Should the NFL change the playoff system?

[Brady_to_Moss]

Should they change the playoff system to go just based on record? Either the Pats or the Jets are going to get shafted here by having a say 12-4 team go to play a team at their field that is 9-7 or 10-6...to me that just sounds messed up. Whats your take?

 

[D-Money]

Lets hope its not us.That jet game might be our season.The jets are still undefeated in the division and losing that game would be like being 2 games back.

I think they definetly should take a look at it although i doubt they would change it.The chargers might win the division at 9-7 but they arent a 9-7 team.

 

[Sicilian]

As long as a league plays an unbalanced schedule (aka, more games against teams within your division), you have to reward the division winners.

 

[aluminum seats]

This comes up periodically, then thankfully goes away. The division structure is great--creates rivalries, heightened importance of certain games, etc. It's cyclical how good the divisions are; it's just the nature of the beast. I didn't bat an eye when the Pats didn't get in w/the 11-5 record--all teams know the deal from the get-go. Teams that complain are whining crybaby losers.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's bad enough that they are screwing with overtime in the playoffs. Let's not have them completely screw the entire playoffs by changing to a straight record system.

 

[Disco Volante]

No, it's part of what makes football great.

 

[jah]

You're giving up on the Pats' chances of winning the division already? I feel like this thread wouldn't exist otherwise.

 

[juxtapoz15]

It's bad enough that they are screwing with overtime in the playoffs. Let's not have them completely screw the entire playoffs by changing to a straight record system.

I don't think the OP was suggesting that it be a straight record system. I am guessing what he meant was that division winners would still get in, but the seeding would be based on record and division winners wouldn't automatically get a 1-4 seed.

Example:

1. Patriots 13-3 (East Winner)
2. Jets 12-4 (WildCard)
3. Ravens 10-6 (North Winner)
4. Steelers 9-7 (Wild Card won tiebreaker over Colts)
5. Colts 9-7 (South Winner)
6. Chargers 8-8 (West Winner)

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't think the OP was suggesting that it be a straight record system. I am guessing what he meant was that division winners would still get in, but the seeding would be based on record and division winners wouldn't automatically get a 1-4 seed.

Example:

1. Patriots 13-3 (East Winner)
2. Jets 12-4 (WildCard)
3. Ravens 10-6 (North Winner)
4. Steelers 9-7 (Wild Card won tiebreaker over Colts)
5. Colts 9-7 (South Winner)
6. Chargers 8-8 (West Winner)

How is that any more fair? The whole problem with all of this is that people want to define "fair" from their perspective. It's not "fair" for a 9-7 team to have a home game instead of a 10-6 team. Well, perhaps it wasn't fair that the 10-6 team played the toughest schedule in the league, and the 9-7 team played the easiest. Why does an 8-8 winner deserve to make the playoffs over a 9-7 team that came in 3rd place in another division?

There's no way to have a 'fair' seeding system as long as there's an unbalanced schedule, just as there's no way to have a 'fair' overtime system other than eliminating overtime entirely.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I don't think the OP was suggesting that it be a straight record system. I am guessing what he meant was that division winners would still get in, but the seeding would be based on record and division winners wouldn't automatically get a 1-4 seed.

Example:

1. Patriots 13-3 (East Winner)
2. Jets 12-4 (WildCard)
3. Ravens 10-6 (North Winner)
4. Steelers 9-7 (Wild Card won tiebreaker over Colts)
5. Colts 9-7 (South Winner)
6. Chargers 8-8 (West Winner)

yeah thats what i ment

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The straight record method would minimize the whole division concept and many of the "big" games are division rivalries.

My guess is the league would define "fair" as having the maximum number of games that create interest and rivalries and ratings.

The other point is that it's not really six spots per conference. It's actually four groups of four teams playing a majority common schedule fighting for four separate spots.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

How is that any more fair? The whole problem with all of this is that people want to define "fair" from their perspective. It's not "fair" for a 9-7 team to have a home game instead of a 10-6 team. Well, perhaps it wasn't fair that the 10-6 team played the toughest schedule in the league, and the 9-7 team played the easiest. Why does an 8-8 winner deserve to make the playoffs over a 9-7 team that came in 3rd place in another division?

