PDA

View Full Version : Are people really for expanding playoff field?


fwf
12-13-2012, 07:10 AM
As Goodell is trying to do?

This ****ing guy again.

Beantown Bronco
12-13-2012, 07:33 AM
They could double the size of the playoff field this year and we'd still be the only AFC West team to qualify.

BowlenBall
12-13-2012, 07:41 AM
No thanks to expanding the # of playoff teams.

In fact, let's drop down to 8 teams instead of 12, and drop the 1st round bye altogether.

fwf
12-13-2012, 07:43 AM
I don't know how to post links from my phone but I just read the Nfl was considering going to 14 or 16 teams. I guess money wise it works but, why water it down and make the season less relevant.

bronco militia
12-13-2012, 07:45 AM
What we need is more 8-8 teams in the playoffs...... ZZZ...

Dedhed
12-13-2012, 07:59 AM
I don't think adding teams and eliminating the bye week for the 1 and 2 seeds is a terrible idea, but adding an additional round would be a terrible idea.

ColoradoDarin
12-13-2012, 08:11 AM
I don't know of any fans who think this is a good idea, it's goodell trying to squeeze more money out of us since no one wants an 18 game season either.

Will it make the playoffs any better? The 7th and 8th best teams in each conference will add to the quality of the games? I'm going to laugh when a 6-10 team makes the playoffs and beats a top seed.

I'd rather goodell go be commish of a new expansion football league instead of screwing with the NFL so much.

pricejj
12-13-2012, 08:15 AM
What we need is more 8-8 teams in the playoffs...... ZZZ...

This move would actually pretty much guarantee that losing teams make the playoffs every single year. Not a good idea.

bronco militia
12-13-2012, 08:23 AM
This move would actually pretty much guarantee that losing teams make the playoffs every single year. Not a good idea.

yeah...i was being kind

Drunk Monkey
12-13-2012, 08:23 AM
Just leave it the hell alone!!! I love how that douche keeps trying to **** up a good thing.

Kaylore
12-13-2012, 08:24 AM
I have mixed feelings on this. I don't think there's anything wrong with the current model, but I don't think allowing more teams in would doom anything. It's really about more games = more money for the NFL.

jerseyguy4
12-13-2012, 08:35 AM
What we need is more 8-8 teams in the playoffs...... ZZZ...
THIS
I don't think adding teams and eliminating the bye week for the 1 and 2 seeds is a terrible idea...
I do. This is what keeps the top seeded teams competitive in weeks 15-17. Look no farther than the AFC right now.

BroncoBeavis
12-13-2012, 08:40 AM
THIS

I do. This is what keeps the top seeded teams competitive in weeks 15-17. Look no farther than the AFC right now.

This is a great point. And I believe in principle, half of all teams should not make the playoffs. The regular season needs to mean more than that.

Play2win
12-13-2012, 08:47 AM
Pretty soon the goofy mother****er will be having Tip-offs instead of Kick-offs.

RedskinBronco
12-13-2012, 08:57 AM
Please God no. I don't want this league to become like the NBA where everyone half asses the regular season.

I never pay for a regular season NBA game; it's a joke. One big hit the clubz party between all the teams.

Don't make the same mistake, NFL

55CrushEm
12-13-2012, 09:07 AM
I don't think adding teams and eliminating the bye week for the 1 and 2 seeds is a terrible idea, but adding an additional round would be a terrible idea.

This. If they add 2 more teams. Then 2 more teams need to be eliminated in the 1st round.....i.e. the 1st and 2nd seeds no longer get byes.

bronco militia
12-13-2012, 09:14 AM
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell Trolls Fans, Suggests Expanding Playoffs


Read more: http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2012/12/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-trolls-fans-suggests-expanding-playoffs.html#ixzz2EwtqCpH8

Drunken.Broncoholic
12-13-2012, 09:25 AM
NFL does not need anymore teams watering down the playoffs. In fact contraction of 2 teams right out if the NFL wouldn't be so bad. Why the jags are even in the league is head scratching.

Pick Six
12-13-2012, 09:26 AM
Please God no. I don't want this league to become like the NBA where everyone half asses the regular season.

I never pay for a regular season NBA game; it's a joke. One big hit the clubz party between all the teams.

