NFL considering WC team with better record to host

[volsunghawk]

I'd rather see wildcards eliminated completely rather than giving them home games due to W/L record.

Holy hell, folks, the wildcards are ALREADY being given preferential treatment by being allowed in the postseason in the first place when they couldn't win their division. We shouldn't be giving them even MORE preferential treatment.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

to this i say bah humbug because it pretty much negates the importance of winning the division.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... -by-record

Good because the fact you're in a crap division and STILL go 9-7 or worse should never give you such an advantage. Basically they should lock in the top 3 division winners and reseed the 4th if their record is worse than the 5-6 seeds.

I disagree. Consider Seattle's situation this year had such a rule been in effect. Once Seattle got it's 12th win, then it would have been guaranteed the #3 seed (not the #5 seed) making winning the division nearly meaningless. It also would have not helped the Cardinals one iota so people still would have been displeased.

If you want a home game, win your division. Otherwise do away with divisions.

Exactly. If we seed the WC's higher, then divisions have no meaning and all we have are two large conferences. Which honestly, might be better. No more playing division rivals twice a year. The whole conference is your rival. That makes for three extra games against conference opponents we wouldn't face under the current system. Fans get to see a wider variety of teams coming to Seattle. Teams like NE wouldn't have a cushy schedule, year in and year out.

There would be more parity.

 

[Trenchbroom]

Answer is very simple.

8 teams in the Post-Season.

All teams get a bye after the Regular Season.

4 Div. Champs + the 4 next best records make up the teams.

HFA is rewarded to the 4 best overall records in the 1st round, the 2 best remaining records in the 2nd round, and then the best record between the last 2 teams.

#8 CHI(8-8) @ #1 SEA (13-3)

#7 GB (8-7-1) @ #2 CAR (12-4)

#6 ARI (10-6) @ #3 SFO (12-4)

#5 PHI (10-6) @ #NO (11-5)

Makes it more interesting as well and would allow a whole division to possibly make it. For instance if the Rams had beaten Dallas, they would be the 8th seed in this scenario. That's how good the NFC West was this year.

8 teams x 2 conferences = 16 team playoff. You want half the league to qualify for the playoffs? What is this, the NBA?

No thanks.

 

[Kixkahn]

I can imagine Chicago last season who were 10-6 and didn't make the playoffs would want to see changes. The team fired Lovie Smith after that good of a season but no playoffs due to how good the conference teams were. There really isn't a way to end this unless they get rid of the small conferences and just leave a free for all AFC vs NFC.

 

[themunn]

I think the playoff system works perfectly as is right now, unless the NFL adds more teams there's no real reason to change it.

The only way I could accept changing to allow the teams with the best record to have a bye it is if they were to eliminate the AFC and NFC completely - otherwise how can you justify giving Philadelphia (the 4th best team in the NFC by record) a home game whilst forcing one of the 3 11-5 AFC teams to go on the road, or keep Arizona at home with a 10-6 record but allow San Diego into the playoffs as a wildcard with 1 less win. Winning your division should always qualify you for the playoffs at an absolute minimum. Then, in a tiebreaker between two teams with equal record, you could have divisional standing is the first tiebreaker instead of H2H, so at least there's still SOME value to winning your division (ie. New England would still have the tiebreak over SF)

Then you have a best of 12 seeding, and the 2013 season playoffs would look something like:

BYES: Seattle (1), Denver (2), Carolina (3), New England (4) (this might not be accurate, I haven't bothered to check record against common opponents or strength of schedule)
Home game in WC round:
SF (5), Cincinatti (6), Indianapolis (7), New Orleans(8)
Road game in WC round:
Kansas City (9), Philadelphia (10), Arizona Cardinals (11), Green Bay (12)


I do like the fact that the Superbowl will always be between an AFC and NFC champion - but at the same time, the Superbowl should be between the best 2 teams in teh league, not the best 2 teams from each conference.

