Semi-OT: WILL NFL change playoff seeding rules for 2011?

[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).

 

[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?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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?

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

 

[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.

 

[pwes]

No they will not change it.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

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

 

[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]

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

Why is it inherently fairer?

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

 

[alamo]

Why is it inherently fairer?

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.

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

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

 

[TheRealMcCagh]

they won't change it, but they totally should. Playoffs should be the best teams, not bad teams in a worse division. Do you remember the pats missed the playoffs at 11-5? We had a better record than the Vikings, Chargers and Cardinals, all won their division, so all got in instead. And now the Saints go to Seattle to play an away game against a team with four more losses? Seahawks should at least have to forfeit their home game and go play in the super dome

I know it wont change, but I really wish it would...

 

[mgcolby]

A team with a losing record does not deserve a spot in the playoffs over a team with a winning record. I think if a team wins their division with a 500 or better record then roll with the current system. But they need to implement a rule that would toss out the division winner if they finish below 500. Simply bump the 5th and 6th seeds up to 4 and 5 and then take the team with the 6th best record in the conference. The rule should only be triggered if the team with the 6th best record is 500 or better, if not then the seeding doesn't change.

That only makes sense. No way should a 7-9 football team that went 3-7 outside of the division including a 2-6 in non-divisional conference games get in over two 10-6 teams who went both went 5-1 in non-divisional conference games. And they certainly don't deserve to host a playoff game.

 

[mgcolby]

they won't change it, but they totally should. Playoffs should be the best teams, not bad teams in a worse division. Do you remember the pats missed the playoffs at 11-5? We had a better record than the Vikings, Chargers and Cardinals, all won their division, so all got in instead. And now the Saints go to Seattle to play an away game against a team with four more losses? Seahawks should at least have to forfeit their home game and go play in the super dome

I know it wont change, but I really wish it would...

We can piss and moan about 08, but the reality is, if we beat that 8-8 team we get the division and a bye and the Chargers don't get in. If we don't go 2-4 against teams 500 or better we get in. The system didn't fail the Pats the Pats failed themselves.

Were you upset in 2005 when a 12-4 Jaguars team had to travel to Foxboro to play a 10-6 Pats team? (not being sarcastic)

 

[Nikolai]

They'll keep it the way it is. I think they're starting to recognize that knee-jerk reactions to the latest media-driven outrage isn't always the best thing for the game. Yes, Seattle gets in this year at 7-9 and will host the Saints. My guess is that you'll probably never see that again for another 20-25 years. More often, though, it's true that some divisions are dogfights; the AFC North and the NFC East come to mind as divisions whose teams beat up on each other regularly.

Sometimes that 10-6 team that played tough divisional games really might be better than that 12-4 team that coasted through an easier schedule and barely beat some bad teams with lucky bounces; I'm looking your way Colts and Jest. So you guys arguing for the change think the Jest should host the Colts?

 

[Fahrenhype]

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.

The Ravens and the Jets had better records. What is the problem?

I still don't see how two teams with the best records in a conference meeting in the divisional game due to a crappy division winner being the four seed makes any sense.

Maybe KC surprises people in the playoffs but the fact that such a thing was a possibility to begin with is stupid.

 

[terabthia2]

I checked "maybe" but leaning more toward "definitely not". The NFL will see this as a crazy fluke which hopefully will not happen again soon. If it happens like this again within the next five years, they might take a look at it. I still don't get why some people were "rooting" for it to happen. I dunno...I like seeing GOOD worthy teams in the playoffs, and from what I read, alot of Seahawks fans do too...alot of them were almost embarassed at their team pulling this off. No system is perfect, so I don't think they'll do anything rash. Not yet anyway. If the Seahawks do anything but one-and-done, I think we'll start to see some more chatter regarding this as well. I'm sure the Saints were hoping the Rams would win. Not only is there the indignity of having to go on the ROAD to play a *7-9* team, but Seattle is farther to travel for them than St. Louis and from all accounts, the crowd there is deafning.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I checked "maybe" but leaning more toward "definitely not". The NFL will see this as a crazy fluke which hopefully will not happen again soon.

But it only took the Chargers' 8-8 finish in 2008 for them to overhaul the draft seeding, so who knows?

 

[Disco Volante]

They better not and hopefully everyone's complaining about the Seahawks ends now.