ctpatsfan77

Now that we finally have the bizarre spectacle of the first-ever team with a losing record (not counting strike-shortened seasons) winning its division, AND the team with the worst divisional record in nearly 40 wins making the playoffs, do you see the NFL changing the rules for playoff seeding (i.e., whether a division winner automatically gets a home game)?

Right now I'd put the odds at 50-50 or so.

Also, in the poll, I'm asking whether you think it will happen, not if it should (which is a very different question).

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Chevy

I hope not. The current system works just fine.

Win your division.
Win your conference.
Win the championship.

To change the seeding is to penalize a team for being in a very balanced division (bad or good).

ahmed

Absolutely not. If you are going to say that if you win your division but don't have a winning record, you can't host a game. Then, why even rank teams by division winners? Why not just rank them by record? After all, the Ravens have the third best record in the AFC and yet are seeded 5th.

Keep things the way they are. If a team wins a division, once in 50 years, with a losing record, so what?

__________________
“When you hang with a bunch of 300-pound linemen, you tend to find the places that are the greasiest and serve the most food.” Brady.

ctpatsfan77

Again, I'm not asking if they SHOULD. I'm asking if you think they WILL change it.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fahrenhype

They have to take a serious look at it now. The second or third best team in a conference being the fifth seed is stupid. I want to see two of the best teams play in a conference title game, not in the divisional round because some team from a loser division coasted to a higher seed.

Keep the division winners with the top two records as the #1 and #2 seeds, then slot #3 through #6 according to record, with the "lesser" division winners still getting a playoff game but not a guaranteed home game and certainly not seeded higher than a demonstrably superior team.

Winning your division will still matter but won't guarantee a losing team a home playoff game and won't result in two teams with the best records in a conference playing in the divisional round. There is just too much of a disparity between divisions in both conferences for them to keep going this way. It's nice to think things would turn around but the NFC West as a whole has been ass for years, and the only thing that changed in the AFC West this year is that it is the Chiefs instead of the Chargers being the only team with a winning record after getting to play at least six games against lousy opponents throughout the season (at least two to four in their own division match ups, plus the alignment with another lousy division... guess which one).

If they want the NFL to be a meritocracy than they have to stop rewarding mediocrity and creating situations where a top team hosts another top team in the divisional round because of seeding lunacy.

__________________
Not a member of bleedingheartneurosis.net
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pwes

No they will not change it.

Deus Irae

Ok, so you don't understand the effects of an unbalanced schedule, then?

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

alamo

If seeding were by pure record this year, yes SEA wouldn't get a home game.
But neither would division winners Indy and KC in the AFC.
In fact Baltimore and the Jets would get home games.

You can make an argument for BAL, but does anyone think the Jets are more deserving of a home game than IND or KC? And BAL couldn't win its division, so why reward it?

The way the schedules work in the NFL, rewarding division winners is the fairest way.

People focus on the perceived negative of the current system and ignore the possible negatives of the "solution",

ctpatsfan77

Why is it inherently fairer?

Personally, I think it's a value judgment as to what you wish to reward/punish.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

alamo

Because within a single division you have very close schedules (only two opponents different) and thus can more reliably and fairly decide which team is best. But comparing the second best team in a division to another division's winner is a much less reliable comparison.

Going purely on record, ignoring who has battled and been proven to be better than everyone else in their own division, will much more often lead to results which seem unfair. Sometimes it works (SEA) sometimes it doesn't (KC, IND). And suppose a team which would be a wild card now gets a bye under a new system...

"Inherently fairer" means to me it is more likely to produce fairer results, not that it is infallible.

Well then, would would be your goal in rewards/punishments in changing the system?