Eric Winston wants to see playoff seeding changed...

fastforward · Jun 16, 2019

I can understand why people don't want more 8-8 or 7-9 teams in the playoffs but I don't get why a 2nd seeded team sitting at home on a bye would be better than them playing a home game against a 10-6 7th seeded team. It's not hard to make a 10-win-and-in rule for a potential #7 or #8 seeded team.

GhostOfPoverty · Jun 16, 2019

Manster7588 said:
So who gets the byes?

Wait, yeah, you're right. They kind of have to have the byes in order for the 12 team format to work.

So basically, my position is to keep it as is, but have record determine the seeding/byes. Being guaranteed a playoff spot should be enough reward for winning the division. But if we're going to have wildcard teams, it should not automatically give them bye weeks and home field advantage over the superior teams in the actual playoffs.

Take last year, for instance - The two best teams in the AFC were the 12-4 Chiefs (#1 seed) and 12-4 Chargers (#5 seed), who also happened to split their head-to-head games during the regular season. That meant that the Chiefs, by virtue of pure luck, were granted home field throughout the playoffs and a first round bye, while the Chargers with the 2nd best record were forced to play and win 3 road games in order to make the Superbowl. That's way too big of an advantage between the two best teams in the conference. There's Chargers should have been the #2 seed, not being forced to play the 10-6 Ravens and well rested 11-5 Patriots both on the road before a hypothetical showdown most likely with the #1 seed, also on the road.

It makes zero sense for so much emphasis to be placed on having won a division in the playoffs. By granting the 8 total division winners automatic playoff spots regardless of record, we've already placed tremendous value on winning the divisions in a way that has enabled 7-9 and 7-8-1 teams into the postseason. But once that has been set and determined who simply makes the playoffs, divisions should cease to matter in the playoffs. Give the teams with the actual best records the most reward instead of punishing great wildcard teams that were in brutal divisions by automatically giving the the most difficult path to the big show.

GhostOfPoverty · Jun 16, 2019

Schmoopy1000 said:
I agree give the Division winners a spot in playoffs. Seed them all by record, but to help to get it to pass. Let the 1st tie breaker be for division winners.
So if two teams are 9-7 (10-6 or whatever) The division winner is seeded ahead of the WC team.
If the wildcard team is 10-6 & the Division winner is 9-7 then the division winner is ass out. They travel on wild card weekend.

I agree with this, except I would say that being a division winner should be a 3nd tier tie-breaker between who plays on the road/gets byes between them and wildcard teams. I'd favor the tie-breakers in between division winners and wildcard teams go as follows:

Tier 1 tie-breaker: Head to head competition. If they had played each other during the regular season, the winner of that game gets the tie-breaker for home field/bye weeks between the two. If they either tied in that game or did not play each other at all, move on to tier 2.

Tier 2 tie-breaker: Strength of schedule. Whoever had the more difficult schedule in terms of strength of opponents gets it if it goes down to that.

Tier 3 tie-breaker: Division winner. If they somehow managed to be equal in both the tier 1 and tier 2 aspects, then go ahead and give it to the division winner.

Even by relegating it to a #3 tie-breaker, it's still essentially rewarding whichever team happened to be in the worse division. Obviously, it would seldom, if ever go down to that tie-breaker. Which I'd be totally fine with - I don't think divions should matter one iota in the playoffs beyond simply obtaining a playoff spot to begin with.

Manster7588 · Jun 16, 2019

GhostOfPoverty said:
Wait, yeah, you're right. They kind of have to have the byes in order for the 12 team format to work.

So basically, my position is to keep it as is, but have record determine the seeding/byes. Being guaranteed a playoff spot should be enough reward for winning the division. But if we're going to have wildcard teams, it should not automatically give them bye weeks and home field advantage over the superior teams in the actual playoffs.

Take last year, for instance - The two best teams in the AFC were the 12-4 Chiefs (#1 seed) and 12-4 Chargers (#5 seed), who also happened to split their head-to-head games during the regular season. That meant that the Chiefs, by virtue of pure luck, were granted home field throughout the playoffs and a first round bye, while the Chargers with the 2nd best record were forced to play and win 3 road games in order to make the Superbowl. That's way too big of an advantage between the two best teams in the conference. There's Chargers should have been the #2 seed, not being forced to play the 10-6 Ravens and well rested 11-5 Patriots both on the road before a hypothetical showdown most likely with the #1 seed, also on the road.

