PDA

View Full Version : With controversy looming, NFL must reconsider playoff structure



Denver Native (Carol)
12-18-2013, 01:41 PM
If you've been in the game long enough, you see some controversies coming from a ways off.

Over the next couple weeks, we can anticipate a storm of complaints and debates as the playoff picture comes into focus and the implications of the regular season become apparent. This is a season in which the NFL's present seeding system will come under heavy scrutiny. With two games remaining for every team, we're looking at a few disconcerting scenarios:

» The 9-5 Arizona Cardinals are presently on the outside looking in, despite the fact that they have a better record than two NFC division leaders (Philadelphia Eagles and Chicago Bears).

» The Kansas City Chiefs could finish tied with the Denver Broncos for best record in the AFC ... and still wind up with the fifth overall seed.

rest - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000300450/article/with-controversy-looming-nfl-must-reconsider-playoff-structure

MasterShake
12-18-2013, 01:46 PM
I always flip flop on this. On the one hand the division structure does keep some good teams down, but on the other hand the Chiefs lost to the Broncos TWICE proving that they are not worthy of a higher seed than us. I think the tiebreakers, strength of schedule rules, etc. are fine in the meantime.

Win your division, or fight for the scraps. I kind of like that for some reason.

BroncoJoe
12-18-2013, 01:51 PM
I always flip flop on this. On the one hand the division structure does keep some good teams down, but on the other hand the Chiefs lost to the Broncos TWICE proving that they are not worthy of a higher seed than us. I think the tiebreakers, strength of schedule rules, etc. are fine in the meantime.

Win your division, or fight for the scraps. I kind of like that for some reason.

Me too, but Wave will come in and give us 1,000 reasons why it is stupid.

AllThings18
12-18-2013, 02:00 PM
I've always been a firm believer that winning the division has to mean something. By something, I mean more than a banner. A home playoff game is a justifiable award even if it means a team with a better record comes calling in the post season.

It's happened before and it will happen again.

If anything it sucks when a 10+ win team watches the playoffs like they are the Chargers, but when those 10 win teams are at home they are likely the 3rd place team in their division. To me, it's setup about as good as one can expect. 4 division champs are 1-4, and the 5 & 6 seed go to the next overall records.

If Kansas City wants to complain about sharing the same record as the Broncos, but forced to go on the road, then they obviously had chances to do something about it. Just as if the Broncos and Patriots end up with the same record, then the Broncos don't have much of an argument about playing the Pats on the road if that's the route the games take.

LawDog
12-18-2013, 02:04 PM
I like it the way it is. Strength of schedule plays a roll in record and simply winning games doesn't necessarily mean you're a better team.

I did find it funny that Billick's simple fix just rearranges the game site but doesn't address the better record but missing out issue.

Also, KC at a five seed plays the weakest division champ so I don't see that as a great inequity.

powderaddict
12-18-2013, 02:06 PM
I love it. It magnifies division games, which makes the division rivalries more intense. It rewards 2 teams who failed to win their division with a chance to still win it all.

Every year around this time people complain. But I think it's the best playoff format in sports.

Bronco9798
12-18-2013, 02:17 PM
If you want to stay home, win your division. To me there is no controversy. It's been this way forever, don't change it.

VonDoom
12-18-2013, 02:21 PM
I also hate the idea of adding more playoff teams. Sure, there are some fringe teams that'll miss out, but wouldn't that just happen again with 14 teams? There will always be a team that "just" misses out. I like the relative exclusivity of the NFL playoff system.

Northman
12-18-2013, 02:44 PM
I also hate the idea of adding more playoff teams. Sure, there are some fringe teams that'll miss out, but wouldn't that just happen again with 14 teams. There will always be a team that "just" misses out. I like the relative exclusivity of the NFL playoff system.

Yea, im not a fan of adding anymore as well. Its like giving trophies to losers who didnt make the cut.

Joel
12-18-2013, 02:51 PM
Actually, I like his proposed fix; it's long bothered me that 11 win wildcards can and frequently do end up on the road against 9 win division champs. It's a FAR better solution than adding yet more playoff teams to a tournament that really has too many in the first place. We've come a long way from the wildcards original purpose: To admit the best of the rest when one really good team happened to share a division with a dynasty. Now, instead of division losers having to be better than ALL other division losers, the second best runner up is good enough.

The real problem is that one conference is often significantly better than the other, like this year, when the Cards could miss the playoffs at 11-5 while the AFCs #6 seed is .500. Stuff happens; the Cards just happen to be in a really brutal division, but no one cried for the NFCEs third place team when the Giants, 'Skins and Cowboys beat Buffalo in four straight SBs. The Cards aren't where they are because Seattle and SF beat them (though that would be reason enough;) Philly beat them, too.

If anyone deserves pity it's the Rams, who beat Arizona, Indy and NO but will finish with a losing record because they're in that same brutal NFCW. Ever since the '70s the NFCW champ's been able to phone in the season yet make the playoffs nearly every year because the rest of the division was such garbage; it's only been a few years since the 7-9 "champions" were the poster child for the argument division winners shouldn't automatically get home gams. Stuff happens.

Joel
12-18-2013, 03:03 PM
I also hate the idea of adding more playoff teams. Sure, there are some fringe teams that'll miss out, but wouldn't that just happen again with 14 teams. There will always be a team that "just" misses out. I like the relative exclusivity of the NFL playoff system.
It's a stupid owner grab for yet MORE money in the worlds most profitable pro sport (they cleared $9 billion after expenses in 2011 alone.) We already let 37.5% of the NFL into the playoffs when 25% would be the ideal; moving closer to admitting HALF the league and obviating the regular season would be a horrid mistake. Had I my druthers we'd go back to the way wildcards started: All division winners plus the best of the rest in each conference; if you don't win your division the only way to the playoffs is to beat EVERYONE else.

Perhaps the best thing would be that all but the WORST division winner (who'd host the conferences sole wildcard game) would get byes to rest and heal, so the whole playoffs would be better. Regardless, it's not much of a Qualifiers Seed if half the league qualifies. The wildcard's supposed to be the Best of the Rest, not Everyone Who Doesn't Totally Suck.

BroncoWave
12-18-2013, 03:03 PM
I always flip flop on this. On the one hand the division structure does keep some good teams down, but on the other hand the Chiefs lost to the Broncos TWICE proving that they are not worthy of a higher seed than us. I think the tiebreakers, strength of schedule rules, etc. are fine in the meantime.

Win your division, or fight for the scraps. I kind of like that for some reason.

