OT: NFL considering major changes to playoff seeding

[A Defiant Goose]

I don't know. Call me old fashioned, but I like division winners being able to host a playoff game. I wouldn't mind the actual matchups being aligned as far as better record goes, but the division winner at least ought to be rewarded with a home game

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

If you are a team that's down, the NFL charted a simple path for you- be the very best in your little neighborhood (division) and you will host a playoff game.

It seems like a big incentive to always invest in team-building and I would hate to see it go away. Even if we were on the short end of the stick. Divisions matter

 

[maust]

If you are a team that's down, the NFL charted a simple path for you- be the very best in your little neighborhood (division) and you will host a playoff game.

It seems like a big incentive to always invest in team-building and I would hate to see it go away. Even if we were on the short end of the stick. Divisions matter

More and more it seems as though the NFL has decided that a huge portion of its fan base is now a captive group and need not be heeded, we are along for the ride regardless. The league now barely gives lip service to the rivalries and 'sports hate' we've been bred to embrace. What used to be the lifeblood of the game is an afterthought to growing the brand and laying claim to an ever more vast audience.

 

[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.

UPDATE:

OK you were right and my response to you was wrong, but in my own defense the NFL did propose the change I discussed BUT then they changed the proposal. The CURRENT proposal is as follows:

As you state, the 1st round is unaffected. The 4 division winners are your 4 top seeds. #1 gets the bye, #'s 2-4 host #'s 5-7.

THEN the second round reseeds based on record. This is to guarantee the #1 seed gets the worst remaining team (by record). For example, last year the Rams were the #3 seed at 10-7 and the Commanders were the #5 seed at 12-5. In the divisional round the #1 seed Detroit Lions played the lowest remaining seed Washington Commanders. Under the new rules, they would instead have played the LA Rams based on them having the worst record.

I actually like this idea.

 

[Patjew]

UPDATE:

OK you were right and my response to you was wrong, but in my own defense the NFL did propose the change I discussed BUT then they changed the proposal. The CURRENT proposal is as follows:

As you state, the 1st round is unaffected. The 4 division winners are your 4 top seeds. #1 gets the bye, #'s 2-4 host #'s 5-7.

THEN the second round reseeds based on record. This is to guarantee the #1 seed gets the worst remaining team (by record). For example, last year the Rams were the #3 seed at 10-7 and the Commanders were the #5 seed at 12-5. In the divisional round the #1 seed Detroit Lions played the lowest remaining seed Washington Commanders. Under the new rules, they would instead have played the LA Rams based on them having the worst record.

I actually like this idea.

I like it, too.

And the division games still matter A LOT because the winner of even a crappy division gets in the playoffs. It's not like they get kicked out of them. I've always thought an 8-8 (8-9/9-8) team hosting an 11-5 (12-5) team in the playoffs is a joke.

 

[DaBruinz]

I love how people ignore that Division winners would be given the nod if the records were the same during re-seeding.

So, Division winning means something for seeds 1-4 for the 1st round.
Re-seeding only matters if a WC winner happens to have a better record than one of the "Division winners".

Anyone care to go back over the last few years with the expanded WC and see how many games that would have actually affected...

 

[DaBruinz]

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

You should probably re-read the proposal because the seeding would stay the same for the WC round. The re-seeding would only take place in the Divisional round.

Feel free to show everyone how many .500 Division winners in the last 4 years have won during the WC round and had to face a 12 win team in the divisional round..

 

[DaBruinz]

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

It's re-seeding after the WC games that is under discussion.

 

[Pape]

I love how people ignore that Division winners would be given the nod if the records were the same during re-seeding.

So, Division winning means something for seeds 1-4 for the 1st round.
Re-seeding only matters if a WC winner happens to have a better record than one of the "Division winners".

Anyone care to go back over the last few years with the expanded WC and see how many games that would have actually affected...

