Something has to change with these divisions

[HaroldSeattle]

I don't understand the motivation of people who want the team with the better record to go on. You should just want for whoever wins the game to advance or your team to advance. So I would be upset if my team with a better record had to go on the road, but I'd be happy to host someone else if that meant we had a better chance to win. There's no loyalty to justice or altruistic reason to want one way or another. I just want my team to have the best chance to advance.

That crappy 7-9 team isn't ( or shouldn't ) be the challenge. If you can't whip their ass you aren't going to the Super Bowl anyways, home field or not.

 

[Cyder]

That crappy 7-9 team isn't ( or shouldn't ) be the challenge. If you can't whip their ass you aren't going to the Super Bowl anyways, home field or not.

Excellent point. If you're the top wild card in the NFC you have to be confident regardless of where you're playing

 

[molsaniceman]

I used to agree with that when there were 6 divisions and 6 wild cards. Sure you got a clunker division winner now and again but it has become more prevalent with 8 and 4. Not sure I approve of any reseeding but going back to 6 and 6 would be my choice. Not that it'll ever happen, the NFL loves this. The NFC East completely sucks but all the teams are still in it which is exactly what the NFL wants.

11 teams with a winning record 2 divisions without a winning team 21 teams can still make the playoffs

 

[Cyder]

11 teams with a winning record 2 divisions without a winning team 21 teams can still make the playoffs

Which is exactly what the NFL wants. 21 fan bases still interested and 11 others hoping to tank for better draft picks.

 

[JMR]

IDK, if the Seahawks have to go on the road and play a NFCE team with a worse record, I don't see the problem. If your as good as your record you'll whip them anyway...right? If not, most likely not going far into the playoffs regardless if you got a home game.

By this logic, we should then do reverse seedings and give the team with the best record the 6 seed and make them go on the road against the team with the worst record. If they were so good to be 14-2 or 15-1, they should easily beat that crappy team on the road, right?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

By this logic, we should then do reverse seedings and give the team with the best record the 6 seed and make them go on the road against the team with the worst record. If they were so good to be 14-2 or 15-1, they should easily beat that crappy team on the road, right?

Yes they should. The thing is that winning the division has always meant more then being a wildcard team IMO. For most of the NFL history there wasn't such a thing as a wild card until 1978, the second wildcard was added in 2002. Now folks are whining that the wildcard doesn't have home court advantage ? Feel blessed that in the name of making money, that a wildcard is even part of the playoffs, don't give me this "It's not fair " when in fact the wildcard team should feel blessed to be in the playoffs.

 

[JMR]

Yes they should. The thing is that winning the division has always meant more then being a wildcard team IMO. For most of the NFL history there wasn't such a thing as a wild card until 1978, the second wildcard was added in 2002. Now folks are whining that the wildcard doesn't have home court advantage ? Feel blessed that in the name of making money, that a wildcard is even part of the playoffs, don't give me this "It's not fair " when in fact the wildcard team should feel blessed to be in the playoffs.

That's not really true. There were THREE wild cards at one point before there were 4 divisions. The two wild card teams with the best records played each other; the wild card with the worst record played at the div champ with the worst record of the 3 div champs. This was back when division schedules were half your games and you almost never saw a wild card team with a better record than a div champ.

And before the league went to 3 wild cards (believe that was 1990), there were 2 wild cards and they played each other on wild card weekend. The winner then had to travel the next week during the div round @ the top seed. That's why it used to be nearly impossible for a wc team to make the SB.

This was simply not an issue until we went to 4 divisions per conference.

 

[JMR]

Let's just make 16 divisions in each conference, seed the top 6 division champs 1-6 by best record and then we're all happy.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

That's not really true. There were THREE wild cards at one point before there were 4 divisions. The two wild card teams with the best records played each other; the wild card with the worst record played at the div champ with the worst record of the 3 div champs. This was back when division schedules were half your games and you almost never saw a wild card team with a better record than a div champ.

And before the league went to 3 wild cards (believe that was 1990), there were 2 wild cards and they played each other on wild card weekend. The winner then had to travel the next week during the div round @ the top seed. That's why it used to be nearly impossible for a wc team to make the SB.

This was simply not an issue until we went to 4 divisions per conference.

I think your wrong about three wild cards. Never happened. When there was three divisions and two wild cards. The wild cards played each other first to narrow it down to 4 playoff teams. It was about making money. Still is, and since there is no monetary reason to change, it won't happen.

 

[JMR]

I think your wrong about three wild cards. Never happened. When there was three divisions and two wild cards. The wild cards played each other first to narrow it down to 4 playoff teams. It was about making money. Still is, and since there is no monetary reason to change, it won't happen.

