed win it all? I’m sure it could happen.
Being a Packer fan, we have had so many years of high expectations because of just how good the Packers have been.
Seeing some of the negative comments from fans of other teams on other sites, like “2 NFC title games in a row, and lost both, the Packers SUCK and will get knocked out of the playoffs this week!”
That coming from fans who could only DREAM of “their” team making it that far!

---

U n me Cheesey 4eva. 😜

---

"Fans" is too subjective. Did the Lions or NY teams want a 7th team? Not really. But the fans of the teams I listed did.

Kevin you are not a typical NFL fan. You are a Green bay Packers fan. (Me too. I can not tell you who the QB or WR1 RB1 is for most teams.) A significant segment of the people who watch games every week watch every single game they can. Even if it is as little as 10% statistic gurus say THAT is significant. My younger brother is a Dr. When we discuss health benefits he is always talking about meds or lifestyle changes that improve well-being. He is always looking at 10% as being a creditable number. I tell him to come back to me when it is truly creditable such as 40 or 50%. They don't look at it that way. Even presidential polls. The survey is usually about 500 people. That is statistically significant.

Getting back to your comment about watching the games, I watched about half of the Dallas game and half of the KC game. But I was busy last weekend and not near a tv. If I had a chance to watch every game, I wouldn't have. I don't watch to spend 3 hours on every game. Too many other things to do. I still will check in and see what is happening. If it is late in the game and there is an upset brewing I will watch. If it is a blow out for the favorite, not.

Yeah, I am a football fan. I love football, I do not love greedy exploitation. I've even watched non Packers preseason games. I'll watch a lot of regular season games. I spend my Sunday started at 10am watching pregame and then watch two to three football games and finish off my night around 11pm. I'll catch the Monday night game and sometimes tune into the Thursday night game if I need something to pass out to.

What I do not care for is watching inferior teams getting plowed for the financial exploitation of greedy pricks. Thus, I didn't care to watch Wild Card weekend nor did I care to watch much of the Week 18 games. If those games had any bearing on who the Packers played, or their seeding, I might have paid more attention.

But the only people wanting more games are the assholes. No decent human being wants more football games. The players don't even want it. And like I said, outside of the pathetic excuses for human beings who feel they need something to gamble on, no one would lose any sleep if we had a 16 game regular season with just six playoff teams per conference. NO ONE complained. NO ONE said my goodness, I wish there was an extra game.

But hey, the NFL can sit on their throne of lies about PLAYER SAFETY and undermine everyone's intelligence in the process by adding another game, by adding 7th seeds and forcing players to play on four days rest. If people are fine with that, cool. I'm not. So to answer my question ... no, we do not need 14 teams. Neither do the players. The owners aren't risking their physical well-being. At least the players get paid a crap ton of money and if they accrue enough years they can get a pension. Personally, I feel with the amount the NFL makes, every player should be on a pension much sooner.

BTW, I don't really have anything against those who gamble. I have a massive addictive personality complex that prohibits me from doing such things. I'm the moron who wins $10 and thinks he should bet $100 because he'll win more. 😁

---

There are a lot of good points in this thread.
WPR made me really think.
Back in 1989, the Packers went 10-6, and by the rules then, did not make the playoffs. Who knows what might have happened had they got in?
2010, also 10-6 and won the Super Bowl.
Maybe if there were more NFL teams, 14 making the playoffs wouldn’t seem so high.
But as also was stated, look at how some of the teams that did make the playoffs this year didn’t seem to really belong. Like the Steelers for example.
Could a 7th seed win it all? I’m sure it could happen.
Being a Packer fan, we have had so many years of high expectations because of just how good the Packers have been.
Seeing some of the negative comments from fans of other teams on other sites, like “2 NFC title games in a row, and lost both, the Packers SUCK and will get knocked out of the playoffs this week!”
That coming from fans who could only DREAM of “their” team making it that far!

I'm pretty sure only two or three teams from wild card weekend have won the Super Bowl. Steelers and Packers.

If the NFL had more teams, sure, 14 teams could be feasible, however, the league cannot field even 16 competitive teams in their 32. So, more teams would be an exasperation of the problem instead of a solution.

Honestly, if the rules weren't so craptastic in the NFL, maybe more teams wouldn't be so bad. The rules make the game unfun. And the implementation of the rules makes it unbearable at times.

---

Yeah, I am a football fan. I love football, I do not love greedy exploitation. I've even watched non Packers preseason games. I'll watch a lot of regular season games. I spend my Sunday started at 10am watching pregame and then watch two to three football games and finish off my night around 11pm. I'll catch the Monday night game and sometimes tune into the Thursday night game if I need something to pass out to.

What I do not care for is watching inferior teams getting plowed for the financial exploitation of greedy pricks. Thus, I didn't care to watch Wild Card weekend nor did I care to watch much of the Week 18 games. If those games had any bearing on who the Packers played, or their seeding, I might have paid more attention.

But the only people wanting more games are the assholes. No decent human being wants more football games. The players don't even want it. And like I said, outside of the pathetic excuses for human beings who feel they need something to gamble on, no one would lose any sleep if we had a 16 game regular season with just six playoff teams per conference. NO ONE complained. NO ONE said my goodness, I wish there was an extra game.

But hey, the NFL can sit on their throne of lies about PLAYER SAFETY and undermine everyone's intelligence in the process by adding another game, by adding 7th seeds and forcing players to play on four days rest. If people are fine with that, cool. I'm not. So to answer my question ... no, we do not need 14 teams. Neither do the players. The owners aren't risking their physical well-being. At least the players get paid a crap ton of money and if they accrue enough years they can get a pension. Personally, I feel with the amount the NFL makes, every player should be on a pension much sooner.

BTW, I don't really have anything against those who gamble. I have a massive addictive personality complex that prohibits me from doing such things. I'm the moron who wins $10 and thinks he should bet $100 because he'll win more. 😁

It is all about greed. 100%.

---

If the NFL had more teams, sure, 14 teams could be feasible, however, the league cannot field even 16 competitive teams in their 32.

Maybe the league should take the next logical step in free agency and implement the sports equivalent of term limits: teams are not allowed to sign players to contracts longer than five years, and those contracts cannot be renewed. Players automatically enter free agency after their contracts expire, and their former teams are ineligible to re-sign them. Talk about redistributing talent throughout the pool. The nice thing is that it would also redistribute those obnoxious so-called fans who fixate on individual players over teams. We wouldn't have any more unnecessary drama like we did when Green Bay moved on from Favre.

exasperation

"exacerbation"

---

I'm sure some will think this is the stupidest idea.... but...

How about 16 playoff teams, where the first playoff week is the 7th seed hosting the 8th seed and winner travels to face the 2nd seed the following week.

That would of gave us
Saints @ Eagles
Chargers @ Steelers

The road teams might of won both of these...

Then seeds 2-6 get a bye week... and #1 seed gets two bye weeks.

Yeah probably a bad idea, but I don't think the 7th seeds are nessarily better than some teams behind them.

---

"exacerbation"

exasperation a feeling of intense irritation or annoyance. That's the word. That's the meaning. That's the feeling. Thanks for coming.

Anyhow, after the Packers got slapped out of the playoffs, maybe Packers need 16 teams in the playoffs so they don't get that extra week off to over think and out smart themselves!! 😬

---