It makes zero sense for so much emphasis to be placed on having won a division in the playoffs. By granting the 8 total division winners automatic playoff spots regardless of record, we've already placed tremendous value on winning the divisions in a way that has enabled 7-9 and 7-8-1 teams into the postseason. But once that has been set and determined who simply makes the playoffs, divisions should cease to matter in the playoffs. Give the teams with the actual best records the most reward instead of punishing great wildcard teams that were in brutal divisions by automatically giving the the most difficult path to the big show.

Giving division winners automatic home field cut put a lot of confusion.
What happens if the 2 through 4th seeds all have the same record, with the division winners sweeping the 2nd place team, yet both second place teams won against the two 1st place teams in head to head.

Example: AFCE winner won twice vs AFCE runner up, AFCN winner won twice vs AFCN runner up, AFCE runner up won vs AFCN winner and AFCN runner up won vs AFCE winner.

Honestly if the add or subtract teams and get rid of byes, I'm OK with that, just leave the division winners as home for the playoffs alone.

In the long run if a team gets jobbed with the current format it's most likely they'd be given and advantage soon if they weren't already given that advantage.
Take Seattle last year, of one thinks they got jobbed then fine they got jobbed but they didn't get jobbed in 2010.

GhostOfPoverty · Jun 17, 2019

Manster7588 said:
Giving division winners automatic home field cut put a lot of confusion.
What happens if the 2 through 4th seeds all have the same record, with the division winners sweeping the 2nd place team, yet both second place teams won against the two 1st place teams in head to head.

Example: AFCE winner won twice vs AFCE runner up, AFCN winner won twice vs AFCN runner up, AFCE runner up won vs AFCN winner and AFCN runner up won vs AFCE winner.

Honestly if the add or subtract teams and get rid of byes, I'm OK with that, just leave the division winners as home for the playoffs alone.

In the long run if a team gets jobbed with the current format it's most likely they'd be given and advantage soon if they weren't already given that advantage.
Take Seattle last year, of one thinks they got jobbed then fine they got jobbed but they didn't get jobbed in 2010.

I think you're way over-complicating the process of hypothetical tie-breakers. I'm only arguing that wildcard teams with actual superior records to division winners shouldn't automatically receive lower seeding based on that, that's it.

1. Chiefs 12-4, including splitting the two games with their division rival Chargers).
2. Patriots - 11-5
3. Texans - 11-5
4. Ravens - 10-6
5. Chargers - 12-4, including splitting the two games with their division rival Chargers
6. Colts - 10-6

Chiefs took the division/seed over the Chargers based on the # of wins within the division. I can handle that, but why should that division specific decider carry over the actual playoffs with teams outside of the division? That gave the Chiefs a path to the Superbowl of 2 home games, while the Chargers got a path of 3 guaranteed away games (the one exception being 2 road games + 1 home game in the highly unlikely event that the #6 seed also made it to the conference championship game). To make that situation even stranger, the Chiefs literally lost to the Patriots during the regular season, while the Chargers didn't play them at all.

Totally bogus. The ONLY reason to continue favoring division winners so heavily like that in the playoffs is if you're simply the type to emotionally cling to tradition while throwing all logic and reason out the window. As I said earlier, you can't claim to be someone who likes parity or the best teams to be favored in the NFL playoffs if you're still hung up on the tired system of favoring division winners in seeding over wildcards regardless of record.

No one can make a logical argument against what I'm saying here, unless they concede that they simply don't care about logic and are hung up on the tradition of heavy favoritism towards the division winners. If that's the way you feel, then fine - but then why would you want the playoffs expanded to include even more wildcard teams when you put such a heavy emphasis on automatically favoring division winners over them in the playoffs? No offense, but people with your position are talking out of both sides of your mouths, and you don't even realize it.

Southieinnc · Jun 17, 2019

fastforward said:
I can understand why people don't want more 8-8 or 7-9 teams in the playoffs but I don't get why a 2nd seeded team sitting at home on a bye would be better than them playing a home game against a 10-6 7th seeded team. It's not hard to make a 10-win-and-in rule for a potential #7 or #8 seeded team.

