Fix the NFL playoffs

[Myles]

Vic is an idiot. You don't change a perfectly good system because of an exception.
Leave it the way it is.

 

[Manster7588]

I have no problem with the system. We'll talk the day a 7-9 or 8-8 team makes it into the Conference Championship game. #playdontturnthisintocollegefootball.

And the ODDs are high that 8-8 Team will be on the road in that game.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Because then what's the point of divisions if there's no perk to winning them?

And you may lose that division rival because you only see them once a year but what you lose in a division rival you gain in a conference rival because you know every top tier team will face off every single year. If you knew every single year we'd see the Chiefs vs Ravens play, the Ravens vs Texans, Chiefs vs Pats, Ravens vs Pats, etc that would create a huge rivalry because those always be great games as long as those teams are still who they currently are.

Plus the "oh X team is only good because they play in a weak division" argument goes out the window because everybody plays each other, if you're good you have to prove it and you can't just skate on by by playing 6 incredibly easy games every year because your division sucks(AFC East).

The perk in this case...winning your DIV with a .500 or worse record...you're in the dance.

I'm not saying it's all bad...some parts of it I would like....my primary point was addressing the home game beef for the .500 DIV winner.

 

[WizardHawk]

Because then what's the point of divisions if there's no perk to winning them?

And you may lose that division rival because you only see them once a year but what you lose in a division rival you gain in a conference rival because you know every top tier team will face off every single year. If you knew every single year we'd see the Chiefs vs Ravens play, the Ravens vs Texans, Chiefs vs Pats, Ravens vs Pats, etc that would create a huge rivalry because those always be great games as long as those teams are still who they currently are.

Plus the "oh X team is only good because they play in a weak division" argument goes out the window because everybody plays each other, if you're good you have to prove it and you can't just skate on by by playing 6 incredibly easy games every year because your division sucks(AFC East).

And you would never see KC V GB, Pats V Saints, Seattle V Ravens, etc outside of the SB. You turn the clock back to the time before the full merger when both leagues only played in their own pool until the SB and lose out on matchups from across the entire league on a guaranteed rotation.

Their current formula not only creates rock solid division winners, but also gives fans a chance to see all of the top teams from both conferences playing no less than once every 4 years in the regular season. It's a formula the league for sure will not throw away and go backward on. It's raking in money hand over fist.

 

[Myles]

The perk in this case...winning your DIV with a .500 or worse record...you're in the dance.

I'm not saying it's all bad...some parts of it I would like....my primary point was addressing the home game beef for the .500 DIV winner.

What about cases where a division has 2 horrible teams (Jets and Dolphins), so that there are 2 teams at the top with 10 and 11 wins. The you have a tough division that all 4 teams have 7+ wins and the division winner is 8-8, but has had a much tougher strength of schedule that the 10 win 2nd place team of the other division. That could be considered not fair to the 8-8 team. They fought a tough schedule and won their division. The other team fought an easy schedule and did not win their division.

 

[shopson67]

What about cases where a division has 2 horrible teams (Jets and Dolphins), so that there are 2 teams at the top with 10 and 11 wins. The you have a tough division that all 4 teams have 7+ wins and the division winner is 8-8, but has had a much tougher strength of schedule that the 10 win 2nd place team of the other division. That could be considered not fair to the 8-8 team. They fought a tough schedule and won their division. The other team fought an easy schedule and did not win their division.

Those 2 teams at the top (or at least the Patriots) would be there with or without the Jets and Dolphins. I would argue that a division schedule full of 7 win teams is more mediocre than tough.

 

[Myles]

Those 2 teams at the top (or at least the Patriots) would be there with or without the Jets and Dolphins. I would argue that a division schedule full of 7 win teams is more mediocre than tough.

It could be, but maybe not.
If Miami and the Jets are 3-13 and the AFC East plays a poor AFC South and a poor NFC West, it could mean a drastically easier schedule for the Pats and Bills (in this case). I just think there can be exceptions either way, no need to blow up what most consider a good system for exceptions.

 

[Duffman]

And you would never see KC V GB, Pats V Saints, Seattle V Ravens, etc outside of the SB. You turn the clock back to the time before the full merger when both leagues only played in their own pool until the SB and lose out on matchups from across the entire league on a guaranteed rotation.

The way to counter that is every year have wherever you finished 1-16 in your conference you play your equivalent in the other conference. So if the Ravens finish #1 this year, then next year they play whoever finished #1 in the NFC.

That way you’re still having a great team play a great team since most teams don’t completely fall off in one year and you’re pretty much guaranteed a different matchup every year because it’s very rare that someone finishes in the exact same spot they did the year before on both sides.

 

[WizardHawk]

The way to counter that is every year have wherever you finished 1-16 in your conference you play your equivalent in the other conference. So if the Ravens finish #1 this year, then next year they play whoever finished #1 in the NFC.

That way you’re still having a great team play a great team since most teams don’t completely fall off in one year and you’re pretty much guaranteed a different matchup every year because it’s very rare that someone finishes in the exact same spot they did the year before on both sides.

1 random game a year across the other conference is not the same as every team at least once every 4 years. It's good for fans that live in cities other than where their team plays. It's good for fan travel to different cities to follow their team. It creates interesting matchups that no one can predict before the game happens. Pretty solid chance for your fans to see every star of the game matchup against your team while they are still a star.

It's a tight formula that is literally a cash machine for the league.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

What about cases where a division has 2 horrible teams (Jets and Dolphins), so that there are 2 teams at the top with 10 and 11 wins. The you have a tough division that all 4 teams have 7+ wins and the division winner is 8-8, but has had a much tougher strength of schedule that the 10 win 2nd place team of the other division. That could be considered not fair to the 8-8 team. They fought a tough schedule and won their division. The other team fought an easy schedule and did not win their division.

