NFL considering changes in playoff HFA, seeding

[PatsFanSince74]

I think any discussion of the NFL Playoff format has to begin with the fact that the system is flawed but is probably the best it can be.

Conference seedings (perhaps ideally with best of three playoff series') would satisfy purists but would also change the definition of what it means to be the NFL Champion.

Now, the NFL Champion is the team that does well-enough in the Regular Season to make the Playoffs and then plays very well in January and February with a little help from Officials' calls, weather conditions and good old-fashioned luck (I hasten, this morning, to add that I mean "luck" with a small letter "l" ). For example, this morning, the last team I want to come into Foxboro next weekend is the Colts. They are hot and they are on a roll.

The Champion is not necessarily the "Best Team" on paper or on the field for 17 weeks during the regular season (just ask the 2001 Rams and the 2007 Patriots, among others), but it is the "Best Team" as defined by the rules today. Teams build their rosters and coach their players with the knowledge that the 53rd player can be as important to winning a SB in January and February as the League MVP (just ask David Tyree, who never played another down in the NFL after he glued that goddam ball to his helmet with Rodney on his back).

The game is so physical and violent that a full week's break between games when a Championship is at stake is necessary (I also think that Thursday games after a Sunday during the Regular Season are a very bad idea, as apparently do many players, but that train left the station a long time ago). This means that "best of three" playoff series' would extend the Season into April.

Division rivalries are an important part of team and League marketing. Pats-Jets. Steelers-Ravens. Packers-Bears. Seahawks-'niners. Every team in the NFC East against every other team in the NFC East. Etc. The prize of winning the Division has to be worth something. Hosting at least one Playoff game is a reasonable incentive.

So, we're left with an "all or nothing" prize, unlike the other three major sports where your regular season finish only gets you one more game at home out of a potential five or seven.

The Saints took a lot of air out of the argument for changing the format last night. The odds-makers think that San Francisco will do the same this afternoon in Green Bay.

Moreover, in recent years, the SB winner has at times just snuck into the Playoffs and then battled it out on the road to get the right to play for the Lombardi. I kind of like that...almost as much as I hate it.

 

[1960Pats]

I like it the way it is.

If you are a bad team, the NFL tells you to focus on improving to the point that you are the best in your little "neighborhood" (the division). Accomplish that, and you host a playoff game.

the so-called better team you might host didn't get the job done- they were not the best in their division.

It builds the division rivalries, helps rebuilding, and is a great set-up.

I couldn't disagree more.

The current four team setup forces teams to play a totally different schedule and it creates the possibility that the fans of teams with much better records have to sit at home and watch other teams' fans get the reward of a playoff game.

Every year from the beginning I've complained about the unfairness of a team getting an automatic playoff berth for having a better record than only 3 other teams out of the 16 in their conference or 32 in the NFL. When it happens and the team or teams with the better record have also beaten that "winning" team, then it has gone beyond reasonable.

I also think that allowing a team into the playoffs with a poorer record and having them go on to win makes the regular season even less meaningful than it is now.

It just doesn't sit well with me and never has.

 

[1960Pats]

In order to have it set up this way they would need to do the following:
Split the league into 2 halves (AFC/NFC)

1. Each team plays all the teams in their conference once (15 games).
2. Each team plays the NFC opponent from the equal seeding from the previous year.

Not sure if it helps or hurts rivalry there. a bit of both I assume. but, teams would be largely unfamiliar with the opposite conference.

That's about the only way to make this fair (ish). if you come fro ma weak conference, you may automatically have 6 wins. If you have a highly competitive conference (theoretically) and each team splits, that's 3-3 right there. Then you have opposing conferences you play in the AFC/NFC. You could conceivably have a good team not make it because you played excellent teams vs scrubs.

I say keep it the way it is or you have to go with the split I mentioned at the start and I'm not sure I really like that either.

There you go. That's a step in the right direction.

Play the same schedule and then you have the truest winners playing for the true championship. The way it is now is like the BCS without the C.

We could still have rivalries. We'd be giving jabs to the Jets fans because they finished 12th in the AFC instead of 2nd or 3rd in the AFCE. That could be better.

 

[1960Pats]

The reason you can get away with it in MLB, NHL and NBA is precisely because there are multi-game series. In a one-and-done, having #8 knock out #1 because of a one game upset is a very, very bad thing.

Having #12 knock out #6 from getting to the playoffs is what we have now. An 11-5 or 10-6 team and their fans should not be sitting at home watching an 8-8 team play in the playoffs.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

The NFL uses divisions and schedules to encourage parity. Worrying about the inequitably of lower vs higher records seems silly when you're purposely trying to help last year's bad teams into the playoffs.

