Should the NFL and MLB Really Expand Their Playoffs?

Playoff expansion adds drama at the cost of rewarding the most deserving winners. Is it worth the trade-off?

FEBRUARY IS NORMALLY A PRETTY SLOW SPORTS MONTH. It’s the dregs of the NBA season and college basketball promotes rivalries and conference play but everyone’s just waiting for March, while the NFL and MLB are typically still in hibernation mode much of the month.

Not so this February. Both the NFL and MLB made major waves by introducing new playoff formats that would expand the playoffs for football and baseball, giving more teams a chance and changing the playoffs as we know them. And, predictably, people are in an outrage.

Neither the NFL or MLB has actually accepted the new playoff proposal yet. Both are still in discussions between players, owners, commissioners, and collective bargaining agencies. But it sure looks like there are changes on the horizon. So is playoff expansion actually worthwhile, and what are the ripple effects for football and baseball if either proposal passes?

NFL PLAYOFF EXPANSION PROPOSAL

We’ll start with the NFL, where the expansion formula is a bit easier to follow. Right now, 12 teams make the playoffs, six from each conference. The top two in each conference get a first-round bye, setting up 3v6 and 4v5 matchups where each division winner gets at least one home game, and the tournament plays out from there.

In the proposed playoff expansion, 14 teams would make the playoffs, with one bonus team from each conference making the cut. Instead of 37.5% of the league playing postseason football, that number increases to 43.8%, just two teams away from half of the league.

Under the new format, only the 1-seed gets a first-round bye. The other three division winners would host 2v7, 3v6, and 4v5 Wildcard Round games. Those last two matchups are identical to right now, so the only real change is the 2v7 game. This season, the Green Bay Packers and Kansas City Chiefs got to rest the first weekend. Under the new format, they’d have been playing the Los Angeles Rams and Pittsburgh Steelers, respectively.

After that first weekend, we’re still down to four teams in each conference, and everything plays out normally from there. A rested 1-seed gets to play the lowest remaining seed, the other two teams play each other, and so on. Under this proposal, the NFL would also expand the regular season to 17 games instead of 16. There wouldn’t be an extra week of playoff games — just two extra games that first weekend.

Two extra playoff games sound fun, two more fan bases get to enjoy playoff football, and the race for the 1-seed becomes more important. Win-win, right?

NFL PLAYOFF EXPANSION RIPPLE EFFECTS

For two teams, this is an obvious win. The 7-seed is not a thing right now. That’s called watching the playoffs from your couch. In this scenario, the 7-seed would have to go on the road and beat the 2-seed, then the 1 just to make the Conference Finals. It’ll be rough. But it’s basically the same road as the current 6-seed, and we’ve seen a few 6-seeds win the Super Bowl just in the last couple decades — I see you, Eli Manning.

For that 7-seed, their Super Bowl odds go from 0.00% to… well, not zero. That’s a win, and it’s a big win for the NFL to add revenue from two more playoff games and add meaning to a handful of additional regular season games down the stretch.

Meanwhile, this is a mammoth loss for the 2-seed. They’re the only loser here, and they are a huge, massive loser. Right now, the Super Bowl features a ton of 1- and 2-seeds, teams benefiting from the bye week. Many pundits try to argue that that’s simply because the 1- and 2-seeds are better teams — and they are. But that’s not why they why they have such a strong chance of reaching the Super Bowl.

Winning football games is hard, even for great teams. The simple reality is that the best way to win a football game is always, ALWAYS to not have to play that game. Even the best teams playing at home in a favorable matchup are still 75 or 80% favorites in a playoff game. Newsflash: you win 100% of the games during the bye week.

And that’s without adding the value of that week of rest. Remember, the NFL is adding an extra regular season game. A 2-seed will now have to play 21 football games with only one regular season bye, possibly back in September or October. Even if the 2-seed gets to the Conference Finals, they now have a better chance of facing the 1-seed on the road there and a higher chance of facing a 1-seed in the Super Bowl too.

