NFL to consider reseeding playoffs purely by record

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Both NFC matchups on Wild Card Weekend feature teams with the superior record going on the road.

NFL owners have taken notice of the inequity.

Among the "multiple ways" in which the NFL has examined potential adjustments to the playoff system, spokesman Brian McCarthy said Thursday there has been discussion of letting the team with the superior record host games even if they gain entrance to the postseason as a wild card.

"Every scenario has been discussed, ranging from reseeding to one extra game, expanding from 12 to 14 teams," McCarthy said. "Think of a scenario, it's been discussed and remains in play."

rest - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000308443/article/nfl-to-consider-reseeding-playoffs-purely-by-record

[DenBronx]

I sort of like it the way it is now.

[Canmore]

I like the setup the way it is too.

[BroncoWave]

And I was called crazy for suggesting this.

[BigDaddyBronco]

Win your division and it isn't an issue. Hey just a couple years ago the AFC West and NFC West were terrible and the division winner was blessed with an easier path to the playoffs. Now things have shifted like they always do, if the Chiefs and 49ers are so good then the road game shouldn't make a big difference.

[BroncoWave]

Using the division system to seed playoffs is antiquated, and it's no surprise that the people who are actually paid to shape the rules of the NFL see this as well. As little of a difference as there is between the talent level of the top and bottom teams, it makes more sense to reward a team's performance over a 16 game schedule as compared to their performance against an arbitrary grouping of 4 teams.

[BroncoWave]

Win your division and it isn't an issue.

Under the proposed new system, win more games than the team you play in the playoff and it isn't an issue. Simple.

[BroncoWave]

Here is a question to ponder: San Fran has 4 more wins than Green Bay. How is it relevant to those two teams that Seattle won more games than SF? "Seattle won the division" and "Seattle is in the same division as SF" are not valid answers.

[Broncolingus]

And I was called crazy for suggesting this.

...they must've heard ya, Wave :D

[pulse]

Meh, I'm not in favor of changing the current format. Being the CHAMPION of your division should entitle you to host a playoff game. Sorry. That should never change. If you want to host a playoff game, win your damn division. Changing that fact just takes too much importance away from winning your division. At the start of the season, you are guaranteed NOTHING if you do not win your division. Implementing seeding based solely on record undermines that completely.

[BroncoWave]

Meh, I'm not in favor of changing the current format. Being the CHAMPION of your division should entitle you to host a playoff game. Sorry. That should never change. If you want to host a playoff game, win your damn division. Changing that fact just takes too much importance away from winning your division. At the start of the season, you are guaranteed NOTHING if you do not win your division. Implementing seeding based solely on record undermines that completely.

Why?

[Broncos Mtnman]

Considering how Goodell is screwing up everything else in the league, I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

If they do it, they should just eliminate divisions and seed the top 6 teams of each conference. Or heck, let's just eliminate the need to actually win your games and just let everybody in the playoffs.

I hate Goodell.

[pulse]

Why?

Because that is the reward for completing your first primary goal as a football team: WIN YOUR DIVISION. It's not "settle for second place, we'll still get a top seed." There has to be some kind of reward and that's exactly what we currently have right now.

[OrangeHoof]

Here is a question to ponder: San Fran has 4 more wins than Green Bay. How is it relevant to those two teams that Seattle won more games than SF? "Seattle won the division" and "Seattle is in the same division as SF" are not valid answers.

Since stating the facts does not seem to be a "valid answer". let's try a hypothetical. Let's say Team A plays in a really tough cutthroat division and managed to win it with a 9-7 record. Team B plays in a division with one really superior team that beat Team B twice in the regular season but they also have two division opponents who stink and finished with the worst and third-worst records in the league. Team B went 4-0 against the stinkers to finish their season at 10-6, good for a Wild Card berth but not good enough to win their division.

Explain why Team B should have home field advantage against Team A when they played a weaker schedule? "Beacuse Team B had a better record than Team A" is not a valid answer.

[BroncoWave]

Considering how Goodell is screwing up everything else in the league, I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

If they do it, they should just eliminate divisions and seed the top 6 teams of each conference. Or heck, let's just eliminate the need to actually win your games and just let everybody in the playoffs.

I hate Goodell.

Um, re-seeding this way would INCREASE the need to actually win your games.

[zbeg]

Why?

What's the point of having divisions then?

[BroncoWave]

Since stating the facts does not seem to be a "valid answer". let's try a hypothetical. Let's say Team A plays in a really tough cutthroat division and managed to win it with a 9-7 record. Team B plays in a division with one really superior team that beat Team B twice in the regular season but they also have two division opponents who stink and finished with the worst and third-worst records in the league. Team B went 4-0 against the stinkers to finish their season at 10-6, good for a Wild Card berth but not good enough to win their division.

Explain why Team B should have home field advantage against Team A when they played a weaker schedule? "Beacuse Team B had a better record than Team A" is not a valid answer.

Given the small different in talent between NFL teams, I don't really buy the "weaker schedule" argument. Every NFL team has talented players. This isn't like college football where the SEC plays a tougher schedule than CUSA. Every NFL team plays a tough schedule.

[BroncoWave]

What's the point of having divisions then?

No one is saying division winners shouldn't make the playoffs. Just that they shouldn't be guaranteed home games.

[BroncoWave]

A 12-4 team going on the road to an 8-7-1 team is absurd. And since you guys want to use the schedule strength argument, the 12-4 team did it in the toughest conference in the NFL. There is no reason they should have to go on the road to play Green Bay. Green Bay wouldn't have won the NFC West either. They were just lucky enough not to be in that division.

[zbeg]

No one is saying division winners shouldn't make the playoffs. Just that they shouldn't be guaranteed home games.

Hmm, I wonder how many division winners wouldn't have made the playoffs if you just had the top 6 records from each conference. My guess is it would be under 10 since the NFL went to 16 games in 1978.

[BroncoWave]

Hmm, I wonder how many division winners wouldn't have made the playoffs if you just had the top 6 records from each conference. My guess is it would be under 10 since the NFL went to 16 games in 1978.

If the best argument against this is "well this would make winning the division unimportant" well then maybe winning the division shouldn't be important. No one has given a reason that winning the division HAS to be important.

[pulse]

If the best argument against this is "well this would make winning the division unimportant" well then maybe winning the division shouldn't be important. No one has given a reason that winning the division HAS to be important.

By that methodology, why even have divisions? If you're going to make winning divisions virtually meaningless, then remove the divisions entirely. Just have the conferences and seed based on conference record and be done with it. Again, my argument is that if you are going to have division champions, their reward for being a champion should always be of higher value than a wildcard. Wildcards shouldn't trump divisional champions period. Really devalues the entire purpose of a divisional structure.

[Broncolingus]

If the best argument against this is "well this would make winning the division unimportant" well then maybe winning the division shouldn't be important. No one has given a reason that winning the division HAS to be important.

"...it is because we think it is!!!! ..." :D


http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/189851/dennis-green-bears-o.gif

[ShaneFalco]

Here is a question to ponder: San Fran has 4 more wins than Green Bay. How is it relevant to those two teams that Seattle won more games than SF? "Seattle won the division" and "Seattle is in the same division as SF" are not valid answers.
Let me put on my care hat for a city with that many rings

[Poet]

BW, when we talked about this earlier, we worked out a sort of compromise and tiebreaker thing. What was that again?

[OrangeHoof]

By that methodology, why even have divisions? If you're going to make winning divisions virtually meaningless, then remove the divisions entirely. Just have the conferences and seed based on conference record and be done with it. Again, my argument is that if you are going to have division champions, their reward for being a champion should always be of higher value than a wildcard. Wildcards shouldn't trump divisional champions period. Really devalues the entire purpose of a divisional structure.

Why have conferences? Do it like the Pro Bowl and we can just have two former NFL stars draft the conferences each year. Lots of interest in that!

[LawDog]

A 12-4 team going on the road to an 8-7-1 team is absurd. And since you guys want to use the schedule strength argument, the 12-4 team did it in the toughest conference in the NFL. There is no reason they should have to go on the road to play Green Bay. Green Bay wouldn't have won the NFC West either. They were just lucky enough not to be in that division.

You saying it is absurd doesn't make it so. The relative strength of the teams is already factored in - the strongest wildcard (12-4 SF five seed) is playing the weakest division winner (8-7-1 GB four seed). Assuming they prevail as well as the other "wildcard with a better record", they would play the weaker of the two remaining division champs.

Not to mention the fact that the four seed should earn at least one home game in exchange for having to play an "extra" playoff game. Just as the one and two get a bye and home field as a reward for not only winning their division but doing so with the best records in the conference.

The system is fair and smart as it is and no tinkering makes sense or is needed. This is the same unnecessary crap as putting a team in London - sounds good after your fourth beer in the hotel bar at winter meetings but is impractical in the light of day.

[CrazyHorse]

If the best argument against this is "well this would make winning the division unimportant" well then maybe winning the division shouldn't be important. No one has given a reason that winning the division HAS to be important.

Winning the Division would still guarantee a playoff berth, just not a home game. I'd consider a playoff berth important. I'm one of the few that agrees with you that seeding should be done by record.

[dogfish]

You saying it is absurd doesn't make it so. The relative strength of the teams is already factored in - the strongest wildcard (12-4 SF five seed) is playing the weakest division winner (8-7-1 GB four seed). Assuming they prevail as well as the other "wildcard with a better record", they would play the weaker of the two remaining division champs.

Not to mention the fact that the four seed should earn at least one home game in exchange for having to play an "extra" playoff game. Just as the one and two get a bye and home field as a reward for not only winning their division but doing so with the best records in the conference.

The system is fair and smart as it is and no tinkering makes sense or is needed. This is the same unnecessary crap as putting a team in London - sounds good after your fourth beer in the hotel bar at winter meetings but is impractical in the light of day.

ah, man, thanks. . . not only did the cold practicality of this answer ring true to your monniker, but it also made me laugh aloud. . .