 

[Deus Irae]

Having #12 knock out #6 from getting to the playoffs is what we have now. An 11-5 or 10-6 team and their fans should not be sitting at home watching an 8-8 team play in the playoffs.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. We're talking about the playoffs, not the lead up to the playoffs. I've read your points here, and they're not logically sound for a league with an unbalanced schedule. History has shown that, time and again, in both stacked divisions and weak divisions.

 

[Ring 6]

This scares me, because it could be done so easily next season. It would simply add to the playoff game total and bottom line.

It's as if we can expect it. Write it down.

But that would be good for the players, as they get half that money, and no one would be taking it from fans at gunpoint, they would be willingly paying it.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don't think changing the format will make a difference. Upsets happen and will continue to happen. Good teams win at home. Good teams win on the road. If you are a good team, on the road, playing well, and match up great vs the home team go have a great shot at winning. I understand football is a single-game elimination tourney but good teams find a way to win and for the most part the good teams that are playing well at the end of the play each other. Period.

I think about 2011 when the Giants hosted ATL. Would have the Giants beaten ATL in the dome? They dominated the game.

What about when NO went to SEA in 2010? If that game was in NO, would NO won 41-36? They played earlier in the year in NO and while the Saints did win handily, SEA was able to move the ball pretty well. It wasn't a shoo-in that SEA would lose if that game was in NO.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think changing the format will make a difference. Upsets happen and will continue to happen. Good teams win at home. Good teams win on the road. If you are a good team, on the road, playing well, and match up great vs the home team go have a great shot at winning. I understand football is a single-game elimination tourney but good teams find a way to win and for the most part the good teams that are playing well at the end of the play each other. Period.

I think about 2011 when the Giants hosted ATL. Would have the Giants beaten ATL in the dome? They dominated the game.

What about when NO went to SEA in 2010? If that game was in NO, would NO won 41-36? They played earlier in the year in NO and while the Saints did win handily, SEA was able to move the ball pretty well. It wasn't a shoo-in that SEA would lose if that game was in NO.

There is no way the NFL can determine a champion without it being the team that wins when everything is on the line.
I have no problem saying the better team is the one that wins when everything is on the line instead of the one that does the best over the long haul of the season.
If people want to designate a regular season champ to reward a different criteria than the one that is used to determine a champion, that is fine, but no one will take that seriously.
To say that it is unfair that a champion is unfairly determined if a team who has a lesser regular season defeats a team that had a better regular season would be consistent with calling Peyton Manning the GOAT and ignoring his failures when it matters most.
Championships in the NFL are earned on the field.

 

[mgteich]

Re: OT: NFL considering changes in playoff HFA, seeding

BEFORE WE START
The issues for the NFL is which playoff protocol would produce the most money. Clearly, fan interest produces long-term money and is therefore important.

Personally, I like the system the way it is. Only one team with a winning record didn't make it into the playoffs. That's fine with me.
===============
ISSUE ONE - FAIRNESS
If you want fairness, then play a 15 game season season, all within the conference. This would eliminate divisions.

ISSUE TWO - FAN INTEREST
I believe that divisions help give us rivalries, and interest even if our team is not in the hunt. Also, it helps fan interest to play an out of conference division each year, as well as one within the conference.

ISSUE TWO - BYES AND HOME FIELD
I like the idea of fighting for two byes and home field. This helps give interest for fans of teams at the top. Also, I think that one home field game for division winners helps fan interest in the division. I WOULD favor a team acquiring the seed of the team that they beat.
In other words, if a team beats the #1 seed, they would become the #1 seed.

BOTTOM LINE
While a bit of re-seeding is OK, I think the system is fine.

 

[fnordcircle]

I'm a believer in Parcells' "You are what your record says you are."

Empty coaching platitudes that have no basis in reality and are only meant for players who get too up or too down based on their team's record.

Or are you seriously going to suggest that if a team played the Jacksonville Jaguars 16 times in a row and was 11-5 would be a better team than one that played the Denver Broncos 16 times in a row and ended up 10-6.

 

[Ring 6]

Empty coaching platitudes that have no basis in reality and are only meant for players who get too up or too down based on their team's record.

Or are you seriously going to suggest that if a team played the Jacksonville Jaguars 16 times in a row and was 11-5 would be a better team than one that played the Denver Broncos 16 times in a row and ended up 10-6.

Slippery slope.
The first team would have gone 11-5 against 5-11 competition and the second would have gone 10-6 against 6-10 competition.
This is why arguing with an unrealistic scenario is pointless.

