Official "No More 7th Seeds in the NFL Playoffs" Thread

Should the #2 seed go back to receiving a bye for Wild Card Weekend?


  • Total voters
    71

Lil Bape the PostGod

2PM on the coli
Bushed
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
28,230
Reputation
-6,287
Daps
103,176
Reppin
SOUND
It’s meant for money and a story book ending that can create more money…somewhere in the future some team will be like 1-7 and finish 9-8 once their emerging QB has his coming out moment after finally recovering from 2 broken arms and they’ll go on to win or at least play the super bowl as a 7 seed

it’s what they want…will they get it? Idk
 

klientel

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
14,235
Reputation
967
Daps
56,842
Low key they need to ditch the first round bye weeks all together. It’s too big of an advantage. But there isn’t a good way to fix it without adding more teams, which would be bad.

I read somewhere that you have almost a 75% chance of making the SB if you have a bye in the first round. And in the last 20 years only like 4 wild card teams have won the SB
 

broller

Superstar
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
18,859
Reputation
1,520
Daps
56,233
There's no need for a 7th seed. These leagues are creating artificial hype by turning subpar teams into "playoff teams" via expansion.
If you are the 7th seed, you being in the playoffs is more about the league squeezing out some extra $$$ than it is your team being a real contender.

Best of luck winning three straight road games vs top teams, then beating the best team from the other conference when you are the 7th best team in your own.

Yeah, the Eagles were really going to win @TB, then @GB then probably @LAR. And we're supposed to pretend the Steelers had any chance to win @KC, then @Tenn, then probably @Buffalo.

Indy last year had a chance

People used to think wild card teams couldn't win the SB until the Broncos did in '97. Then people thought wild card teams after realignment in 2002 couldn't win it (5th and 6th seeds) because they'd have to win 4 road games. Then Pittsburgh did it in 2005, as a 6th seed, beating the 3rd, 1st and 2nd seeds in the AFC and then the 1st seed in the NFC.

The Packers did almost the same in 2010 also, except they took out the No.2 seed in the AFC.
 

broller

Superstar
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
18,859
Reputation
1,520
Daps
56,233
I think we could see the league expand to 36 teams with 6 divisions and an 18 game schedule.

I would hope they would keep 14 playoff qualifiers. 14/36 teams would be reasonable.
 

Based Lord Zedd

Colts or Die
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
9,215
Reputation
1,120
Daps
24,777
Reppin
Houston TX
Indy last year had a chance

People used to think wild card teams couldn't win the SB until the Broncos did in '97. Then people thought wild card teams after realignment in 2002 couldn't win it (5th and 6th seeds) because they'd have to win 4 road games. Then Pittsburgh did it in 2005, as a 6th seed, beating the 3rd, 1st and 2nd seeds in the AFC and then the 1st seed in the NFC.

The Packers did almost the same in 2010 also, except they took out the No.2 seed in the AFC.

Indy didn't have a chance last year. That team was one and done at most. This is exactly what the NFL does, convince people Indy had a chance to win @Buffalo, then @KC, the AFCCG then the Bucs in the SB.


Only two 6th seeds have won the SB (i believe) since they introduced it in 1990. A 7th seed is even worse than a 6th so it's possible we don't see a 7th seed winner for 20 years.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: 19-

broller

Superstar
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
18,859
Reputation
1,520
Daps
56,233
Indy didn't have a chance last year. That team was one and done at most. This is exactly what the NFL does, convince people Indy had a chance to win @Buffalo, then @KC, the AFCCG then the Bucs in the SB.


Only two 6th seeds have won the SB (i believe) since they introduced it in 1990. A 7th seed is even worse than a 6th so it's possible we don't see a 7th seed winner for 20 years.

How were they one and done at most if they lost by 3 to the Bills? They damn near won that game which would have made them not "one and done"
 

Based Lord Zedd

Colts or Die
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
9,215
Reputation
1,120
Daps
24,777
Reppin
Houston TX
How were they one and done at most if they lost by 3 to the Bills? They damn near won that game which would have made them not "one and done"

I may have misused the term, I meant one win max and done.

I don't care if they played the Bills close. This is the NFL, anything can happen in one game. Indy was not a real contender and the odds of them winning the SB was extremely low. Even then Indy isn't a good example because they are an 11 win team that doesn't represent the typical quality of a 7th seed. Look at the other 7 seeds so far:

The 8-8 Bears?
The 9-7 Eagles?
The 9-7-1 Steelers?

There's no way you can convince me that someone looked at the NFL from a competitive standpoint and said "we need more teams like these in the playoffs." Nah, they saw the money and the ability to market a 3 day "super" wild card weekend. Record wise they are off to an 0-4 start.

Sure the NFL can throw a 7th seed in get a close game or upset, but ultimately 7th seeds aren't winning anything meaningful. This is about $
 
Last edited:

staticshock

Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Messages
31,606
Reputation
3,745
Daps
138,415
Reppin
Atlanta
you shouldn't even enter this thread with your irrelevant ass "we don't know if we wanna rebuild or retool so we stuck in purgatory" ass franchise

beat y’all though :umad:

the rebuilt is happening faster than expected. From 4 wins to 7. NFC south champs next season :wow:
 

broller

Superstar
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
18,859
Reputation
1,520
Daps
56,233
I may have misused the term, I meant one win max and done.

I don't care if they played the Bills close. This is the NFL, anything can happen in one game. Indy was not a real contender and the odds of them winning the SB was extremely low. Even then Indy isn't a good example because they are an 11 win team that doesn't represent the typical quality of a 7th seed. Look at the other 7 seeds so far:

The 8-8 Bears?
The 9-7 Eagles?
The 9-7-1 Steelers?

There's no way you can convince me that someone looked at the NFL from a competitive standpoint and said "we need more teams like these in the playoffs." Nah, they saw the money and the ability to market a 3 day "super" wild card weekend. Record wise they are off to an 0-4 start.

Sure the NFL can throw a 7th seed in get a close game or upset, but ultimately 7th seeds aren't winning anything meaningful. This is about $

Yeah I never felt it was anything but for money. But what I'm saying is, as you said too, anything can happen in the NFL game. In a single playoff, a team can go far. Not to mention, 9 and 7 winning the Super Bowl is not anything unprecedented. The 2011 New York Giants were 9-7. The 2008 Cardinals were 9- 7.
 
Top