:lol: :lol:


FTR, i don't care that much about the topic at hand, but. . . if it ain't broke, and all that. . .

[Poet]

It makes me sad that DF won't delve into debate anymore.

[dogfish]

It makes me sad that DF won't delve into debate anymore.

oh, stop. . . what's your problem with this?

i think there are a dozen more urgent topics, but that doesn't mean i won't discuss it at all. . .

[Poet]

oh, stop. . . what's your problem with this?

i think there are a dozen more urgent topics, but that doesn't mean i won't discuss it at all. . .

It just feels like you've given up on the board is all. Not blessing us with your vaunted wisdom. :sad:

Doggy, I want a thread with your playoff predictions.

[dogfish]

It just feels like you've given up on the board is all. Not blessing us with your vaunted wisdom. :sad:

Doggy, I want a thread with your playoff predictions.

eh oh el. . . i've had other shit on my mind, esse. . . start the thread, i'll post something. . .

[Joel]

Meh, I'm not in favor of changing the current format. Being the CHAMPION of your division should entitle you to host a playoff game. Sorry. That should never change. If you want to host a playoff game, win your damn division. Changing that fact just takes too much importance away from winning your division. At the start of the season, you are guaranteed NOTHING if you do not win your division. Implementing seeding based solely on record undermines that completely.
This is my big issue; if they want to reseed AFTER Wildcard Weekend, for the Divisional round, fine, but division winners earn the right to play at home the first week. That's the only reason for a lot of teams to keep showing up after they clinch at least a wildcard spot; otherwise, they could just sit back and coast into the playoffs once they have 10 wins. I bet the owners would just LOVE all the ratings and revenue they'd get from half a dozen teams starting their second and third string in every game after Thanksgiving.


Why?
Because we don't give prizes for second place. Same reason the AFC/NFC tournament winners go to the Super Bowl even if they're 9-7 and never faced a 15-1 team in their bracket.


Um, re-seeding this way would INCREASE the need to actually win your games.
Only for teams with a decent shot at finishing in the top 3. Once that ship's sailed, the other 3 know they'll be on the road whether they win their division or not, so if they're in a division like, say, this years AFCS, why risk someone getting hurt in a meaningless game?


BW, when we talked about this earlier, we worked out a sort of compromise and tiebreaker thing. What was that again?
If memory serves, we essentially concluded (without explicitly saying so) Brian Billicks thread-starting article was dead right: Seed by record, with division championships as first tiebreaker, followed by the other dozen or so playoff tiebreaks already in use. I'd be OK with that as long as we didn't apply it till the Divisional round, so all division winners got either their first game at home and/or a bye. It's conceivable a team could get a bye but still be on the road; in that case a free pass to the Divisional round was reward enough, IMHO.

[Poet]

Joel, you are the Andy Dalton of posting. When you're good, you're effing good, and when you're bad, you're effing bad. You've been on a hot streak it ain't letting up. Well done.

[Hawgdriver]

Considering how Goodell is screwing up everything else in the league, I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

If they do it, they should just eliminate divisions and seed the top 6 teams of each conference. Or heck, let's just eliminate the need to actually win your games and just let everybody in the playoffs.

I hate Goodell.

What are you talking about?

[Northman]

Meh, I'm not in favor of changing the current format. Being the CHAMPION of your division should entitle you to host a playoff game. Sorry. That should never change. If you want to host a playoff game, win your damn division. Changing that fact just takes too much importance away from winning your division. At the start of the season, you are guaranteed NOTHING if you do not win your division. Implementing seeding based solely on record undermines that completely.

Agreed.

If anything, over the course of years in the NFL simply hosting a playoff game does not guarantee anything. If your a good team you should be able to win on the road. Simple as that.

[Hawgdriver]

Should the best teams play in the playoffs?

[Northman]

A 12-4 team going on the road to an 8-7-1 team is absurd.

Why?

If the 12-4 team is a better team it should not make a difference at all. Home games dont guarantee anything so im not sure why your so hellbent on rewarding a team that couldnt even win their own division.

[Northman]

If the best argument against this is "well this would make winning the division unimportant" well then maybe winning the division shouldn't be important. No one has given a reason that winning the division HAS to be important.

On the flipside you havent given a good reason why a 12-4 should be automatically given a home game when they didnt win their own division in the first place.

[Northman]

Should the best teams play in the playoffs?

They already are.

[Joel]

Since opponents of change are seriously and proponents rhetorically asking why even have divisions, let's look at the many valid reasons.

The first and best known are historical and regional rivalries. The Broncos have played the Bolts, Chefs and Faders twice annually for over half a century, until mutual fanbase loathing became an integral part of the game. It's like that everywhere, and realignment went out of its way to maintain it, with even the moved teams being their old divisions newest arrival and/or badly out of place (Atlanta was in the WEST? How?!) I still say Indy has no business in the AFC SOUTH (Miami fits better) but even they had been the newest addition to the AFLs old East Division.

There are many more practical reasons though:

1) Consistent performance in multiple games against the same teams. That forces teams to be good, not just on "any given Sunday," but consistently over whole seasons—and MULTIPLE seasons—against opponents seldom surprised by the coaches, plays, rosters, fields or fans of teams they face twice a year. It's not enough to just beat a team once; winning the division requires beating multiple opponents multiple times to establish the divisons top team is just that.

2) Round robin divison schedules denies all division opponents any true homefield advantage over the rest. In other words, it's FAIR. It would be more fair if, say, the whole AFCW played the whole AFCS on the road and the whole NFCE at home, but within the division everyone else plays everyone else home and away: No advantage.

3) Because it's fair and division schedules are static, it's also more reliable: It's an apples to apples comparison. 14 of our games this year—and every year—were against the same teams KC, SD and Oakland faced: 6 AFCW games plus the AFCS and NFCE. Finishing 2 games better than our closest division rival is therefore a strong indicator we're the AFCWs best team.

It's not the old MLB or AAFC where each team plays everyone in its conference once; in most cases that plus a 16th local non-conference game would be very feasible IF it were also desirable.

[Joel]

Should the best teams play in the playoffs?
Of course, but there are different and mutually exclusive yet nonetheless reasonable ways to determine who's the best. Remember, we just finished a season where, had Miami and Baltimore won their last game, which went to the playoffs depended on what San Diego did: In a threeway tie we'd use confeference record, so Miami was "the best," but in a twoway tie we'd use head-to-head, so Baltimore was "the best."

Remember: A SD win wouldn't alter Baltimore or Miamis records, their SoS or any other tiebreaks: It would "only" change WHICH tiebreak we used. It's like if the Indy 500 said, "okay, if two cars cross the line together we use a photo finish—but if three cars do we go by the numbers painted on them, and if 4+ do we go alphabetically by the drivers last name."

It's the ONE place I agree divisions don't matter, and certainly shouldn't come before ALL ELEVEN other tiebreaks. Because, as stated elsewhere, the whole point of wildcards is to ignore divisions and just consider the CONFERENCES best non-division winners, so making division record the first tiebreak is self-defeating.

Should the best teams be in the playoffs? Yeah, but changing the seeding AFTER picking them's irrelevant to that, and the proof is even adopting seeding by record would still screw Arizona.

[BroncoWave]

Why?

If the 12-4 team is a better team it should not make a difference at all. Home games dont guarantee anything so im not sure why your so hellbent on rewarding a team that couldnt even win their own division.

SF is at a pretty huge disadvantage having to go play in negative temps in GB.

I'm not hellbent on "rewarding a team that couldn't even win their own division". I'm hellbent on rewarding a team that won more games than 13 of the other 16 teams in their conference.

[BroncoWave]

On the flipside you havent given a good reason why a 12-4 should be automatically given a home game when they didnt win their own division in the first place.

I've given an irrefutable reason. They won more games than the team they are playing this week. That's why you play football right? To win the games? If you aren't rewarded for winning games, then what's the point?

[Northman]

SF is at a pretty huge disadvantage having to go play in negative temps in GB.



This makes no sense homie.

What is the difference here as opposed to playing this game in the regular season? Either way they would have to travel and play the game. Again, i have to question your logic about all this because a few years back a dome team like Atlanta behind Michael Vick went in and defeated the Packers in cold conditions. Road teams win all the time on the road so im not sure i follow your "huge" disadvantage philosophy.

[Northman]

I've given an irrefutable reason. They won more games than the team they are playing this week. That's why you play football right? To win the games? If you aren't rewarded for winning games, then what's the point?

Its also why you win your division. KC was rewarded for winning games by making the playoffs. The Colts were rewarded because they won their division. Same thing.

[BroncoWave]

Its also why you win your division. KC was rewarded for winning games by making the playoffs. The Colts were rewarded because they won their division. Same thing.

Forgive me if I don't find it impressive that you only have to finish with a better record than 3 other teams to host a playoff game. Winning a bad division is not all that hard. Even Tim Tebow did it.

[Northman]

This whole argument is stupid in my opinion. The system in place currently works as there is no huge advantage as teams constantly win on the road in the playoffs.

[Northman]

Forgive me if I don't find it impressive that you only have to finish with a better record than 3 other teams to host a playoff game. Winning a bad division is not all that hard. Even Tim Tebow did it.

And yet at the same time a team like KC can pad their w/l record playing said bad teams throughout the year. Man, if every team could play teams every week that have played 2nd and 3rd string QB's every team would have 12 wins no? lol

Its just not solid logic mate. The system works and the fact that teams like the Giants, Steelers, Packers, and Ravens have gone on the road to win and win SB's shows that this huge advantage you speak of just doesnt exist.

[Nomad]

I wonder if Harbaugh is gonna let his nose turn purple-blue like Coughlin did that one year when the Giants went to GB and beat them in the playoffs.:lol:

[Slick]

Had San Fran swept the Seahawks like Denver did the Chiefs, the 9ers would be the 1 seed playing home throughout. They had their chances. Also an irrefutable point.