Don't forget the Dolphins! 3 games and your in! Miami Miracle here we go!

Manster7588 · Jun 17, 2019

GhostOfPoverty said:
I think you're way over-complicating the process of hypothetical tie-breakers. I'm only arguing that wildcard teams with actual superior records to division winners shouldn't automatically receive lower seeding based on that, that's it.

1. Chiefs 12-4, including splitting the two games with their division rival Chargers).
2. Patriots - 11-5
3. Texans - 11-5
4. Ravens - 10-6
5. Chargers - 12-4, including splitting the two games with their division rival Chargers
6. Colts - 10-6

Chiefs took the division/seed over the Chargers based on the # of wins within the division. I can handle that, but why should that division specific decider carry over the actual playoffs with teams outside of the division? That gave the Chiefs a path to the Superbowl of 2 home games, while the Chargers got a path of 3 guaranteed away games (the one exception being 2 road games + 1 home game in the highly unlikely event that the #6 seed also made it to the conference championship game). To make that situation even stranger, the Chiefs literally lost to the Patriots during the regular season, while the Chargers didn't play them at all.

Totally bogus. The ONLY reason to continue favoring division winners so heavily like that in the playoffs is if you're simply the type to emotionally cling to tradition while throwing all logic and reason out the window. As I said earlier, you can't claim to be someone who likes parity or the best teams to be favored in the NFL playoffs if you're still hung up on the tired system of favoring division winners in seeding over wildcards regardless of record.

No one can make a logical argument against what I'm saying here, unless they concede that they simply don't care about logic and are hung up on the tradition of heavy favoritism towards the division winners. If that's the way you feel, then fine - but then why would you want the playoffs expanded to include even more wildcard teams when you put such a heavy emphasis on automatically favoring division winners over them in the playoffs? No offense, but people with your position are talking out of both sides of your mouths, and you don't even realize it.

I know what your saying record wise, but the current way is simple with no confusion. If you change it to what some are suggesting you could have some very confusing answers.

I'll say this again if team A gets screwed one year that same team will benefit another year.

I have no idea why people want to fix what's not broken.

YankeeRebel · Jun 17, 2019

Why can't the league just leave alone what they needn't change? There is nothing wrong with current set up. If you want to change something hire technical writers to re-write your poorly written vague as hell, rule book.

Manster7588 · Jun 17, 2019

YankeeRebel said:
Why can't the league just leave alone what they needn't change? There is nothing wrong with current set up. If you want to change something hire technical writers to re-write your poorly written vague as hell, rule book.

I don't think the league is changing anything. It's just SOP from the OP. He's been trying to fix what isn't broken for years.

YankeeRebel · Jun 17, 2019

Manster7588 said:
I don't think the league is changing anything. It's just SOP from the OP. He's been trying to fix what isn't broken for years.

I guess but I thought also the league again looked to an 18 game reg season, dropping two pre-season games. I am all for dropping two pre-season games but not adding two more reg season games.

Manster7588 · Jun 17, 2019

YankeeRebel said:
I guess but I thought also the league again looked to an 18 game reg season, dropping two pre-season games. I am all for dropping two pre-season games but not adding two more reg season games.

Agree, but we know the NFL isn't going to simply drop two revenue producing games and not replace that revenue.
I like the 16 game schedule as is because 14 out of 16 games are known for each team from here to eternity. 18 game schedule will change that.

YankeeRebel · Jun 17, 2019

Manster7588 said:
Agree, but we know the NFL isn't going to simply drop two revenue producing games and not replace that revenue.
I like the 16 game schedule as is because 14 out of 16 games are known for each team from here to eternity. 18 game schedule will change that.

Agreed.

fastforward · Jun 17, 2019

Example:

3 Divisions within a conference are won with 12+ win records. The 4th division is won by an 8-8 team. The best non-division winning record is 9-7, which is held by 3 teams.

