Playoff Seeding Debate

[joe horn]

Let's have one. I'll start by cutting off the "winning a division should have meaning" crowd by agreeing in principle. You secure a playoff game by winning the division crown. What I, and apparently a growing number of fans want to know is: why should teams with inferior records continue hosting those who outperformed them in the regular season?

**Disclaimer: this is not about Saints and Eagles. We had multiple chances at the #2 seed and we blew it, no butthurt etc. from me, this is purely for the purposes of discussion**

[Willy Mo]

Is winning a division harder than getting a wild card spot?

[joe horn]

Is winning a division harder than getting a wild card spot?

Depends on the division, doesn't it? Realignment effectively devalued the weight of division championships already by spreading them thin. Now you can theoretically win your crippled division in an off year with a 6-10 record (or worse?! help me out math ppl). Such a team hosting a 12-4 WC smacks of laziness on the league's part IMO.

I had this crazy idea of a limited spoils-to-the-winner system, where if the record of the lower seeded team was superior to the higher seeded team they eliminated, then the advancing team's seed would be upgraded at best, or at worst put back into play among the surviving pool of contenders. Other than people hating change, what would be the pitfall there?

[DD: Objective Elite]

If we're seeding based on record, I would then say eliminate the conferences, add 2 teams to the Po pool (16 teams) and seed them 1-16 based on record. If teams are tied and one o

f them won their division, they would get the higher seed.

Now, start the 'PO are too watered down already'

And if that superior DC in NO can't slow the eagles down like kiffin did twice

Is he really that much of a better coach?

^jelly

[meezy0236]

When the season starts what's a teams 1st goal?

Win more games than the worst division champ?

Or is it to win the division?

If the saints won the division I highly doubt you're posting this thread.

Actually, it's not so much about the Saints as it is about 8-7-1 Packers hosting 12-4 San Fran. The Saints had there chances and blew it so they get what they get.

[DD: Objective Elite]

Not at all.

IMO the cowboys defenders aren't a very smart group outside of Lee and maybe Church

And to have a group of players like that coupled with a scheme diverse coordinator is a recipe for a lot of mix ups and players not doing their job.

And that's what happened in Dallas.

You've gotta remember this years d broke the franchise record for worst defense the team set last year.

Kiffin needs to go as well.

But keep the 4-3.

i was just goofin around dude

[joe horn]

If the saints won the division I highly doubt you're posting this thread.

I'm perfectly ok with your doubts.

[Willy Mo]

How about we have a 32-team playoff bracket? Then we'd really know who was the best.

[joe horn]

You tryn'a get swung on bro?

I already said in the initial post:

You secure a playoff game by winning the division crown

Now since you don't seem to accept any discussion I'm attempting as honest unless fueled by homeristic rage, let's go back to the Seattle game in 2010. We fuggin BEAT Seattle in the regular season in addition to besting them by 4 games. They had a losing record. But since they drew the shortest straw and won a ****** division that no one else was EVEN interested in winning they got to host the defending world champs. rrrrRRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGGEEEE etc there should be a better way.

[Big Bubba]

Keep it as is.

No need to change it up for WC teams that feel they "deserve" a home game. There will always be weak divisions and strong divisions they sometimes change on a year to year basis.

No need to take away home games from division winners.

[SaintRay]

I like things just the way they are. Why change? To allow a 2nd place Division team the chance to seed higher? If that's the fight, then win your Division. I am completely against the Jerry Jones suggestion to increase the Playoff teams from 12 to 16 as well. I also don't care for the newer O/T rules either. I was just fine with Sudden Death.

[st. diehard]

I am completely against the Jerry Jones suggestion to increase the Playoff teams from 12 to 16 as well.

Now, why would Jerruh want to expand the playoff field?

I'm ok with the format, Joe. The current situation can be clunky, but the clubs agreed to it.

[Joremarid]

fun fact for the younger football fans. not that long ago being a wild card did get you a home game in the first round of the playoffs.

IMHO the divisions are too small for the winner to automatically get a home game.

[Joremarid]

but i'd also advocate adding two more playoff teams. make winning HFA really worth something, that is the only bye week on wild card weekend.

[SuperAINTSfan]

I like things just the way they are. Why change? To allow a 2nd place Division team the chance to seed higher? If that's the fight, then win your Division. I am completely against the Jerry Jones suggestion to increase the Playoff teams from 12 to 16 as well. I also don't care for the newer O/T rules either. I was just fine with Sudden Death.

Dallas wouldn't of made it even with 8 NFC teams. Hahahaha

I don't mind the way it is.

If they were to change to a re seeding, i'd be fine with that also.

[SuperAINTSfan]

Jerry didn't suggest it.

It's something that was discussed last off season.

He was asked about it in an interview for some reason and PFT spun it that way.

Who am I to blame you all for falling for it though.

Just add Jerry or any Cowboys to a story and bam.

It's got all the mouth breathers clicking and posting.

Easy money.

**** jerry!!!!

[SaintsFanInLA]

I actually like that idea. But then again, I am an advocate for new and inventive change. Like, seeding the ENTIRE NFL playoffs from 1-12 and setting up the games that way. But in essence, that gets rid of the importance of Conferences.

I also want to incentivize teams to go for a perfect record when it's in reach. My idea would be to give a team that goes 16-0 in the regular season an automatic berth in their respective CCG. That way if a team is 14-0 and have the number 1 seed locked up, they won't be resting starters. They will be going for it. And in the OFF chance that you have two teams in the same conference go 16-0 (sooooooooooo many starts would have to align for that) then maybe you either eliminate the 3-6 seeds and just have a CCG hosted by the team that scored the most points in the season (I know HERESY) or you just go back to the normal seeding and nothing special happens.

[Bart2Ryan+beyond]

I've been following this story on si.com by Don Banks and I'm glad Joe brought it up here. I'm surprised that Joe's view is in the minority. I think it is a d@mn shame that SF wins 4 more games (A QUARTER OF THE REGULAR SEASON) than GB AND also beats GB during the season and now has to travel to GB.

It's just fundamentally wrong. It was wrong when Indy had to travel to 8-8 SD in 2008 and it was wrong when NO had to travel to Seattle in 2010.

When the NFL expanded the # of divisions and thereby reduced the # of teams in each division to 4 from 5, the increased the chance that a team that was 8-8 or below .500 will win the division; so IMO a division winner should only be guaranteed a playoff spot - home field should go to the team with the better record.

Case in point - had Dallas won their last game with Philly, they would've won the NFCE with a record of 9-7 and 6 of those wins came against their divisional rivals, which means they were 3-7 against non-divisional opponents. for this 'achievement' they get to host NO who won 2 more games and also publicly sodomized Dallas to a national viewing audience? Sorry, to me that just is fundamentally wrong.

Kudos to you Joe for starting this thread - we need more of them.