The Playoff Picture

[ctpatsfan77]

Exactly. It's not like every year u get a 7-9 or 8-8 team winning the division. Honor division winners

I posted this on reddit a few weeks ago. IMO, the rule should be that if a division winner has a record of .500 or below and plays a team with a record strictly above .500, then the team with the better record should host.

 

[1960Pats]

It's about an unbalanced schedule.

This was the question that I answered: Winning the division has to count for something, otherwise why have them?

What are you talking about?

 

[Deus Irae]

This was the question that I answered: Winning the division has to count for something, otherwise why have them?

What are you talking about?

You have divisions that still mean something today mostly because of an unbalanced schedule. You have a league that plays 16 games, and you have 32 teams. The only way you could get even close to a 'fair' outcome without divisions would be to have a 31 game season. That wouldn't take into account the time teams met, or anything that would go along with that (i.e. injuries, development), but it would at least give each team an even schedule.

Since that's not going to happen, you're going to be stuck with inequality. And that's where you get divisions still meaning something.

 

[XLIX]

Maybe if the Pats finish at 14-2 and have to go play 7-9 Indy in round one at Indy, a team they beat this year, then we will see how people here feel about that. I guess the Pats sitting home in 2008 with a 11-5 record while San Diego went with an 8-8 record, wasn't enough to make the point.

That could only happen if the Patriots went 14-2 and failed to win their division. While it's technically possible (not this year, but I mean sometime in the arbitrary future with an arbitrary team), I don't think they should change a format based on a theoretical situation that might come up once every 50 years.

 

[1960Pats]

People who ***** about bad teams getting in need to realize that the biggest reason those teams are getting in is because of playoff expansion. When you increase the number of playoff teams, you get worse teams in the playoffs. It doesn't get solved by eliminating division importance or any other gimmick, as the NBA and NHL demonstrate.

Wrong again. Those teams are getting into the playoffs in the NFL because of the 4 team divisions.
Here's a unique idea. Why not have the top 6 teams with the best records get into the playoffs? Oh wait. That doesn't give the suckass teams a shot at a playoff berth.

 

[1960Pats]

That could only happen if the Patriots went 14-2 and failed to win their division. While it's technically possible (not this year, but I mean sometime in the arbitrary future with an arbitrary team), I don't think they should change a format based on a theoretical situation that might come up once every 50 years.

Correct X. I had the wrong team with the better record going to play in Indy. But it does happen when a 2nd place team with a better record has to travel to play. That happens quite often.

 

[Deus Irae]

Wrong again. Those teams are getting into the playoffs in the NFL because of the 4 team divisions.
Here's a unique idea. Why not have the top 6 teams with the best records get into the playoffs? Oh wait. That doesn't give the suckass teams a shot at a playoff berth.

In 1990, the Saints got into the playoffs as an 8-8 wild card team, in a league that had just 3 divisions in each conference.
In 1991, the Jets got into the playoffs as an 8-8 wild card team, in a league that had just 3 divisions in each conference.
In 1999, the Lions got into the playoffs as an 8-8 wild card team, in a league that had just 3 divisions in each conference.

You're going to get that sort of thing when you have a large playoff field so, no, it's not a case of "wrong again".

 

[Gumby]

You have divisions that still mean something today mostly because of an unbalanced schedule. You have a league that plays 15 games, and you have 32 teams. The only way you could get even close to a 'fair' outcome without divisions would be to have a 31 game season. That wouldn't take into account the time teams met, or anything that would go along with that (i.e. injuries, development), but it would at least give each team an even schedule.

Since that's not going to happen, you're going to be stuck with inequality. And that's where you get divisions still meaning something.

Did you mean 16 Games?
And i think it brings out your point (at least what i think your pt is for " unbalanced schedule") more to say each team plays a different 13 of the possible 31 opponents each year.

Also think unbalanced is Not the term you are seeking, but maybe inequitable, or other.

BL-agree Divisions are a useful construct, and i like it more since they started matching 1:1, 2:2 across the divisions.

 

[XLIX]

Correct X. I had the wrong team with the better record going to play in Indy. But it does happen when a 2nd place team with a better record has to travel to play. That happens quite often.

Yes, the current system is such that the top wild card will occasionally have a better record than the bottom division record.

If they don't like it, then they should have won their division.

 

[Deus Irae]

Did you mean 16 Games?

Yes... Typo. Thanks, it's been corrected.

 

[fightingirish595]

I think the best way to do it is keep the seeding as is for the first round and reseed for the divisional round. This avoids somethign we saw in 2010 when Seattle went to Chicago and Green Bay went to Atlanta. This would benefit the number 1 seed. Division winners would still get home field in the first round. home field in the conference championship would obviously go to the number one seed. however lets for example say in 2010 Seattle beat chicago, Seattle would get home field against Green Bay because they won there division.

