Format change can be good

Is more always better?
Roger Goodell seems to think so, at least when it comes to the playoffs.
On a day loaded with games with playoff implications, the NFL announced Sunday that its owners will vote in March on a proposed new playoff system that would expand the field to 14 from the current 12.
The base of the new system is simple.
Four division winners and three wild card teams from each conference would make the playoffs. The No. 1 seed in each conference would receive a first-round bye, and the remaining teams would all play on what is now wild-card weekend.
There has been some discussion of whether the bracket would be re-seeded, with the lowest remaining seed playing the No. 1 seed in round two, as is currently done. But that issue has yet to be decided.
So, is having more playoff teams better?

The good
The positives of adding a team are fairly clear.
It would make sure virtually every deserving team advances to the postseason, rather than leaving out those with 10 or more wins. The Arizona Cardinals were in that position last season, having won 10 games while playing in the best division in football.
This is a story that plays out frequently, a 10-6 team sitting at home during the tournament. In 2012 it was Chicago, and in 2010 it was Tampa Bay and the New York Giants. The 2008 New England Patriots came up short despite going 11-5 with Matt Cassel filling in for an injured Tom Brady.
In a 14-team playoff format, most of those squads would have advanced.
The other key benefit would be giving a bigger reward to the No. 1 seeds.
Currently, the top two seeds in each conference get a first-round bye. The only real advantage to owning the conference’s best record is getting to host the championship game.
The No. 1 seed getting the only first-round bye in addition to home-field advantage throughout the playoffs would give teams even more for which to play.

The bad
While it would be nice for all 10-win teams to make the playoffs, expanding the field to 14 teams would also let some undeserving squads in.
While last season Arizona would have made the tournament in the NFC, the AFC would have added mediocre 8-8 Pittsburgh teams in both 2012 and ’13. In some years the cut-off would remain at 9-7, but most of the time at least one of the additional playoff teams would be a squad that barely broke even.
In professional sports, making the tournament should be an accomplishment. This is an area where the NFL and Major League Baseball have had the right approach.
In MLB, 10 of the 30 teams (33 percent) play in the postseason. In the NFL, it’s 12 out of 32 (38 percent). Meanwhile, more than half of the NBA and NHL teams advance.
In the last two years the Atlanta Hawks and Milwaukee Bucks were in the NBA tournament despite 38-44 regular-season records. In 2011 the Indiana Pacers advanced with a 37-45 mark.
A playoff berth should be a reward for a strong season, not a participation prize.

The solution
The two main reasons for playoff expansion are obvious — rewarding deserving teams and making money.
To handle the first issue, require that all playoff teams must finish above .500 even if they win their division. No longer would 8-8 (or worse) division winners take playoff positions from more deserving teams.
To solve the second issue, return to an 18-week regular season with each team receiving two bye weeks.
This change would give the NFL not just two additional playoff games, but an entire extra week of football without putting any additional strain on the players.
It would also allow the league to fix its Thursday night problem — the games with teams on three days rest have been terrible — by strategically giving teams the bye prior to their mid-week games.
In the case of playoff teams, more would not be better.
But more weeks of football? Count me in.­