Having the 6 teams with the best records in the playoffs and excluding the 8-8 division winner would make sense. Alternatively having the 4 division winners in and seeded plus 2 lucky losers, (2 of the 9-7 teams), makes sense. Including the 8-8 division winner, excluding a 9-7 non-division winner but saying the 2 non-division winning teams are seeded above the 8-8 division winner whilst another 9-7 team sits at home makes no sense It doesn't follow any logical or consistent pattern.

PhilSimms11 · Jun 18, 2019

GhostOfPoverty said:
Huge no to expanding it to 14 teams. We've already had 7-8-1 and 7-9 teams make the playoffs as things currently stand. Expand that to 14 teams, and the concept of 6-10 teams making the playoffs would go from the realm of nearly impossible to not completely unfathomable at all.

Keep in mind, those were division winners with the 7-9 and 7-8-1 records, so those are automatic playoff teams; which I'm for. I don't like the fact they were below .500, but division winners deserve a playoff spot. That's the only time that will happen. Even if they expand the playoffs to 14 teams at worst it'll be an 8-8. A 6-10 team making the playoffs is still extremely remote. Here's what the 7th playoff teams would have been since they went to the 8 division format in 2002...

2002--AFC 9-7; NFC 9-7
2003--AFC 10-6; NFC 9-7
2004--AFC 9-7; NFC 8-8
2005--AFC 10-6; NFC 9-7
2006--AFC 9-7; NFC 8-8
2007--AFC 10-6; NFC 8-8
2008--AFC 11-5; NFC 9-7
2009--AFC 9-7; NFC 9-7
2010--AFC 9-7; NFC 10-6
2011--AFC 9-7; NFC 8-8
2012--AFC 8-8; NFC 10-6
2013--AFC 8-8; NFC 10-6
2014--AFC 9-7; NFC 10-6
2015--AFC 10-6; NFC 8-8
2016--AFC 9-7; NFC 9-7
2017--AFC 9-7; NFC 9-7
2018--AFC 9-6-1; NFC 8-7-1

79% with a 9-7 record or better (27 of 34). I'm not advocating 14 playoff teams; I'm just stating that a wildcard team with a losing record is just about impossible. A team 10-6 or better has been left out 9 times in 17 seasons.

PhilSimms11 · Jun 18, 2019

Strength of schedule for 2018 playoff teams. This is to show that SOS is pretty meaningless. It's "up there" with time of possession.
AFC
(1)BAL (.496)
(2)NE (.482)
(3)KC (.480)
(4)LAC (.477)
(5)HOU (.471)
(6)IND (.465)

NFC
(1)PHI (.518)
(2)DAL (.488)
(3)SEA (.484)
(4)NO (.482)
(5)LAR (.480)
(6)CHI (.430)

Schmoopy1000 · Jun 18, 2019

PhilSimms11 said:
Strength of schedule for 2018 playoff teams. This is to show that SOS is pretty meaningless. It's "up there" with time of possession.
AFC
(1)BAL (.496)
(2)NE (.482)
(3)KC (.480)
(4)LAC (.477)
(5)HOU (.471)
(6)IND (.465)

NFC
(1)PHI (.518)
(2)DAL (.488)
(3)SEA (.484)
(4)NO (.482)
(5)LAR (.480)
(6)CHI (.430)

actually I think that shows the opposite.
get a weaker SOS & make the playoffs.

GhostOfPoverty · Jun 19, 2019

Manster7588 said:
I know what your saying record wise, but the current way is simple with no confusion. If you change it to what some are suggesting you could have some very confusing answers.

I'll say this again if team A gets screwed one year that same team will benefit another year.

I have no idea why people want to fix what's not broken.

PhilSimms11 said:
Keep in mind, those were division winners with the 7-9 and 7-8-1 records, so those are automatic playoff teams; which I'm for. I don't like the fact they were below .500, but division winners deserve a playoff spot. That's the only time that will happen. Even if they expand the playoffs to 14 teams at worst it'll be an 8-8. A 6-10 team making the playoffs is still extremely remote. Here's what the 7th playoff teams would have been since they went to the 8 division format in 2002...