 

[NormZauchin]

Although the Bengals look impressive this year, they have yet to prove themselves in the postseason. Over a decade of playoff incompetence by the incomparable Marvin Lewis (to say nothing of Andy Dalton) makes any concern about them premature.

 

[TommyD4207]

I've never liked it, even before the Pats got screwed in 2008.

The Patriots didn't get screwed in 2008.

They played a soft-as-Charmin schedule and lost to every good team they played.
You want to make the playoffs that year? Don't turn the ball over twice in Indianapolis. Don't let the Jets walk down the field against you in overtime. Don't embarrass yourself at home against Pittsburgh and Miami. Don't completely no-show when you go to San Diego.

The Patriots didn't deserve to make the playoffs in 2008. They weren't good enough.

The 8-8 Chargers beat the absolute and total dogshit out of the Patriots that year, and also beat the Colts in the first round of the playoffs.

Don't give me "the Patriots got screwed". They didn't deserve it.

 

[TommyD4207]

Yes, the current system is such that the top wild card will occasionally have a better record than the bottom division record.

If they don't like it, then they should have won their division.

This. It's really this simple, and I don't know why it's such a hard concept to understand.

Being a "wild card" means that you didn't win your division to automatically clinch a playoff spot, so you're awfully damned lucky you have one of the best records of a non-division winner, and it should be extra-challenging for you to advance as a result.

11, 12 wins owes you nothing. Want to make the playoffs? Win your division. Otherwise? Don't cry about it. You had your chance.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

You have divisions that still mean something today mostly because of an unbalanced schedule. You have a league that plays 16 games, and you have 32 teams. The only way you could get even close to a 'fair' outcome without divisions would be to have a 31 game season. That wouldn't take into account the time teams met, or anything that would go along with that (i.e. injuries, development), but it would at least give each team an even schedule.

Since that's not going to happen, you're going to be stuck with inequality. And that's where you get divisions still meaning something.

Agreed.
The system as it stands works relatively well. And I suspect any attempted change that seeks to correct bad teams making the playoffs/good teams not making the POs is likely to do little more than change the process but still see similar, occasional imbalances/outcomes.

A perfectly meritorious outcome where the 6 teams that are meaningfully best only make the playoffs is like expecting Roger Goodell to make fair and just decisions -- ain't happenin. But if it is then shouldn't we also address the sometimes arbitrary nature of the single game elimination? Shouldn't each playoff round be a best of 3 to avoid unmerited 'fluke' outcomes? (I'd certainly like the 07 SB to have been 2 out of 3 ).

 

[meatface]

When can the bengals clinch?

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[Oswlek]

This. It's really this simple, and I don't know why it's such a hard concept to understand.

Being a "wild card" means that you didn't win your division to automatically clinch a playoff spot, so you're awfully damned lucky you have one of the best records of a non-division winner, and it should be extra-challenging for you to advance as a result.

11, 12 wins owes you nothing. Want to make the playoffs? Win your division. Otherwise? Don't cry about it. You had your chance.

Absolutely. It's also interesting to note that all of the recent division winners with a .500 or lower record won their first playoff game. In addition to those 2008 Chargers, Seattle took out NO in 2010, the Denver Tebows knocked out Pitt in 2011 and Carolina beat the Cardinals last year. Clearly they weren't entirely undeserving.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

This. It's really this simple, and I don't know why it's such a hard concept to understand.

Being a "wild card" means that you didn't win your division to automatically clinch a playoff spot, so you're awfully damned lucky you have one of the best records of a non-division winner, and it should be extra-challenging for you to advance as a result.

11, 12 wins owes you nothing. Want to make the playoffs? Win your division. Otherwise? Don't cry about it. You had your chance.

As others have said, this!
You have 3 teams you battle it out with. The schedules for all 4, due to year to year variations in outer division team strengths, are relatively close to even. Further, due to tie breaks and the importance of them in a season that is only 16 games, simply winning a clear majority of games in your division I'd bet usually equals a division crown/PO birth. Largely a level field for every division member.

Else if you fail to win the division you now are stacked against other teams that you may not have much in common with schedule wise. IMHO by losing the division you have accepted that you are now in a combination lotto + win games scenario.

Not a perfect method but pretty good if you ask me. Given the quackery of the NFL on so many fronts their division system with 2 WCs is surprisingly well thought out.

 

[VectorPrime]

Frankly Im glad that there have been so many awful teams over the past couple seasons. Whens the last time you heard someone advocating for a 14 team playoff?

 

[meatface]

Frankly Im glad that there have been so many awful teams over the past couple seasons. Whens the last time you heard someone advocating for a 14 team playoff?

Two years ago when the cardinals missed it. But yeah I don't like the 14 team thing either, the nfl wants 36 teams in 4 countries playing 18 games with a 14 team playoff