My argument as to why they shouldn't reseed the playoffs

[Broncos6482]

If winning your division doesn't get you a home playoff game, then they should eliminate divisions, eliminate interconference play, and you should play all the other teams in your conference once. Then the top 6 teams in each conference by record get in, with ties being broken by head to head wins.

If that doesn't appeal to you, then it should stay the way it is.

 

[StoningtonQB]

Winning the division should guarantee a playoff spot and nothing more. You could be 3 games up on 2nd place with 2 games to go and be 8-6. You rest all your starters and finish 8-8. Meanwhile, some team that beats that said 8-8 team during the season and finishes 13-3, but 2nd to another team in their own division has to go back to the home field of the 8-8 team that coasted to the playoffs. That is BS. And I'm not just saying this because SF had to play on the road. They handled their business. But Seattle (last year) should not have had to play in Washington. And New Orleans should not have had to play at the Linc.

 

[Broncos6482]

Winning the division should guarantee a playoff spot and nothing more. You could be 3 games up on 2nd place with 2 games to go and be 8-6. You rest all your starters and finish 8-8. Meanwhile, some team that beats that said 8-8 team during the season and finishes 13-3, but 2nd to another team in their own division has to go back to the home field of the 8-8 team that coasted to the playoffs. That is BS. And I'm not just saying this because SF had to play on the road. They handled their business. But Seattle (last year) should not have had to play in Washington. And New Orleans should not have had to play at the Linc.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY]Dr Cox - Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Scooby-Doo]

They wont' get something this big wrong Basically what your'e advocating is decreasing competition and weakening the game. this year is a prime example. A team like GB, who is a good team, gets a few injuries and then a big one. They were still able to hit a rough patch in the season and still have something to play for that last 3rd of the season. Are you saying it would be better for the league to say to teams and divisions where "stuff" happens, to say tough, you're out of it by week 8 ??????

Do you think rendering half the league or more out of any playoff picture by the middle of the season because stuff happens, and be honest, stuff happens to every team every single year that threatens to derail a season, and thankfully there is enough competition within the league between divisions to keep things interesting and give them a chance to still play meaningful games, or this game would suffer.

yeah, that will be great for the league. Fucking awesome

There has been bigger.

Where am I advocating decreasing competition and weakening the game. You are putting words in my mouth to try and make your argument better. Nothing changes in my scenario except for what field you play on. NOTHING!! Why don't you get that?

Your Green Bay argument makes no sense. They would have still been playing to win the division the last third of the season all the way up till the last game. Explain to me how they would have been out of it by week 8. Injuries are part of the game and if your team suffers too many, then your season may be over. That's just the NFL. Green Bay would have still be awarded a playoff spot. Just a different seeding.

 

[Wolverine830872]

It sucks to be that #6 team looking "up" at that #4 seed that has a home game in the playoffs when you don't even though you had a better record.

Ya know what also sucks? Being that #7 or #8 seed looking up at the #6 seed and knowing that they get a playoff game when you have to sit at home and don't even get a shot even though that #6 seed got to play the easiest two divisions in the NFL while you were unfortunate enough to play two of the toughest.

SD (9-7) got the #6 seed and played the AFCS and NFCE which had exactly two winning teams (out of eight)

Miami finished 8-8, only a game behind SD, and had to play the NFCS and AFCN which one had 3 teams with sub .500 records (out of eight)

Tennessee finished 7-9, only two games behind SD, and had to play the NFCW and AFCW which fielded 5 of the 12 playoff teams this year, and out of the three that didn't make the playoffs, Arizona won 10 games and St. Louis won 7

So you wanna talk about "fair"? Fair is simply a place where they sell cotton candy and elephant ears. Sure the current playoff system isn't perfect, but tweaking it will more than likely make it further from perfect rather than closer

 

[Scooby-Doo]

First off, I don't care who does or doesn't agree with me. It isn't my problem when others are wrong.

Second, considering an argument weaker because you disagree with the source on other things is a logical fallacy.

