Wallyhorse

Should the Conference Championships be two legs, total aggregate score?

Should the Conference Championships be two legs?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Conference Championships be two legs, total aggregate score like it is for many playoff rounds in soccer?

    • Yes
      1
    • No
      33


Recommended Posts

This is something I have brought up before, but one thing I think the NFL should do is take a page from how the Champions League in Soccer do playoff rounds for the conference title game and make it a two-leg playoff.  In this format: 

The first leg would be played at the lower seed and even if that leg ended in a tie there would be no overtime because it would be the first of two legs.

The second leg would be played at the higher seed.  If after the second leg the total aggregate score is tied, the teams come right back and play a 20-minute, non-Sudden death mini-game (two 10-minute halves), with each team getting four time.  If after 20 minutes it's still tied, then it goes to sudden death, BUT unlike the current regular season/playoff OT, each team is guaranteed one  possession even if the team going first scores a TD.

This adds a week to the NFL season and rewards a team for making the conference championship by at least hosting the first of the two legs while the team with home field advantage has the second game and any mini-game/OT that is needed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plache said:

Stop watching ******* soccer.  :slap:

What is so wrong with Soccer?  It's one thing they have right.

I like the idea of a two-leg playoff with both teams hosting a leg.  It's gives CBS and FOX an extra week of playoff games. 

Love how people poo-poo changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you did this--which is a hell of a big "if"--probably roughly half the time the second game would be effectively meaningless because of the margin the team won the first game.  There's a huge difference between needing to just win a game and needing to win it by 15 or 20 points.  

Why am I thinking so deeply about this travesty of an idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

What is so wrong with Soccer?  It's one thing they have right.

I like the idea of a two-leg playoff with both teams hosting a leg.  It's gives CBS and FOX an extra week of playoff games. 

Love how people poo-poo changes.

That may work for soccer, but I'm sorry it's a terrible idea for football.   Why would anyone want to copy the most boring sport on the planet?  Terrible idea.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stand soccer.    To me, there is nothing better or more exciting than the NFL playoffs.     Teams get 1 chance per round to play their best.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah terrible idea for the NFL. Too many factors and elements. It works in soccer as its a much more straight forward game and generally speaking it's lower scoring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 55thAndRams said:

Even if you did this--which is a hell of a big "if"--probably roughly half the time the second game would be effectively meaningless because of the margin the team won the first game.  There's a huge difference between needing to just win a game and needing to win it by 15 or 20 points.  

Why am I thinking so deeply about this travesty of an idea?

Say the lower seed that hosts the first game is up 34-7 after that game.  The higher seed hosting Game 2 would be pulling out all kinds of stops and other things, especially if such a team is way better at home.

It would make for a VERY interesting second game, especially early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget, the Champion's League (and that's a laugh 🙄) is a construct to make more money for the elite clubs.

It used to be just a straight knockout comp between the league winners across Europe.

Hence, the 2 leg home/away thing is fair enough.

Keep the NFL as it is.

Would we have really wanted the Eagles to have had to go to Atlanta first last year ?

Win or go home works great I think.

Though if someone could explain the interminable number of play off games in MLB/NBA 🤔, I don't get that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

If the NFL ever did anything like this, they'll have officially...

tenor.gif.19add66945152dab6b4adb88b1a79f8e.gif

Is that a clip of the Fonz jumping the shark? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wally, why do you even watch the NFL? It’s obvious you seem to hate it. You’re always looking to change it to be more like college, the NBA, soccer. I’m sure you’ve probably had ideas for changes inspired by hockey, baseball, and hell, probably even NASCAR. 

The game does not need the bizarre changes you come up with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gregbwfc1 said:

Though if someone could explain the interminable number of play off games in MLB/NBA 🤔, I don't get that.

The NBA is best of 7 throughout. (It used to be best of 5 in the first round only back from 2002~ before, can't recall the date.)
Then more recently they changed the finals format. Was still best of 7, but instead of 2-2-1-1-1, it went 2-3-2. This was to cut down on travel time for teams between games. I think it also rewarded the lower seed a bit more, having 3 games at home in a row was huge. It has since moved back to 2-2-1-1-1 since 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Wally, why do you even watch the NFL? It’s obvious you seem to hate it. You’re always looking to change it to be more like college, the NBA, soccer. I’m sure you’ve probably had ideas for changes inspired by hockey, baseball, and hell, probably even NASCAR. 

The game does not need the bizarre changes you come up with. 

An original @Wallyhorse thread is still infinitely better than the overabundance of QB threads littering the MB.

At least Wally provides outside the box ideas with critical thinking in his threads while being open to dialogue/criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Northern Green Wings said:

What? No way. I strongly dislike this idea and don't even feel like entertaining it.

It’s the "more football is better” mentality. 

But this would be a huge fail. 

Teams would get all conservative  and overly cautious and it would take the intensity out of it. 

I like it exactly as it is.  Only thing I would change is overtime rules. 

I would simply add a 5th quarter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Say the lower seed that hosts the first game is up 34-7 after that game.  The higher seed hosting Game 2 would be pulling out all kinds of stops and other things, especially if such a team is way better at home.

It would make for a VERY interesting second game, especially early on.

What's interesting about watching a team play prevent defense from the very outset of the game?  If the trailing team hasn't scored by the beginning of the second, the game is basically over and half the players on the trailing team will give up. 

Looks like this poll is coming down to the wire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now