[TXBRONC]

Let me put on my care hat for a city with that many rings

I would give a damn but my give a damn is broken.

[BroncoWave]

Had San Fran swept the Seahawks like Denver did the Chiefs, the 9ers would be the 1 seed playing home throughout. They had their chances. Also an irrefutable point.

And the system that makes how SF did against Seattle matter in terms of where the play Green Bay is a stupid one.

[OrangeHoof]

It should be noted that the Giants and Steelers have, in recent years, won it all as wild card teams so being on the road is not a huge disadvantage. It can also help solidify a team that lacks unity because the road team doesn't deal with some of the distractions and expectations of home teams.

Heck, baseball is trying to find ways to make it harder for wild card teams, yet some here want to make it easier for them?

[TXBRONC]

It should be noted that the Giants and Steelers have, in recent years, won it all as wild card teams so being on the road is not a huge disadvantage. It can also help solidify a team that lacks unity because the road team doesn't deal with some of the distractions and expectations of home teams.

Heck, baseball is trying to find ways to make it harder for wild card teams, yet some here want to make it easier for them?

My friend it was the Packers that won it as wild card . The Steelers won their division the last time won the Super Bowl.

[Northman]

My friend it was the Packers that won it as wild card . The Steelers won their division the last time won the Super Bowl.

Yea, but he is talking about 2005 when Pitt went to Indy and Denver and won on the road.

[TXBRONC]

Yea, but he is talking about 2005 when Pitt went to Indy and Denver and won on the road.

Ah I forgot about that.

[Ravage!!!]

Using the division system to seed playoffs is antiquated, and it's no surprise that the people who are actually paid to shape the rules of the NFL see this as well. As little of a difference as there is between the talent level of the top and bottom teams, it makes more sense to reward a team's performance over a 16 game schedule as compared to their performance against an arbitrary grouping of 4 teams.

Antiquated??? :lol: how so? What has changed that has made the system "antiquated?" That makes no sense.


As it is right now, as its always been, is WIN your division. That's why they have divisions. If you removed the "win your division" philosophy, then I guess the next step is to simply remove divsions altogether?

I guess we can always just make the season a 15 game season and each Conference play ever other team in the conference. Then, everyone has the same schedule, there is no divisions, and we can just go by final record alone.

Divisions and WINNING your division, is what has created and KEPT rivalries in the NFL. Those rivalries are HUGE for the fanbases and for the game. Take those away, and you've diminished the NFL.

Antiquated :lol:

[Ravage!!!]

Its just not solid logic mate. The system works and the fact that teams like the Giants, Steelers, Packers, and Ravens have gone on the road to win and win SB's shows that this huge advantage you speak of just doesnt exist.

Bingo.

We didn't win our division when we won our first Super Bowl. Know who did, the chiefs. Also, when Manning beat the Bears in his Super Bowl win, he didn't win his division and won as a Wild Card team.

[Joel]

Fact is, the NFCW has ALWAYS been an AWFUL way to judge the playoffs. The only difference now is that it's not because of producing a 7-9 division champ (who beat the defending SB champs in the Wildcard game) or the '9ers phoning in the regular season for a decade against a division with less teams than the other two NFC divisions and where ALL of them sucked except SF (the Falcons had only EXISTED 3 years when SF won their first SB.) It's like the NFCW's trying to make up for their whole pathetic existence in one incredibly dominant year.

The sad weird truth is the NFCW was dysfunctional EVEN BEFORE JOINING THE NFL! The '48 '49ers may be the best argument for wildcards: A 12-2 playoff spectator because the two losses happened to be vs. the 14-0 division champ, Cleveland. The other division race ended in a tie between the 7-7 Buffalo Bills and Baltimore Colts; after Buffalo won a single game playoff they went onto the league championship @Cleveland. (Note: Despite the similar names, neither those Colts or Bills teams joined the NFL like Cleveland and SF

In the regular season, Cleveland beat SF 14-7 at home and 31-28 on the road; in the championship they beat Buffalo 49-7: There's a good argument the championship game was Week 13 @SF. Actually, there's more than one: The following year (the AAFCs last) Cleveland DID beat SF in the championship after the league adopted a two round playoff where each division winner faced the others second place team and the winners of those two game went to the championship.

Anyway, Back to the Present. The real problem with this years NFCW isn't 12-4 SF@8-7-1 GB Wildcard Weekend, nor even Arizona missing the playoffs entirely after managing 10 wins despite playing 1/4th of their schedule against Seattle and SF: It's that, by point differential adjusted for schedule strength, St. Louis is actually the NFLs 12th best team. In other words, THE WHOLE NFC WEST BELONGS IN THE PLAYOFFS.

If that sounds odd, consider that 7 of St. Louis' games were against playoff teams, 2 more were against a Cardinals club that SHOULD be in the playoffs and 2 others were against the Bears and Cowboys who only had to win their last games to win their divisions. Somehow—against all that—the Rams managed to finish just ONE game below .500, and even beat three playoff caliber teams in Arizona, New Orleans and Indy (they beat NO by two scores, and "beat" is a kind term for their 38-8 smackdown of Indy ON THE ROAD.)

The moral of that story isn't that we need something to fix this flaw in the playoff system, it's that even the best playoff system isn't proof against the Twilight Zone the NFCW's been since even before it was part of the NFL.

[zbeg]

It should be noted that the Giants and Steelers have, in recent years, won it all as wild card teams so being on the road is not a huge disadvantage. It can also help solidify a team that lacks unity because the road team doesn't deal with some of the distractions and expectations of home teams.


The home team in the playoffs has a 67% win percentage. That is huge. Being on the road IS a big deal, even if a team bucks the trend every now and then.

[CoachChaz]

There are way too many things that factor into this in order to say it isnt fair or that it's antiquated. Does KC deserve a higher seed because they won 11 games playing a last place schedule? Over an Indy team that had a tougher schedule and beat teams like Seattle and Denver? What about a team that wins 10 games in a weak conference getting a higher seed over a team that wins a tougher conference?

With 3 teams in the playoffs, it could be argued that the AFC West is the best/toughest conference in the AFC this year, but KC and SD didnt have the schedule that Indy did.

[Northman]

The home team in the playoffs has a 67% win percentage. That is huge. Being on the road IS a big deal, even if a team bucks the trend every now and then.

Uh, 67% is not huge. 85% is huge. Your out of your mind.

[Joel]

The home team in the playoffs has a 67% win percentage. That is huge. Being on the road IS a big deal, even if a team bucks the trend every now and then.
That stat's misleading though because having a better record is usually the only reason the home team IS the home team, especially after the first round. There are occasional exceptions when a wildcard team has a deep run and/or one division has multiple strong teams (e.g. people point to the '07 Giants as proof of wildcard virtue, but they finished 10-6 in a division with three playoff teams, including a #1 seed.) Generally though, wildcard's are wildcards for a reason; remember, wildcards are also rans by definition.

It's not Carolinas fault New Orleans was outscored an average of 4.5 pts on the road this year, and it's not Phillys either. Teams that can't do better than all three teams in their division shouldn't get a home game against a fourth team that did just that. If winning a division doesn't guarantee the first game's at home, what's the incentive? Why shouldn't good teams just secure a wildcard and then rest all their starters because they don't have another game that MATTERS till the playoffs?


Uh, 67% is not huge. 85% is huge.
2:1 odds are pretty huge but, again, since the better team is usually the home team, the stat's misleading. If anything, it's an argument the current system's fine because it tends to put the best teams at home ALREADY, and therefore requires no improvement.

[Ravage!!!]

I've given an irrefutable reason. They won more games than the team they are playing this week. That's why you play football right? To win the games? If you aren't rewarded for winning games, then what's the point?

Ahhh.. I just LOVE it iwhen someone thinks that their reasoning is "irrefutable." No one can POSSIBLE argue your logic and thus, it stands to reason you must be RIGHT! Geez.

You aren't looking at the rivalries that have been built, and you are ingorning the fact that the divisions basically have the same schedule. WIN YOUR DIVISION. That's not "antiquated" as there is NOTHING that has made that "out of date" ....unless you are just some young snotnose that thinks EVERYTHING is antiquated because it doesn't go along with their beliefs.

WIN YOUR DIVISION first. That has always been the way and the ONLY ones that complain are those that don't get in (probably just one time) when they had a better record than someone else. Cry me a river. I don't feel "sorry" for a team that couldn't win their division, and then couldn't win enough games to beat out the OTHER teams that couldn't win their division.

KC didn't win their division and gets in. Seems fair. They aren't the best team in their division, but their RECORD got them into the playoffs.

SF has a major disadvantage????? So I guess GB wouldn't have a disadvantage traveling to another team's home field??? Win your division and win the home field.

I think its pretty stupid to try and change it to record only.

[Ravage!!!]

Uh, 67% is not huge. 85% is huge. Your out of your mind.

I agree. A 17% increase over a 50-50 split really is not a HUGE advantage. You would think it would be larger considering how hard teams fight to get home field advantage.

But as Joel pointed out, did the home team win because they were/are at home or did they win because they were the better team originally to get the homefield advantage?

[CoachChaz]

Seems to me the only fair way to base it solely on records would be to have an 8 team format and have 1 play 8, 2 play 7, etc...then re-seed after that based on records of the remaining teams. Then there is no advantage for having the best record in a conference. But allowing 8 teams in the playoffs seems a bit much. I dont know...I think the way it is set up right now is really the best possible situation. KC can cry all they want, but they had 4 chances to beat the 2 other teams in their division that made the playoffs and lost all 4 times. That's on them.

[BroncoJoe]

Seems to me the only fair way to base it solely on records would be to have an 8 team format and have 1 play 8, 2 play 7, etc...then re-seed after that based on records of the remaining teams. Then there is no advantage for having the best record in a conference. But allowing 8 teams in the playoffs seems a bit much. I dont know...I think the way it is set up right now is really the best possible situation. KC can cry all they want, but they had 4 chances to beat the 2 other teams in their division that made the playoffs and lost all 4 times. That's on them.