I know you don't. Otherwise you would work harder on making sense.

 

[Broncos6482]

I want someone to convince me why a team that couldn't even win their division deserves a home playoff game over a team that did win their division. Tell me why a second place team should get precedence over a first place team.

 

[Broncos6482]

It sucks to be that #6 team looking "up" at that #4 seed that has a home game in the playoffs when you don't even though you had a better record.

Ya know what also sucks? Being that #7 or #8 seed looking up at the #6 seed and knowing that they get a playoff game when you have to sit at home and don't even get a shot even though that #6 seed got to play the easiest two divisions in the NFL while you were unfortunate enough to play two of the toughest.

SD (9-7) got the #6 seed and played the AFCS and NFCE which had exactly two winning teams (out of eight)

Miami finished 8-8, only a game behind SD, and had to play the NFCS and AFCN which one had 3 teams with sub .500 records (out of eight)

Tennessee finished 7-9, only two games behind SD, and had to play the NFCW and AFCW which fielded 5 of the 12 playoff teams this year, and out of the three that didn't make the playoffs, Arizona won 10 games and St. Louis won 7

So you wanna talk about "fair"? Fair is simply a place where they sell cotton candy and elephant ears. Sure the current playoff system isn't perfect, but tweaking it will more than likely make it further from perfect rather than closer

This is a bit misleading. To make the AFCS and NFCE look worse you go by winning teams, but then to prop up the NFCS and AFCN you go by losing teams. If you go by winning teams, the NFCS and AFCN combined for 3, which is only 1 more than the AFCS and NFCE combined for.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Winning the division should guarantee a playoff spot and nothing more. You could be 3 games up on 2nd place with 2 games to go and be 8-6. You rest all your starters and finish 8-8. Meanwhile, some team that beats that said 8-8 team during the season and finishes 13-3, but 2nd to another team in their own division has to go back to the home field of the 8-8 team that coasted to the playoffs. That is BS. And I'm not just saying this because SF had to play on the road. They handled their business. But Seattle (last year) should not have had to play in Washington. And New Orleans should not have had to play at the Linc.

 

[Mondio]

because your nuts if you think the alignment by divisions is going to stay the same if they go to an open format for playoff seeding. They play 2 divisional games a year for a reason. The seasons aren't going to play out the same once you make that change. You're just as likely to end up with divisions that have bottom dwellers some years and some team will get 6 easy wins and then you'll have a division like the NFCW this year where there are 3 pretty good teams that could easily be called playoff teams, and they're going to take their toll on each other. This format of playing teams within your division 2x's per year will go away. It will have to, to try and make what you're proposing even comparable in "fairness" to what we have now. Except now you've weakened the competitive spirit that exists between divisions and conferences we have now.

Win your division, you get a home game, get a WC you travel. Simple

and you're not fixing anything, you're just creating something else. Because there will absolutely be times when a higher seeded team because of record will get to host a playoff game against a division winner with a worse record, but was beaten by that team earlier in the year. It will happen for the simple fact that some play in poor divisions and have easier schedules. Or are you going to then make it all based on strength of schedule? because you can't keep the division format they have now and make it "fair" doing it how you're proposing.

Tell me how rewarding a team, that can't even win their own division, with a home playoff game, makes things more "fair" than they are now?

 

[Broncos6482]

Win your division, you get a home game, get a WC you travel. Simple

Someone please explain to me how that's not fair. Every team has an equal chance to win their division. Sure, the schedule for the first place team will feature two tougher games than for the other teams, but that's mitigated by the fact that you get to play those other teams in your division twice. A division winner from Division A plays a drastically different schedule than a wild card team from Division B. Sure, Division B wild card won more games, but their strength of schedule was .343, and Division A champs was .591!

There is no doubt that the absolute FAIREST way to do it is to give the division champs a home game, and if the wild card team is TRULY the better team, they'll prove it by winning on the road.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

I want someone to convince me why a team that couldn't even win their division deserves a home playoff game over a team that did win their division. Tell me why a second place team should get precedence over a first place team.

