OT: NFL considering major changes to playoff seeding

[sb1]

So why play 6 division games if they won’t matter as much? Also I’m ok with a tush push ban.

 

[Pape]

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

 

[Pacific Coast Patriot]

So why play 6 division games if they won’t matter as much?

Yeah if you're going to do effectively do away with a division champion, I'd rather just play 17 different teams a year, spice things up a little.

I do find playing the same divisional games a bit stale after a while but maybe its because we owned them for 2 straight decades.

It's fun when you finally get to host a team like Seattle which only comes around at home every 8 years! Crazy.

 

[sb1]

So under this proposal the 2010 Seahawks and 2022 Bucs would have won their division and missed the playoffs anyway. Lol

Edit: ah- the proposal being voted on has all division winners getting in just not necessarily as the top 4 seeds.

 

[ScottishPatriots]

Nothing is wrong with the current setup, the NFL reacts way too much on year to year events.

This is purely because there was a scenario with the Lions and Vikings where both had 14 wins in week 18 and the loser of the game was dropping to a 5 seed, i think removing that jeopardy and having the loser of that still get a 2/3 seed takes some of the meaning out of division games.

 

[PP2]

Nothing is wrong with the current setup, the NFL reacts way too much on year to year events.

This is purely because there was a scenario with the Lions and Vikings where both had 14 wins in week 18 and the loser of the game was dropping to a 5 seed, i think removing that jeopardy and having the loser of that still get a 2/3 seed takes some of the meaning out of division games.

The NFL loves to fix what's not broken.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I once did a poll of playoff formats for a tournament I was running. literally every format I polled had a net negative rating.

 

[maust]

This is BS, whatever happened to 'you build your team to win your division"

 

[TheRainMaker]

Divisions needed to get wiped out years ago as rivalries are dead. I'm also tired of them playing the same teams over and over again in the division.

It should just be 2 conferences. You'll get a better idea of how good your team really is when you play more teams outside of your bubble.

 

[Grogan14]

No need for divisions anymore. Just take the top 7 finishers in each conference

 

[sb1]

doesn’t the NFL already reseed after the wild card round? Bye team plays the lowest remaining seed and so on

 

[JohnJH]

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

Will this be another one of those: "Let's see how we can further mess with what was a successful Pro Sport even more, reduce revenue by alienating Fans, and just generally doing more stupid crap"?

 

[Triumph]

The NFL loves to fix what's not broken.

To make more money.

They will add more post season teams.

 

[jmt57]

My suggestion to the teams that are upset that they have to go on the road after having a great regular season won-loss record:

Use bulletin board material with a disrespect theme. Use that to fuel extra motivation, an 'us-against-the-world' mentality, and annihilate that division winner with an inferior record.

Do that, rather than playing the victim card.


And to the hollow suits at 345 Park Avenue: don't fix what's not broken.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

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

 

[denverpatsfan]

Anything to help Luries Eagles or the Chefs continue their dominance. I'm sure this will pass

 

[TommyD4207]

So why play 6 division games if they won’t matter as much? Also I’m ok with a tush push ban.

This would be completely ******ed. Yet another case of the NFL caving to fantasy football and gambling. Because it turns out, those .500 (or sub .500) division winners tend to actually *win* their playoff games over wildcard teams. And you can count the number of 11-win teams that missed the playoffs, ever, on two fingers - in both cases, those teams played easy-ass schedules and had more than enough chances to win their division, and take it out of the hands of the tiebreakers.

You take out the divisions, you're the NBA. You re-seed, and I have no idea what you turn into, that's just batshit. Now you're punishing top seeds in the case there are upsets.

 

[Pape]

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

The only way to balance it out fairly is to dump the divisions then... fundamentally change the structure of the game... For what?

I might be in the minority, but i like division play... Little bit more of an edge to those games...

 

[XLIX]

1) I hate the NFL always reacting to the mediot whining on ESPN. Don't let those pieces of **** bully you into changes.

2) I don't see how this "increases excitement" in weeks 17 and 18. You're just as likely to have a team locked into a specific seed with these new rules as with the old ones. KC would still have rested their starters against Denver and Buffalo would still have rested their starters against us and Philly still would have rested their starters against NY.

3) 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.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

The only way to balance it out fairly is to dump the divisions then... fundamentally change the structure of the game... For what?

I might be in the minority, but i like division play... Little bit more of an edge to those games...

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