Me too, but Wave will come in and give us 1,000 reasons why it is stupid.

Sorry if you're offended that my opinion on this matter is different than yours.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-18-2013, 03:07 PM
This is a debate that has raged for decades. Denver missed the playoffs one year with a 10-6 record. The first year we won the SB we had to play our first playoff game on the road with an 11-5 record.

Joel
12-18-2013, 03:37 PM
This is a debate that has raged for decades. Denver missed the playoffs one year with a 10-6 record. The first year we won the SB we had to play our first playoff game on the road with an 11-5 record.
12-4 actually. It happens. The '79 Oilers were 11-5 and went all the way to their second straight AFCCG as a wildcard—and the 12-4 division champs beat them at home a week before winning their second straight SB. The only difference was Pitt had gone 14-2 the previous year, with one of the losses against the 10-6 wildcard Oilers.

Anomalies are just that, and no system's perfect, but it's uncommon for 10 win teams to miss the playoffs, and very rare for 11 win teams. Less common than the 7-9 playoff teams we'd get by admitting half the NFL. The AFCs #6 seed will be lucky to get 9 wins this year: Does anyone think the #8 team will manage that? It's a stupid transparent attempt to boost broadcast revenue.

I Eat Staples
12-18-2013, 03:42 PM
The NFL's playoff format is good the way it is. It makes divisions and the regular season actually mean something, unlike in the NBA and NHL where it feels like everyone makes the playoffs.

MOtorboat
12-18-2013, 03:43 PM
Denver hosted Jacksonville in that first wildcard game on the way to the Super Bowl. But there were only three divisions then and Jacksonville was not a division winner.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199712270den.htm

AllThings18
12-18-2013, 03:57 PM
I'm not opposed to playoff expansion. People are going to watch it. Since the 32 team expansion without double checking, I think there would only be one or maybe 2 additional examples of a sub .500 team getting into the playoffs if one team each was added to the playoffs with only the #1 seed getting a bye.

Joel provided an interesting way for it to play out. Noon, 4 & 8 on Saturday and the same schedule as a regular season Sunday would easily accommodate the two additional games.

Adding a 16 team(4 division champs in each conference and the next 4 by record) format wouldn't break my heart, without any byes but if you were to do that the sub .500 teams making the playoffs increases, which is a deterrent to that system. The majority would balk at this, but if it were implemented at some point an 8 would knock off a #1. To me more football can't be a bad thing.

silkamilkamonico
12-18-2013, 04:00 PM
The playoff structure is fine. You want to guarantee yourself a place in the playoffs, win your division. Period.

Joel
12-18-2013, 04:06 PM
I'm not opposed to playoff expansion. People are going to watch it. Since the 32 team expansion without double checking, I think there would only be one or maybe 2 additional examples of a sub .500 team getting into the playoffs if one team each was added to the playoffs with only the #1 seed getting a bye.

Joel provided an interesting way for it to play out. Noon, 4 & 8 on Saturday and the same schedule as a regular season Sunday would easily accommodate the two additional games.

Adding a 16 team(4 division champs in each conference and the next 4 by record) format wouldn't break my heart, without any byes but if you were to do that the sub .500 teams making the playoffs increases, which is a deterrent to that system. The majority would balk at this, but if it were implemented at some point an 8 would knock off a #1. To me more football can't be a bad thing.
That seems to be how the owners are looking at it, and to Hell with increased focus on player safety, short and long term. If we let in half the NFL we should drastically reduce the regular season since it's largely pro forma anyway, more for seeding and to identify who's absolutely incapable of winning a playoff game than to identify who's the best. For my money, admitting a third of teams is about the right proportion, meaning we could afford to increase the NFL by 4 teams without more playoff teams being advisable. For 14 playoff teams we'd want, like, 40 NFL teams.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-18-2013, 04:25 PM
We missed the playoffs with a 12-4 record? I don't remember that.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-18-2013, 04:29 PM
I like the method the NBA uses for their playoffs

MOtorboat
12-18-2013, 05:03 PM
We missed the playoffs with a 12-4 record? I don't remember that.

11-5, 1985.

AllThings18
12-18-2013, 05:14 PM
That seems to be how the owners are looking at it, and to Hell with increased focus on player safety, short and long term. If we let in half the NFL we should drastically reduce the regular season since it's largely pro forma anyway, more for seeding and to identify who's absolutely incapable of winning a playoff game than to identify who's the best. For my money, admitting a third of teams is about the right proportion, meaning we could afford to increase the NFL by 4 teams without more playoff teams being advisable. For 14 playoff teams we'd want, like, 40 NFL teams.

I'm sure that is their focus... More $$$ is more important to them than more damaged players.

They aren't going to cut the regular season. If anything they'll cut the pre-season and add regular season games. That would be like our employers cutting a work day from our schedules while paying us a full salary. It simply won't happen.

I like the 32 team set up. I like the 4 divisions. I like how it systematically fits into the schedule(outside of a couple of flaws)

Right now they are 12/32 or 37.5%. 14/32 is 43.75% of the league. 16 would be 50%. I can understand why people can/will/have argued t that 14 or 16 playoff teams is too much.. I get it.

When it comes to NCAA basketball I was all for adding 64 additional teams in to March Madness. The tourney would start on Tue/Wed as opposed to Thu/Fri. 2 more days, a helluva a lot more drama.

I wish NCAA had a 16 or 32 team playoff like NCAA 1-AA has had for years. If you look at 1-8 or 1-7 the way it stands right now. Here would be the match ups.

14 teams
AFC
1 Denver Bye
2. NE vs. 7 Miami
3 Cincy vs. 6 Baltimore
4 Indy vs. 5 KC

If you add the 8th team, Denver/SD sure is a compelling story, even if the Chargers are 7-9 or 8-8.

NFC
1 Seattle Bye
2 NO vs. 7 Arizona
3 Philly vs. 6 San Fran
4 Chicago vs. Carolina

If you add the 8th team Green Bay vs. Seattle with Rodgers returning would have story lines as well.

I'm all for more of a good thing, and again expanding to 16 teams wouldn't break my heart.

2012 would have given us
1 Denver vs. 8. San Diego 7-9 or a bye
2 New England vs. Pittsburgh 8-8

2011
1 New England vs. 8 Jets(8-8) or a bye
2 Baltimore vs. Tennessee 9-7

2010
1. New England vs 8-8 Jacksonville or a bye
2. Pittsburgh vs. 7 San Diego 9-7

2009
1. Indianapolis vs. Pittsburgh 9-7 or a bye
2. San Diego vs. 7 Houston 9-7

2008
1. Tennessee vs. 9-7 Jets
2. Pittsburgh vs 7 New England 11-5

So the last 5 years would with a 16 team playoff would have only allowed 1 team in to the playoffs with a losing record, and it would have set up a Denver/San Diego opening round match up.