 

[themunn]

I can imagine Chicago last season who were 10-6 and didn't make the playoffs would want to see changes. The team fired Lovie Smith after that good of a season but no playoffs due to how good the conference teams were. There really isn't a way to end this unless they get rid of the small conferences and just leave a free for all AFC vs NFC.

Yes, but every single team in the playoffs last year went 10-6 or better, so they still lose out. I say Arizona this year has more of a reason to grumble - they miss out on a wildcard spot at 10-6, but the Chargers get in at 9-7 (as a WC). Neither team won their division, so there's no justification there, and in fact, the Cardinals divisional opponents compiled 4 more wins in total than the AFC West (32-16 record compared to 28-20)

 

[Sturm]

Why do they feel they need to constantly tinker with this game... ukeface:

 

[razor150]

There are so many different ways you can argue about how to change the playoff seeding. Getting rid of seeding by winning your division is the dumbest one. I don't care what a wild card team's record is, the team's #1 job during the season is to win their division, not come in 2nd place. Being a wild card should not be rewarded.

Sure you can argue that winning in the NFC West or South is more impressive then winning in the North or East but the teams in those divisions did what they had to do when they won their division. In other eras teams like the Saints and 49ers wouldn't even have made the playoffs.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Answer is very simple.

8 teams in the Post-Season.

All teams get a bye after the Regular Season.

4 Div. Champs + the 4 next best records make up the teams.

HFA is rewarded to the 4 best overall records in the 1st round, the 2 best remaining records in the 2nd round, and then the best record between the last 2 teams.

#8 CHI(8-8) @ #1 SEA (13-3)

#7 GB (8-7-1) @ #2 CAR (12-4)

#6 ARI (10-6) @ #3 SFO (12-4)

#5 PHI (10-6) @ #NO (11-5)

Makes it more interesting as well and would allow a whole division to possibly make it. For instance if the Rams had beaten Dallas, they would be the 8th seed in this scenario. That's how good the NFC West was this year.

8 teams x 2 conferences = 16 team playoff. You want half the league to qualify for the playoffs? What is this, the NBA?

No thanks.

If it was the best 16 teams, the best 8 from each conference, why not? It would make it much more interesting, there would be more elimination football to watch, and more teams will have a better chance to win a Superbowl.

it isn't fair that an 8-7-1 team made the Play-Offs over the 10-6 Cards just because they didn't win their division who also had a 13-3 team and 12-4 team.

It wasn't fair the Seahawks made the playoffs with an abysmal 7-9 record, while two teams with 10 wins had to sit at home.

It just makes sense to me in being fair, mediocre teams that win their division still make it at no expense to the teams who did better but played in harder divisions.

 

[SoHo9erFan]

I disagree. Consider Seattle's situation this year had such a rule been in effect. Once Seattle got it's 12th win, then it would have been guaranteed the #3 seed (not the #5 seed) making winning the division nearly meaningless. It also would have not helped the Cardinals one iota so people still would have been displeased.

I disagree with the bold.

Let's say the new system is 4 division winners, and 2 wild card teams, but seeding based on win-loss records.

I'm not necessarily advocating a change, but just because they implement a new seeding system doesn't necessarily make winning the division meaningless. If that was the case, then the Packers would be out of the playoffs while the Cardinals would be in. Packers benefit from making the playoffs despite an 8-7-1 record. Winning the division can still be important in different seeding systems.

 

[travlinhawk]

to this i say bah humbug because it pretty much negates the importance of winning the division.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... -by-record

Good because the fact you're in a crap division and STILL go 9-7 or worse should never give you such an advantage. Basically they should lock in the top 3 division winners and reseed the 4th if their record is worse than the 5-6 seeds.

I disagree. Consider Seattle's situation this year had such a rule been in effect. Once Seattle got it's 12th win, then it would have been guaranteed the #3 seed (not the #5 seed) making winning the division nearly meaningless. It also would have not helped the Cardinals one iota so people still would have been displeased.

If you want a home game, win your division. Otherwise do away with divisions.

