Florio calls for revised playoff seeding, invokes Hawks 7-9

[SantaClaraHawk]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... g-overdue/

"Nine years ago, the 7-9 Seahawks hosted the 11-5 Saints in the wild-card round. .. Seahawks won, prompting some to say that the outcomes proved that they were the better team. The better explanation was that, if the game had been played in New Orleans, the Saints would have won.

"This year, the Seahawks could be burned by the rule from which they benefited. Either Seattle or San Francisco likely will finish 13-3 or 12-4, and whoever doesn’t win the NFC West will have to travel either Dallas or Philadelphia, one of which will win the division, possibly with a record of 8-8 or worse.

"With the Cowboys currently leading the NFC East by one game, a win over the Eagles in Week 16 could clinch the division for Dallas, allowing the Cowboys to rest their starters in Week 17, which the 49ers and Seahawks engage in a bare-knuckled, winner-take-all fight for the NFC West crown, with the loser limping to Dallas — and possibly losing there, too.

"It shouldn’t be that way. The four best teams from each conference should host playoff games. While winning a division should guarantee a spot in the playoffs, it shouldn’t guarantee a home game."

 

[kidhawk]

Personally, I don't care which end of the spectrum we fall, I prefer the current system. Teams need to be rewarded for winning their division. Each division plays eerily similar schedules making their seasons fairly equal. Teams from other divisions could have easier or tougher opponents from one season to the next.

 

[Fade]

I am cool with it the way it is. It makes winning the division that much more valuable.

 

[Sports Hernia]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/12/04/revised-playoff-seeding-is-long-overdue/

"Nine years ago, the 7-9 Seahawks hosted the 11-5 Saints in the wild-card round. .. Seahawks won, prompting some to say that the outcomes proved that they were the better team. The better explanation was that, if the game had been played in New Orleans, the Saints would have won.

"This year, the Seahawks could be burned by the rule from which they benefited. Either Seattle or San Francisco likely will finish 13-3 or 12-4, and whoever doesn’t win the NFC West will have to travel either Dallas or Philadelphia, one of which will win the division, possibly with a record of 8-8 or worse.

"With the Cowboys currently leading the NFC East by one game, a win over the Eagles in Week 16 could clinch the division for Dallas, allowing the Cowboys to rest their starters in Week 17, which the 49ers and Seahawks engage in a bare-knuckled, winner-take-all fight for the NFC West crown, with the loser limping to Dallas — and possibly losing there, too.

"It shouldn’t be that way. The four best teams from each conference should host playoff games. While winning a division should guarantee a spot in the playoffs, it shouldn’t guarantee a home game."

I’ve felt this way for ages. I thought it was wrong that Seattle hosted the “beast quake” game and said it at the time.
Just because you win a crap division you shouldn’t get to host. Getting to the playoffs with a crap record should be reward enough.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I'm fine with it the way it is right now. Most years this stuff doesn't happen. I hope the Hawks aren't on the short end of this stick this year but if it happens the team needs to man up and persevere. It wouldn't be like they didn't have the bye and division within reach because they do, beginning with the next game. They control their destiny. Win out and they're a 1 or 2 seed guaranteed.

 

[SanDiego49er]

He is totally correct. The NFL talks about this every year and even thought about doing something about several times but never has so far. No way a 7 - 9 team should host a 13 - 3 team. That's absolutely ridiculous. Divisions were originally set up to make it more practical and convenient and be close to the other teams in your area. Like West coast teams, Northeast teams, Midwest teams, South teams and so on. It was practical and convenient for the teams, local TV, written press, fans traveling to go within the division in the same area with some ease.

A 7 - 9 team playing at home against a 13 - 3 team is beyond absurd. The good news is whether it is you or us I think we can easily beat the Cowboys or Eagles or whoever it is if either of our teams travel there. They aren't that intimidating. I think you and us would win that game. That does't mean it's still not a really bad system. You should not be rewarded for playing in an ultra weak garbage division. These divisions were set up mostly for geography. They weren't for the purpose of giving a huge advantage to a weak division and a huge disadvantage to tough division.

Take the top 6 seeds in a Conference. They are in the playoffs. The top 2 seeds of any division have the bye. The other 4 play the wild card game. That's the most fair system IMO. That's what the system should be.

 

[sutz]

I reiterate, if you're going to have divisions, then being div champ has to mean something. :229031_shrug:

 

[SanDiego49er]

I reiterate, if you're going to have divisions, then being div champ has to mean something. :229031_shrug:

How do you account for some division stacked with really great teams and being top heavy? How do you account for some divisions full of teams that really belong moved down to College football and not in the NFL. What do you do with those disparities?

 

[sutz]

I reiterate, if you're going to have divisions, then being div champ has to mean something. :229031_shrug:

How do you account for some division stacked with really great teams and being top heavy? How do you account for some divisions full of teams that really belong moved down to College football and not in the NFL. What do you do with those disparities?

Then you penalize New England by making them always play playoff games on the road. :lol:

I don't really do hypotheticals. And I'm not a big fan of changing the rules because of rare outliers.

 

[chris98251]

Our AFC days we were in a Division with the Raiders, Broncos, Chiefs and Chargers, it was rotate the Super Bowl with those teams for many years. They and we beat up each other all season, Put us in say the East or say the NFC west and chances are any one of the teams in the AFC West including us could win that division and yes beat the 49ers also, 49ers would win some but not dominate like they did.