Don't make the same mistake, NFL

That's why I never pay attention to the NBA, until February or March. Right now, the ramifications of losing a game in the NBA aren't very great. One of the best things about football is the limited number of games that are played. Every win and every loss is magnified...

mwill07
12-13-2012, 09:27 AM
what if there was a clause that a team must have a winning record (9-7 or 10-8?) to qualify for a wild-card spot?

Beantown Bronco
12-13-2012, 09:31 AM
what if there was a clause that a team must have a winning record (9-7 or 10-8?) to qualify for a wild-card spot?

If teams with .500 or losing records never won in the playoffs, I might agree to that, but just in the last few years we've had multiple first round winners with those records.

Pick Six
12-13-2012, 09:34 AM
what if there was a clause that a team must have a winning record (9-7 or 10-8?) to qualify for a wild-card spot?

I see that creating an uneven playoff field, from year to year. That's not good for television schedules...

cmhargrove
12-13-2012, 09:38 AM
Why expand the playoffs, when the Superbowl is the big money maker?

I say, create the "SuperestBowl" the week after. Could be followed in 2015 by adding the Super-SuperestBowl or SuperestestBowl.

Mile High Salute
12-13-2012, 09:50 AM
I dunno, what are your sources at Dove Valley telling you?? :giggle:

Archer81
12-13-2012, 10:15 AM
We at the NFL are all about player safety. Therefore, we will expand the regular season by two games, and increase the playoff field!

Huzzah!

...

:Broncos:

Jesterhole
12-13-2012, 10:24 AM
It's only about money for the owners, had nothing to do with anything else.

oubronco
12-13-2012, 11:01 AM
Pretty soon the goofy mother****er will be having Tip-offs instead of Kick-offs.

You mean the ones he's trying to do away with altogether

Quoydogs
12-13-2012, 11:15 AM
No thanks to expanding the # of playoff teams.

In fact, let's drop down to 8 teams instead of 12, and drop the 1st round bye altogether.

This:wave:

ZONA
12-13-2012, 11:27 AM
No thanks to expanding the # of playoff teams.

In fact, let's drop down to 8 teams instead of 12, and drop the 1st round bye altogether.

Very very bad idea. A team like the 8-8 Broncos last year can win the division while a, say 12-4 team who is second place in their division misses the playoffs. No way man, that doesn't work.

It's NOT broken people, it doesn't need to be fixed. It perfect right now. We don't need less teams we don't need more teams. For **** sake, what is with everybody always trying to friggin change **** when it aint broke. This guy is the worst commish we could have ended up with after Tags.

maher_tyler
12-13-2012, 11:31 AM
Contradicts anything he has ever said about player safety.

ColoradoDarin
12-13-2012, 11:33 AM
NFL does not need anymore teams watering down the playoffs. In fact contraction of 2 teams right out if the NFL wouldn't be so bad. Why the jags are even in the league is head scratching.


As my Jaguars fans friends tell me...

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/406805_4873257519991_526002178_n.jpg

orinjkrush
12-13-2012, 11:37 AM
It's only about money for the owners, had nothing to do with anything else.

this. $$$$$ for owners. without having to pay more for refs. or players.

bronco_diesel
12-13-2012, 11:52 AM
I have mixed feelings on this. I don't think there's anything wrong with the current model, but I don't think allowing more teams in would doom anything. It's really about more games = more money for the NFL.

I think this is the key. They didn't expand to 17 games a season, so they are looking at another way to add more games.

bronco_diesel
12-13-2012, 11:54 AM
If they want to add more games, they should just have the bottom teams do a small playoff for the #1 overall pick in the draft. :)

Drunken.Broncoholic
12-13-2012, 12:08 PM
Very very bad idea. A team like the 8-8 Broncos last year can win the division while a, say 12-4 team who is second place in their division misses the playoffs. No way man, that doesn't work.

It's NOT broken people, it doesn't need to be fixed. It perfect right now. We don't need less teams we don't need more teams. For **** sake, what is with everybody always trying to friggin change **** when it aint broke. This guy is the worst commish we could have ended up with after Tags.

That still can happen though. 8-8 chargers make the playoffs 11-5 pats stay home.

rugbythug
12-13-2012, 12:23 PM
I like. And more regular season games. More better.