Again, it's just my personal opinion and I clearly see why some are against it, but I'm all for playoff football.

BroncoWave
12-18-2013, 07:46 PM
I guess I just don't see why letting the team with more wins host every game is such an outrageous idea. I put more stock into actually winning games than into being first in an arbitrary group of 4 teams.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-18-2013, 08:12 PM
Arbitrary, it's a good word, I like it.

BroncoWave
12-18-2013, 08:16 PM
Arbitrary, it's a good word, I like it.

And I don't even have a problem with keeping those arbitrary 4-team groupings, but I just think it's silly that beating only 3 other teams out in the standings is enough to guarantee a home playoff game. I'm more impressed with KC's accomplishment of having a better record than 14 of 15 other AFC teams than I am with, say, Indy's accomplishment of finishing ahead of 3 shitty AFC South teams.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-18-2013, 09:41 PM
And I don't even have a problem with keeping those arbitrary 4-team groupings, but I just think it's silly that beating only 3 other teams out in the standings is enough to guarantee a home playoff game. I'm more impressed with KC's accomplishment of having a better record than 14 of 15 other AFC teams than I am with, say, Indy's accomplishment of finishing ahead of 3 shitty AFC South teams.

I agree, and I think NE should have to go to KC before they go to Denver.

TXBRONC
12-18-2013, 09:43 PM
Obviously it's more impressive that Chiefs faced four or five teams all of which were playing a second or third string quarterback and soon as they played three teams with solid starting quarterbacks they lost yeah that's a more impressive than beating the Seahawks who will be the number one seed in the NFC and the 49ers who will be the 5th seed. Yep the Colts suck.

BroncoWave
12-18-2013, 09:46 PM
Yep the Colts suck.

Yeah, that's totally what I said. :lol:

TXBRONC
12-18-2013, 09:53 PM
Me too, but Wave will come in and give us 1,000 reasons why it is stupid.

Yep.

BroncoWave
12-18-2013, 09:54 PM
Yep.

Yep, god forbid I have a different opinion on something and then give my reasons for having that opinion. Oh the horror! :lol:

TXBRONC
12-18-2013, 10:39 PM
I'm not opposed to playoff expansion. People are going to watch it. Since the 32 team expansion without double checking, I think there would only be one or maybe 2 additional examples of a sub .500 team getting into the playoffs if one team each was added to the playoffs with only the #1 seed getting a bye.

Joel provided an interesting way for it to play out. Noon, 4 & 8 on Saturday and the same schedule as a regular season Sunday would easily accommodate the two additional games.

Adding a 16 team(4 division champs in each conference and the next 4 by record) format wouldn't break my heart, without any byes but if you were to do that the sub .500 teams making the playoffs increases, which is a deterrent to that system. The majority would balk at this, but if it were implemented at some point an 8 would knock off a #1. To me more football can't be a bad thing.

Ultimately no system is perfect because there will always be complaining that someone got screwed.

LRtagger
12-19-2013, 09:50 AM
If you really want to get trivial with this, we should really be limiting the playoffs to division winners only. Why should you be given the opportunity to win a tournament to determine the best team out of all 32 when you aren't even the best team out of the 4 in your division?

Joel
12-19-2013, 10:54 AM
If you really want to get trivial with this, we should really be limiting the playoffs to division winners only. Why should you be given the opportunity to win a tournament to determine the best team out of all 32 when you aren't even the best team out of the 4 in your division?
Well, we COULD do that now that we have 8 divisions; perhaps the best argument for the wildcard was to avoid the very thing they've produced: Byes that give some teams a free pass to the second round (yes, I know they have to earn it via regular season record; they still play one less game than everyone else.) But the other big argument was that sometimes two really good teams—even the conferences BEST teams—happen to share the same division, in which case a legit contender can miss the playoffs because they lost the division by the narrowest margin.

Dreadnought recently referenced the '69 Colts: Just ONE loss was enough to keep them out of the playoffs, despite 2 more wins than everyone else—except L.A., with whom they were unfortunate enough to share a division and an 11-1-2 record (including a tie against each other, but the Rams won the rematch handily.) They were #1 and 2 for PF, and the difference was just 4; they were also #1 and 2 for PA, and there the difference was only 2. They had the same record and it was much better than the rest of the league, but one went and one didn't.

My personal favorite example is the OTHER perfect team, even if it was in the AAFC rather than the NFL (though the NFL would later borrow the names of its Baltimore Colts, and the AFL resurrected its Colts.) The 1948 Browns were a perfect 14-0 in the regular season, then beat the 7-7 Bills in the Championship, which was the leagues only playoff game. They played Buffalo because 7-7 was the best the East division could do in a champion. The '49ers finished 12-2—in the West, with both losses against Cleveland by a TD, then a FG: Too bad.

So, yeah, I like the wildcard just so if two top contenders share a division one's not automatically excluded. That's really what removing the wildcard would mean: Seattle used to be in the AFCW; if they still were, and there were no wildcard, the only question would be which of the top 2 teams out of 32 would miss the playoffs, because the rules would REQUIRE it for one or the other. However, that qualifer safeguard is for the best of the rest; excluding teams who can't even finish first among NON-division winners isn't denying us an elite team.

Sure, there have been lucky/good #6 seeds over the years, but I submit the 2013 and 2011 AFC are more typical: A #5 seed that only lost its division on tiebreaks and probably would've one in 2 of the other 3, and a #6 seed that's designated whipping boy for one of the REAL playoff teams. Okay, the Pack won it all from the #6 seed in 2010, and the Giants did it the following year: How many OTHER times has the #6 seed been curbstomped in its very first playoff game?

I DEFINITELY don't want half the NFL in the playoffs; losing teams aren't "contenders," they'd just be spoilers if a GOOD team had some bad luck and/or lost its focus. In terms of the NBA comparison, I don't know if that's still the case but the '94 Rockets were the lowest seed to win the NBA Finals, and they were #6, meaning the #7 and #8 teams in BOTH conferences didn't even need to bother showing up—except to upset a #1/2 seed so the other #1/2 seed could destroy them in the next round.

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 11:38 AM
If you really want to get trivial with this, we should really be limiting the playoffs to division winners only. Why should you be given the opportunity to win a tournament to determine the best team out of all 32 when you aren't even the best team out of the 4 in your division?