Old AFC North also was very much that way with the Browns, Steelers, Bengal's and Oilers.

 

[JGfromtheNW]

It's weird, I feel like I go back and forth on this every year. I don't necessarily mind the way that it is right now, it does place more value on winning your division. However, securing a playoff spot seems like enough of a reward for winning your division. It just doesn't make sense to me to have teams with worse records hosting teams with better records in the playoffs.

I think all four division winners should go to the playoffs, plus two wild card teams, and then the top two teams (based off W/L) get first round byes and the other four play wildcard weekend. This way, IMO, you aren't rewarding a bad division/winner just for the sake of rewarding them.

 

[Rat]

Sucks that it has happened before, but the system works fine nearly 100% of the time. I wouldn't want to make a change to prevent distant outlier situations. Things aren't going to be fair every time in any system. Regardless, the more games you win, the less likely you are to get screwed.

 

[SanDiego49er]

It's weird, I feel like I go back and forth on this every year. I don't necessarily mind the way that it is right now, it does place more value on winning your division. However, securing a playoff spot seems like enough of a reward for winning your division. It just doesn't make sense to me to have teams with worse records hosting teams with better records in the playoffs.

I think all four division winners should go to the playoffs, plus two wild card teams, and then the top two teams (based off W/L) get first round byes and the other four play wildcard weekend. This way, IMO, you aren't rewarding a bad division/winner just for the sake of rewarding them.

I agree with this. You are correct here.

 

[SanDiego49er]

Sucks that it has happened before, but the system works fine nearly 100% of the time. I wouldn't want to make a change to prevent distant outlier situations. Things aren't going to be fair every time in any system. Regardless, the more games you win, the less likely you are to get screwed.

I understand not wanting to change systems based on rare outliers. NFL or otherwise. It's a legitimate argument. However this system is broken. Top 6 seeds in the playoffs. Top 2 of any division get the bye. The others play the wild card game. 7 - 9 should not be hosting 13 - 3. That's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[kidhawk]

Sucks that it has happened before, but the system works fine nearly 100% of the time. I wouldn't want to make a change to prevent distant outlier situations. Things aren't going to be fair every time in any system. Regardless, the more games you win, the less likely you are to get screwed.

I understand not wanting to change systems based on rare outliers. NFL or otherwise. It's a legitimate argument. However this system is broken. Top 6 seeds in the playoffs. Top 2 of any division get the bye. The others play the wild card game. 7 - 9 should not be hosting 13 - 3. That's absolutely ridiculous.

As a 7-9 team has never hosted a 13-3 team, that would be what we call an outlier. It has never happened before and may never happen.

The only times a team with less than 8 wins during a 16 game season made the playoffs they played 11 win teams.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I think a compromise between the two is a better option than either on its own.

Have the worst division winner have to travel to the 5th seed for their first wild card game IF the 5th seed has a better record.

 

[Sports Hernia]

He is totally correct. The NFL talks about this every year and even thought about doing something about several times but never has so far. No way a 7 - 9 team should host a 13 - 3 team. That's absolutely ridiculous. Divisions were originally set up to make it more practical and convenient and be close to the other teams in your area. Like West coast teams, Northeast teams, Midwest teams, South teams and so on. It was practical and convenient for the teams, local TV, written press, fans traveling to go within the division in the same area with some ease.

A 7 - 9 team playing at home against a 13 - 3 team is beyond absurd. The good news is whether it is you or us I think we can easily beat the Cowboys or Eagles or whoever it is if either of our teams travel there. They aren't that intimidating. I think you and us would win that game. That does't mean it's still not a really bad system. You should not be rewarded for playing in an ultra weak garbage division. These divisions were set up mostly for geography. They weren't for the purpose of giving a huge advantage to a weak division and a huge disadvantage to tough division.

Take the top 6 seeds in a Conference. They are in the playoffs. The top 2 seeds of any division have the bye. The other 4 play the wild card game. That's the most fair system IMO. That's what the system should be.

Agree. :2thumbs:

 

[Sports Hernia]

I think a compromise between the two is a better option than either on its own.

Have the worst division winner have to travel to the 5th seed for their first wild card game IF the 5th seed has a better record.

I could live with that.

 

[James in PA]

This will change only if a legacy team (i.e., Cowboys, Stealers, Packers) goes 12-4 or better but has to play a wildcard game on the road against a division winner with an 8-8 or worse record *and* said legacy team loses the game. Until then, it won’t change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SanDiego49er]

This will change only if a legacy team (i.e., Cowboys, Stealers, Packers) goes 12-4 or better but has to play a wildcard game on the road against a division winner with an 8-8 or worse record *and* said legacy team loses the game. Until then, it won’t change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL.

You think they have that much control over the league? Haha. I actually could see it if it was New England. If had a year where they were like 12 - 4 but somehow lost their division (almost impossible as everybody else is typically weak in their division). But assuming it did happen for argument sake. If Tom Brady had to go on the road to play a game against a team with a weaker record I think they would change the rule tomorrow.

The NFL literally changed all the rules when Brady got his knee injury. Suddenly plays that were OK and hard hitting football became completely illegal. Their golden boy Tom Brady went down and they literally jumped to it and changed all the rules. That's just stunning if you think about it. The NFL bends over backwards for the Patriots. Nobody else gets this kind of treatment.