Clayton/ESPN: Possible change in playoff seeding rules...

[Pats726]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3257498
Not sure I like this...you win a division and don't get a home game? why have divisions at all... OK...so a team plays in a tougher division...amd because of that a record lower and then a team with a better record though in 2nd place gets a home game?? Thoughts on that?? Clayton thinks it will be reccomended...in March...(it's basically using winning pct instead of division winner for the top for seeds....)

 

[IcyPatriot]

Playoffs Reseeding Giving Division Winners Higher Seed?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/02/21/combine/1.html

• My early read on the Competition Committee's debate about whether to re-seed the playoff field, with overall record outweighing the winning of a division title, is that a rule change to that effect has a real chance of passing later this year. I say that because a league source on Thursday told me that all eight of the committee members are said to be in favor of changing the seeding format, which is always a good start in selling the idea to the rest of the league's membership.

While the real discussion on playoff seeding will take place at the committee's pre-annual meeting session in Naples, Fla., next month, one source told me that there are teams within the league who feel that the NFL shouldn't adopt a system that doesn't reward division winners with at least one home game in the playoffs.

 

[PatsFan24]

Re: OT: According to Clayton/ESPN a change in playoff seeding rules...

it does seem to make sense, the team with the better record gets a home game so that fancise can make more money. if you are in a bad divison and win it at 9-7, but a wild card team goes 11-5, why should the 9-7 team have the advantage?

 

[Pats726]

Re: OT: According to Clayton/ESPN a change in playoff seeding rules...

Merge...please..mods...great minds think alike FBN....

 

[JoePats]

Re: OT: According to Clayton/ESPN a change in playoff seeding rules...

If they're going to do this, then they should just get rid of divisions and play a national schedule. Best 6 records get in. You could even play every conference team once and maybe one rival twice. Basically all teh games sell out anyway, so who needs division rivalries?

Stupid move.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: OT: According to Clayton/ESPN a change in playoff seeding rules...

Merge...please..mods...great minds think alike FBN....

Yeah ... going to be fun watching Mangini go for the title ... NOT!!!

 

[nittanylions52]

Re: OT: According to Clayton/ESPN a change in playoff seeding rules...

But then there's the times such as this year when Jacksonville was clearly better than Pittsburg and even beat them in the regular season. Jacksonville was technically in the tougher division, even. But Pittsburgh got the home playoff game. Maybe they could take something like a formula involving wins and schedule difficulty.

For now it makes sense. They just want to make more games meaningful and prevent things such as Tampa Bay resting their starters for the last three games. After what the Giants did (playing their starters even though the game didn't matter in the end), I think more teams will value momentum going into the playoffs anyway. But we'll see if a bad situation ever comes around because of this seeding method.

 

[dhamz]

Re: OT: According to Clayton/ESPN a change in playoff seeding rules...

it does seem to make sense, the team with the better record gets a home game so that fancise can make more money. if you are in a bad divison and win it at 9-7, but a wild card team goes 11-5, why should the 9-7 team have the advantage?

The argument goes both ways.

What if you win your division at 9-7 in tiebreakers over two other 9-7 teams and ahead of an 8-8 team? Do you deserve a home game over the 10-6 team that was in a division where the next best team was 5-11?

 

[Afterlifemobile-86]

No, i don't like this idea at all. If these 11-5/10-6 wildcard teams wanted a home playoff game than they should have taken care of business and won their division. You reap what you sew, it's not a 9-7 champion's fault they play in a crappy division.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

I don't really have a problem with the ideas they are trying to work with here, but if they're going to go that route, then just get rid of the divisions, and list everything Conference-wise.

Realistically, if you're not going to put any kind of premium on winning a division, what's the purpose of staying with it?

Of course, doing that will entail some changes in how schedules will be formulated....