You paint a nice picture there. Actually the AFCE and NFCE almost fit if they were in the same conf.

Just going with the example anyway for purpose assuming there were in the same conference....everyone plays the same teams pretty much in DIV...6 DIV games and 10 other. Sure the NFCE winner faces more competition in their own DIV because they're not that good either....you can't be if you're only winning 8 games.

AFCE second place team (BUF) while their 4 of their DIV games might be easier than the NFCE team, 2 are clearly more difficult than any DIV game for an NFCE team...plus they have 10 more games. IMO BUF would be worthy of the home game moreso than the 8 win DIV winner from the NFCE.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

And the ODDs are high that 8-8 Team will be on the road in that game.

That's right. We have never seen a single example of a 7-9 or an 8-8 team making it into the Conference Championship game. If it did happen, they would be playing on the road.

The seeding system works for me: Division titles trumps everything else, and then you give 2 lucky non-division champions the opportunity for putting up a great season. The true reward in the playoff system is getting the top 2 seeds. You not only get a home playoff game, but you get a week's rest and automatically advance to the quarterfinals.

 

[shopson67]

It could be, but maybe not.
If Miami and the Jets are 3-13 and the AFC East plays a poor AFC South and a poor NFC West, it could mean a drastically easier schedule for the Pats and Bills (in this case). I just think there can be exceptions either way, no need to blow up what most consider a good system for exceptions.

Poor NFC West? Seriously?

I agree that the current system is fine though.

 

[Myles]

Poor NFC West? Seriously?

I agree that the current system is fine though.

I was really just picking divisions out of thin air, except for maybe the AFC East since it has been poor (outside of New England) for decades. My favorite team, the Colts, had an advantage for many years by being able to play 6 games against the Jag, Texans and Titans. I cannot deny that. Each season would have been 1-2 less wins if they were in a better division.

 

[PhilSimms11]

(1)BAL (12-2)*
(2)NE (11-3)*
(3)KC (10-4)*
(4)BUF (10-4)
(5)HOU (9-5)*
(6)PIT (8-6)

(1)SEA (11-3)*
(2)SF (11-3)
(3)GB (11-3)*
(4)NO (11-3)*
(5)MIN (10-4)
(6)DAL (7-7)*
*division leader

Me likey.

 

[PhilSimms11]

Broncos coach Vic Fangio believes NFL should get rid of divisions altogether, suggests new playoff format.

Instead of getting rid of divisions I wonder if the NFL ever considered a different divisional format.

North (8)--BAL, CHI, CIN, CLE, DET, GB, MIN, PIT
South (8)--ATL, DAL, HOU, JAX, MIA, NO, TB, TEN
East (8)--BUF, CAR, IND, NE, NYG, NYJ, PHI, WAS
West (8)--ARZ, DEN, KC, LAC, LAR, OAK, SEA, SF

Especially if they were to expand to an 18-game season. Keep in mind, I'm not a proponent of that, but if that did get passed it would be interesting. You would play your division opponents twice (14 games) and could play half the teams in the other division once (4 games). Not sure how the conferences would be determined. It'd make sense to do East and North in one conference and South and West in the other I suppose. Personally, I'm for going back to 6 divisions (6-5-5 in each conference). Then, you'd have the two division winners and four best records (or 5 eventually) and seed them 1-6 by W-L record.

 

[Shane_O_Mac812]

Broncos coach Vic Fangio believes NFL should get rid of divisions altogether, suggests new playoff format.

Instead of getting rid of divisions I wonder if the NFL ever considered a different divisional format.

North (8)--BAL, CHI, CIN, CLE, DET, GB, MIN, PIT
South (8)--ATL, DAL, HOU, JAX, MIA, NO, TB, TEN
East (8)--BUF, CAR, IND, NE, NYG, NYJ, PHI, WAS
West (8)--ARZ, DEN, KC, LAC, LAR, OAK, SEA, SF

Especially if they were to expand to an 18-game season. Keep in mind, I'm not a proponent of that, but if that did get passed it would be interesting. You would play your division opponents twice (14 games) and could play half the teams in the other division once (4 games). Not sure how the conferences would be determined. It'd make sense to do East and North in one conference and South and West in the other I suppose. Personally, I'm for going back to 6 divisions (6-5-5 in each conference). Then, you'd have the two division winners and four best records (or 5 eventually) and seed them 1-6 by W-L record.

I like it only I would swap Baltimore and Indianapolis. Baltimore is a East Coast team so the east makes more sense.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

(1)BAL (12-2)*
(2)NE (11-3)*
(3)KC (10-4)*
(4)BUF (10-4)
(5)HOU (9-5)*
(6)PIT (8-6)

(1)SEA (11-3)*
(2)SF (11-3)
(3)GB (11-3)*
(4)NO (11-3)*
(5)MIN (10-4)
(6)DAL (7-7)*
*division leader

Me likey.

This would be the simple fix.

 

[Ricky Roma]

This would be the simple fix.

Simple and logical.

 

[SeattleCoug]

I like it only I would swap Baltimore and Indianapolis. Baltimore is a East Coast team so the east makes more sense.

Only issue with that is you will potentially lose some steam in the rivalries between Baltimore and Pittsburgh or Cleveland if that matters. Not sure it does to most but some

 

[PhilSimms11]

I like it only I would swap Baltimore and Indianapolis. Baltimore is a East Coast team so the east makes more sense.

That makes a lot of sense. I totally agree. I left BAL in the North so they wouldn't lose PIT. It would be kick ass to see BAL and WAS square off twice a year, however. I know the Redskins suck right now, but it'd make for a nice, natural geographic rivalry.