What if the 2 best teams in the league are in the same division? (Which very well might be the case with SF and Seattle this year) Both teams can't win the division. Someone has to finish in second. The second team should be left out because they are arbitrarily in the same 4-team grouping as the best team in the league?

powderaddict
12-19-2013, 11:57 AM
If you really want to get trivial with this, we should really be limiting the playoffs to division winners only. Why should you be given the opportunity to win a tournament to determine the best team out of all 32 when you aren't even the best team out of the 4 in your division?

Because then many of the teams will have no shot at the playoffs halfway through the season, and by the 12th game most of the games will be completely meaningless.

The wildcards gives hope to teams that are obviously not going to win the division, but the wildcard is a possibility. It keeps the games interesting and relevant for a longer period of time for many teams.

Joel
12-19-2013, 12:32 PM
Because then many of the teams will have no shot at the playoffs halfway through the season, and by the 12th game most of the games will be completely meaningless.

The wildcards gives hope to teams that are obviously not going to win the division, but the wildcard is a possibility. It keeps the games interesting and relevant for a longer period of time for many teams.
Meh, screw that; I'm not interested in and feel no obligation toward giving the hopeless false hope. But when the two best teams are in the same division they both belong in the playoffs, because both are very likely to go all the way if present. Just because they preview the Conference Championship twice is no reason to write off the one who destroyed 14 teams slightly worse than the 14 the other destroyed, especially when they split against each other and BOTH curbstomped a couple 9-7 division winners who DO make the postseason.

One wildcard is justified, almost obligatory, but two is pushing it, three would be waste and four would be absurd. 10 wins is usually enough to secure a wildcard, a nice round number and a solid 2 wins >.500, and a 9 win team usually needs to be better than all other 9 win teams, while 8-8 teams need a lot of luck and a pretty weak conference. That's about right, and admitting a third of teams is a lot better than admitting HALF when all the 8-8 and 7-9 teams can do is prematurely ruin a GOOD teams season.

For all that, it's probably going to happen because it's one more playoff game the NFL can make money airing nationally, and they can drum up more merchandise sails by deluding fans that their hometown loser ISN'T a loser because "they made the playoffs" and every team that makes the playoffs is a potential champion (even if they aren't.)

Poet
12-19-2013, 12:33 PM
What if the 2 best teams in the league are in the same division? (Which very well might be the case with SF and Seattle this year) Both teams can't win the division. Someone has to finish in second. The second team should be left out because they are arbitrarily in the same 4-team grouping as the best team in the league?

Also, I don't think the grouping is arbitrary. The NFC East has a strange setup with Dallas, but the Cowboys are kept in the the NFCE for tradition and money. We have these divisions because they keep up tradition, and they give us compelling matchups. People like seeing Baltimore duke it out with Pittsburgh. The Bears and the Packers is enjoyable for fans, although it usually results in the Packers smacking the Bears around. The New Orleans and Falcons are another more contemporary example of this.

To me, the thing of it is that all these systems will end up with flukes, or flaws. The Chiefs haven't proven that they're a great team. They have gotten swept by a division rival, and then split with the only other solid team in the division. Other than that, they've beaten up on bad teams. Their best win of the year is against the up and down Cowboys right? And they got access to this schedule how? By being completely awful last year. So, if let's say that they played Cincinnati in the first round, why would they be more deserving of the home spot than the Bengals? The Bengals have beaten the Patriots, the Packers with Rodgers, the Lions, and the Colts. Yes, we've dropped some games to sixth seed playoff contenders, and the lowly Browns, but as far as I'm concerned, the 9 wins of the Bengals is more impressive - so far - than the wins of the Chiefs.

And yeah, some divisions are tougher than others. You're talking to the guy whose team played with the Ravens and the Steelers. You could pretty much count on those two teams to field elite defenses and make the playoffs almost every year. Once every three seasons or so the Steelers would make a big playoff push, and either make the AFCCG, or the SB, and two times they won the SB. The Ravens just won the damn thing last year. Not all divisions are good, and it's not fair, but it's football.

I don't feel that there's enough of a compelling reason to change the system, which to me, means tradition should win out.

powderaddict
12-19-2013, 12:34 PM
I don't care about the other fan bases, but the fact that the games still mean something and the teams have something to play for makes the games themselves better.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-19-2013, 12:35 PM
Eh, I wouldn't be too skeptical. There have been enough SB winners to justify the wildcards. The Ravens didn't have the best record last year as a wildcard team. Oakland won a SB in the early 80's as a wilcard team with a 9-7 record. Teams peak at different times.

Poet
12-19-2013, 12:36 PM
Eh, I wouldn't be too skeptical. There have been enough SB winners to justify the wildcards. The Ravens didn't have the best record last year as a wildcard team. Oakland won a SB in the early 80's as a wilcard team with a 9-7 record. Teams peak at different times.

I don't think anyone has an issue with the wildcards. We love those things!

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-19-2013, 12:54 PM
I don't think anyone has an issue with the wildcards. We love those things!

Understandably so, isn't that usually the Bengals last game of the year?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :laugh:

Poet
12-19-2013, 12:57 PM
Understandably so, isn't that usually the Bengals last game of the year?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :laugh:

Yeah, we wanted to get a first round bye and then get bounced in next round, but that seems to be en vogue in Denver these days.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-19-2013, 01:00 PM
Yeah, we wanted to get a first round bye and then get bounced in next round, but that seems to be en vogue in Denver these days.

Yep, saw that one coming... We made it past the first round! In the previous decade, anyway....

nevcraw
12-19-2013, 01:07 PM
I could get into a point system scenario where winning your division is first on the list and then total wins is a close second. so if you win a weak division with so so record you could end up with a lower seed than then a second place team but with a better record. so the chiefs in this scenario might end up with the 3rd seed not the 5th.

or leave it the same and give people something to bitch about every year..

Joel
12-19-2013, 01:14 PM
Also, I don't think the grouping is arbitrary. The NFC East has a strange setup with Dallas, but the Cowboys are kept in the the NFCE for tradition and money. We have these divisions because they keep up tradition, and they give us compelling matchups. People like seeing Baltimore duke it out with Pittsburgh. The Bears and the Packers is enjoyable for fans, although it usually results in the Packers smacking the Bears around. The New Orleans and Falcons are another more contemporary example of this.

