GhostOfPoverty
Well-Known Member
I've made my arguements based on logic while still not entirely dismissing the concept of winning divisions. Under the concept I mentioned, all division winners would still automatically make the playoffs as they currently do, even with a losing/less than good record. i.e., 7-9 to 9-7 teams would still automatically make it the playoffs. However, if one or both wildcards have 11+ wins, the lesser team doesn't automatically get home field over them just because their division was a cake walk.
I would say the lesser division winners get to keep the automatic higher seeding over wildcard teams IF the wildcard team in question has 10 or fewer wins. But if they have 11+ wins, they deserve the higher seed over a team that went 9-7 or worse. This still allows 7-9/8-8 teams in crappy divisions to get playoff spots over better teams. They just stop getting automatic rewards based on winning a division once the actualy playoffs begin.
I mean think about it logically. Why should winning a division have so much impact on playoff seeding that a 7-9 team could host a 13-3 wildcard team when they were competing for different division crowns in the regular season? Why should what happened in divisions still matter that much after the division titles were already decided and the playoffs started? The actual playoff game locations are supposed to be about rewarding teams with the best records, not just for winning a division in general. If a 7-9 Dallas or Philly team gets to host a 13-3 San Fransisco or Seattle team, then why wouldn't they also potentially get to host a ~12-4 Saints team, for example?
Lol at calling this "whining". I like football and all, but I'm not losing sleep over it not going my way with playoff seeding. Just making an arguement for discussion. As far as the Vikings go, I don't see them making the Superbowl even if they go 12-4 and win the division to get the 3 seed anyway, so no I don't care THAT much about them getting the 6 or 5 over a chittier 4th seed Dallas/Philly team. Because I doubt they're making it regardless.
I would say the lesser division winners get to keep the automatic higher seeding over wildcard teams IF the wildcard team in question has 10 or fewer wins. But if they have 11+ wins, they deserve the higher seed over a team that went 9-7 or worse. This still allows 7-9/8-8 teams in crappy divisions to get playoff spots over better teams. They just stop getting automatic rewards based on winning a division once the actualy playoffs begin.
I mean think about it logically. Why should winning a division have so much impact on playoff seeding that a 7-9 team could host a 13-3 wildcard team when they were competing for different division crowns in the regular season? Why should what happened in divisions still matter that much after the division titles were already decided and the playoffs started? The actual playoff game locations are supposed to be about rewarding teams with the best records, not just for winning a division in general. If a 7-9 Dallas or Philly team gets to host a 13-3 San Fransisco or Seattle team, then why wouldn't they also potentially get to host a ~12-4 Saints team, for example?
Lol at calling this "whining". I like football and all, but I'm not losing sleep over it not going my way with playoff seeding. Just making an arguement for discussion. As far as the Vikings go, I don't see them making the Superbowl even if they go 12-4 and win the division to get the 3 seed anyway, so no I don't care THAT much about them getting the 6 or 5 over a chittier 4th seed Dallas/Philly team. Because I doubt they're making it regardless.