Everything about the 2-seed’s path gets harder. Right now, a typical 2-seed has around a 12-to-15% chance of winning the Super Bowl. Those odds drop to just 7 or 8% under this new format. You might think that looks like only a few percentage points, but it cuts their odds nearly in half in some scenarios. It’s a massive difference.

The new setup is pretty similar for the 4, 5, and 6-seeds. It’s slightly better for the 3-seed. Right now, the 3 has to beat the 6 and then they’re guaranteed to hit the road to face a rested 2-seed. Under the new format, that 2-seed will occasionally be upset in the first round, leaving the 3-seed hosting a much worse team instead of traveling to the 2. That possibility increases the 3-seed’s Super Bowl chances by 25 or even 50%, depending on the year.

But the biggest winner by far is the 1-seed. You know the 2-seed’s path is harder in the new setup? Well, that 2-seed is typically the biggest stumbling block in the 1-seed’s path to the Super Bowl, so the 1-seed benefits greatly from the possibility that they avoid the 2 altogether.

Most years, they’ll be a heavy favorite (think 80% range) in their first playoff game, likely against a 5, 6, or 7-seed. That’s an 80% chance the 1-seed is hosting the Conference Championship. The odds of meeting the 2-seed there drop from something like 65% to under 50%. Heck, some years the 1-seed could make the Super Bowl without even playing a division winner.

In the end, NFL playoff expansion will focus on the 7-seeds, but the real difference is between the 1- and 2-seeds. The regular season will become even more important, and 1-seeds will become heavy Super Bowl favorites. If you’re a Baltimore fan, you’d probably like to run that back this postseason. If you’re a Chiefs fan, not so much.

I don’t mind the extra playoff game, and I like seeing the best team actually crowned champion when all is said and done. The Kansas City Chiefs are Super Bowl champions, but I’m positive the Baltimore Ravens were the best team in football this season. It would be nice if we’d remember that.

MLB PLAYOFF EXPANSION PROPOSAL

Years ago, the baseball “playoffs” were simply the World Series. The best team from the American League played the National League champs in the World Series. That’s it — two-team playoffs. That setup eventually expanded to four teams, then eight when MLB went to six divisions and invited a wildcard team. A few years ago they added a second wildcard from each league and went to 10. Those wildcard teams play a one-game playoff and the “real” playoffs move on from there.

Under the new proposal, MLB would expand its playoffs to include a whopping 14 teams. That would mean 46.7% of the majors making the playoffs, almost half. Remember, only 33.3% make the playoffs right now, and only 26.7% get more than one game. That is a drastic change.

Three division winners still make the playoffs, seeded one to three. They would be joined by four wildcards. From there, the setup is similar to the NFL proposal, with one twist. Instead of the 2-seed automatically playing the 7, MLB would air a special TV selection show and the 2-seed would pick their opponent from the 5, 6, and 7-seeds. The 3-seed would select next, with the 4-seed hosting the remaining team.

That would create an entire additional playoff round. The 2- through 4-seeds would host three-game series against their opponents — no home games for the bottom three wildcard teams — and MLB thinks they’d squeeze those games in between Sunday’s regular season end and the typical playoff start on Thursday, meaning we’d keep the 162 regular season games and wouldn’t extend the schedule at all.

The details from there are unclear, but presumably the setup after that new opening round would remain similar. The four remaining teams would play a best-of-five, then seven-game series for the League Championships and World Series.

MLB PLAYOFF EXPANSION RIPPLE EFFECTS

Like in the NFL, the huge winner here is the 1-seed.

In baseball, that’s a good thing. The 162-game regular season means there’s a very good chance that the team atop the standings is actually the best team, and this rewards that team and gives them a much higher chance of making the World Series.