Mountain Bronco
12-13-2012, 12:34 PM
It adds at least a week to the season, which is another way of adding games without lengthening the regular season so it is a cute way to avoid that issue.

troyjbath
12-13-2012, 01:23 PM
Hell no! This is a money grab for the owners. I already have to shell out full price for two meaningless preseason games. With no bye week we'd have to pay for an additional home playoff game if the Broncos are a 1 or 2 seed. I don't want to shell out extra money just to allow scrub teams into the playoffs. The current system is just fine.

Dedhed
12-13-2012, 01:26 PM
It adds at least a week to the season, which is another way of adding games without lengthening the regular season so it is a cute way to avoid that issue.

Adding 4 teams to the playoffs actually wouldn't lengthen the season at all. It would just eliminate the Bye week for the top two teams in each conference.

It would mean 4 more games during the first round, but not an extra round.

BroncoBeavis
12-13-2012, 02:01 PM
Adding 4 teams to the playoffs actually wouldn't lengthen the season at all. It would just eliminate the Bye week for the top two teams in each conference.

It would mean 4 more games during the first round, but not an extra round.

That would also mean 8 playoff games in a single weekend. That would be a tough thing to coordinate without overlapping (which would suck)

Beantown Bronco
12-13-2012, 02:46 PM
That would also mean 8 playoff games in a single weekend. That would be a tough thing to coordinate without overlapping (which would suck)

3 Saturday
3 Sunday
2 Monday (like opening weekend)

Not ideal, but no overlapping.

(Having said that, I'm not for it. Just saying it can be done without overlapping or doing anything they don't already do during the regular season.)

DBroncos4life
12-13-2012, 02:59 PM
14 teams would make things more competitive going down to the wire and they said they would cut two weeks out of the preseason to do that. I prefer the thing the way it is but, if they do change the just make it 14.

chadta
12-13-2012, 03:37 PM
what if there was a clause that a team must have a winning record (9-7 or 10-8?) to qualify for a wild-card spot?

What if they did it like the CFL does it, and allowed crossovers, where a team could cross over from the NFC to the AFC. Add 2 wildcards total.

Then only the #1 seed gets a week off, and there is less chance of a 6-10 team making the playoffs.

Right now cinci, wash, dall, and minn are all tied at 7-6 all would qualify for the 2 extra spots. If you added 2 to each conf then you get the 6-7 jets, and i dont think anybody wants that.

El Jefe
12-13-2012, 03:39 PM
Nope. Leave as-is.

BroncoBeavis
12-13-2012, 03:44 PM
3 Saturday
3 Sunday
2 Monday (like opening weekend)

Not ideal, but no overlapping.

(Having said that, I'm not for it. Just saying it can be done without overlapping or doing anything they don't already do during the regular season.)

Yeah you could maybe add days. But then it adds other headaches. When the season comes down to one game, you don't want a round 2 Saturday game with one team that played on Saturday vs one who played way late on Monday.

So you'd almost have to set it up so the Monday winners played each other the following week. And that in itself could get tricky to juggle when you're dealing with 4 time zones.

Plus I'm not sure two late games on Monday Night would bring the kind of ratings the NFL is accustomed to for playoff games.

Bronco_Beerslug
12-13-2012, 04:07 PM
No, no more teams, no more games, get rid of the Thurs. games, no more Europe games and Goodell should be fired for even considering putting a team in another country, especially overseas.

The greed of the league is diluting the game and that needs to end ASAP.

broncosteven
12-13-2012, 04:07 PM
Gooddell finally got around to opening the league office's mail from Carl Peterson.

Rohirrim
12-13-2012, 05:20 PM
I think 100 yards is perfect. Leave it alone. :puff:

KipCorrington25
12-13-2012, 06:11 PM
NFL does not need anymore teams watering down the playoffs. In fact contraction of 2 teams right out if the NFL wouldn't be so bad. Why the jags are even in the league is head scratching.

And Kansas City, they offer nothing, crap team, crap market....

rbackfactory80
12-13-2012, 06:41 PM
Roger is the worst thing to happen to he nfl

Lestat
12-13-2012, 07:10 PM
this is the only way to legitimately expand the season. the players will never agree to a 18 or 20 game season. people have said since it was brought up. "why not just expand the playoffs instead of the regular season since that is when the fans focus the most on football."

Fedaykin
12-13-2012, 07:28 PM
I wouldn't mind adding 2 more to eliminate the first round bye.