Nope, I'm 100% correct. Easy to look it up on pro-football-reference.com.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

IDK, if the Seahawks have to go on the road and play a NFCE team with a worse record, I don't see the problem. If your as good as your record you'll whip them anyway...right? If not, most likely not going far into the playoffs regardless if you got a home game.

That's not my point. Why reward a team that plays in a bad division with a bad record? The reward should be you actually get to play in the post season.

 

[Broncos6482]

You want a home playoff game? Win your division.

 

[Broncos6482]

I think your wrong about three wild cards. Never happened. When there was three divisions and two wild cards. The wild cards played each other first to narrow it down to 4 playoff teams. It was about making money. Still is, and since there is no monetary reason to change, it won't happen.

No he's right. Back in the late 80s, I think, is when they added the 3rd wild card team. Before that only 5 teams per conference made the playoffs (3 division winners and 2 wild card teams). Then it was 3 division winners and 3 wild card teams per conference until 2002, when the addition of the Texans forced the NFL to realign the divisions, so then we had 4 division winners per conference, and 2 wild card teams.

IMO, the system is absolutely perfect the way it is. The 2 best division winners get a bye, the next 2 division winners get a home game, and the 2 wild card teams get a second chance to prove they're Super Bowl worthy even though they didn't win their division.

 

[JMR]

You want a home playoff game? Win your division.

You keep coming back to this circular argument. Division winners deserve a playoff game because they won their division. The whole discussion revolves around whether beating 3 teams out for a division is worthy of automatic home playoff game by itself. You say it is because they won the division. You're not providing any reason other than restating the question as the answer.

If we only had 3 divisions like pre-2002, no issue. We rarely if ever ran into the scenario we seem to have nearly every season now. 4 divisions cheapened the accomplishment of winning a division.

 

[Broncos6482]

You keep coming back to this circular argument. Division winners deserve a playoff game because they won their division. The whole discussion revolves around whether beating 3 teams out for a division is worthy of automatic home playoff game by itself. You say it is because they won the division. You're not providing any reason other than restating the question as the answer.

If we only had 3 divisions like pre-2002, no issue. We rarely if ever ran into the scenario we seem to have nearly every season now. 4 divisions cheapened the accomplishment of winning a division.

I still haven't seen anyone explain to me why a team that couldn't even win it's own division deserves to host a playoff game. If you can't win your division, you deserve to have a harder road.

And that scenario doesn't happen nearly every season. Since 2002, a team has won a division with a losing record twice. That's 2 times in 13 years, or 2 division winners out of 52. That's 4%. That's tiny, and not worth changing things over.

 

[Money]

You keep coming back to this circular argument. Division winners deserve a playoff game because they won their division. The whole discussion revolves around whether beating 3 teams out for a division is worthy of automatic home playoff game by itself. You say it is because they won the division. You're not providing any reason other than restating the question as the answer.

If we only had 3 divisions like pre-2002, no issue. We rarely if ever ran into the scenario we seem to have nearly every season now. 4 divisions cheapened the accomplishment of winning a division.

Thank you. I couldn't have phrased the first paragraph any better.

Division play has already evolved to meaning much less than it used to. The rewards for it should also evolve. It's that simple.

 

[Money]

I still haven't seen anyone explain to me why a team that couldn't even win it's own division deserves to host a playoff game. If you can't win your division, you deserve to have a harder road.

And that scenario doesn't happen nearly every season. Since 2002, a team has won a division with a losing record twice. That's 2 times in 13 years, or 2 division winners out of 52. That's 4%. That's tiny, and not worth changing things over.

Your entire argument is based off the principle that all divisions are created equal. It's also based off the fact that division play means the same as it used to. Neither is correct.

 

[JMR]

I still haven't seen anyone explain to me why a team that couldn't even win it's own division deserves to host a playoff game. If you can't win your division, you deserve to have a harder road.

It's been explained many times. You just ignore it and go back to your circular talking points.

 

[Broncos6482]

It's been explained many times. You just ignore it and go back to your circular talking points.

No it hasn't. Please quote it to me.

Look, I get it, you disagree with me. That's fine. You think a team that finishes second in their division deserves a home game. I don't, and I haven't seen any compelling reason to think otherwise.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

That's not my point. Why reward a team that plays in a bad division with a bad record? The reward should be you actually get to play in the post season.

The DIV title reward is outdated based on the % of DIV games relative to the entire season. That much I agree with.

But imo a fruitless debate, what owner would ever vote to give up the home game?