Exactly. They got swept by two teams in their division! And the only other team is a perennial loser. I can't help but laugh at those who think they should get a higher seed. If anything, SD should be seeded higher because they swept the pathetic Chiefs.

[Mike]

Is there a problem with the way it currently works? I don't see one. Stop messing with stuff that already works.

[Dapper Dan]

ESPN - After missing postseason for 4th straight time, Dallas owner Jerry Jones say he favors expanded playoffs

[Ravage!!!]

ESPN - After missing postseason for 4th straight time, Dallas owner Jerry Jones say he favors expanded playoffs

Yeah.. the Chiefs were a front runner for this a few years back when the owner was still alive. Wanted to add MORE teams to the playoffs. Weird that the Chiefs wanted that. :cough:

[Hawgdriver]

They already are.

Your definition of best strains the true meaning of the word. In my book, the best team will win most often. What a farce it would be for the Redskins and Texans to play in the Superbowl this year. That is the logical extension of the line of thought that invites mediocrity to play for championships. You want the Seahawks and Broncos of the world to play for the Championship.

Each year, there is a team on the outside looking in, and that team is better than one of the teams that made the playoffs. This year Arizona is better than Green Bay.

Let the best teams play.

I don't know that the best record will always indicate the best teams, but I think the overriding principle should be that the best teams are in the playoffs. As it is, the arbitrary separation into these groups of 4 sometimes keeps a better team out of the playoffs.

[Hawgdriver]

Seems to me the only fair way to base it solely on records would be to have an 8 team format and have 1 play 8, 2 play 7, etc...then re-seed after that based on records of the remaining teams. Then there is no advantage for having the best record in a conference. But allowing 8 teams in the playoffs seems a bit much. I dont know...I think the way it is set up right now is really the best possible situation. KC can cry all they want, but they had 4 chances to beat the 2 other teams in their division that made the playoffs and lost all 4 times. That's on them.

This is completely OT, but my young son just saw your avatar and waved at the screeen, "hi Texas!"

[CoachChaz]

This is completely OT, but my young son just saw your avatar and waved at the screeen, "hi Texas!"

Howdy, Hawg Jr.

[Earendil]

I would give a damn but my give a damn is broken.

How's this:

4040

[Ravage!!!]

Your definition of best strains the true meaning of the word. In my book, the best team will win most often. What a farce it would be for the Redskins and Texans to play in the Superbowl this year. That is the logical extension of the line of thought that invites mediocrity to play for championships. You want the Seahawks and Broncos of the world to play for the Championship.

Each year, there is a team on the outside looking in, and that team is better than one of the teams that made the playoffs. This year Arizona is better than Green Bay.

Let the best teams play.

I don't know that the best record will always indicate the best teams, but I think the overriding principle should be that the best teams are in the playoffs. As it is, the arbitrary separation into these groups of 4 sometimes keeps a better team out of the playoffs.

But that eliminates the chances of a team that started off poorly and got into the playoffs that goes and wins the Super Bowl. You say it would be a farce for the Redskins and the Texans to play on the Super Bowl, but isn't that what a playff format is about...letting the teams play in a "1-n-done" tournament? If not, lets just forgo the playoffs altogether and just let the two teams with the best record go directly to the Super Bowl!

The Chiefs have a better record than the Chargers do, are the Chiefs a better team despite losing to them twice? The Chiefs have a better record than Green Bay AND Arizona... are they a better team? So just because you SAY that the Cardinals are a better team than the Packers, doesn't make it true. A team with a better record isn't necessarily a better team with a lesser overall record.

Its not an "arbitrary" separation. Hell, its quite the opposite. Taking out the divisions and going by record alone would make the ENTIRE SEASON arbitrary based on a team's schedule. A schedule that would change every year and be different than EVERY OTHER Team in the conference.

The regional separation is the same every year, for every team, and has been for decades. Hell, its been the same for LIFETIME of some fans. It's what has built the great rivalries within the greatest sport in the World. The rivalries between the Chief and Raiders, the Steelers and Ravens, the Dallas and Washingtons, or the Green Bay and Chicago SOOOOO great!

Take away those divisions, those rivalries, and take away the meaning of "Winning Your Division," and the only thing you are left with is a rotisserie league.

[TXBRONC]

How's this:

4040

Well done. :2thumbs:

[Slick]

The divisions in the NFL are not arbitrary.

[pulse]

How's this:

4040

Haha! Awesome, Eärendil. Just for that, you get another Silmaril.

4041

[Joel]

I don't feel "sorry" for a team that couldn't win their division, and then couldn't win enough games to beat out the OTHER teams that couldn't win their division.
That's the real bottom line here. No matter HOW we choose playoff teams (including how MANY) someone'll always be left out, and sometimes it'll be someone with a legit case they shouldn't be. Again, not only does Arizona have a better claim than GB and Philly (who DID beat Arizona, but only by a FG at home) but there's a good case for St. Louis—just not good enough to admit a 7-9 team that finished LAST in their division, however good that division (or its non-divisonal opponents) happen to be.

The only way to admit every team who thinks they SHOULD be in the postseason is to have a 5 round tournament starting with #16@#1 and keep going till the last team's standing. Anyone wanna watch Houston play @us tomorrow? We beat them by 24 on the road; if SF@GB hasn't sold out there's no way THAT game would, and its ratings would be abysmal, too.

[TXBRONC]

The arguement that it's unfair is b.s. to the nth degree because will find fault with this seeding wild cards higher than division winners.

How high does a wild card get seeded as high as the 2nd seed. What if the wild card is tied with another team from a different division with 2nd best record conference and lets also say wild card team beat other team once during the regular season. Should the wild card winner seeded ahead a division winner? I don't think so.

[Hawgdriver]

But that eliminates the chances of a team that started off poorly and got into the playoffs that goes and wins the Super Bowl. You say it would be a farce for the Redskins and the Texans to play on the Super Bowl, but isn't that what a playff format is about...letting the teams play in a "1-n-done" tournament? If not, lets just forgo the playoffs altogether and just let the two teams with the best record go directly to the Super Bowl!

The Chiefs have a better record than the Chargers do, are the Chiefs a better team despite losing to them twice? The Chiefs have a better record than Green Bay AND Arizona... are they a better team? So just because you SAY that the Cardinals are a better team than the Packers, doesn't make it true. A team with a better record isn't necessarily a better team with a lesser overall record.

Its not an "arbitrary" separation. Hell, its quite the opposite. Taking out the divisions and going by record alone would make the ENTIRE SEASON arbitrary based on a team's schedule. A schedule that would change every year and be different than EVERY OTHER Team in the conference.

The regional separation is the same every year, for every team, and has been for decades. Hell, its been the same for LIFETIME of some fans. It's what has built the great rivalries within the greatest sport in the World. The rivalries between the Chief and Raiders, the Steelers and Ravens, the Dallas and Washingtons, or the Green Bay and Chicago SOOOOO great!

Take away those divisions, those rivalries, and take away the meaning of "Winning Your Division," and the only thing you are left with is a rotisserie league.

Ok, I see your point about division rivalries. Sometimes they are great rivalries, and they make for heated battles. But not each pairing among teams in their own division is a rivalry. They are best when both teams are good. And what about when both teams *are* good? One of them may be left on the outside looking in come playoffs because a 7-9 team snuck in through a weak division. Why not let the rivalry continue into the playoffs?

The current system may be the best one. There is a logic to the statement "you can't be a champion if you can't even win your own division." But only 6 of 16 games are in the division, and maybe 4 of those are against good teams. "Winning your division" means being the team in the division with the most wins, and 10 of those games are "random" from the divisional standpoint--so winning your division is not much different than winning period.

Plus, there are going to be weak divisions. Why should a 7-9 team take a spot from an 11-5 team?

I don't have the answer, but I do want the best teams to play in the 1 and done season.

Besides, there's the divisional championship as an award for winning your division.

[Joel]

The arguement that it's unfair is b.s. to the nth degree because will find fault with this seeding wild cards higher than division winners.

How high does a wild card get seeded as high as the 2nd seed. What if the wild card is tied with another team from a different division with 2nd best record conference and lets also say wild card team beat other team once during the regular season. Should the wild card winner seeded ahead a division winner? I don't think so.
Under Brian Billicks proposed modification, division championships would be the first tiebreak, so no wildcard team could ever host a division winner with an equal record. Under BroncoWaves similar alternative proposal, no wildcard could get a bye. http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/570562-With-controversy-looming-NFL-must-reconsider-playoff-structure?p=2095122#post2095122

Personally, I'm OK with seeding by record AFTER the Wildcard round; then every division winner's at home for at least their first game (which, in the case of #3/4 seed, is all they get now.) NO ONE will have a better record than the #1 seed (that's why they're #1) and it's highly improbable any wildcard will ever match the #2 seeds record, but in that case a free pass to the Divisional round more than offsets the disadvantage of traveling to face a team that had (and won) an extra playoff game.

Alternatively, we could just seed by record BUT add the explicit stipulation all division winners MUST play their first game at home. That could theoretically produce the odd spectacle of a wildcard team winning two road games, then HOSTING the Conference Championship. Then again, that's theoretically possible now yet, despite the failings of selecting playoffs teams based on division championships, I'm pretty sure we've NEVER had an All-Wildcard Conference Championship, not even in the quarter century since we added a third and fourth wildcard. ;)

[Broncolingus]

There are pros and cons to the current and recommended methods to seed for the playoffs...

...I will say, as a fan and this year in particular, I enjoyed the final couple of weekends and the drama and uncertainty of which teams were still going to be in & out.

[Joel]

Skipping the rest because I've already said my piece on those issues. That leaves:

Besides, there's the divisional championship as an award for winning your division.
Right, but if it doesn't merit even ONE home playoff game, what makes that better than just settling for a wildcard? Perhaps one could argue just REACHING the playoffs is all an 8-8 division winner deserves, but if we're arguing divisions are arbitrary, meaningless and prevent the best teams reaching the playoffs, why even admit all division winners? Why not just admit the top six teams in each conference, and if they happen to be from just two divisions, well, too bad the other two divisions all suck.