If they change the playoff system, it will eventually destroy the division system... you can see it coming... there will be two conferences... there will be 15 conference games, 3 non-conference games... with the non-conference games corresponding to final conference ranking... and then they will expand the playoffs... the first round bye will disappear...

 

[XLIX]

I like it, too.

And the division games still matter A LOT because the winner of even a crappy division gets in the playoffs. It's not like they get kicked out of them. I've always thought an 8-8 (8-9/9-8) team hosting an 11-5 (12-5) team in the playoffs is a joke.

To be clear: The crappy division winner will still host a playoff game.

 

[XLIX]

I love how people ignore that Division winners would be given the nod if the records were the same during re-seeding.

So, Division winning means something for seeds 1-4 for the 1st round.
Re-seeding only matters if a WC winner happens to have a better record than one of the "Division winners".

Anyone care to go back over the last few years with the expanded WC and see how many games that would have actually affected...

I went back and checked. First of all I can't believe they've had the expanded playoffs 5 years now. Damn I'm old.

If my understanding is correct, going all the way back to 2020, the only change would be the one I mentioned about last year. The #1 seed Detroit Lions would play the LA rams in the divisional instead of Washington.

 

[Patjew]

To be clear: The crappy division winner will still host a playoff game.

Then I’m dumb.

 

[XLIX]

Then I’m dumb.

It is very confusing because they put forth multiple proposals (none of which I believe have been formally voted on yet). The first proposal was a full reseed where the division winners don't necessarily get a home game.

But they threw that out the window for the current proposal.

 

[TheRainMaker]

The top 2 seeds in the conference got there for a reason. They aren't going suddenly lose their seeding/home game in the Divisional round.

 

[Froob]

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

nah I love when crazy **** like that happens and the home team wins

 

[XLIX]

The top 2 seeds in the conference got there for a reason. They aren't going suddenly lose their seeding/home game in the Divisional round.

It seems the number 2 seed could lose their 2nd round home game if the highest Wild Card team has a better record than then #2 division winner (depending on the final version of the proposal which, if any, gets passed). That is a rare situation, but has happened before.

 

[TheRainMaker]

It seems the number 2 seed could lose their 2nd round home game if the highest Wild Card team has a better record than then #2 division winner (depending on the final version of the proposal which, if any, gets passed). That is a rare situation, but has happened before.

That really doesn't make any sense because the top 2 seeds in the conference had the best records, AFC record and also won their division.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

That really doesn't make any sense because the top 2 seeds in the conference had the best records, AFC record and also won their division.

He’s stating there could be a situation where division winner goes 16-1 and is #1 seed and division runner up goes 15-2 and is the 5 seed. Let’s say other division winners go 13-4, 11-6, 10-7.

#1 seed gets the bye, and say the #5 seed 15-2 team beats the #4 seed 10-7 team. The other division winners win their playoff games.

Under current format, 16-1 top seed then hosts 15-2 #5 seed, and #2 seed 13-4 seed hosts #3 seed 11-6.

Under proposed format, #1 seed 16-1 would now host current #3 seed 11-6, and the wild card #5 seed 15-2 team would host the current #2 seed 13-4 seed.

That’s an extreme scenario, not sure if it’s happened before, but it could happen. The typical re-seeding scenario would involve the #5 seed having a better record than just the #3 seed, not both the #3 seed and #2 seeds. With just the #3 seed being involved, it doesn’t change the home teams. But this rare scenario would change the home team.

 

[sb1]

It seems the number 2 seed could lose their 2nd round home game if the highest Wild Card team has a better record than then #2 division winner (depending on the final version of the proposal which, if any, gets passed). That is a rare situation, but has happened before.

2018 was the last one I think

Pats were the #2 seed at 11-5. Chiefs and Chargers were both 12-4, Chiefs getting the division and the 1 seed via tiebreaker. Chargers were the WC team. Worked out well for the Pats as they got an easy win over the Chargers in Foxboro in the divisional round.

 

[JayNM]

Horrible change