Fix the NFL playoffs

[GhostOfPoverty]

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.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

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 have already answered why it will never change.
Although on a side note. I wouldnt care if it changed to where they just get a playoff spot.

 

[Cedrique]

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.

It's a slippery slope. It starts with giving wild card teams home field advantage. Next, they'll want a first round bye. Before you know it, guys with Nazi arm bands will be showing up at your door taking away all your guns. Is that what you want?

 

[WizardHawk]

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.

First of all, 7-9 hosting 13-3 is pretty extreme. The worst I've seen was 7-9 hosting 11-5.

However, when 14 of your 16 games are based entirely around comparing you JUST to the other teams in your own division, why would it make sense to turn around after those division wins and use overall win/loss? Why would we change the formula after the season is over? That really makes no sense at all to me.

Let me say that again clearly. 14 of 16 are only meant to measure you against your division. You get 6 against your own division, each team in your division plays just ONE of the other 3 divisions in your own conference, and then you all play just one of the divisions in the other conference. 14 of 16 is a lot of games meant to leave no doubt who the best team in that division is. Period.

Given that, the win/loss means less outside of your division because of too few connections.

To give you what you want, they would need to do away with this schedule, stop home/away against your own division, and just play every team in your conference. Well, almost all. And forget cross conference play in the regular season.

It would be a mess to try and do what some of you want.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

First of all, 7-9 hosting 13-3 is pretty extreme. The worst I've seen was 7-9 hosting 11-5.

However, when 14 of your 16 games are based entirely around comparing you JUST to the other teams in your own division, why would it make sense to turn around after those division wins and use overall win/loss? Why would we change the formula after the season is over? That really makes no sense at all to me.

Let me say that again clearly. 14 of 16 are only meant to measure you against your division. You get 6 against your own division, each team in your division plays just ONE of the other 3 divisions in your own conference, and then you all play just one of the divisions in the other conference. 14 of 16 is a lot of games meant to leave no doubt who the best team in that division is. Period.

Given that, the win/loss means less outside of your division because of too few connections.

To give you what you want, they would need to do away with this schedule, stop home/away against your own division, and just play every team in your conference. Well, almost all. And forget cross conference play in the regular season.

It would be a mess to try and do what some of you want.

Why are you making it so much more complicated than what I suggested? Hell, I'll taper it down a bit. Keep it as is, except even a division winner needs to have a winning record of at least 9-7 in order to be guaranteed the 4th seed over wildcard teams that have 10-13 wins. Explain to me, logically, how it is unfair to require bad teams from weak divisions to at least have a bottom tier winning record of 9-7 in order to get a guaranteed home game (or potentially more depending on how the playoffs go) over wildcard teams that clearly did better in the regular season.

What you said here was an irrelevant tangent. I'll say it again, the true basis of your argument is based on the tradition of "muh division winners! Nuthin' else matters, dammit!!!!" logic. And yeah, I know the hoop is full of cranky old farts who will never present a real arguement that makes any sense against this. Just admit that your beliefs on the matter are based on emotional bullchit rather than logic, and I could handle that. What annoys me is when people try to argue that their emotional based bs is a real arguement.

 

[WizardHawk]

Why are you making it so much more complicated than what I suggested? Hell, I'll taper it down a bit. Keep it as is, except even a division winner needs to have a winning record of at least 9-7 in order to be guaranteed the 4th seed over wildcard teams that have 10-13 wins. Explain to me, logically, how it is unfair to require bad teams from weak divisions to at least have a bottom tier winning record of 9-7 in order to get a guaranteed home game (or potentially more depending on how the playoffs go) over wildcard teams that clearly did better in the regular season.

What you said here was an irrelevant tangent. I'll say it again, the true basis of your argument is based on the tradition of "muh division winners! Nuthin' else matters, dammit!!!!" logic. And yeah, I know the hoop is full of cranky old farts who will never present a real arguement that makes any sense against this. Just admit that your beliefs on the matter are based on emotional bullchit rather than logic, and I could handle that. What annoys me is when people try to argue that their emotional based bs is a real arguement.

You clearly either didn't read, didn't understand, or simply ignored what I said. I made no emotional based argument or whatever else you are going on about.

The schedule is designed to find a true division winner. That schedule doesn't clearly setup to compare win/loss between teams from other divisions. We can give you many examples if you like. These are pure facts. There's no opinion here.

The one trying to make it more complicated than it is, is you. Win your division. If you don't, you might get a consolation prize of a wildcard if you are one of the top two next level teams behind the winners. You will face the worst two division winners on the road.

Funny how you and the pissed off 9'er fan keep talking about logic as if you keep using it, it will somehow turn your opinions into fact. It hasn't, and it won't.

There should be a prize for playing those mutual 14 games along with the rest of your division. Period. Stop. End of discussion.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

You clearly either didn't read, didn't understand, or simply ignored what I said. I made no emotional based argument or whatever else you are going on about.