Isn't that what we're REALLY debating? Not whether it should be SF@GB and NO@Philly or vice versa, but whether GB or Philly should be in the playoffs AT ALL when it means excluding a better Cards team? Well, that's half of why we added wildcards, so it's a concession that divisional also rans are even in the playoffs to begin; they don't deserve a home game on top of that.

[Northman]

There are pros and cons to the current and recommended methods to seed for the playoffs...

...I will say, as a fan and this year in particular, I enjoyed the final couple of weekends and the drama and uncertainty of which teams were still going to be in & out.


I agree. I cant remember the last time where i was so excited to try and have KC knock out SD only to see Succup suck it up.

[TXBRONC]

Under Brian Billicks proposed modification, division championships would be the first tiebreak, so no wildcard team could ever host a division winner with an equal record. Under BroncoWaves similar alternative proposal, no wildcard could get a bye. http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/570562-With-controversy-looming-NFL-must-reconsider-playoff-structure?p=2095122#post2095122

Personally, I'm OK with seeding by record AFTER the Wildcard round; then every division winner's at home for at least their first game (which, in the case of #3/4 seed, is all they get now.) NO ONE will have a better record than the #1 seed (that's why they're #1) and it's highly improbable any wildcard will ever match the #2 seeds record, but in that case a free pass to the Divisional round more than offsets the disadvantage of traveling to face a team that had (and won) an extra playoff game.

Alternatively, we could just seed by record BUT add the explicit stipulation all division winners MUST play their first game at home. That could theoretically produce the odd spectacle of a wildcard team winning two road games, then HOSTING the Conference Championship. Then again, that's theoretically possible now yet, despite the failings of selecting playoffs teams based on division championships, I'm pretty sure we've NEVER had an All-Wildcard Conference Championship, not even in the quarter century since we added a third and fourth wildcard. ;)

Joel your're missing the point. There is a set of rules in place on how teams are seeded for playoffs and people like BTB are complaining it's unfair. Implement a system like what Billick or BTB are advocating and someone is going to complain it's not fair.

Wrong Denver as the number five seed in 1997 had the second best record in the League. In 1977 Denver and Oakland had the two best records in the League Denver was 12-2 and Oakland was 11-3.

[Broncolingus]

I agree. I cant remember the last time where i was so excited to try and have KC knock out SD only to see Succup suck it up.

...as usual, the smartest man here :2thumbs:

[powderaddict]

I personally love the added drama and rivalry of division games. Seeding by record would lesson that somewhat IMO. Conference games would gain a bit more importance, division games a bit less.

Win your division, get at least one home playoff game. Makes the divisions important and relevant, which gives added weight to those games.

[Joel]

Joel your're missing the point. There is a set of rules in place on how teams are seeded for playoffs and people like BTB are complaining it's unfair. Implement a system like what Billick or BTB are advocating and someone is going to complain it's not fair.
No, I not only get but made that point earlier in the thread: ANY system will always have a few anomalous years when one (or more) of the best teams miss the playoffs because even better ones won their division and beat them out for wildcards. The only way to prevent that is admit EVERY team to a 5 round tournament starting with #16@#1. Then we end up like the NBA, with a playoff no one cares about till the second or third round, because early rounds only matter when a top team has bad luck or injuries and gets knocked out by a team crushed in the next round.


Wrong Denver as the number five seed in 1997 had the second best record in the League. In 1977 Denver and Oakland had the two best records in the League Denver was 12-2 and Oakland was 11-3.
Okay, so a wildcard team had the AFCs second best record twice, 30 years apart; I said it was highly improbable, not impossible. I lose little sleep over once-in-thirty-years anomalies.

Again though, if it's that big a worry, just say, "The playoffs shall be seeded by record, except that each division winner shall play at least its first game at home." Problem solved.

[TXBRONC]

No, I not only get but made that point earlier in the thread: ANY system will always have a few anomalous years when one (or more) of the best teams miss the playoffs because even better ones won their division and beat them out for wildcards. The only way to prevent that is admit EVERY team to a 5 round tournament starting with #16@#1. Then we end up like the NBA, with a playoff no one cares about till the second or third round, because early rounds only matter when a top team has bad luck or injuries and gets knocked out by a team crushed in the next round.


Okay, so a wildcard team had the AFCs second best record twice, 30 years apart; I said it was highly improbable, not impossible. I lose little sleep over once-in-thirty-years anomalies.

Again though, if it's that big a worry, just say, "The playoffs shall be seeded by record, except that each division winner shall play at least its first game at home." Problem solved.

It's not just once in 30 years I was just giving two examples that involved the Broncos there are other I'm sure. Yes you missed the point badly. The point is you're not making anything more fair. You're trading one set of issues for another that all.

[Joel]

It's not just once in 30 years I was just giving two examples that involved the Broncos there are other I'm sure. Yes you missed the point badly. The point is you're not making anything more fair. You're trading one set of issues for another that all.
I'd already said that, yet missed it. :confused:

[TXBRONC]

There are pros and cons to the current and recommended methods to seed for the playoffs...

...I will say, as a fan and this year in particular, I enjoyed the final couple of weekends and the drama and uncertainty of which teams were still going to be in & out.

It was a lot fun.

[Hawgdriver]

I'm not sure it's the best, but it's certainly not broken. I'm not losing sleep over this one.

[BroncoWave]

All I have to say is that it's telling that the intelligent people who are in charge of changing rules in the NFL see this as an issue and are considering tweaking the system. Any other point I could make would just be repetitive at this point, and I don't think I'm going to be changing anyone's mind on it.

[Poet]

All I have to say is that it's telling that the intelligent people who are in charge of changing rules in the NFL see this as an issue and are considering tweaking the system. Any other point I could make would just be repetitive at this point, and I don't think I'm going to be changing anyone's mind on it.

This is true, but also works in reverse.

Time for food.

[TXBRONC]

I'm not sure it's the best, but it's certainly not broken. I'm not losing sleep over this one.

Same here. The fact is those in charge of such things looking things like this every year and doesn't mean they'll change anything.

[Nomad]

Hope and Change for the NFL.......We're seeing how that works.:lol:

[Broncos Mtnman]

Um, re-seeding this way would INCREASE the need to actually win your games.

Um, that was two suggestions, not one. :coffee:

[ShaneFalco]

should stay as is. without it, this play would have never happened.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ0UOxrcS2Q

or this one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSZdntRnQVg

But lets be real, only reason people are talking about this is because of the 49ers. Any other team, any other city, not a peep would be said.

[MOtorboat]

But lets be real, only reason people are talking about this is because of the 49ers. Any other team, any other city, not a peep would be said.

That's not true. They are talking about it because this situation occurred in 3 of the 4 games this weekend.

[ShaneFalco]

so the chiefs should have home field advantage for having a good record by beating a bunch of backup qbs all season long?

Divisions should always be the determining factor.

Regular season, people sometimes get easy schedules. Just as much as teams get weak divisions.

[ShaneFalco]

Honestly look at the Chiefs schedule. the only top tier teams they played was Denver, Indy, and Philly. And that was Philly with Vick.

Rest is a cakewalk.

[Joel]

Honestly look at the Chiefs schedule. the only top tier teams they played was Denver, Indy, and Philly. And that was Philly with Vick.

Rest is a cakewalk.
I'm so sick of the "KC had a weak schedule because they finished dead last in 2012" argument. It's TWO GAMES; otherwise our scheduless are IDENTICAL: The AFCW twice, AFCS and NFCE. The Chiefs only beat ONE winning team (Philly,) but we only beat TWO (KC and Philly, though we beat KC twice.) That is, KC's the best team we beat; if they're crap, what does that make us?

Personally, I think it's hard to win 11 games against ANYONE, and their SECOND STRING would've won a 12th against a playoff team if the refs hadn't blown a call at the end of regulation so SD got a chance to win in OT. We're both good teams, but the sweep proves Denver better.

[sneakers]

This is stupid as hell, and it is going to make Division Championships as meaningless as they are in the NBA

[Mike]

I'm so sick of the "KC had a weak schedule because they finished dead last in 2012" argument. It's TWO GAMES; otherwise our scheduless are IDENTICAL: The AFCW twice, AFCS and NFCE. The Chiefs only beat ONE winning team (Philly,) but we only beat TWO (KC and Philly, though we beat KC twice.) That is, KC's the best team we beat; if they're crap, what does that make us?

Personally, I think it's hard to win 11 games against ANYONE, and their SECOND STRING would've won a 12th against a playoff team if the refs hadn't blown a call at the end of regulation so SD got a chance to win in OT. We're both good teams, but the sweep proves Denver better.

When you play a team matters, how you beat a team matters, where you beat them matters. We demolished teams, they squeaked by while facing non-starters. In the end though, we beat more teams on our schedule than they did...so we win the division and get the home game. KC lost more and didn't win the division, so they get rewarded for their solid season by playing in the playoffs even if they have to go on the road. I don't see the problem.

Owners whining about this, to me, is no different than Jerry Jones whining about expanding the playoffs. Screw that. You want a home playoff game, win your division. You want in the playoffs, finish in the top 6 of your conference.

[Ravage!!!]

I'm so sick of the "KC had a weak schedule because they finished dead last in 2012" argument. It's TWO GAMES; otherwise our scheduless are IDENTICAL: The AFCW twice, AFCS and NFCE. The Chiefs only beat ONE winning team (Philly,) but we only beat TWO (KC and Philly, though we beat KC twice.) That is, KC's the best team we beat; if they're crap, what does that make us?

Personally, I think it's hard to win 11 games against ANYONE, and their SECOND STRING would've won a 12th against a playoff team if the refs hadn't blown a call at the end of regulation so SD got a chance to win in OT. We're both good teams, but the sweep proves Denver better.

yes.. but how many 3rd string QBs did they play against? Do you remember?

