Playoff seeding

[SLGDEV]

In my opinion, the playoff seeding needs to be changed. The seeding should include the division winners as four of them and two best record remaining teams, but the seeding should then be by best record and all the other tie-breakers after that. As an example, this year it would be Pats, Cincy, Denver, KC, Jets, Houston.

I still keep division winners because while this year it means a dog division winner gets in, it could also mean that if the four teams in a division are all good, but knock each other off 3-3, then it is easy for non-division winners to pass them. There has to be a reward for winning the division.

Comments?

 

[deters]

Agreed it should be by record but division winners auto in the 6 spots. An 10+ win team shouldn't have to travel to one that is below or barely at .500

 

[Ivan]

I think division winners should be bumped out of the playoffs it they are under .500 and there are teams with better records. Sub .500 take shouldn't be in the playoffs it it can be helped.

 

[SLGDEV]

Ivan, I see two replies and two votes other than my own. Why did you check "keep it as it is" if you want division winners bumped? Why not straight seeding by record? (You are able to change your vote). Unless, of course, it wasn't you who voted. You can always vote to "straight seeding by record" if you wish.

 

[Ross12]

I'm not in favor of a change. Things look bad right now because you've got some really crap teams winning divisions with awful records, but how it's SUPPOSED to work is for teams who manage to win a really tough division be rewarded with a home game... For example, team A plays in a tough division and had a tough schedule, and they manage a 9-7 record. Team B plays in a cake division and had a cake schedule, and finish at 10-6, but lose their division to another team who finished 11-5. Why should the team A who had a much tougher year have to travel to team B just because team B has the better record? Record isn't everything.

Point is, winning your division means something. It seems stupid and unimportant right now because of a couple piss poor divisions (and some really awful teams in this league in general), but if you can't manage to beat your division opponents over the course of the season, you don't deserve a home game. Sorry.

 

[MassPats38]

The problem with the season record proposal is that the schedule arranges play with teams from 2 other divisions and twice with the teams from the same division. Strength of schedule may say something at the end of the season, but it is useless as a predictive measure.

Teams can only win the games put on the schedule, but records as a measure may indicate a division had multiple gimmes against one or two divisions worth of bad teams, while another team with a tough record clawed its way to a respectable record.

Compare the historically tough AFC North with the historically weak AFC South. Teams like the Colts are handed 6-0 (4 when the Texans are decent), while the gimme games for the North are maybe 2 (Browns). The NFC South was lousy last year (and with the exception of the Panthers, this year), and the NFC East stunk this year. The games are scheduled before that, so why reward teams with homefield advantage simply by winning in an easier schedule? All wins and all schedules are not uniform.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Agreed it should be by record but division winners auto in the 6 spots. An 10+ win team shouldn't have to travel to one that is below or barely at .500

This makes sense to me.

For example for 6 teams...

1 and 2 receive a bye based on record. For example, if #1 is 12-4 and #2 is 11-5 but a WC and #3 is 11-5 but a division winner but loses on tiebreakers to #2, #2 has HFA.

for 3-6, better record/tiebreaker has HFA.

However, if 7th team has better record than worst division winner, sorry but they miss the playoffs which sucks because in 2008, Pats were 11-5 and San Diego was 8-8. Winning the division needs to be rewarded somehow. Can't make everyone happy.

 

[Haley]

I think it is nice for people in each division to have a team from their area going to the playoffs even if it isn't their own. I know that if it were us I'd want to see the Jets one and done for our collective amusement.

 

[50-yard-line]

A 10-6 team can be a lot worse than an 8-8 team, depending on division.

Carolina played one team this year with a winning record: Green Bay the short week after Denver demolished them and exposed their offensive weaknesses.

Records, stats, are as much to do with who you play (and when you play them - playing SB hangover Seattle early in the year was better than catching them in the last few weeks...same with KC) as anything else.

Leave it as is. Playing in a tough division (NFC West a couple of years ago, AFC East this year) alone can cost a couple of wins.

 

[pwes]

This has come up every year for the past 8 years. Ever since 2008 when we missed the playoffs. Its fine the way it is. If you dont win your division well tough ****. You had your chance and blew it. Just cause you win beating up on cupcakes but cant beat your own division teams doesn't mean you should get a higher seed over a team that did beat the other teams in their division.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Division rivalries that come from playing the same three teams twice every season and getting the valuable prize of a playoff berth for ending up with the best record of the four teams is pretty much at the heart of the how teams think about their seasons ("First, win the Division. Then worry about everything else.") and how fans get energized in today's NFL...let's face it, we love to despise the Jets, pity the Bills and get a good laugh out of the LOLphins.. We also kind of love it that those four teams all really hate our guts. So, I don't want to see that changed.