HAT
12-13-2012, 07:31 PM
Why any fan would be against this is beyond me. Bye week is stupid & the NFL revolves around the numbers 4/8/16......4 division winners and 4 wildcards per conference.

4 games Saturday & 4 games Sunday....12-3-6-9 pm on FOX, CBS, NBC & ESPN.

It would be by far the best weekend of the NFL calendar year fanwise.

No1BroncoFan
12-13-2012, 08:26 PM
Piss on all that. Just send the six from each conference with the best records. No more 7-9 division winners ****ting on the playoffs (Seattle). Top 12 go, everybody else stays home!

Hamrob
12-13-2012, 08:53 PM
I like the idea of adding 2 more teams and eliminating the bye all together. If you have the best record in the NFL...then you shouldn't need an additonal advantage. it also accomplished their desire to make more $$$...so be it.

errand
12-13-2012, 10:35 PM
Contradicts anything he has ever said about player safety.

so if he said they were gonna reduce the number of games you'd be for that? Personally I think expanding the number of games is OK....

I would go to an 18 game schedule...eliminating two preseason games. You would play 6 games in your division (home and away)...and then one game vs. every team in your conference's other divisions (6 home, 6 away) rotating home and away every other year

this would eliminate a lot of the stupid tie breaker scenarios as there will be a head to head game no matter which teams are tied...the top 6 teams make the playoffs, keep the seeding like it is.

The Super Bowl would go back to the only way AFC vs. NFC happens outside of preseason.

a typical season could look like this -

HOME
Raiders
Chargers
Chiefs
Steelers
Browns
Bills
Jets
Texans
Colts

AWAY
Raiders
Chargers
Chiefs
Ravens
Bengals
Patriots
Dolphins
Titans
Jaguars

..and the season isn't any longer, but you don't feel like you wasted your money watching the last two preseason games as ticket holders would get to see two more regular season games.

ol#7
12-14-2012, 02:31 AM
Why any fan would be against this is beyond me. Bye week is stupid & the NFL revolves around the numbers 4/8/16......4 division winners and 4 wildcards per conference.

4 games Saturday & 4 games Sunday....12-3-6-9 pm on FOX, CBS, NBC & ESPN.

It would be by far the best weekend of the NFL calendar year fanwise.

Rep. This Exactly this.

I am really suprised so many don't see it this way, I think it is just a Goodell reflex. Watching the Broncos go 10-6 in 81, 11-5 in 85 and 9-7 2006 and stay home sucked. I know the field was smaller in 81/85 06? and not the current 12 but the same argument exists, just look at the 11-5 Patriots staying home as proof. Your much more likely to get a ****ty division winner than extra wild card team with a bad record with the 4 division setup. It almost guarantees it.

Beantown Bronco
12-14-2012, 04:51 AM
Yeah you could maybe add days. But then it adds other headaches. When the season comes down to one game, you don't want a round 2 Saturday game with one team that played on Saturday vs one who played way late on Monday. So you'd almost have to set it up so the Monday winners played each other the following week. And that in itself could get tricky to juggle when you're dealing with 4 time zones.

Easily avoidable. Monday winners can't play the following Saturday. They don't have to play each other. They could easily face Sunday winners from the week before. They get a guaranteed Sunday slot the following week if they win. It's actually LESS of a disadvantage than the current system which forces Sunday first round winners to play again the next Saturday in a short week against teams that had a bye week and were at home resting for the last 2+ weeks with no travelling.

Plus I'm not sure two late games on Monday Night would bring the kind of ratings the NFL is accustomed to for playoff games.

Their ratings for those two slots are currently 0.0.

rbackfactory80
12-14-2012, 06:42 AM
Lol

we get more games



Nobody wants to see an 8-8 Cincy team heading to Foxboro in January.

BroncoBeavis
12-14-2012, 06:56 AM
Easily avoidable. Monday winners can't play the following Saturday. They don't have to play each other. They could easily face Sunday winners from the week before. They get a guaranteed Sunday slot the following week if they win. It's actually LESS of a disadvantage than the current system which forces Sunday first round winners to play again the next Saturday in a short week against teams that had a bye week and were at home resting for the last 2+ weeks with no travelling.

Some people see that bye cushion the top 2 seeds get as a feature, not a bug. And both those Monday games would be way later than either current Sunday game. Plus I don't think you'd have as much control as you think over who plays when the next weekend. At least not in the current top seed remaining style format.