[Ravage!!!]

All I have to say is that it's telling that the intelligent people who are in charge of changing rules in the NFL see this as an issue and are considering tweaking the system. Any other point I could make would just be repetitive at this point, and I don't think I'm going to be changing anyone's mind on it.

Hah.. .this is funny. How many times have those same people made TERRIBLE rule changes to only change them back? Or suggest such rules as removing kick-offs?

These "intelligent people who are in charge of changing rules in the NFL" don't really see a problem with anything and are ONLY pacifying those that are complaining. The "suggesting" a rule change appeases them for the time being until they settle down. Happens every year with whatever the "hot" topic is.

How many times has the NFL called a RB for lowering his head?

It doesn't take long to see that changing the rules to "record only" is pretty stupid and completely negates everything the NFL is about right now. But it keeps people talking about the NFL.

[BroncoJoe]

Hah.. .this is funny. How many times have those same people made TERRIBLE rule changes to only change them back? Or suggest such rules as removing kick-offs?

These "intelligent people who are in charge of changing rules in the NFL" don't really see a problem with anything and are ONLY pacifying those that are complaining. The "suggesting" a rule change appeases them for the time being until they settle down. Happens every year with whatever the "hot" topic is.

How many times has the NFL called a RB for lowering his head?

It doesn't take long to see that changing the rules to "record only" is pretty stupid and completely negates everything the NFL is about right now. But it keeps people talking about the NFL.

That comment was nothing more than a back-handed slap from BTB.

[Slick]

When all else fails, insult someone's intelligence.

[Broncolingus]

http://smhttp.14409.nexcesscdn.net/806D5E/wordpress-L/images/Intelligence.png

[Nomad]

When all else fails, insult someone's intelligence.

Or just say 'whatever' and walk away.:lol:

[BroncoWave]

Or just say 'whatever' and walk away.:lol:

Man, i just can't win either way can I? I keep on arguing points and I get bashed for having to have the last word and not letting things go. I actually let something go, and I get bashed for walking away. Awesome! :lol:

[Nomad]

:lol: Lots of upset people in this thread. It's ok guys, no need to get mad about it.

Are you getting people wound up?:lol: I haven't read the arguments here.

[Joel]

When you play a team matters, how you beat a team matters, where you beat them matters. We demolished teams, they squeaked by while facing non-starters. In the end though, we beat more teams on our schedule than they did...so we win the division and get the home game. KC lost more and didn't win the division, so they get rewarded for their solid season by playing in the playoffs even if they have to go on the road. I don't see the problem.
We've had our share of squeakers, too (remember Dallas?) just as they've had their share of blowouts (in fact, they scored more points in Oakland than any team in any game this year.)

Against the rest of our schedule, they actually did just as well as we: 11-3. The critical difference is we swept them, so we're 13-3 and they're 11-5, but as far as "facing non-starters," KC benched 20 starters @SD and STILL only lost in OT because the refs blew a call on their game-winning FG attempt at the end of regulation. But for that, KC would actually have a BETTER record than us against the teams we both played: 12-2 vs. 11-3 (but the sweep would still give us the division by one game, two counting the first tiebreak.)


Owners whining about this, to me, is no different than Jerry Jones whining about expanding the playoffs. Screw that. You want a home playoff game, win your division. You want in the playoffs, finish in the top 6 of your conference.
I have no problem with that. MY beef is with eliminating all but one team from each division at the start of WILDCARD tiebreaks, because the whole point of wildcards is to ignore divisions for the sake of admitting the best also-rans in the CONFERENCE. It's messed up that the Jets—who were mathematically eliminated in Week 15—would've eliminated the Dolphins—who had the best conference record among bubble teams—at the START of any wildcard tiebreak, solely because of division records wildcards are supposed to ignore.

That's how the Steelers would've been the #6 seed had the refs made the right call at the end of KCs game in SD: Because they would've eliminated Baltimore on division record, even though Baltimore still had the head-to-head over Miami and a better conference record than all other bubble teams (which is how they would've gotten the #6 seed if Pitt WEREN'T involved.)

As far as demanding teams win their division to host a playoff game, I agree that's just sour grapes. Unfortunately though, finishing in the conferences top 6 isn't enough to ensure a playoff spot, because the wildcard is determined no less than THREE different ways depending on which and how many teams are involved. It's one way in a 2-way tie, another way in a 3-way tie, and yet a third way if a 3+way ties involves teams from the same division. No wonder people have trouble predicting each years wildcards; the goal posts are constantly moving.


yes.. but how many 3rd string QBs did they play against? Do you remember?
No, but I'm also not sure facing Schaub instead of Keenum exactly put us at a disadvantage. Oh, Philly started Vick against KC—they did the same against us.

It's the SAME TEAMS, guys; beating them says just as much/little about KC as it does about us. Maybe if we'd beaten NE or Indy it would be different, but we didn't so it's not.

We beat KC twice, SD once, Baltimore and lost to NE.

Kansas City lost to us twice, SD twice and beat Buffalo and Cleveland.

Those are the SOLE differences between our records; otherwise we both beat and got beat by the exact same teams. We won the AFCW by beating everyone KC did PLUS sweeping them; that simple. So if KC beating only those teams makes them crap, doing the same then sweeping KC makes us better than crap. This is not an argument any Broncos fan really wants to "win."

[TXBRONC]

Man, i just can't win either way can I? I keep on arguing points and I get bashed for having to have the last word and not letting things go. I actually let something go, and I get bashed for walking away. Awesome! :lol:



Apparently you haven't walked away. :coffee:

[Broncolingus]

....regardless of whatever decision comes about, the only real motive for the NFL - like always - is $$$$$$...

...I don't - for a second - believe the NFL cares about anything other than that.

JMO...

[BroncoWave]

....regardless of whatever decision comes about, the only real motive for the NFL - like always - is $$$$$$...

...I don't - for a second - believe the NFL cares about anything other than that.

JMO...

Well, that's true of pretty much any business. Can't really blame them for doing what they can to make the most money.

[Broncolingus]

Well, that's true of pretty much any business. Can't really blame them for doing what they can to make the most money.

I agree, brother, sure...

[Slick]

Well, that's true of pretty much any business. Can't really blame them for doing what they can to make the most money.

You don't really mean that. That's a pretty broad generalization.

[BroncoWave]

You don't really mean that. That's a pretty broad generalization.

Ok, other than non-profits this is pretty much true. The point of a business existing, for the most part, is to make money. No one would start a business if they thought it would make them go broke.

[Slick]

Ok, other than non-profits this is pretty much true. The point of a business existing, for the most part, is to make money. No one would start a business if they thought it would make them go broke.

I was thinking more along the lines of who needs to properly dispose of radioactive materials because it will cut into profits, who cares if a chemical company is dumping stuff into rivers and lakes to save money, who needs to pay a worker a fair, liveable wage type of thing. I get your point, I was nitpicking.

[BroncoWave]

I was thinking more along the lines of who needs to properly dispose of radioactive materials because it will cut into profits, who cares if a chemical company is dumping stuff into rivers and lakes to save money, who needs to pay a worker a fair, liveable wage type of thing. I get your point, I was nitpicking.

Yeah but if they didn't properly dispose of radioactive matierals, they would eventually get exposed and probably go out of business. Properly disposing of materials might hurt the bottom line in the short run, but it keeps the company viable in the long run.

[Joel]

Yeah but if they didn't properly dispose of radioactive matierals, they would eventually get exposed and probably go out of business. Properly disposing of materials might hurt the bottom line in the short run, but it keeps the company viable in the long run.
Yeah, sacrificing product quality and company integrity for short term gains is usually devastates long term gains, because it destroys the brand. There's a host of ways that applies to NFLs recent shenanigans, most of which boil down to dedicated long term fans spending a lot more money on NFLN subscriptions, merchandise and copies of Madden than casual fans ever will. Chasing potential new customers at the expense of the loyalty of long term (i.e. guaranteed) customers who built the business is insanity.

[LawDog]

After this weekend's games, I trust the whole reseeding the playoffs nonsense will come to an abrupt and timely demise...

[artie_dale]

Just using this year's Chiefs as an example, they finished 11-5 and had to go to an 11-5 Colts team in order to blow the biggest lead I've seen in a while (takes the spot light off of us). Someone mentioned that teams should be credited for what they've done in all 16 games throughout the season, and not just against 3 other teams.

Who of any significance have the Chiefs beat this season? The ONLY team of significance that the Chiefs beat this season was the Eagles, and that was with Vick still starting. Other than that, they didn't beat a team who finished the season over .500 and barely beat a Dallas team who finished .500. So, why would THEY deserve to get home field if it panned out that way?

I think teams are filtered out better within their own division, because those are the only teams that are faced twice. Even when the division is as bad as the NFC North (GB might have come out stronger if Rogers didn't get injured). I say it's a teams job to win their division because of the fact that there are such things as easy schedules and difficult schedules. The team who succeeds with the difficult schedule would earn the playoff spot or home field if you ask me. But there is way too much grey in that area too. Win the division, control your own destiny.

[Hawgdriver]

Yeah but if they didn't properly dispose of radioactive matierals, they would eventually get exposed and probably go out of business. Properly disposing of materials might hurt the bottom line in the short run, but it keeps the company viable in the long run.

Not sure this matches reality. Exhibit A: Monsanto. I guess I'm getting all PnR up in this beotch.

[Joel]

Just using this year's Chiefs as an example, they finished 11-5 and had to go to an 11-5 Colts team in order to blow the biggest lead I've seen in a while (takes the spot light off of us). Someone mentioned that teams should be credited for what they've done in all 16 games throughout the season, and not just against 3 other teams.