To me, the thing of it is that all these systems will end up with flukes, or flaws. The Chiefs haven't proven that they're a great team. They have gotten swept by a division rival, and then split with the only other solid team in the division. Other than that, they've beaten up on bad teams. Their best win of the year is against the up and down Cowboys right? And they got access to this schedule how? By being completely awful last year. So, if let's say that they played Cincinnati in the first round, why would they be more deserving of the home spot than the Bengals? The Bengals have beaten the Patriots, the Packers with Rodgers, the Lions, and the Colts. Yes, we've dropped some games to sixth seed playoff contenders, and the lowly Browns, but as far as I'm concerned, the 9 wins of the Bengals is more impressive - so far - than the wins of the Chiefs.

And yeah, some divisions are tougher than others. You're talking to the guy whose team played with the Ravens and the Steelers. You could pretty much count on those two teams to field elite defenses and make the playoffs almost every year. Once every three seasons or so the Steelers would make a big playoff push, and either make the AFCCG, or the SB, and two times they won the SB. The Ravens just won the damn thing last year. Not all divisions are good, and it's not fair, but it's football.

I don't feel that there's enough of a compelling reason to change the system, which to me, means tradition should win out.
I generally agree, but am obliged to note: Last seasons finish only determined TWO teams on this seasons schedule; otherwise, each team plays its own division twice plus the same AFC and NFC division all four of them face. The difference between our schedule and KCs is we got the Ravens and Pats while they got the Bills and Browns, and Baltimore's not much better than Cleveland (really) so that's basically a whopping one team difference between first and last in the AFCW.

The big advantage there is that all a conferences division winners face each other the next year, which tends to produce a lot of decisive head-to-head tiebreaks that come in handy for homefield. For everyone else the difference is pretty trivial; playing the NFCW is a bigger burden than playing all a conferences previous division winners (e.g. Houston, Washington and Atlanta, currently fighting over next years #1 pick) and playing the AFCS is a bigger gift than playing all the previous last place teams (e.g. KC and NO.)


Eh, I wouldn't be too skeptical. There have been enough SB winners to justify the wildcards. The Ravens didn't have the best record last year as a wildcard team. Oakland won a SB in the early 80's as a wilcard team with a 9-7 record. Teams peak at different times.
The Ravens were division as well as SB champs last year, an argument they were more than just 1 win better than the 9-7 Bengals who went home in the wildcard round. Oakland '80s win as a wildcard awas the ONLY wildcard SB winner under the original 1 wildcard format. I believe we were next, but that was after the NFL started giving both conferences 2 wildcards instead of 1 (though we were the #5 seed, so would've gotten the wildcard had the AFC only had one, but the 11-5 Jags we beat Wildcard Weekend would've missed it.)

If we're just talking about seeding rather than more wildcards, letting the team with the best record host, with division championships as the tiebreak, makes sense to me. The biggest objection I can see is that a team that wins its division should get at least ONE home game, but if the wildcard team hosts, the division winner's on the road then and (if they win) afterward also.

Poet
12-19-2013, 01:16 PM
I generally agree, but am obliged to note: Last seasons finish only determined TWO teams on this seasons schedule; otherwise, each team plays its own division twice plus the same AFC and NFC division all four of them face. The difference between our schedule and KCs is we got the Ravens and Pats while they got the Bills and Browns, and Baltimore's not much better than Cleveland (really) so that's basically a whopping one team difference between first and last in the AFCW.

The big advantage there is that all a conferences division winners face each other the next year, which tends to produce a lot of decisive head-to-head tiebreaks that come in handy for homefield. For everyone else the difference is pretty trivial; playing the NFCW is a bigger burden than playing all a conferences previous division winners (e.g. Houston, Washington and Atlanta, currently fighting over next years #1 pick) and playing the AFCS is a bigger gift than playing all the previous last place teams (e.g. KC and NO.)




Yes, but it still added to the weak schedule. I think we can agree that even one game in the NFL can mean a lot.

Joel
12-19-2013, 01:54 PM
Yes, but it still added to the weak schedule. I think we can agree that even one game in the NFL can mean a lot.
That's true, but KCs finish last year only set 2 of their games; their other 9 wins were teams the whole AFCW plays (except no team plays itself, of course.) It just irks me when people dismiss KCs record by saying, "So what; finishing last in the NFL got them an easy schedule." TWO games; that's the scheduling difference between the the NFLs worst and AFCs best team of 2012. If KC's not a quality team because they haven't beaten a quality team, the same applies to us because the only quality team we beat was them (sorry, can't take the Ravens seriously.)

Understand, I agree even ONE game can make all the difference in a league that only plays 16, but KCs 11 wins can't be explained away by the 2 their 2012 finish set.

Poet
12-19-2013, 02:01 PM
That's true, but KCs finish last year only set 2 of their games; their other 9 wins were teams the whole AFCW plays (except no team plays itself, of course.) It just irks me when people dismiss KCs record by saying, "So what; finishing last in the NFL got them an easy schedule." TWO games; that's the scheduling difference between the the NFLs worst and AFCs best team of 2012. If KC's not a quality team because they haven't beaten a quality team, the same applies to us because the only quality team we beat was them (sorry, can't take the Ravens seriously.)

Understand, I agree even ONE game can make all the difference in a league that only plays 16, but KCs 11 wins can't be explained away by the 2 their 2012 finish set.

This is true, but Denver was an elite team last year, and they're one of the best teams in the league again. That's sort of the point that I'm making, though. With all of these moving variables, what's the point of changing the system to another one that will still have so many moving...variables? We're not exactly working with a horrible system, are we? Tie goes to the runner, Joel.

Joel
12-19-2013, 02:14 PM
This is true, but Denver was an elite team last year, and they're one of the best teams in the league again. That's sort of the point that I'm making, though. With all of these moving variables, what's the point of changing the system to another one that will still have so many moving...variables? We're not exactly working with a horrible system, are we? Tie goes to the runner, Joel.
Hey, if it were up to me we wouldn't have changed to multiple wildcards instead of just 1. I'd un-change that change if I could, but certainly don't want MORE teams. I do like the idea of using records to set homefield, with division championships as the tiebreak, but there's still the problem cited before: Division winners should get to play at home the first week.

Poet
12-19-2013, 02:16 PM
Hey, if it were up to me we wouldn't have changed to multiple wildcards instead of just 1. I'd un-change that change if I could, but don't want more teams. I do like the idea of using records to set homefield, with division championships as the tiebreak, but there's still the problem cited before: Division winners should get to play at home the first week.

I think the two wildcard system is really nice. In this league of quote unquote parity, there are usually six worthy teams.

