OT: NFL considering major changes to playoff seeding

[Pape]

winning the division still gets you a playoff spot, which is good. It’s just the seeding under discussion.

it potentially strips a division winner of a home playoff game...

i have an issue with that... how best to describe it? hrmm... It's not cool to do that. for some teams its a rare occurrence... shame to see that type of tradition cast aside for no real, justifiable reason

ymmv

 

[TinhWoodhead]

I like this change. Tired of a .500 division winner getting home field over a 12 win team.

me too

 

[stinkypete]

The NFL loves to fix what's not broken.

People here found it broken back in 2008.

 

[TommyD4207]

People here found it broken back in 2008.

Don't choke the Jets game away at home, and it's not an issue.
It's funny how this can be fixed by 'don't choke away a home game' or overtime can be fixed by 'playing defense', but that's not what gets fantasy football points and gambling money.

 

[1960Pats]

Here we go again.

Winning a "division" means that your team had a better record than only 3 of the other 28 teams in the NYFL. If a team wins a division with a worse record than any other team then they don't belong in the playoffs.

Records are almost meaningless when teams play totally different schedules. This year at first glance I noticed that KC once again has most of their tough opponents at home. That's a big edge.

My suggestion would be to have two 8 team division in each conference and the top 8 teams make the playoffs no matter what division they're in. They also need to skip the byes entirely. It's completely unfair how they do it now.

 

[1960Pats]

People here found it broken back in 2008.

That's because it was and still is broken if an 8-8 team can get into the playoffs over an 11-5 team.

 

[Triumph]

The 2007 NY Giants were 10 - 6 made the post season and then won 3 road post season games.

I don't need to write what happened next to an 18 win undefeated team.

 

[Steve102]

If there's a winner take all game late, and the winner wins the division and the loser is a 5 seed, THEN WIN THE FEKKIN' GAME!

 

[40yrpatsfan]

it potentially strips a division winner of a home playoff game...

i have an issue with that... how best to describe it? hrmm... It's not cool to do that. for some teams its a rare occurrence... shame to see that type of tradition cast aside for no real, justifiable reason

ymmv

I think the reason for rewarding a division winner with a poor record was that they could be good team in a really strong division. But most times that I can recall, it's just a division full of crappy teams, and they reward one of those crappy teams with a home playoff game.

 

[Bill Lee]

I like this change. Tired of a .500 division winner getting home field over a 12 win team.

But that ".500 division winner" has a schedule that is very unique to their division.

They play the teams in their division twice, then they play teams from two other divisions that aren't the same divisions as that "12 win team".

You can't just look at wins as if they are all the same, you gotta look at strength of schedule too.

I agree with the comment that NFL is becoming more NBA-like with each rule change.

Adding more games, playing on pretty much every day of the week, adding more teams to the playoffs, and re-seeding are all things that IMO weaken the importance of individual games.

It seems to me they don't understand the value of what they have (had?) going for themselves.

 

[EddardSnow67]

They'll probably vote to make these changes, we'll get used to them over a span of a few years, some large market team will be on the outside looking in for whatever reason and then they'll tweak the system again, we'll get used to it and the cycle will begin again.

The NFL needs to realize that it doesn't matter how they structure the postseason because someone's going to be pissed every year no matter what.

Every owner/fan base thinks they're special and the league can't function without them.

 

[Family]

I don't understand the uproar about reseeding after round 1. They already do this. In playoff week 2, the #1 seeds are each guaranteed to play the lowest remaining seed in their conference. That will continue, although the "lowest seed" may be a different team under the new seeding rules.

I'm not sure I understand the change, but it seems minor to me.

Everything stays exactly the same the first round, so better record only becomes relevant from the second round on. And as you say the lower seed plays the higher anyway. So it's just that winning the division no longer becomes most important after the first round.

I'm completely ok with that. Minor change, if I understand it correctly.

 

[XLIX]

I'm not sure I understand the change, but it seems minor to me.

Everything stays exactly the same the first round, so better record only becomes relevant from the second round on. And as you say the lower seed plays the higher anyway. So it's just that winning the division no longer becomes most important after the first round.

I'm completely ok with that. Minor change, if I understand it correctly.

My understanding is that the first round does not (necessarily) stay the same. A division runner up gets a higher seed than a division winner if they have a better record. So, using last year as an example, Minnesota would have gotten the 3 seed (and a round 1 home game) instead of the 5 seed (and a round 1 road game).

 

[Real fan 02]

I hope they do not do this... winning a division should mean something... and it potentially screws over the fans of teams who "should" have a playoff game at home but lose out due to re-seeding

I agree.. I also feel like the NFL should bring back the top 2 seeds getting the bye.. those teams were likely also division winners and or had better conference records to earn the top 2 seedlings. We won championships having the benefit of the 2 seed bye week.. maybe that's why it was voted out??

 

[sb1]

Keeping a division winner out if they are lower than the 8th conference seed would have been a major change for sure, that was my understanding at first.

Pats benefited from the current formula... the 12-4 Jags had to come to Foxboro to play the 10-6 Pats who were defending champs but not that great a team that season tbh.

 

[Grogan14]

This will really help teams that play in a weak division and hurt teams that play in strong divisions. I think they should factor in strength of schedule on top of won loss record.

 

[maust]

I like this change. Tired of a .500 division winner getting home field over a 12 win team.

I don't know man, when the .500 division winner comes out of the AFCS I guess but when the AFCS produces the 12 game winner maybe not so much

 

[KCSVEN]

Maybe they just change it so if a team wins a division with .500 or less record, they will seed in below any wild card above .500.

You can even designate the wild card team has to be 2 games better than the division winner to get reseeding.

Doesn't have to be a straight forward record based seeding. Think outside the box a bit.

I will say opening up the seeding might make 1 or 2 games in week 18 more meaningful.

 

[FCB02062]

So winning the division does not get you a guaranteed home game under this system.. Really ****ing stupid, but I expect nothing less than billionaires who are detached from reality.

 

[Pape]

Here we go again.

Winning a "division" means that your team had a better record than only 3 of the other 28 teams in the NYFL. If a team wins a division with a worse record than any other team then they don't belong in the playoffs.

Records are almost meaningless when teams play totally different schedules. This year at first glance I noticed that KC once again has most of their tough opponents at home. That's a big edge.

My suggestion would be to have two 8 team division in each conference and the top 8 teams make the playoffs no matter what division they're in. They also need to skip the byes entirely. It's completely unfair how they do it now.

why have divisions at all then?

divisions foster rivalries... rivalries draw interest to the teams and to the games... that is a good thing, something that should be fostered...

I see no real benefit to altering the seeding / or reseeding the playoffs... so a lesser division winner gets a game at home... gives teams a reason to strive to win the division... which is a good thing