Because the second place team had a better record than the division winner. Nothing complicated about it.

 

[Broncos6482]

Because the second place team had a better record than the division winner. Nothing complicated about it.

But they played a much easier schedule.

 

[LoftonPack80]

Yes and like you said....you might take away the one or two problems you have now but are replacing them with different ones. Unless you are going to make a completely fair problem free solution and system why even change?

 

[LoftonPack80]

Because the second place team had a better record than the division winner. Nothing complicated about it.

Again. ..what if Team A Has a tougher division that year and goes 9-7 against a schedule with a .575 winning percentage and Team B finishes 11-5 and second in their weaker division with an opponents win percentage of .400. How does your way make anything more different or fair?

 

[Scooby-Doo]

because your nuts if you think the alignment by divisions is going to stay the same if they go to an open format for playoff seeding. They play 2 divisional games a year for a reason. The seasons aren't going to play out the same once you make that change. You're just as likely to end up with divisions that have bottom dwellers some years and some team will get 6 easy wins and then you'll have a division like the NFCW this year where there are 3 pretty good teams that could easily be called playoff teams, and they're going to take their toll on each other. This format of playing teams within your division 2x's per year will go away. It will have to, to try and make what you're proposing even comparable in "fairness" to what we have now. Except now you've weakened the competitive spirit that exists between divisions and conferences we have now.

Win your division, you get a home game, get a WC you travel. Simple

and you're not fixing anything, you're just creating something else. Because there will absolutely be times when a higher seeded team because of record will get to host a playoff game against a division winner with a worse record, but was beaten by that team earlier in the year. It will happen for the simple fact that some play in poor divisions and have easier schedules. Or are you going to then make it all based on strength of schedule? because you can't keep the division format they have now and make it "fair" doing it how you're proposing.

Tell me how rewarding a team, that can't even win their own division, with a home playoff game, makes things more "fair" than they are now?

No strength of schedule or non of that other BS. You don't have to change anything else. Just simply give the teams with the better records a higher seed. I'm not proposing any other changes. The Divisions still mean the exact same thing.

And your right. This is not a solution. It will create other scenarios. I just think it is more fair.

 

[Broncos6482]

No strength of schedule or non of that other BS. You don't have to change anything else. Just simply give the teams with the better records a higher seed. I'm not proposing any other changes. The Divisions still mean the exact same thing.

And your right. This is not a solution. It will create other scenarios. I just think it is more fair.

But it's less fair. Teams competing against each other from one division to another are at different handicaps. Division A is playing a much harder schedule than Division B, so naturally teams in Division B will win more games. Teams competing for a division championship are all given an equal playing field. So it's more fair to reward them for winning their division and make wild card teams play on the road.

 

[Wolverine830872]

KC was a WC team despite winning 11 games this year. Lets take a look at those 11 wins

They beat:

Jax (4-12)
Dal (8-8)
Phi (10-6)
NYG (7-9)
Ten (7-9)
Oak (4-12)
Hou (2-14)
Cle (4-12)
Buf (6-10)
Was (3-13)
Oak (4-12)

Should this be a team that would get a home playoff game over a battle-hardened 8-8 division winner?

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Again. ..what if Team A Has a tougher division that year and goes 9-7 against a schedule with a .575 winning percentage and Team B finishes 11-5 and second in their weaker division with an opponents win percentage of .400. How does your way make anything more different or fair?

It is a simple seeding change. You are right. There will be situations as stated above and people will bitch about it when it happens. The same stuff still happens with the system the way it is. I just think a team with a better record is more deserving of a home playoff game than a team with a lesser record regardless of who won the division. It is no more complicated than that.

It is the same way the set the draft order. Should they change the draft order based on division standings, who beat who, etc.?

 

[LoftonPack80]

All its going to take is a 9-7 division winner to not get their home game because some 12-4 team playing a last place schedule gets in. Unless you are fixing something why change it and I haven't seen one suggestion here that fixes anything