By the way, Parcells comment is not an empty platitude it is an exact statement of what the team has actually accomplished. Considering that w/l is the ONLY consideration in standings, making the playoffs and seedings, using other factors such as competition to act as if a team isn't what it record says is actually the empty platitude.
The point is not to make observers think you are good, it is to succeed on the field.

 

[TyronePoole]

Slippery slope.
The first team would have gone 11-5 against 5-11 competition and the second would have gone 10-6 against 6-10 competition.
This is why arguing with an unrealistic scenario is pointless.

By the way, Parcells comment is not an empty platitude it is an exact statement of what the team has actually accomplished. Considering that w/l is the ONLY consideration in standings, making the playoffs and seedings, using other factors such as competition to act as if a team isn't what it record says is actually the empty platitude.
The point is not to make observers think you are good, it is to succeed on the field.

This is drivel. There's a ton of variance in a 16 game season, and a crazy amount in a 1 and done playoff format based on divisional seeds. What do you think Vegas uses to set lines? Do they just sort by w/l record?

For everyone who isn't a complete results oriented drooler the cliche is meaningless.

 

[Ring 6]

This is drivel. There's a ton of variance in a 16 game season, and a crazy amount in a 1 and done playoff format based on divisional seeds. What do you think Vegas uses to set lines? Do they just sort by w/l record?

For everyone who isn't a complete results oriented drooler the cliche is meaningless.

Standings, playoff berths and seedings are based solely on record.

Please explain what Vegas or who you think is a better team has to do with anything.

 

[TyronePoole]

Standings, playoff berths and seedings are based solely on record.

Please explain what Vegas or who you think is a better team has to do with anything.

I was explaining why the sentiment behind the statement "you are what your record says you are" is complete nonsense.

If you are just trying to type tautologies be my guest.

 

[Ring 6]

I was explaining why the sentiment behind the statement "you are what your record says you are" is complete nonsense.

If you are just trying to type tautologies be my guest.

But you are what your record says you are. That's the point.

Unless you feel the goal is what people think about you, pretending you are better than a team with a better record because of who you played gets you nothing.
I'm not quite sure what you think matters more than the method of being ranked in the standings and seeded in the playoffs.

 

[TyronePoole]

But you are what your record says you are. That's the point.

Unless you feel the goal is what people think about you, pretending you are better than a team with a better record because of who you played gets you nothing.
I'm not quite sure what you think matters more than the method of being ranked in the standings and seeded in the playoffs.

It's not an accurate measure of how good teams are. It may very well be the only possible measure that can be used to seed the playoffs, but the statement that "you are what your record says you are" meaning that records are an accurate way to sort how good teams are is flat wrong and stupid. It becomes increasingly stupid the earlier in the season it is uttered.

 

[Ring 6]

It's not an accurate measure of how good teams are. It may very well be the only possible measure that can be used to seed the playoffs, but the statement that "you are what your record says you are" meaning that records are an accurate way to sort how good teams are is flat wrong and stupid. It becomes increasingly stupid the earlier in the season it is uttered.

Well thats because you have defined it wrong.
The NFL is about results. There is no trophy for people having a good opinion about you.
Results are all that matter, therefore a team is as good as its results.
More importantly what a team is able to accomplish is only as good as its record. Being 8-8 and out of the playoffs because you played a tough schedule simply doesn't qualify as 'good' in my book, no matter how much you want to analyze what they could have done under different circumstances.

You are what your record says you are because that is the only meaningful way you are judged.

 

[Ring 6]

It's not an accurate measure of how good teams are. It may very well be the only possible measure that can be used to seed the playoffs, but the statement that "you are what your record says you are" meaning that records are an accurate way to sort how good teams are is flat wrong and stupid. It becomes increasingly stupid the earlier in the season it is uttered.

I think we also have a different definition of 'how good you are'.
Mine is you are what you accomplish. Yours appears to be more based on opinion.

 

[TyronePoole]

Results are all that matter, therefore a team is as good as its results.

More importantly what a team is able to accomplish is only as good as its record.

You are what your record says you are because that is the only meaningful way you are judged.

Lol this is just one big circular argument stated 3 times.

So the Green Bay Packers lost Aaron Rodgers for 7.5 games this year but lets all pretend that they're about on par with Miami because they have the same record and YOU ARE WHAT YOUR RECORD SAYS YOU ARE.

Sample size in the NFL renders records the least meaningful out of probably any sport on earth. It's not about "getting a trophy" for what Vegas says, it's the fact that the lines deviate so wildly from the records of the team that it's pretty clear records are not a good indication of how good teams are.