Fedaykin
12-14-2012, 07:10 AM
Some people see that bye cushion the top 2 seeds get as a feature, not a bug. And both those Monday games would be way later than either current Sunday game. Plus I don't think you'd have as much control as you think over who plays when the next weekend. At least not in the current top seed remaining style format.

The bye is way too much of a competitive advantage IMO -- especially because it helps the first two seeds a ton in the player health dept., which isn't a factor I like influencing the outcome of games.

Beantown Bronco
12-14-2012, 07:47 AM
Some people see that bye cushion the top 2 seeds get as a feature, not a bug.

I'm simply rebutting your argument about the "short week" between a Monday night game and a Sat or Sunday game being some disadvantage.

It's no more of a disadvantage than one team getting a bye week and the other having an extra game 6 days before, which is the system we have now. It's not even close. The current system puts lower seeds at a bigger disadvantage.

And both those Monday games would be way later than either current Sunday game.

So. It's still more even than one team not playing at all.

I'm sure if you proposed the option to the lower ranked teams, ALL of them would sacrifice the one less day of prep if it meant they'd be going against a team that had to play that weekend too, instead of sitting home, resting up and getting healthy.

Plus I don't think you'd have as much control as you think over who plays when the next weekend. At least not in the current top seed remaining style format.

Why not? One Monday night game per conference. The winner goes on to face their next opponent on Sunday, period. They lose a whole ONE day. The Sat and Sun winners from the first weekend go on to play again the following Sat or Sun just as they do now. There's really no difference. It's just like the current system where Sunday winners sometimes play the following Saturday.

Kaylore
12-14-2012, 07:52 AM
Why any fan would be against this is beyond me. Bye week is stupid & the NFL revolves around the numbers 4/8/16......4 division winners and 4 wildcards per conference.

4 games Saturday & 4 games Sunday....12-3-6-9 pm on FOX, CBS, NBC & ESPN.

It would be by far the best weekend of the NFL calendar year fanwise.

It's hard to disagree with this. Letting four teams do nothing for a week is a waste of football. The only thing it is would water-down the "fighting for the top seed" thing but would put more emphasis on just winning your division since all division winners would have to play the first playoff week.

Kaylore
12-14-2012, 07:53 AM
The bye is way too much of a competitive advantage IMO -- especially because it helps the first two seeds a ton in the player health dept., which isn't a factor I like influencing the outcome of games.

Being healthy is part of getting to the SB.

BroncoBeavis
12-14-2012, 08:29 AM
Why not? One Monday night game per conference. The winner goes on to face their next opponent on Sunday, period. They lose a whole ONE day. The Sat and Sun winners from the first weekend go on to play again the following Sat or Sun just as they do now. There's really no difference. It's just like the current system where Sunday winners sometimes play the following Saturday.

That's a good way to put it, I hadn't thought of it in those terms.

But it doesn't resolve the seeding problem though. Depending on winners and losers, it could potentially give a rest advantage in week two to lower (worse) seeds vs higher surviving seeds.

So it seems like you'd be diminishing the importance of seeding even further. As Kaylore just said, the big focus would become winning your division. Which does nothing for the current 'cruise control' problem the NFL has over the last few weeks of the season (other than maybe make it worse.)

And I'd rather have two or three more weeks of a competitive regular season vs a few extra games for +- .500 teams one weekend.

It currently is how it should be.

BroncoBeavis
12-14-2012, 08:41 AM
Lol

we get more games



Nobody wants to see an 8-8 Cincy team heading to Foxboro in January.

I think as it stands today the current AFC 8 seed would be held by the Jets.

Yep.

Beantown Bronco
12-14-2012, 09:09 AM
But it doesn't resolve the seeding problem though. Depending on winners and losers, it could potentially give a rest advantage in week two to lower (worse) seeds vs higher surviving seeds.


How about this? Give the 1 seed from each conference their choice of time slot. They can choose any of the time slots on any day from Saturday to Monday they want, assuming no conflicts with other events in their stadium. Then let the 2s choose from what's left and keep going on down until the worst seeded team is left with the last slot.

I think this could be very interesting and it would add yet another element of strategy for the coaches to consider.