The schedule is designed to find a true division winner. That schedule doesn't clearly setup to compare win/loss between teams from other divisions. We can give you many examples if you like. These are pure facts. There's no opinion here.

The one trying to make it more complicated than it is, is you. Win your division. If you don't, you might get a consolation prize of a wildcard if you are one of the top two next level teams behind the winners. You will face the worst two division winners on the road.

Funny how you and the pissed off 9'er fan keep talking about logic as if you keep using it, it will somehow turn your opinions into fact. It hasn't, and it won't.

There should be a prize for playing those mutual 14 games along with the rest of your division. Period. Stop. End of discussion.

How was what I suggested complicated or unfair? Explain that to me. My suggestion still automatically gifts dogchit division winners with an automatic playoff spot, they just don't automatically get home field over superior wildcard teams unless they at least have a winning record of 9-7. How is that such an insane concept for you?

 

[WizardHawk]

How was what I suggested complicated or unfair. Explain that to me.

I did. You refuse to read it and claimed it was some emotional conditioned response.

2019 Dallas Cowboys Schedule | FBSchedules.com
2019 San Francisco 49ers Schedule | FBSchedules.com

Since these two are possibly the two most likely to face this situation this year. You go ahead and look at both schedules and tell me what stands out here. Tell me how you want to compare their win/loss as equivalent. 16 games each and what is glaring here?

You want to talk logic and facts. Lets see if you can put YOUR preconditioned notions aside and work through this thing.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

I did. You refuse to read it and claimed it was some emotional conditioned response.

2019 Dallas Cowboys Schedule | FBSchedules.com
2019 San Francisco 49ers Schedule | FBSchedules.com

Since these two are possibly the two most likely to face this situation this year. You go ahead and look at both schedules and tell me what stands out here. Tell me how you want to compare their win/loss as equivalent. 16 games each and what is glaring here?

You want to talk logic and facts. Lets see if you can put YOUR preconditioned notions aside and work through this thing.

I am saying they should base it off wins. And that a 9-7+ division winner can automatically get a home game over a 10+ winning wildcard team. Just that they need a winning record to guarantee that 4th seed.

Again, what is so unfair about that concept? By my suggestion, a 9--7 division winner still gets the higher seed than a 13-3 wildcard team. All this does is makes the truly chit division winners in exceptional years go on the road against wildcards with actual winning records of 10+ wins. A 7-9 wildcard would still get the home game over a 9-7 wildcard.

You're beyond full of chit to suggest that that concept is some obscene unfair idea lol.

 

[WizardHawk]

I am saying they should base it off wins. And that a 9-7+ division winner can automatically get a home game over a 10+ winning wildcard team. Just that they need a winning record to guarantee that 4th seed.

Again, what is so unfair about that concept? By my suggestion, a 9--7 division winner still gets the higher seed than a 13-3 wildcard team. All this does is makes the truly chit division winners in exceptional years go on the road against wildcards with actual winning records of 10+ wins. A 7-9 wildcard would still get the home game over a 9-7 wildcard.

You're beyond full of chit to suggest that that concept is some obscene unfair idea lol.

Funny, you accused me of being emotional and went on some tangent, failed to address any points raised, then again challenged me to explain it and you again will not follow the logic given.

Amazing you suggested others should just admit to basically being full of themselves and unwilling to reason while you sit here and do that very thing. Congrats on that hypocrisy.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

Funny, you accused me of being emotional and went on some tangent, failed to address any points raised, then again challenged me to explain it and you again will not follow the logic given.

Amazing you suggested others should just admit to basically being full of themselves and unwilling to reason while you sit here and do that very thing. Congrats on that hypocrisy.

ffs, settle down.

Go figure a Seahawks team would be this salty over this lol. And I was rooting for you guys to beat the Saints when you were 7-9 against their 11-5 on your field.

 

[WizardHawk]

I did. You refuse to read it and claimed it was some emotional conditioned response.

2019 Dallas Cowboys Schedule | FBSchedules.com
2019 San Francisco 49ers Schedule | FBSchedules.com

Since these two are possibly the two most likely to face this situation this year. You go ahead and look at both schedules and tell me what stands out here. Tell me how you want to compare their win/loss as equivalent. 16 games each and what is glaring here?

You want to talk logic and facts. Lets see if you can put YOUR preconditioned notions aside and work through this thing.

And for completion sake, I should have put the Seahawks in after tonight's game instead of SF.
2019 Seattle Seahawks Schedule | FBSchedules.com

The point is exactly the same. These two teams you want to compare head to head on win/loss have 3 common opponents all year. 3 of 16. Less than 20% of their schedule can be compared.

Seems ghost wants to set an arbitrary limit and say a 9-7 team has to go on the road against a 10+ game winner, when that 1 game difference can't be measured directly between schedules. Sure, you can go line by line and say team A is similar to team B, but there is way too much variance to take a 1 game difference and equate them. And that really is pure logic.