Joel
12-19-2013, 02:28 PM
Honestly, the more I think about it the more I think the argument more wildcards would dilute the regular season in general and the wildcard race specifically is absolutely right. Back when even GOOD runners up knew they had to be better than EVERYONE else (including ALL other good teams) to make the playoffs, it got tense as Hell. Winning out was a prerequisite, because SOMEONE nearly always does it: If there's only one wildcard, it BETTER be YOU, or you stay home.

Now it's more like, "well, even if we don't win the division, we can still get one of the wildcards, even if we don't get the top one." Screw that; the regular season's supposed to be about determinig who's GOOD enough to make the playoffs, not who's BAD enough they don't.

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 04:37 PM
How about this for a compromise?

Still seed the teams 1-6 with 1 and 2 getting byes, and 5 and 6 being the wild card teams. And the top 4 seeds are still the division winners. The only difference is that the team with the better record will still host every game.

This reaches to the other side of the aisle in a couple of ways. First of all, you still have to win your division to get a bye. This would make it where a team like the Chiefs couldn't get a bye without winning the division. Second, it still gives the 3 seed the advantage of getting to travel to the 2 seed in round 2 instead of the 1 seed. As the highest seeded division winner without a bye, they would still get that advantage that they currently enjoy.

So while the wild cards are still slotted as the 5 and 6 seeds, they would still get to host the game in the event that the team they are playing has a worse record than they do. In the event two teams have the same record, winning the division gives you priority for homefield.

Does that seem more fair?

Poet
12-19-2013, 04:46 PM
How about this for a compromise?

Still seed the teams 1-6 with 1 and 2 getting byes, and 5 and 6 being the wild card teams. And the top 4 seeds are still the division winners. The only difference is that the team with the better record will still host every game.

This reaches to the other side of the aisle in a couple of ways. First of all, you still have to win your division to get a bye. This would make it where a team like the Chiefs couldn't get a bye without winning the division. Second, it still gives the 3 seed the advantage of getting to travel to the 2 seed in round 2 instead of the 1 seed. As the highest seeded division winner without a bye, they would still get that advantage that they currently enjoy.

So while the wild cards are still slotted as the 5 and 6 seeds, they would still get to host the game in the event that the team they are playing has a worse record than they do. In the event two teams have the same record, winning the division gives you priority for homefield.

Does that seem more fair?

This is a pretty solid standpoint. We get to keep the divisions, the first two seeds get their resting and gameplanning time. It then forces the other divisional winners to win more games. But, what about the argument that it might cause more injuries? Many times teams have their seeds locked in and rest their guys. This might eliminate that rest, and lead to more teams coming into the playoffs hurt. Also, what about the arguments that the wildcard teams are often teams that had a soft schedule, and that the better team might the divisional winner with a tougher schedule?

I'm sure I am missing other criticisms that are valid, but I do like the outline.

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 04:48 PM
This is a pretty solid standpoint. We get to keep the divisions, the first two seeds get their resting and gameplanning time. It then forces the other divisional winners to win more games. But, what about the argument that it might cause more injuries? Many times teams have their seeds locked in and rest their guys. This might eliminate that rest, and lead to more teams coming into the playoffs hurt. Also, what about the arguments that the wildcard teams are often teams that had a soft schedule, and that the better team might the divisional winner with a tougher schedule?

I'm sure I am missing other criticisms that are valid, but I do like the outline.

Maybe you could look at a strength of victory tiebreaker if the wildcard team has a better record than the divisional winner? Only give the WC team the home game if they have the higher strength of victory?

As for more injuries, that is valid, but I bet the NFL would love a scenario in which fewer teams are resting starters and playing shitty games at the end of the season.

Poet
12-19-2013, 04:54 PM
Maybe you could look at a strength of victory tiebreaker if the wildcard team has a better record than the divisional winner? Only give the WC team the home game if they have the higher strength of victory?

As for more injuries, that is valid, but I bet the NFL would love a scenario in which fewer teams are resting starters and playing shitty games at the end of the season.

That might be a good idea.

I was thinking about the injury thing, and I'm not sure if the NFL can really use it. On one hand they keep making the game safer, but they also want the players to play more games. So, it might be a tough sell for them to make the argument. Clearly we should be on the payroll, though.

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 04:55 PM
That might be a good idea.

I was thinking about the injury thing, and I'm not sure if the NFL can really use it. On one hand they keep making the game safer, but they also want the players to play more games. So, it might be a tough sell for them to make the argument. Clearly we should be on the payroll, though.

Agreed. When bright guys like us put our heads together we can make shit happen!

Poet
12-19-2013, 04:55 PM
Agreed. When bright guys like us put our heads together we can make shit happen!

Let's run for office!

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 04:59 PM
You know what would be funny? It's highly unlikely, but there is a scenario in which a team could win their division at 3-13 and host a wildcard team with a 15-1 record. A team could win their division at 3-13 if every team in a division went 0-10 in all of their out of division games, and they all went 3-3 in the division. And a team could lose their division at 15-1 if two teams in a division went undefeated while splitting with each other.

This is obviously an extreme example, but that would be hilarious if it ever happened.

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 05:04 PM
I'd also like to make two provisions to my plan.

If you are 8-8 or worse, you lose the privilege of hosting even if you have a better SOV than the wild card team. My reasoning is that if you can't even accomplish a winning record, you don't deserve to host a playoff game. If both the WC team and divisional winner have 8 wins or fewer, then you can proceed with the SOV tiebreaker for the home game.

Second, the SOV provision gets thrown out if the WC team has 3+ more wins than the division winner. I say this because a difference of 3 wins over a 16 game schedule should supersede how tough their schedule was. For example, even if a 9-7 team has a better SOV than a 12-4 team, I think that difference in the amount of wins is enough to make it not matter.

MOtorboat
12-19-2013, 05:09 PM
You know what would be funny? It's highly unlikely, but there is a scenario in which a team could win their division at 3-13 and host a wildcard team with a 15-1 record. A team could win their division at 3-13 if every team in a division went 0-10 in all of their out of division games, and they all went 3-3 in the division. And a team could lose their division at 15-1 if two teams in a division went undefeated while splitting with each other.

This is obviously an extreme example, but that would be hilarious if it ever happened.

You just blew Joel's mind.

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 05:14 PM
Even better yet, you could have the division winner be 0-10-6 if all the division games were ties, and the wild card team could be 14-0-2 by tying the division winner twice.

Then you would have a winless team hosting an undefeated team in the first round. Yay, chaos!