Who of any significance have the Chiefs beat this season? The ONLY team of significance that the Chiefs beat this season was the Eagles, and that was with Vick still starting. Other than that, they didn't beat a team who finished the season over .500 and barely beat a Dallas team who finished .500. So, why would THEY deserve to get home field if it panned out that way?

I think teams are filtered out better within their own division, because those are the only teams that are faced twice. Even when the division is as bad as the NFC North (GB might have come out stronger if Rogers didn't get injured). I say it's a teams job to win their division because of the fact that there are such things as easy schedules and difficult schedules. The team who succeeds with the difficult schedule would earn the playoff spot or home field if you ask me. But there is way too much grey in that area too. Win the division, control your own destiny.
So very tired of this. In summary: The only winning team KC beat was the Eagles; the only winning teams we beat were the Eagles AND KC. And, but for two games (one of which we lost) we played IDENTICAL schedules: The AFCW twice, AFCS and NFCE. Sweeping them put us a game ahead, so if they suck, what does that say about us?

Until KC lost their top TWO RBs, best WR, best CB and best pass rusher to injury they were killing the Colts at home. Unlike all other AFC contenders they'd dodged the injury bug all year; their luck just ran out Saturday. We can question what that says about their depth, but when healthy they were undeniably one of the AFCs best teams this year. Either that, or we got the #1 seed by beating a bunch of crappy teams and winning a couple close ones against mediocre Chiefs teams. Whichever you prefer. ;)

[artie_dale]

So very tired of this. In summary: The only winning team KC beat was the Eagles; the only winning teams we beat were the Eagles AND KC. And, but for two games (one of which we lost) we played IDENTICAL schedules: The AFCW twice, AFCS and NFCE. Sweeping them put us a game ahead, so if they suck, what does that say about us?

Until KC lost their top TWO RBs, best WR, best CB and best pass rusher to injury they were killing the Colts at home. Unlike all other AFC contenders they'd dodged the injury bug all year; their luck just ran out Saturday. We can question what that says about their depth, but when healthy they were undeniably one of the AFCs best teams this year. Either that, or we got the #1 seed by beating a bunch of crappy teams and winning a couple close ones against mediocre Chiefs teams. Whichever you prefer. ;)

I hear ya Joel. But, considering how many characters you spent in this post (honestly shorter than most of yours), you don't seem tired.

But, good point. I guess the only thing that sets our team apart from KC this season is its record setting offense.

[Joel]

I hear ya Joel. But, considering how many characters you spent in this post (honestly shorter than most of yours), you don't seem tired.

But, good point. I guess the only thing that sets our team apart from KC this season is its record setting offense.
That, and sweeping them, both of which are pretty huge. We've twice proven we're better than KC (or were when healthy.) But they're the best team we've beaten, so if they're a crappy team that only beat crappier teams that would make us the King of Crap. Basically, the same criticism raised in 2011, but This Is Different.

Personally, I think KC was for real and was beating Indy handily on the road until the injury bug to which they'd been uniquely immune all year finally caught up with them in the second half. That in turn would make us a pretty good team since we beat them in our house AND theirs. In terms of scheduling though all but two of our non-division games were against the same teams.

[MOtorboat]

After this weekend's games, I trust the whole reseeding the playoffs nonsense will come to an abrupt and timely demise...

Why would it come to an end?

Three road teams won. The better teams should receive home field advantage. I think this weekend only bolstered the argument for re-seeding, not stopped it.

[LawDog]

Why would it come to an end?

Three road teams won. The better teams should receive home field advantage. I think this weekend only bolstered the argument for re-seeding, not stopped it.

The argument is that a better regular season record should result in home field advantage. In the NFC games, the better record road teams both won, in the AFC, the Chiefs/Colts had the same record, and the Chargers still beat a home team that had a better regular season record so reseeding wouldn't have had an effect. Unless you want to make sure that the home team always wins the playoff game, there is no rational argument for changing the system from the way it is now. Where, seriously, was the glaring inequality from the seedings that impacted the games this past weekend?

[MOtorboat]

The argument is that a better regular season record should result in home field advantage. In the NFC games, the better record road teams both won, in the AFC, the Chiefs/Colts had the same record, and the Chargers still beat a home team that had a better regular season record so reseeding wouldn't have had an effect. Unless you want to make sure that the home team always wins the playoff game, there is no rational argument for changing the system from the way it is now. Where, seriously, was the glaring inequality from the seedings that impacted the games this past weekend?

There were two games where different seeding would have affected who had home field advantage. In both those games the team with the better regular season record won. That, in and of itself, is a perfectly rational reason enough to question whether or not the NFL should explore giving the team with the better regular season record a home game, because "home field advantage" exists to give the team with the better regular season record home field.

Now...when there is four divisions, that complicates the argument, but there's obviously plenty of rational reasons for, at the very least, having the debate.

[LawDog]

There were two games where different seeding would have affected who had home field advantage. In both those games the team with the better regular season record won. That, in and of itself, is a perfectly rational reason enough to question whether or not the NFL should explore giving the team with the better regular season record a home game, because "home field advantage" exists to give the team with the better regular season record home field.

Now...when there is four divisions, that complicates the argument, but there's obviously plenty of rational reasons for, at the very least, having the debate.

Okay, I understand, the Saints and the Niners should have been able to "win easier" with home field. C'mon, if there was a pattern of teams with better regular season records going on the road and losing then you could claim a rational argument. The Exact Opposite happened and has been happening.

[BroncoWave]

Okay, I understand, the Saints and the Niners should have been able to "win easier" with home field. C'mon, if there was a pattern of teams with better regular season records going on the road and losing then you could claim a rational argument. The Exact Opposite happened and has been happening.

Home teams are 14-6 in the last two playoffs. So no, the exact opposite has not been happening.

[MOtorboat]

Okay, I understand, the Saints and the Niners should have been able to "win easier" with home field. C'mon, if there was a pattern of teams with better regular season records going on the road and losing then you could claim a rational argument. The Exact Opposite happened and has been happening.

It's not about who should "win easier." It's about who did better during the regular season. Them winning just proves, to me anyway, that they are better teams and deserved the home field they basically earned.

Now...with the the three statements I've made about it out there, I don't think the current system should change, unless they revamp the divisions. A division championship should mean something, and as long as there are division winners they should have home field over a wildcard team.

One thing that needs to be noted, whether it was in this thread or another, about the NBA. Division winners in the NBA receive home court, even if they end up with the fifth best record. So the same thing does happen there.

[MOtorboat]

Home teams are 14-6 in the last two playoffs. So no, the exact opposite has not been happening.

Who wins, home or road, only matters here if the team with the better record is on the road, which is then mostly limited to wildcard games.

[LawDog]

Home teams are 14-6 in the last two playoffs. So no, the exact opposite has not been happening.

Let's look at the Wildcard rounds since that is really where the complaint comes from. Over the past five years the home teams are 11-9 which is pretty even. Of those twenty games, five have seen a home team with a lesser record beat a road team with a better record. That situation did not occur this year (home teams went 1 and 3). It happened once in 2012 when 10-6 Baltimore beat 11-5 Indy (home teams went 3-1). It happened twice in 2011 when 9-7 NY Giants beat 10-6 Atlanta, and 8-8 Denver beat 12-4 Pittsburgh (home teams 4 - 0). It happened once in 2010 when 7-9 Seattle beat 11-5 New Orleans (home teams were only 1-3 that year). And it happened once in 2009 when 10-6 Arizona beat 11-5 Green Bay (home teams went 2-2).

Seattle, with their losing regular season record is the oft-cited example, but that is really an aberration as only the Denver Pitt game had a difference when the two teams were more than one regular season win apart.

So, five out of twenty is significant, but four times the road team with the better record has won during that same period. And, over those twenty games it has been an even 10 times the team with the better (or same) record won, and 10 times the team with the worse record won regardless of where the game was played.

There is no pattern where "better" teams are having to go on the road in the playoffs and losing.

[MOtorboat]

Let's look at the Wildcard rounds since that is really where the complaint comes from. Over the past five years the home teams are 11-9 which is pretty even. Of those twenty games, five have seen a home team with a lesser record beat a road team with a better record. That situation did not occur this year (home teams went 1 and 3). It happened once in 2012 when 10-6 Baltimore beat 11-5 Indy (home teams went 3-1). It happened twice in 2011 when 9-7 NY Giants beat 10-6 Atlanta, and 8-8 Denver beat 12-4 Pittsburgh (home teams 4 - 0). It happened once in 2010 when 7-9 Seattle beat 11-5 New Orleans (home teams were only 1-3 that year). And it happened once in 2009 when 10-6 Arizona beat 11-5 Green Bay (home teams went 2-2).

Seattle, with their losing regular season record is the oft-cited example, but that is really an aberration as only the Denver Pitt game had a difference when the two teams were more than one regular season win apart.

So, five out of twenty is significant, but four times the road team with the better record has won during that same period. And, over those twenty games it has been an even 10 times the team with the better (or same) record won, and 10 times the team with the worse record won regardless of where the game was played.

There is no pattern where "better" teams are having to go on the road in the playoffs and losing.

It doesn't matter whether they win or lose that game, though. "Home field advantage" is about whether or not you did better during the regular season. THAT is the argument.

[LawDog]

It doesn't matter whether they win or lose that game, though. "Home field advantage" is about whether or not you did better during the regular season. THAT is the argument.

If it doesn't matter, there is no argument. OMG, I'm going to go try and push a wet rope up a hill...

[MOtorboat]

If it doesn't matter, there is no argument. OMG, I'm going to go try and push a wet rope up a hill...

Do you not understand how you get home field advantage, whether it be for one game, or two? Through regular season accomplishment. And if you win more games than the other team, why does the team with less wins have home field?

That's not a rational reason to have a discussion?

You're right, OMG....

[LawDog]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310055/article/no-need-to-reseed-wild-card-weekend-validates-playoff-setup

as in the point I was making...

[BroncoWave]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310055/article/no-need-to-reseed-wild-card-weekend-validates-playoff-setup

as in the point I was making...