If you like parity, that’s a bummer, but the baseball playoffs are already a crap shoot. Most fans like parity because only a couple teams are the best, and that’s not them. But in that year your team is the best, you prefer the best teams have a better chance in the playoffs. And in the end, we want the best teams playing in the World Series and repping their season as champions.

Make no mistake about it — the rest of the playoffs will still be a giant crap shoot. You know how wild and unpredictable the one-game playoffs always feel? Three-game series won’t be much different. Every game after the opener is a possible close-out game, which means 12 potential first-round elimination games every year instead of two solitary wildcard games.

If you’re wondering why baseball is considering this change, look no further than those 12 extra must-watch games. If the home team loses the opener, they have to pull out every stop the rest of the way, throwing off their rotation for the entire playoffs. Another advantage to being the 1-seed.

Pundits argue this new setup punishes the 1-seed, and that’s nonsense. The best way to win a playoff series is to not have to play that playoff series. The 1-seed can sit at home and rest, the same amount of rest they’re getting right now by the way, and get their rotation and bullpen in order. In many cases, they’ll pitch their ace in their playoff opener against some back-of-the-rotation guy that’s the only rested body left after a grueling three-games-in-three-days bloodbath. Know what’s better than having to win a best-of-five? Only having to win two of four.

Three-game series make it impossible for a stud pitcher to dominate a series since they can only make one start, but it stilll means a ton of randomness. Hitters will only get 10-to-12 at-bats, even if the series goes three games.

One upside of the new format is that every seed matters, heightening the excitement of those final few regular season weeks. Think of all the races that matter. The 1v2 battle is huge. Division winners still get to host, and 2v3 matters for hosting a second-round series. The top wildcard (4-seed) gets a home series, and remember, that’s all three games. And the 7-seed is fighting off everyone else just to make the playoffs.

Some of those races will be settled, but many won’t be. That means a lot more interest in the final weeks of the regular season, and it means more eyeballs and more revenue for MLB. Look no further for the reason for this expansion.

On the one hand, it makes sense to put more emphasis on how the regular season shapes up. With 162 games, there’s enough sample to separate the wheat from the chaff and rank the best teams mostly in order. But the new playoff setup completely undoes all that good. A three-game playoff series is still almost as much of a crap shoot as a one-game wildcard, even if the better team hosts all three games. Homefield advantage means precious little in baseball; it’s about as valuable as if you start the visiting team with one out in the first inning. It’s a 3 or 4% advantage. That’s something, but not much. It means our wildcard teams have almost as good a chance at advancing in three random games as the teams that proved themselves over 162.

Under the new setup, a 2-seed has around a 60–to-65% chance of winning that three-game series. That means a 35-to-40% chance that the second best team in the league is eliminated three or four days after the playoffs begin, maybe because of one or two unlucky swings of the bat. Woof.

Heck, both division winners could go out around 15% of the time, leaving the 1-seed alone with a trio of wildcards to fight for the World Series. Really? That’s how we want to reward a 162-game regular season? A 2-seed fights hard all season and wins 98 games, and we reward them with a one-out advantage over the team that squeaked in with 82 wins? No, thanks.

The baseball regular season is already built around three-game series. Think how often your team loses one of those series to some cruddy opponent, often because of some random, rotten luck. That’s what you want in the playoffs?

If you’re a casual fan that likes drama, these new playoff setups are for you. MLB is drooling over its televised selection show, and imagine the bad blood. Each first-round underdog would know they were called out by the division winner, and teams might have to play someone they “avoided” in a later round. That’s juicy, and so are all the extra elimination games.

But if you’re a fan of rewarding deserving winners instead of randomness? This setup is definitely not for you.

Playoff expansion is always fun for the extra teams dancing and casuals looking for drama.

But if we want a real, deserving champion?

Sometimes less is more. Let’s just hope the NFL and MLB come to their senses and realize that… ■

Follow Brandon on Medium or @wheatonbrando for more sports, television, humor, and culture. Visit the rest of Brandon’s writing archives here.