BroncoJoe
12-19-2013, 05:30 PM
Maybe you could look at a strength of victory tiebreaker if the wildcard team has a better record than the divisional winner? Only give the WC team the home game if they have the higher strength of victory?

As for more injuries, that is valid, but I bet the NFL would love a scenario in which fewer teams are resting starters and playing shitty games at the end of the season.

Now this makes sense. You just needed to let your idea cook a bit more. Are you talking about Strength of Schedule or Victory? I'd get behind SoS more than SoV, or are you considering them the same?

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 05:31 PM
Now this makes sense. You just needed to let your idea cook a bit more. Are you talking about Strength of Schedule or Victory? I'd get behind SoS more than SoV, or are you considering them the same?

I haven't really thought it through. I am aware of the difference between them though. I know SOV is higher on the tiebreaker list than SOS though, so that's why I went with that as the baseline.

BroncoJoe
12-19-2013, 05:34 PM
You seem to have time on your hands... Why don't you look at if the season ended today, how would KC rank using your proposal against other division winners with a worse record?

BroncoJoe
12-19-2013, 05:34 PM
j/k on the time on your hands - don't go all Joel on me.

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 05:35 PM
You seem to have time on your hands... Why don't you look at if the season ended today, how would KC rank using your proposal against other division winners with a worse record?

I'm actually leaving for a dinner at someone's house pretty soon. I will look into that when I get back though.

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 05:35 PM
j/k on the time on your hands - don't go all Joel on me.

:lol: No worries. I can see how my 16K posts on here would lead one to that conclusion!

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 05:36 PM
Also, I'll do the same for SF in the NFC just out of curiosity's sake.

BroncoWave
12-19-2013, 06:57 PM
You know, I had a thought. Head-to-head should still be the first tiebreaker when seeing if a WC with a better record should host a division winner. After that, you could do SOV. Keep in mind, these "tiebreakers" ONLY come into effect when the WC team has a better record than the division winner. If the two teams have the same record or the division winner has a better record, the division winner always hosts.

In the AFC, KC would currently have homefield priority over no division winners because they have a lower SOV than all of them and have beaten none H2H. That will change, however, if they beat Indy this week. That would give them the homefield priority over Indy.

Baltimore currently has a worse record than all the division winners and can only finish with a better record than Indy, but Indy has the SOV edge over them.

Miami currently has the bet SOV in the AFC, so they are a great for this. However, the only team they could finish with a better record than who could win a division is Indy. Miami also beat Indy H2H, so they would host Indy if Miami had a better record.

So the first round playoff matchups right now would be no different in my system than in the current one. KC at Indy and Baltimore at Cincy. HOWEVER, if KC beats Indy this week, Indy would have to travel to KC in a first round matchup.

Now for the NFC, where my system would make a difference in homefield based on the current standings.

The Panthers have a higher SOV than Philly, and would host them if the two teams met.

SF also has a higher SOV than Philly. Since SF-Philly would be the current first round matchup, SF would be the home team despite being the 6 seed.

The first round matchups would be Philly at SF and Carolina at Chicago.

BroncoJoe
12-20-2013, 09:02 AM
Interesting. So, the current system is actually pretty good - it'll be interesting to have you run this once all the games are played and see how it shakes out.

Joel
12-20-2013, 10:19 AM
How about this for a compromise?

Still seed the teams 1-6 with 1 and 2 getting byes, and 5 and 6 being the wild card teams. And the top 4 seeds are still the division winners. The only difference is that the team with the better record will still host every game.

This reaches to the other side of the aisle in a couple of ways. First of all, you still have to win your division to get a bye. This would make it where a team like the Chiefs couldn't get a bye without winning the division. Second, it still gives the 3 seed the advantage of getting to travel to the 2 seed in round 2 instead of the 1 seed. As the highest seeded division winner without a bye, they would still get that advantage that they currently enjoy.

So while the wild cards are still slotted as the 5 and 6 seeds, they would still get to host the game in the event that the team they are playing has a worse record than they do. In the event two teams have the same record, winning the division gives you priority for homefield.
Isn't that pretty close to Billicks suggestion? The only difference there is his idea permits byes and home games for teams in KCs position (or Pitts two years ago.) Part of why I like his idea is it's easy to grasp: Seed by record, with division championships as first tiebreak (but I'd probably put head-to-head ahead of THAT; when two opponents have the same record and already played once, the winner should host the rematch, though that's not guaranteed even now.)

It doesn't ensure the top 4 seeds are division winners though; maybe nominally, but not actually. If #3 is @#6 Wildcard Weekend, who's REALLY the "higher" seed? ;) It's the same game in the same position of the same bracket; whatever it says on paper, the team with the sole advantage (i.e. hosting) is the higher seed.


Does that seem more fair?
Depends: How does everyone feel about KC having homefield against EVERYONE EXCEPT us? That's what would happen (assuming we both win our remaining games.) I'm okay with that; the sticking point for me is making some division winners go on the road for EVERY playoff game—even Wildcard Weekend. For teams with no realistic shot at a bye, the sole reason to keep starters on the field EVERY week giving 100% rather than just coasting into a wildcard is that ALL division winners are home the first week.

Take a team like this years Colts: They've clinched their division, but there's almost NO chance they finish in the top four; why even show up and risk Luck or Mathis getting hurt the last two weeks, when playing on the road Wildcard Weekend is practically guaranteed no matter what? Remember, the wildcard's a concession to teams who post very good records yet can't win their division; just being in the playoffs ought to be enough, without giving them an ADVANTAGE by hosting one (or all) games (while denying division winners that advantage.)

Joel
12-20-2013, 10:28 AM
Now this makes sense. You just needed to let your idea cook a bit more. Are you talking about Strength of Schedule or Victory? I'd get behind SoS more than SoV, or are you considering them the same?
The only difference is SoS counts the record of ALL opponents, not just those the teams beat. That's never made sense to me; a loss is a loss, and never positive. If two teams are both 15-1, losing to the '72 Dolphins doesn't make one any better than the other losing to the '08 Lions.


You seem to have time on your hands... Why don't you look at if the season ended today, how would KC rank using your proposal against other division winners with a worse record?
It's not time consuming: They have the AFCs second best record, but don't lead their division, so they'd be a wildcard and thus denied a bye, but have homefield against everyone but us. The Pats would get a bye, then go on the road against KC (assuming the Chiefs survived their home game against Indy; guess we'll find out Sunday how that would go.)


