Well Peter King is right about one thing

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

And for those saying "winning the division should mean something" it still would. You get in the playoffs even if your record is not in the top 6 in your conference. That's plenty. To get a second bonus is unnecessary.

I hear you and agree 100%, just so you know you aren't alone on this one.

That's the way the NBA does it. Win your division and you are in, but home court is based upon league record. Gee, it might be the only thing that the NBA does better than the NFL.

 

[Deus Irae]

That is true of both teams in the NFC Championship game. I really don't get your point or how it negates my arguments. You have two teams left in the NFC. Philadelphia had a better record, played and beat harder teams in the playoffs, played in a harder division, and kicked the crap out of the Cardinals head to head.

No rational argument exists for why the Cardinals should be hosting this game. The only thing in their favor is the happenstance that they played in a division where the second best team was the 49ers and the Eagles played in a division with the Giants.

And, for the record, I'm an Arizona Cardinals season ticket holder who just, by amazing luck, fell into tickets for a championship game by virtue of having my tickets, so I'm the last person on earth who should be complaining about it. But fair is fair, and the current system is not. Whether an idiot like Peter King says it or not.

Because the King argument is that they don't deserve the home games because their record isn't as good. It ignores the obvious facts about not playing the same schedules and wild cards not being good enough to win their own divisions, all for the sake of higher win numbers. Well, the only reason higher win numbers should be the basis for granting home field rather than division winners is a lack of worthiness. And that argument was killed this weekend. Any other argument just comes down to competing visions of "fairness", which is what almost every argument in this area is going to be anyway.

 

[Deus Irae]

I hear you and agree 100%, just so you know you aren't alone on this one.

That's the way the NBA does it. Win your division and you are in, but home court is based upon league record. Gee, it might be the only thing that the NBA does better than the NFL.

The NBA changed to that only in the past couple of years. It was a mistake, although at least the NBA schedule is much more fair than the NFL schedule, so there's some legitimacy to the move.

 

[Patsrock]

The NBA changed to that only in the past couple of years. It was a mistake, although at least the NBA schedule is much more fair than the NFL schedule, so there's some legitimacy to the move.

Why was it a mistake? The team with the better record should have HFA.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why was it a mistake? The team with the better record should have HFA.

Based upon one line of thought. However, if you are going to eliminate all the reasons for having divisions, you might as well eliminate divisions.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Based upon one line of thought. However, if you are going to eliminate all the reasons for having divisions, you might as well eliminate divisions.

Why must it be all or nothing? If you win a crappy division, you are rewarded with a playoff berth and rewarded with keeping a draft position that does not correlate with being one of the best teams but correlates with your overall record. There would still be a reason for having divisions- be better than only three other teams, which are your rivals since you play them home-and-home, and you are GUARANTEED a playoff berth.

The third advantage is a mandatory home field advantage based upon seeding.

Why reward them with all three? Taking away the third is actually more consistent with the draft procedure- you are what your overall record says you are.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why must it be all or nothing? If you win a crappy division, you are rewarded with a playoff berth and rewarded with keeping a draft position that does not correlate with being one of the best teams but correlates with your overall record.

The third advantage is a mandatory home field advantage based upon seeding.

Why reward them with all three? Taking away the third is actually more consistent with the draft procedure- you are what your overall record says you are.

Using your arguments, why reward them with anything? If you can't be one of the 8 winningest teams in the conference, why should winning the division help? Why should the #8 team in the other division be hosed if a lesser team happens to get into the playoffs with fewer victories, just because it's in another division?

Again, this is the problem with using "fair" as an argument.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Using your arguments, why reward them with anything?

Because it fosters divsion rivalries, which have been very good for the NFL, and gives downtrodden franchises a very clear path- get to the point where you can compete home-and-home with these specific teams and YOU WILL BE IN THE PLAYOFFS. I just never understood the additional carrot that you will also host a playoff game if you get there, but that may be the financial incentive for the downtrodden franchise. The NFL didn't use to be upon such sound financial footing --they had to worry not only about relocations of poor performers but also bankruptcy and even the potential for league contraction. Those types of concerns seem long gone.

I think the playoff hosting is a relic of those financial incentives that are now irrelevant with substantial revenue sharing.

 

[Deus Irae]

Because it fosters divsion rivalries, which have been very good for the NFL, and gives downtrodden franchises a very clear path- get to the point where you can compete home-and-home with these specific teams and YOU WILL BE IN THE PLAYOFFS. I just never understood the additional carrot that you will also host a playoff game if you get there, but that may be the financial incentive for the downtrodden franchise. The NFL didn't use to be upon such sound financial footing that they didn't have to worry not only about relocations of poor performers but even bankruptcy and contraction.

Notice what you are doing.... you are sacrificing the best records to achieve other goals that you think have merit and that you prefer. That's precisely why the "fairness" argument doesn't hold water. You're actually ok with an "unfair" system, you just want a DIFFERENT "unfair" system.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Nothing is going to be fair. You can't play a round robin schedule with more than 16 other teams in the league and with more than 8 others if you want home-and-home.

There will be a balance between the practical advantages of having divisions and issues of unfairness that are going to result. I am asking for a more sensible balance in the direction of fairness, but I'm not demanding that every aspect of NFL rules must get us to some perfectly fair utopia. I want to preserve the divisions and just take away the least sensible (in my opinion) advantage afforded the division champion.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Why reward them with all three? Taking away the third is actually more consistent with the draft procedure- you are what your overall record says you are.