I do agree though that the playoff berth for a Division winner shouldn't guarantee a Home Playoff game. The teams should be seeded based on pretty much the same criteria that is used to seed teams or break ties today. The top teams should still get a Bye and the other four teams should play a "Wild Card" round with number one hosting number four and number two hosting number three.

The alternative would be to have the 16 teams in each Conference play games against each other and a few teams in the other conference using some sort of round-robin or record-based system. Instead of eight Division Standings, you'd end up with two Conference standings. That's very different than what we have now and I don't think it would engage the fans as passionately as the current system.

 

[Ivan]

Ivan, I see two replies and two votes other than my own. Why did you check "keep it as it is" if you want division winners bumped? Why not straight seeding by record? (You are able to change your vote). Unless, of course, it wasn't you who voted. You can always vote to "straight seeding by record" if you wish.

Because I hadn't thought about teams with losing records getting in until after I voted and didn't realize you could change votes.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I think the system is just right...or at least better than the alternatives.

 

[Ivan]

The argument that teams that win their division should get in because they could be in a tough division doesn't work because there is no way it's a tough division if there isn't a team with a winning record in it.

 

[fightingirish595]

Keep everything the way it is but reseed the divisional round based on record. Best example of this was Seattle in 2010. They should've played Atlanta and Chicago should've played greenbay.

 

[1960Pats]

In my opinion, the playoff seeding needs to be changed. The seeding should include the division winners as four of them and two best record remaining teams, but the seeding should then be by best record and all the other tie-breakers after that. As an example, this year it would be Pats, Cincy, Denver, KC, Jets, Houston.

I still keep division winners because while this year it means a dog division winner gets in, it could also mean that if the four teams in a division are all good, but knock each other off 3-3, then it is easy for non-division winners to pass them. There has to be a reward for winning the division.

Comments?

The top 6 teams should be in the playoffs. Period. There's no way on God's green earth that the Houston Texans or the Indiots belong in the playoffs this year while a superior team with a better record, like the Steelers, sits home. That's preposterous.

The example you give of teams losing out because they played in a strong division never happens. The only time I can remember when there were three worthy teams in the same division all three made it. Cincy, Pitt and Baltimore from the AFCN I believe.

On the other side of the coin, teams with worse records have been getting into the playoffs far more regularly lately and this year will be another example of that in the AFC. If not for a late surge by the Redskins and a collapse in the second half by the Falcons it would have happened in the NFC also.

 

[1960Pats]

This has come up every year for the past 8 years. Ever since 2008 when we missed the playoffs. Its fine the way it is. If you dont win your division well tough ****. You had your chance and blew it. Just cause you win beating up on cupcakes but cant beat your own division teams doesn't mean you should get a higher seed over a team that did beat the other teams in their division.

You have that completely backwards. Last year the Panthers were in a cupcake division (similar to Houston this year) AND had the worst record at 7-8-1 and the team they knocked out was a 10-6 team that kicked the Panthers ass on the field.

And the reason it keeps coming up is because it's been happening more often as the years go on. After not having any teams lose out with better records prior to 2008 it's happened to 8 or 9 teams in the last 6 or 7 years.

It's all because of the idiotic 4 team divisions. Winning a 4 team division means that you had a better record than only 3 of the other 15 teams in your conference. How is that an earned title, especially when the division is weak.

 

[TommyD4207]

If you dont win your division well tough ****. You had your chance and blew it.

This is the correct answer. Don't want to miss the playoffs? Win your division. 10 wins guarantees you nothing.

 

[TommyD4207]

The argument that teams that win their division should get in because they could be in a tough division doesn't work because there is no way it's a tough division if there isn't a team with a winning record in it.

What if that division had the NFC West and AFC North to play? An average team this year would be lucky to go 3-5. 3-3 in your division, 1-1 in your other games, and you're 7-9. How is that different from a 10-6 team, who got to play the AFC South and NFC East, and go 6-2 at worst? (I'm looking at you, Jets)

 

[VectorPrime]

Literally nothing should change about the playoff system. Nothing.