So it seems like you'd be diminishing the importance of seeding even further. As Kaylore just said, the big focus would become winning your division. Which does nothing for the current 'cruise control' problem the NFL has over the last few weeks of the season (other than maybe make it worse.)

My proposal above solves that at least to some degree, don't you think? The ability to choose when you play could be huge.

55CrushEm
12-14-2012, 09:16 AM
Rep. This Exactly this.

I am really suprised so many don't see it this way, I think it is just a Goodell reflex. Watching the Broncos go 10-6 in 81, 11-5 in 85 and 9-7 2006 and stay home sucked. I know the field was smaller in 81/85 06? and not the current 12 but the same argument exists, just look at the 11-5 Patriots staying home as proof. Your much more likely to get a ****ty division winner than extra wild card team with a bad record with the 4 division setup. It almost guarantees it.

Yep. Up until 1990, the playoff field was 5 teams per conference. All 3 division winners had byes, and the 2 wildcards played each other the first weekend.....for a true "wildcard" matchup. Then there were 4 teams for the divisional round, as is the case now.

In 1990, they added a 3rd wildcard, for a total of 6 playoff teams.....which meant 1 of the 3 division winners no longer had a bye, and only the top 2 (rather than all 3) had byes. Still, 4 teams remained for the divisional round.

Then in 2002, the re-alignment happened......we still have 6 teams....but 1 wildcard had to be eliminated in place of a 4th division winner.

I guess the league just figures we've been at 6 playoff teams for nearly a quarter century.......time to change things up (again).

I said before, I might consider adding ONE more, to make the field 7 teams. That way ONLY the 1-seed gets a bye. All the marbles, if you will.....they get the only bye and homefield throughout.

BroncoBeavis
12-14-2012, 09:34 AM
How about this? Give the 1 seed from each conference their choice of time slot. They can choose any of the time slots on any day from Saturday to Monday they want, assuming no conflicts with other events in their stadium. Then let the 2s choose from what's left and keep going on down until the worst seeded team is left with the last slot.

I think this could be very interesting and it would add yet another element of strategy for the coaches to consider.

Except by the nature of that decision, you're giving the 'best' time slot to not only the #1 seed, but to the #8 seed as well. Which could complicate matters for the week after. Plus I'm not sure the NFL would want to give up all that scheduling flexibility. Imagine an east coast team being forced into a west coast late Monday Night playoff game. They'd be up all night and into Tuesday before they got home.

I think part of it for me is that NFL is the only major pro sport I can think of (ok maybe that other "football" :)) where one bad day at the office can cost you an entire season. I think respecting seeding advantage is maybe the only way the NFL really balances that in any fashion by respecting the whole season's body of work. I hate to see that diminished any further.

Putting together a 13-3 season only to guarantee you a game against some scrub 7-9 team who could shock or injure you out of title contention seems like it's just going too far.

Beantown Bronco
12-14-2012, 10:11 AM
Except by the nature of that decision, you're giving the 'best' time slot to not only the #1 seed, but to the #8 seed as well.

That's part of the strategy. The #1 team picks the slot that's best for them but might not be so good for the #8 team. Maybe #8 is banged up, so the #1 team goes for a Saturday slot to give them less time to get healthy, etc. Maybe #1 really likes night games and #8 struggles in night games. It's not a given that it's going to be the "best" slot for the lower seeds.

Which could complicate matters for the week after. Plus I'm not sure the NFL would want to give up all that scheduling flexibility. Imagine an east coast team being forced into a west coast late Monday Night playoff game. They'd be up all night and into Tuesday before they got home.

All the more reason to fight until the end to get the best seed possible. Don't leave your fate to someone else.

Putting together a 13-3 season only to guarantee you a game against some scrub 7-9 team who could shock or injure you out of title contention seems like it's just going too far.

That happened to New Orleans a few years ago in our current system. Clearly, it would happen more if you add more teams to the mix; but it's not like it doesn't already happen in our current system.

Cito Pelon
12-14-2012, 11:23 AM
this. $$$$$ for owners. without having to pay more for refs. or players.

Well, players would get playoff appearance money. The players might be all for expansion.

I don't know the mechanics of it, but it doesn't sound too bad of an idea. If the players and owners are for it it's fine with me.

Finger Roll
12-14-2012, 11:38 AM
Horrible idea. This is the reason I can't follow basketball and hockey during the regular season. Makes those games seem pointless.