Exactly. If we seed the WC's higher, then divisions have no meaning and all we have are two large conferences. Which honestly, might be better. No more playing division rivals twice a year. The whole conference is your rival. That makes for three extra games against conference opponents we wouldn't face under the current system. Fans get to see a wider variety of teams coming to Seattle. Teams like NE wouldn't have a cushy schedule, year in and year out.

There would be more parity.

^^This. It would also be much easier to add teams ($$$) if that's what they want to do.

 

[Reaneypark]

Just leave it alone. Fluky stuff like an 8-7-1 Green Bay hosting a 12-win San Fran team is part of the fun.

 

[el capitan]

If you want a home game, win your division. Otherwise do away with divisions.

Exactly... no sense in playing a team twice each year if those games don't mean everything in the world.

Take away the division win host situation, then you just take away the division entirely, and play teams in your conference just once.

If winning your division automatically qualifies you for the playoffs even though other teams in the conference have better records then I'd say that makes winning your division pretty meaningful.

Once in the playoffs teams should be seeded by record, it's not just unfair on the wildcard team but also affects the top two seeds. If we end up playing an 11 win Saints team next week whilst the Panthers take on the 8 win Packers then what is the point in us being the no.1 seed? Your record should indicate how good your team is and as the no.1 seed we earned the right to play the weaker team.

 

[chris98251]

Playing in a tough division may mean a worse record but you could still have a better team then other playoff teams due to the toughness of your division.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

to this i say bah humbug because it pretty much negates the importance of winning the division.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... -by-record

It's not gonna happen. What we have here are a bunch of butt-hurt Niner and Saints fans that are upset that their team has to travel because they didn't win their division.

BOO-HOO

Seattle had to travel TWICE, cross country, at 10am starts and the first one was against a team with an inferior record. It happens just about every year. We didn't whine and moan. We realized that meant we had to be sure of winning the division next year.

Divisional strengths wax and wane. If the rules didn't get changed after an 11-5 defending SB champ Saints team had to go to a 7-9 Seattle team (and lost!), then it won't be changed now.

The Niners had their chance with home field for two straight years and didn't get it done. Now they get the joys of being a wildcard.

I would add that in the long run, it all breaks even. We hosted the Saints in 2010, we went on the road with a better record than the Racist skins in the 2012 season. I know its big picture thinking, which isn't popular now, but it all breaks even eventually......

Both these statements sum it all up perfectly.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

If you want a home game, win your division. Otherwise do away with divisions.

Exactly... no sense in playing a team twice each year if those games don't mean everything in the world.

Take away the division win host situation, then you just take away the division entirely, and play teams in your conference just once.

I'd like that a lot. It would be much like the World Series before interleague play when the WS teams never played in the regular season or like the first 4 Super Bowls (IIRC) before the full merger when the NFL and AFL only played against each other in the Super Bowl, never in the regular season. It adds an element of mystery to the championship (series or game).

 

[loafoftatupu]

I just think that this needs to be left alone. It makes for competition throughout the year and gives meaning to rivalries. This talk is typically generated by bias that affects a few teams in the moment. They feel ripped off and want their way. Division strength is cyclic and if it gets changed it is going to create a lot of unfavorable seeding the opposite way.

Leave it alone and quit messing with it. I would rather add an extra wildcard slot than screw with the structure.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

...........

Leave it alone and quit messing with it. I would rather add an extra wildcard slot than screw with the structure.

I think this is very, very likely.

 

[SeatownJay]

...........

Leave it alone and quit messing with it. I would rather add an extra wildcard slot than screw with the structure.

I think this is very, very likely.

Peter King mentioned this as a possibility in the NBC pregame show today, 7 playoff teams per conference, only the #1 seed gets a bye.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

...........

Leave it alone and quit messing with it. I would rather add an extra wildcard slot than screw with the structure.

I think this is very, very likely.

Peter King mentioned this as a possibility in the NBC pregame show today, 7 playoff teams per conference, only the #1 seed gets a bye.

Division winners still seeded higher than WCs or did he say one way or the other?