There's no way to have a 'fair' seeding system as long as there's an unbalanced schedule, just as there's no way to have a 'fair' overtime system other than eliminating overtime entirely.

You can't have perfect fairness, period, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a fairer system than the present one.

Basically, the current value judgment by the NFL is that a team that wins its division, no matter how bad its overall record might be, is more worthy of a home playoff game than a team that might win more games but fails to win its division.

Some people would argue this is the fairest system, others that it isn't.

 

[sieglo]

If they didn't change it after 2008 when the 8-8 Chargers beat the 12-4 Colts in San Diego, then they never will. Basically, it means that Polian doesn't want it changed, and we all know that whining bastard gets what he wants.

 

[Deus Irae]

You can't have perfect fairness, period, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a fairer system than the present one.

Basically, the current value judgment by the NFL is that a team that wins its division, no matter how bad its overall record might be, is more worthy of a home playoff game than a team that might win more games but fails to win its division.

Some people would argue this is the fairest system, others that it isn't.

I agree, which is why I made the point about how "people want to define "fair" from their perspective".

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I hate it when a 8-8 or 7-9 team hosts a playoff game. Sure they won their division and they do deserve a spot in the playoffs. It seems more fair that a team that is not even over 0.500 should travel to face a wild card team with a better record.

Maybe a workable system would be that you need 9 wins to be "home field eligible" just like you need 6+ wins to be "bowl eligible" in college. This doesn't destroy the divisonal rivalries and the division setup- you still know that if you win the division you make the playoffs.

You still might have a 9-7 team hosting a 11-5 team. But someday a division will be so crappy that a 6-10 team will win it, then play at home. Ugh. Sure the other team should win anyway if they are better, and they knew the rules and shouldn't whine about it. But the rule could be made (in my opinion) more fair.

 

[bradydaman29]

The easiest way to make it more fair would be, keeping the same system so that division winners and wild cards get in the playoffs under current rules, then, once those teams are established, re-seed based on record and the top 2 teams receive the bye, 3rd best record plays worst record, etc.

 

[mgcolby]

Should they change the playoff system to go just based on record? Either the Pats or the Jets are going to get shafted here by having a say 12-4 team go to play a team at their field that is 9-7 or 10-6...to me that just sounds messed up. Whats your take?

Did you think it was messed up when a 12-4 Jags team came to foxboro to play a 10-6 Pats team?

 

[Off The Grid]

What I would love to see get changed, is the ATROCITY that is our current TieBreaker system.

There are exactly TWO TieBreakers that matter, in no particular order:

1 ~ Head to Head
2 ~ Strength of Schedule

When one team plays an inferior, weak schedule, but beats out a better team for its rightfull playoff spot, due to some pathetic derivative like "Divisional Record" or "Common Teams", because Strength of Schedule is unfathomably relegated to the bottom of the list...it makes me want KILL somebody.

In case anyone's not aware of the recent circumstance: Our 2008 team was playing very strong at the end of the year, and might've gone far, indeed, against a very weak crew of Play Off teams.

 

[Kontradiction]

Nope. Division winners deserve to be rewarded first with home games in the playoffs. Division runners-up with the highest records get in as Wild Card teams. If they don't like it, they should have done more to win the division.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I don't see any realistic way to change it.

As long as we have divisions with two games played against each division rival, the division winners have to be rewarded.

I don't see how one could get all of the "unfairness" out of the seedings unless records were somehow adjusted for "strength of current year schedule" in such a way that a 9--7 team with a tough schedule could be jumped ahead of a 10--6 team with an easier schedule. But, that would be so complicated and prone to argument that it would be impossible to implement.

I think that history proves that Home Field advantage all the way to the CCG, while important, isn't the Holy Grail of post-season play. If memory serves me, most of the SB winners since 2001 didn't have the best record (with tiebreakers) in their conference (the 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 SB Winners all didn't have Homefield all the way).

IMO, what is important is that extra week off, though the Giants managed without it in 2007.