You know, I had a thought. Head-to-head should still be the first tiebreaker when seeing if a WC with a better record should host a division winner. After that, you could do SOV. Keep in mind, these "tiebreakers" ONLY come into effect when the WC team has a better record than the division winner. If the two teams have the same record or the division winner has a better record, the division winner always hosts.
I agree with that (just didn't read it before my first response to your idea,) but remember: Tiebreaks are just that; if you mean head-to-head, divison championships AND SoV should trump overall record, we're not really seeding by record. If we DO seed by record, KC is currently ahead of everyone but Denver, so they'd have homefield over everyone but Denver; they just couldn't get a bye under your proposal because wildcards are ineligible.

San Francisco would be an interesting case: They'd host Chicago Wildcard Weekend while Carolina hosted Philly, because Carolina and SF have the same record but Carolina won the head-to-head. After that, SF would be on the road against anyone but Philly, because Seattle's #1 and both NO and Carolina have the same record as but head-to-head wins against SF.

If you really do mean seeding should be resolved by (in order of priority)

1) Head-to-head, if applicable, 2) division championship, if applicable, 3) SoV and 4) overall record rather than
1) Division championship, if applicable, 2) overall record, 3) head-to-head, if applicable, 4) conference win percentage, 5) common games win percentage (minimum of 4 games) etc.

I prefer the current system over the stated alternative. If we're going to change it, overall record should come first.

BroncoJoe
12-20-2013, 12:18 PM
The only difference is SoS counts the record of ALL opponents, not just those the teams beat. That's never made sense to me; a loss is a loss, and never positive. If two teams are both 15-1, losing to the '72 Dolphins doesn't make one any better than the other losing to the '08 Lions.

Sure it does. If you lose to a team you should beat, that should absolutely count against you.

Joel
12-20-2013, 12:55 PM
Sure it does. If you lose to a team you should beat, that should absolutely count against you.
Losing is losing, whether to a good or bad team. If we say Team A should've won a game they lost but Team B should've LOST a game they lost, how is Team B better? Because they have a "quality loss," which sounds like a contradiction in terms. What if Team A lost 17-16 and Team B lost 73-0? Does Team Bs quality loss still make them better?

Just count the strength of teams they beat; those are the accomplishments. The rest are just "failing less."

BroncoJoe
12-20-2013, 12:59 PM
Losing is losing, whether to a good or bad team. If we say Team A should've won a game they lost but Team B should've LOST a game they lost, how is Team B better? Because they have a "quality loss," which sounds like a contradiction in terms. What if Team A lost 17-16 and Team B lost 73-0? Does Team Bs quality loss still make them better?

Just count the strength of teams they beat; those are the accomplishments. The rest are just "failing less."

You're a master at looking at only the numbers which fit your argument, so I'm not surprised you feel this way. AND, I'm talking Strength of Schedule, not Strength of Victory. If you have two teams with identical records, yet one's losses came to inferior opponents based on their W/L record, then IMO that should be a strike against them.

Joel
12-20-2013, 01:51 PM
You're a master at looking at only the numbers which fit your argument, so I'm not surprised you feel this way. AND, I'm talking Strength of Schedule, not Strength of Victory. If you have two teams with identical records, yet one's losses came to inferior opponents based on their W/L record, then IMO that should be a strike against them.
Yes, we're talking SoS; it comes after SoV, for good reason. But its value's a question of perspective and opinion, leaving room to disagree. Beyond a point tiebreaks are forced to CREATE distinctions where no practical ones exist (hence the last one's a coin flip that has nothing to do with either teams merits; I often wonder who gets to call it, not that it matters if random.)

Strength of Schedule's not worthless, but I personally dislike it because a team can get annihilated by every decent team they face and still end up with the tiebreak over a team that just had a lot of injuries and/or a couple of fluke plays in a close loss to a bad team. Seattle had a game like that this year when Indy (though a good team at the time) won by 6 thanks to a FB blocked and returned for a TD. They went to OT against Houston, and a loss would've killed them on SoS, but a FG in OT against the NFLs worst team doesn't.

BroncoJoe
12-20-2013, 02:24 PM
Yes, we're talking SoS; it comes after SoV, for good reason. But its value's a question of perspective and opinion, leaving room to disagree. Beyond a point tiebreaks are forced to CREATE distinctions where no practical ones exist (hence the last one's a coin flip that has nothing to do with either teams merits; I often wonder who gets to call it, not that it matters if random.)

Strength of Schedule's not worthless, but I personally dislike it because a team can get annihilated by every decent team they face and still end up with the tiebreak over a team that just had a lot of injuries and/or a couple of fluke plays in a close loss to a bad team. Seattle had a game like that this year when Indy (though a good team at the time) won by 6 thanks to a FB blocked and returned for a TD. They went to OT against Houston, and a loss would've killed them on SoS, but a FG in OT against the NFLs worst team doesn't.

And that is exactly why the current system is just fine. Win your division. If you don't, S.T.F.U.

Joel
12-20-2013, 02:45 PM
And that is exactly why the current system is just fine. Win your division. If you don't, S.T.F.U.
I'm cool with that. I see the logic in the best record hosting, but not at the expense of some division winners getting NO home games while giving some wildcards homefield throughout the playoffs against ALL teams but one. Like TXBRONC said, no system's perfect, but the current ones detriments are (slightly) better than those of Billicks alternative.


Maybe you could look at a strength of victory tiebreaker if the wildcard team has a better record than the divisional winner? Only give the WC team the home game if they have the higher strength of victory?
I missed this the first time through (hence my earlier comment.) Strength of Victory and similar tiebreaks aren't worth much if we're comparing the strength of 9 wins to 10, let alone greater disparities. It's only a worthwhile tiebreak when we need to know which of an EQUAL number of wins is worth more.

Once we get to the point of "the team with the best record hosts unless the other team won its division AND has a higher SoV unless the first team has a MUCH better record" it's a little too complicated for my taste. There's always a balance between precision and clarity; when 95% of fans can't explain why each team has homefield, we've gone too far toward the former.

Having said all that, I'd be OK with having record decide hosting AFTER the wildcard round. But ALL division winners should play their first game at home, and if that means an 8-8 division winner hosts a 13-3 wildcard, we're back to "Win your division or S.T.F.U." Wildcard teams are lucky to even BE in the playoffs; complaining about WHERE is ingratitude.

Agucua
12-21-2013, 03:38 AM
Please NFL, don't expand the playoffs. The number of teams that gets in is perfect right now. We don't need this to be an NBA or NHL where the regular season gets rendered meaningless because almost everyone makes it to the playoffs.

Find another way to make more money.