I hadn't even thought of that. That's the best point of all, if I'm understanding it correctly. Your draft position is based on your record, but playoff seeding is based on division. So, for example, do the Arizona Cardinals get a better draft position than the Eagles AND get to host the game? Now that's absurd. I guess if Arizona advances to the superbowl they pick last, right? At least I think it's that way.

But at a minimum if you're going to keep the added bonus of being a division winner that you get HFA, you should at least change draft position to match seeding.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nothing is going to be fair. You can't play a round robin schedule with more than 16 other teams in the league and with more than 8 others if you want home-and-home.

There will be a balance between the practical advantages of having divisions and issues of unfairness that are going to result. I am asking for a more sensible balance in the direction of fairness, but I'm not demanding that every aspect of NFL rules must get us to some perfectly fair utopia. I want to preserve the divisions and just take away the least sensible (in my opinion) advantage afforded the division champion.

That's been my point. Nothing is going to be fair, and your idea of "fair" might well be different from mine, your mother's, etc....

And giving division winners home field advantage is quite sensible. After all, they did something the wild card teams didn't: they won their division.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

giving division winners home field advantage is quite sensible. After all, they did something the wild card teams didn't: they won their division.

In quite a few cases the wild card team also did something that the division winner did not: have a winning season.

In the draft the NFL takes the position that the team with the worse record "needs more help" and is higher in the draft order. The should recognize the same thing in handing out home field.

Divisions are great, it is fantastic to have a group of rivals that play a total fair round-robin schedule. There is no reason to throw this out. But that doesn't mean the procedures can't be tweaked now and then.

 

[Chevy]

The NFL is already killing itself with regular season games being played overseas. To continue to "fix" the best sports system ever will only hasten its death.

 

[Deus Irae]

In quite a few cases the wild card team also did something that the division winner did not: have a winning season.

In the draft the NFL takes the position that the team with the worse record "needs more help" and is higher in the draft order. The should recognize the same thing in handing out home field.

Divisions are great, it is fantastic to have a group of rivals that play a total fair round-robin schedule. There is no reason to throw this out. But that doesn't mean the procedures can't be tweaked now and then.

Again, though, you are confusing what is your preference with "fair". Making a draft that favors teams that suck certainly isn't "fair" to the teams that have used the draft wisely.

 

[Patsrock]

It will never happen, but I would love to see the reaction's of everyone if everyone finishes in a division 13-3. That means one 13-3 team would be out.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Again, though, you are confusing what is your preference with "fair". Making a draft that favors teams that suck certainly isn't "fair" to the teams that have used the draft wisely.

You want to scrap the drafting system where poorer teams at least get a shot at picking the best players? Yeah, that is great for the competitive balance and health of the league.

The playoff rules are tweaked all of the time. A few years back the NFL revised the priority of the tiebreakers. Before that they added a second wildcard. No, nothing was really broken before either of those changes, and making these changes didn't end the world, it just make a good product a little bit better.

The very minor tweak of keeping the exact same criteria for making the playoffs, the exact same seeding arrangement, but merely awarding the home field to the team with the better league record is not some major event to threaten the popularity of the league. It just makes sense.

 

[Deus Irae]

You want to scrap the drafting system where poorer teams at least get a shot at picking the best players? Yeah, that is great for the competitive balance and health of the league.

The playoff rules are tweaked all of the time. A few years back the NFL revised the priority of the tiebreakers. Before that they added a second wildcard. No, nothing was really broken before either of those changes, and making these changes didn't end the world, it just make a good product a little bit better.

The very minor tweak of keeping the exact same criteria for making the playoffs, the exact same seeding arrangement, but merely awarding the home field to the team with the better league record is not some major event to threaten the popularity of the league. It just makes sense.

So competitive balance is a legitimate reason to be unfair? The problem with your argument should be getting clearer and clearer to you, as you keep sacrificing "fairness" for other reasons.

P.S.

I want to stress that my disagreement with you is on the question of what's being called "fair", not necessarily on any specific notion people have set forth.

P.P.S.

I absolutely would love to scrap the current draft system.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The very minor tweak of keeping the exact same criteria for making the playoffs, the exact same seeding arrangement, but merely awarding the home field to the team with the better league record is not some major event to threaten the popularity of the league. It just makes sense.

Most people wouldn't even notice the change. I think it's a no-brainer. I can't think of a single compelling reason to keep it as is, and reading through this entire thread, the only argument I've seen is "because that's the way it's been done." I think the most compelling reason to change it is fairness to the one and two seeds.

I think if I've started this thread with something other than "Peter King," it might have gotten a different response. Like if Reiss had said it or something.

Well, maybe some day the 15-1 Patriots as a "one seed" will have to play a 13-3 wild card "five seed" in the divisional playoffs and then I can absolutely guarantee we won't be the only ones on this board who think the system needs to be changed.

 

[Synovia]

If you're not going to change who gets in then you can't change seeding either.

Winning your division gives you superiority in terms of making the playoffs, but once you're in it it becomes irrelevant? Would just be illogical.

Just as playoff teams drafting before non-playoff teams already is.

They ignore the playoff seedings when we draft, so why not?

As far as I'm concerned, if Pittsburgh is drafting after San Diego, (assuming neither wins the SB), they should be at home.