NFL considering changes in playoff HFA, seeding

[josh24]

NFL to consider reseeding playoffs purely by record - NFL.com

Anybody else thinks this is a bad idea? IMO, if you don't win your division, you don't deserve to host a playoff game. If not, what's the point on having divisions? Let's just have 2 conferences, and the top 4-6 of each battling in the playoffs.

WC teams should be grateful to be in the PS, regardless of their record. Also, the last 3 SB champions played 8 out of 9 games (before the SB) on the road.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

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.

 

[Patstopia]

That's great Goodell, put your slimy little hands on every aspect of the game until you ring the life out of it.

 

[Archeryaddict12]

I like the current playoffs myself.

 

[jah]

I think the rivalries will be preserved as long as the division winner at least gets a playoff spot. I don't think winning an easy division makes you deserve to host a playoff game, and I don't think coming in second in a hard division makes you deserve to be on the road. They should give playoff spots to the division winners and two wild cards, re-seed based on record, and give tiebreakers to division winners. I don't really see the issue. The intensity will remain the same within the division because you're still fighting for a playoff spot.

 

[Ivan]

I'm fine with reseeding, but thee idea of expanding the play-off field is nauseating. The greed of the NFL owners is ridiculous, if the go to an 18 game season it will be the beginning of the end of my interest in the league.

 

[Uncle Rico]

If you are going to go this route you have to do away with divisions and schedules based on divisions.

I actually had a standings-and-schedule idea last summer that would both do away with divisions and be a step toward the true parity the league allegedly wants. (In my view, you will never have actual parity as long half of teams' schedules are based on divisional alignment). I was thisclose to posting it last year but the Hernandez thing came up and now I'd have to rethink what the idea was -- but it went much further in playing teams with similar previous year results than the current setting. (And conference standings were 1-16).

Ultimately, though, I don't think the league is ready to do away with the division structure, so I don't see this playoff seeding idea going anywhere.

 

[fnordcircle]

Reseeding purely by record doesn't address the 'easy division' thing at all.

The AFC west and NFC west were probably the two best divisions this year.

The AFC South and NFC East were probably the two worst divisions this year.

Imagine a scenario where the AFC West and NFC West played each other and there were a lot of split divisional games as well as each team going 2-2 in AFC West vs. NFC West games. The winners of the AFC West and NFC West could very well have a worse record than the winners of the AFC South and NFC East because they played tougher competition.

It becomes too arbitrary and really addresses nothing.

I like it the way it is - winning the division should matter it adds an extra wrinkle to the mix instead of it becoming a pure record issue.

Hate this change and I typically do not knee-jerk hate Goodell changes like most of you yutzes.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

What fnord said.
Except the last sentence because to me Goodell = Satan
whom fnord apparently fervently embraces

 

[Raymond]

I like the division format the way it is. GM's /teams are supposed to build a team to match up and beat your division first. A wildcard team is just that because they couldn't accomplish that task well enough.

Every time there are a couple good record wildcard teams that have to go on the road this subject surfaces again.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

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.

 

[Patsrock]

I have always been for division gets you a playoff spot but not the right to host a game.

NBA has the rule if even if higher seed but have worse record you do not get home court advantage.

 

[Patsrock]

If you are going to go this route you have to do away with divisions and schedules based on divisions.
re.

Why? Divisions would still be important. You still get playoff spot just not automatic right to host a game.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's a really stupid idea because of the unbalanced schedule, so it will probably be lovingly embraced by Roger & Co.. Things will get even more muddled when they get around to adding yet another wild card to the playoffs at the expense of the #2 team's bye week.

 

[Raymond]

Things will get even more muddled when they get around to adding yet another wild card to the playoffs at the expense of the #2 team's bye week.

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.

 

[Wheelman]

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.

I thought about the splitting the league into halves as well. But then I realized some AFC and NFC teams would never play each other. That would be such a shame for the fans and players.

I think the way the seeding is and only allowing 6 teams per conference is perfect. There's really no reason to change it in my opinion. Wanna get a home game? Win your division, simple as that.

Even if the league expanded to 36 teams I'd still only want 6 teams per conference in the playoffs. If they had 40 teams then I'd be open to an 8 teams per conference in the playoffs.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It's a really stupid idea because of the unbalanced schedule, so it will probably be lovingly embraced by Roger & Co.. Things will get even more muddled when they get around to adding yet another wild card to the playoffs at the expense of the #2 team's bye week.

Who deserves the home game is a debatable point: it comes down to what you want to reward/punish.

That said, adding a seventh team and removing the bye for the #2 seed is a different matter altogether.

 

[goheels22002]

Jerry Jones came out yesterday in favor expanding to 8 teams per conference this week and his son Stephen Jones represents the Cowboys on the Competition Committee that came up with this new system.

Jerry Jones favors expanding the playoffs | ProFootballTalk

Personally, I think the change is a good one. The extra wild card in baseball paid off with so many teams in the hunt down to the last week of the season. Mostly, I have a problem with the Packers hosting the 49ers tonight after Green Bay squeaked in with an 8-7-1 record.

I'm a believer in Parcells' "You are what your record says you are." Divisions are artificial vestiges of the past. Two conferences, top six, two byes and let's do it. Or go top 8, lose a regular season game, and add a round of playoffs. Best records should get the benefit of their regular season wins.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

BTW, for those suggesting tinkering with the current schedule/conference system, remember that the NFL believes that one of its goals should be having every team host every other team on a regular basis.

And remember we Patriots fans have had things on the other foot in the past: back when the Squealers were in the NFC, the Pats once played them in Pittsburgh nine times in a row.

 

[goheels22002]

It's a really stupid idea because of the unbalanced schedule, so it will probably be lovingly embraced by Roger & Co.. Things will get even more muddled when they get around to adding yet another wild card to the playoffs at the expense of the #2 team's bye week.

The key to adding teams to the playoffs (which I do not oppose) would be to get rid of the divisions and put together a schedule that is pre-dominantly a conference schedule. MLB did that in the old days before divisions and wild cards.

Few divisions make sense right now anyway. Realignment along 16 East-16 West lines could be a good idea. Four 8-team groupings to balance travel and make sense of short weeks. I'd love to see the Patriots, Jets, Giants, Eagles, Ravens, Redskins, Dolphins, and Bills in an 8-team East coast alignment. Put the Atlanta - Indianapolis/Detroit teams in a Mideast grouping, the Texas-Arizona to Green Bay crowd in the Midwest together and a West coast cluster. Teams like Buffalo or Jacksonville might get screwed, or one of them could move to LA which should have a team.

I could see playing a schedule like the SEC or ACC where you get certain teams once every year for historical or rivalry purposes and play a rotating schedule of other conference teams every other year plus a set of teams from the other conference.