 

[WizardHawk]

ffs, settle down.

lol, still unwilling to follow logic, reason, discussion while chiding others on it. Amazing.

I gave you the lowdown on why your proposal doesn't equal fairness above ^^^

Not that you will read it or won't arbitrarily dismiss it.

 

[Manster7588]

Why are you making it so much more complicated than what I suggested? Hell, I'll taper it down a bit. Keep it as is, except even a division winner needs to have a winning record of at least 9-7 in order to be guaranteed the 4th seed over wildcard teams that have 10-13 wins. Explain to me, logically, how it is unfair to require bad teams from weak divisions to at least have a bottom tier winning record of 9-7 in order to get a guaranteed home game (or potentially more depending on how the playoffs go) over wildcard teams that clearly did better in the regular season.

What you said here was an irrelevant tangent. I'll say it again, the true basis of your argument is based on the tradition of "muh division winners! Nuthin' else matters, dammit!!!!" logic. And yeah, I know the hoop is full of cranky old farts who will never present a real arguement that makes any sense against this. Just admit that your beliefs on the matter are based on emotional bullchit rather than logic, and I could handle that. What annoys me is when people try to argue that their emotional based bs is a real arguement.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any dumber, you gotta come up with this?

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

And for completion sake, I should have put the Seahawks in after tonight's game instead of SF.
2019 Seattle Seahawks Schedule | FBSchedules.com

The point is exactly the same. These two teams you want to compare head to head on win/loss have 3 common opponents all year. 3 of 16. Less than 20% of their schedule can be compared.

Seems ghost wants to set an arbitrary limit and say a 9-7 team has to go on the road against a 10+ game winner, when that 1 game difference can't be measured directly between schedules. Sure, you can go line by line and say team A is similar to team B, but there is way too much variance to take a 1 game difference and equate them. And that really is pure logic.

Winning record of 9-7 guarantees home advantage to division winners over any wildcard teams regardless of the wildcard team's record. I.e., a 9-7 division winner is entitled to host a 15-1 wildcard (extreme hypothetical, but for the sake of the example) who lost their division in a tie breaker.

Meanwhile, a 7-9 team is gifted a playoff spot over multiple teams with better records, since they won their division. I just don't think they should ALSO be entitled to home field over actual winning teams.

What an outrageously unfair and bizzarre concept!!!!!!


Are you retarded?

 

[handicappers]

Winning record of 9-7 guarantees home advantage to division winners over any wildcard teams regardless of the wildcard team's record. I.e., a 9-7 division winner is entitled to host a 15-1 wildcard (extreme hypothetical, but for the sake of the example) who lost their division in a tie breaker.

Meanwhile, a 7-9 team is gifted a playoff spot over multiple teams with better records, since they won their division. I just don't think they should ALSO be entitled to home field over actual winning teams.

What an outrageously unfair and bizzarre concept!!!!!!


Are you retarded?

I'm convinced you are.

 

[WizardHawk]

Winning record of 9-7 guarantees home advantage to division winners over any wildcard teams regardless of the wildcard team's record. I.e., a 9-7 division winner is entitled to host a 15-1 wildcard (extreme hypothetical, but for the sake of the example) who lost their division in a tie breaker.

Meanwhile, a 7-9 team is gifted a playoff spot over multiple teams with better records, since they won their division. I just don't think they should ALSO be entitled to home field over actual winning teams.

What an outrageously unfair and bizzarre concept!!!!!!


Are you retarded?

No, everyone understands why it is the way it is. Most people agree it isn't perfect or ideal. We simply reject your asinine proposal for all the reasons you flat out refuse to discuss or acknowledge. You've completely lost any debate when you can't bring yourself to answer questions on it.

Clearly you lack an understanding of the schedules and their impact on the playoff formula and it at least appears you lack critical thinking skills. Other than that...

 

[We Are Decent]

You irritated that the Vikings will be an away team? It doesn't matter. Dallas and Philadelphia aren't hard places to play at.

 

[WizardHawk]

People really do seem to look at this the wrong way. Ok, well some special flowers anyway.

There are two brackets in each conference: the top 2 div winners go into the winners bracket, get a bye, and at least 1 home game with the one seed getting guaranteed home until they lose or the SB. These two get a lot of perks. They have the easiest road.

The other 4 are in the consolation bracket. They have to play an extra game and will all travel after week 1 to do a road game against the top bracket. Yes, the 3 and 4 won their div just like the 1 and 2, but they are already punished for their record by going to the lower bracket and having to face potentially better teams from the WC. Home field is the only perk they get at all.

This idea we have to treat division winners actually worse than WC teams that already didn't win their division is just not logical. That would have more bitching than what we have now.

 

[Shane_O_Mac812]

It is also the exact same schedule every year with the NBA so if was an easy change. Not possible in the NFL.