The fact that these teams won on the road prove, in fact, that they were the better teams. And if the goal is to give the best teams homefield, they proved that in hindsight they deserved to be playing at home.

What is difficult about that to understand?

[Poet]

The fact that these teams won on the road prove, in fact, that they were the better teams. And if the goal is to give the best teams homefield, they proved that in hindsight they deserved to be playing at home.

What is difficult about that to understand?

That doesn't prove that they are better. You've said it yourself, there's a ton of variance and luck in the playoffs.

[BroncoWave]

That doesn't prove that they are better. You've said it yourself, there's a ton of variance and luck in the playoffs.

True, but since the team with the better record did in fact win, it doesn't hurt the argument that their regular season record proved them to be the better team.

[Poet]

True, but since the team with the better record did in fact win, it doesn't hurt the argument that their regular season record proved them to be the better team.

I think it's sort of a moot point. We could take that 'data' and simply say that it proves the best team is going to win wherever they are.

[BroncoWave]

I think it's sort of a moot point. We could take that 'data' and simply say that it proves the best team is going to win wherever they are.

Which brings me back around to the point that if homefield doesn't matter, why would anyone object to giving it to the team with the better record?

[Poet]

Which brings me back around to the point that if homefield doesn't matter, why would anyone object to giving it to the team with the better record?

But if it doesn't matter, and the system is as arbitrary as the next, why make a lateral move?

[BroncoWave]

But if it doesn't matter, and the system is as arbitrary as the next, why make a lateral move?

Because I do think that homefield matters, and I think it should go to the better team. If someone doesn't think homefield matters, I don't see why they would be so against changing who gets it.

[Poet]

Because I do think that homefield matters, and I think it should go to the better team. If someone doesn't think homefield matters, I don't see why they would be so against changing who gets it.

We have hit circle mode.

[BroncoWave]

We have hit circle mode.

This whole argument has been circular, really. It's quite fascinating.

[tripp]

Anyone who believes in "any given Sunday" should not give a hoot about home field advantage.

[BroncoWave]

Anyone who believes in "any given Sunday" should not give a hoot about home field advantage.

Ask the Seahawks if homefield advantage matters or not. Or the Saints.

[Poet]

This whole argument has been circular, really. It's quite fascinating.

I've enjoyed it.

[BroncoWave]

I've enjoyed it.

It was good for me too. :)

[tripp]

Ask the Seahawks if homefield advantage matters or not. Or the Saints.

They're 6-2 on the road. 2 road losses coming against two playoff teams who won this week-end. I believe they could lose those games just as easily at home.

[BroncoWave]

They're 6-2 on the road. 2 road losses coming against two playoff teams who won this week-end. I believe they could lose those games just as easily at home.

But look at their actual performances at home and away. They blow teams away at home. They struggled to beat several teams away. Their away games had far more variance, and a few bounces could have easily put them at 4-4 on the road. Their home games were mostly blowouts and didn't have a whole lot of variance.

[Poet]

It was good for me too. :)

Hold me.

[tripp]

But look at their actual performances at home and away. They blow teams away at home. They struggled to beat several teams away. Their away games had far more variance, and a few bounces could have easily put them at 4-4 on the road. Their home games were mostly blowouts and didn't have a whole lot of variance.

Dunno about that.. Seahawks had 4 picks in the Meadowlands. This team can win home or away, both sides of the ball they can score which is ridiculous. I look to find them against us in the Superbowl come February.

[zbeg]

Dunno about that.. Seahawks had 4 picks in the Meadowlands. This team can win home or away, both sides of the ball they can score which is ridiculous. I look to find them against us in the Superbowl come February.

I don't think "Eli Manning threw a lot of interceptions against them" is a hallmark of anything meaningful. It just means Eli Manning sucked this year.

[Joel]

They're 6-2 on the road. 2 road losses coming against two playoff teams who won this week-end. I believe they could lose those games just as easily at home.
One was a division game vs. the defending NFC Champs, and division games are always closer because both sides know each others playcalls, roster and fields so well, plus rival crowds get up.

The other was vs. the Colts when Reggie Wayne was healthy and Indy STILL needed to block a FG and return it for a TD; without that fluke play, the 6 pt win is a 4 pt loss.

Rounding things out, Seattle also lost at home to a Cards team that went 10-6 despite sharing a division with Seattle AND SF plus playing NO and Carolina, and should be in the playoffs.

Even Seattles ROAD losses were by a combined 8 pts to a pair of VERY good teams (in fact, one of them did the same to US: Beat us by 6 pts in their house thanks to 4 TOs and Wayne.) Seattle's fer real, and far healthier (at least atm) than we were coming into the NE game. The NFCs top two seeds really are its two best, and repeatedly proved it on the field.

[Hawgdriver]

Can someone summarize the salient arguments raised by this thread? I have a cocktail party in a few minutes and need cliff's notes.

[TXBRONC]

Can someone summarize the salient arguments raised by this thread? I have a cocktail party in a few minutes and need cliff's notes.

I think it can be best summed this way. It is grossly unfair for a Wild Card playoff team to have to go on the road and play a division winner with a lesser record. To me it's bunk and this year's wild card round proves the point it's not that unfair.

[Ravage!!!]

I think it can be best summed this way. It is grossly unfair for a Wild Card playoff team to have to go on the road and play a division winner with a lesser record. To me it's bunk and this year's wild card round proves the point it's not that unfair.

Yeah.. I think it's completely bunk as well.

I love this "Its not fair" statement to begin with. What does someone mean "its not fair?" Don't they play by the same rules as the other teams do? Don't they know the rules going in? What is "not fair" about it? Win your division, period. Do I REALLY think it's "not fair" that a team has to play on the road in the playoffs??? People REALLY need to get over this "its not fair" thing, and just deal with what happens. Deal with it. Life isn't fair, and the NFL playoff system is about as FAIR of a system as there is in sports.

There really is no discussion on this. I mean that in the sense that the NFL is NOT going to change anything. I doubt they even bring it up at any competition commitee because it's not going to be deemed important enough to take up space on the docet.

[Northman]

Which brings me back around to the point that if homefield doesn't matter, why would anyone object to giving it to the team with the better record?

Because a team that won the division deserve something more than just a playoff berth. Its the current perks of winning your division. Its not Indy's or GB's fault that SF and KC didnt win their divisions outright. Why is it so hard to understand that all you need to do is win your division and you get homefield?

[Northman]

We have hit circle mode.

Lol,

Yes, it has gotten very redundant.

[tripp]

One was a division game vs. the defending NFC Champs, and division games are always closer because both sides know each others playcalls, roster and fields so well, plus rival crowds get up.

The other was vs. the Colts when Reggie Wayne was healthy and Indy STILL needed to block a FG and return it for a TD; without that fluke play, the 6 pt win is a 4 pt loss.

Rounding things out, Seattle also lost at home to a Cards team that went 10-6 despite sharing a division with Seattle AND SF plus playing NO and Carolina, and should be in the playoffs.

Even Seattles ROAD losses were by a combined 8 pts to a pair of VERY good teams (in fact, one of them did the same to US: Beat us by 6 pts in their house thanks to 4 TOs and Wayne.) Seattle's fer real, and far healthier (at least atm) than we were coming into the NE game. The NFCs top two seeds really are its two best, and repeatedly proved it on the field.

That's my point. Seahawks can win on the road just as easily.


My original point was just saying to people, if you believe in "any given Sunday", home field advantage is irrelevant.

[Joel]

That's my point. Seahawks can win on the road just as easily.
Yup, I wasn't disagreeing, only elaborating.


My original point was just saying to people, if you believe in "any given Sunday", home field advantage is irrelevant.
Yes and no. Any team can theoretically beat any other any given Sunday, but innumerable things can give one team one or more major advantages, whether or not their opponent overcomes that. Homefield is definitely one of them; it's harder to call offensive signals (especially audibles) over the roar of 70,000 people screaming for your blood, and you'll always know your field better than your opponents do, be more accustomed to compensating for/exploiting whatever unique quirks it possesses.

Division winners should get their first playoff game at home, ESPECIALLY when it's the ONLY home game they'll get. The race for the bye comes down to two, MAYBE three, teams just about every year; for the rest, why even bother showing up once you have 10 wins if you know winning the division doesn't guarantee ANY home games unless you finish #1/2? Why risk injury to a starter you'll need in the playoffs when there's no upside?

Perhaps more importantly, wildcards were a concession to teams who weren't even the best in their DIVISION (let alone conference) to make up for the occasional instances of really good teams with the misfortune to share a division with an elite team. If it weren't (ironically) for the old school NFLs understandable aversion to playoff byes there probably never would've been ANY wildcards, but now that there's TWO, second-best teams should stop whining about WHERE they go in the playoffs and be grateful they're allowed in AT ALL.

Personally, I miss the '70s/'80s wildcards: 1/Conference, so anyone who couldn't win their division had to be better than EVERYONE else. 10 wins? That's very nice; but if any non-division winner has 11, you're still boned. All of even the very best teams knew that if they were out of the division race by December they couldn't lose another game, because SOME bubble team would win out, and there was just ONE wildcard. The idea's to ensure the best make the playoffs, not ensure all but the worst do.

The wildcard's a second chance; a second second chance is just stupid. Now it's, "oh, well, we can't win our division, but there's still TWO wildcards; no biggy."

Wildcard teams complaining about WHERE they play instead of being grateful to play AT ALL are like a condemned man complaining about the handwriting on his pardon.

[TXBRONC]

Because a team that won the division deserve something more than just a playoff berth. Its the current perks of winning your division. Its not Indy's or GB's fault that SF and KC didnt win their divisions outright. Why is it so hard to understand that all you need to do is win your division and you get homefield?

This is far better set up than the way playoff system was set up when right after the merger. In the early seventies home field advantage rotated by division. In '72 the undefeated Dolphins had to play a the road playoff game against the Steelers. Low and behold the Dolphins still won game imagine that.