2002--AFC 9-7; NFC 9-7
2003--AFC 10-6; NFC 9-7
2004--AFC 9-7; NFC 8-8
2005--AFC 10-6; NFC 9-7
2006--AFC 9-7; NFC 8-8
2007--AFC 10-6; NFC 8-8
2008--AFC 11-5; NFC 9-7
2009--AFC 9-7; NFC 9-7
2010--AFC 9-7; NFC 10-6
2011--AFC 9-7; NFC 8-8
2012--AFC 8-8; NFC 10-6
2013--AFC 8-8; NFC 10-6
2014--AFC 9-7; NFC 10-6
2015--AFC 10-6; NFC 8-8
2016--AFC 9-7; NFC 9-7
2017--AFC 9-7; NFC 9-7
2018--AFC 9-6-1; NFC 8-7-1

79% with a 9-7 record or better (27 of 34). I'm not advocating 14 playoff teams; I'm just stating that a wildcard team with a losing record is just about impossible. A team 10-6 or better has been left out 9 times in 17 seasons.

Let's be honest, as fun as these conversations can be, they've been going on forever and nothing ever changes. I can remember people talking about the way the playoffs are done in the NFL and what changes they think would be good for it since the mid-2000's on the ancient ESPN message boards.

So ultimately, none of this debate matters, nor will it ever matter. The way the playoff seeding is decided is never going to change. The only thing they might ever consider doing is expanding it with additional wildcard teams without changing how the seeds are done, but the bye weeks won't be going anywhere. If anything, they'd give additional teams bye weeks/extra bye weeks for the top seeds in order to accommodate an expanded playoff system and stretch it out an extra week total.

So with all that in mind, along with the fact that I'm not so consumed by following football/the NFL as to care all that much one way or the other about any of it, I'd favor just leaving things exactly the way they are and being done with it.

PhilSimms11 · Jun 19, 2019

GhostOfPoverty said:
The only thing they might ever consider doing is expanding it with additional wildcard teams without changing how the seeds are done, but the bye weeks won't be going anywhere. If anything, they'd give additional teams bye weeks/extra bye weeks for the top seeds in order to accommodate an expanded playoff system and stretch it out an extra week total.

How many playoff teams do you think they might add? I can't see more than one per conference. Extra bye weeks? Last season would have looked like this with the 7th playoff team...

AFC
(1)KC (12-4)

(7)PIT (9-6-1) @ (2)NE (11-5)
(6)IND (10-6) @ (3)HOU (11-5)
(5)LAC (12-4) @ (4)BAL (10-6)

NFC
(1)NO (13-3)

(7)MIN (8-7-1) @ (2)LAR (13-3)
(6)PHI (9-7) @ (3)CHI (12-4)
(5)SEA (10-6) @ (4)DAL (10-6)
------------
This would be better...
AFC
(1)KC (12-4)

(7)PIT (9-6-1) @ (2)LAC (12-4)
(6)IND (10-6) @ (3)NE (11-5)
(5)BAL (10-6) @ (4)HOU (11-5)

NFC
(1)NO (13-3)

(7)MIN (8-7-1) @ (2)LAR (13-3)
(6)PHI (9-7) @ (3)CHI (12-4)
(5)DAL (10-6) @ (4)SEA (10-6)

boogiewithstu2007 · Jun 19, 2019

There is A Moose at 3rd said:
Divisions should guarantee playoffs. Seeding thereafter I think is a legit topic, however.

Expand the playoffs? Big nah

Agree with that, I'm open to seeding changes just not more playoff teams.... Winning the division should lock you a playoff spot, but seeding should be based on record...

PhilSimms11 · Jun 21, 2019

boogiewithstu2007 said:
I'm open to seeding changes just not more playoff teams.... Winning the division should lock you a playoff spot, but seeding should be based on record...

My thoughts exactly. For me, it's simple math. They play 16 games. It is a brutal game to say the least. 12-4 is better than 9-7 no matter how you slice it. Winning the division is very important, but winning games is more important because HELLO...!

you_play_to_win_the_game_poster-rae7e99630fac411eb42d8aa490dc87a2_ffd7_8byvr_512.jpg

Eric Winston wants to see playoff seeding changed...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I Support Law Enforcement.

Well-Known Member

Do Your Job!

I Support Law Enforcement.

Well-Known Member

I Support Law Enforcement.

Well-Known Member

I Support Law Enforcement.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

When all else fails, Smack em' in the Mouth!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads