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

[Wolverine830872]

The way the current regular season schedules work, every team in the NFL will play one AFC and one NFC division, and your division twice. This leaves only two other games. The divisions you play will be the same as the other teams in your division. This means that you are basically on equal footing with the other teams in your division in terms of SOS. If, and when, division X plays the easiest division in the AFC and the easiest division in the NFC, they will have inflated records. Isn't it enough to let those teams into the playoffs? Should we actually give them possible home games as well over division winners that played much tougher divisions in the regular season?

I think the NFL has something good going right now with their current playoff system. A division winner managed to finish better than 3 other teams with basically the same schedule. That should be worthy of a home game.

 

[StoningtonQB]

I am of the opinion that the team with the better record should get home field. They could keep it with four division winners and two wild card teams, but personally I don't think it's fair that teams like the Eagles (or the Redskins last year, for example) get a home game just for being the best of the worst over a team that finished with a much better record, which may also include head-to-head games during the regular season.

I find that wild card teams in general are always much more deserving of a playoff spot than the lesser of the division winners. Based on this weekend's results, that stance is well justified.

 

[sfsportsfan]

I feel like you have to have a perk of winning your division. Each division winner will host at least one playoff game. It sucks as a 9er fan this year that well likely have to play all our gams on the road even though we were the third best team in the league, but that'd just how it is.

 

[boltfan72]

Teams play schedules that are completely different from other teams. Keep it as is, with the focus on your own division. If it ain't broke....

 

[StoningtonQB]

I have no doubt they will leave it the way it is. But it took Indy a miracle to come back at home, along with huge injuries to nearly the entire KC team on both sides of the ball.

There are other things the NFL needs to fix, like getting rid of Roger Goodell and bringing the NFL back to what it used to be. I don't care what team you cheer for, we can ALL agree on that.

 

[Breaker99]

there is honestly no justifiable reason the 49ers at 12-4 should have had to play on the frozen tundra against an 8-8 packers team. That was stacked against them, but clearly they earned a higher position than that. z

Same could be said about the 2010 7-9 seahawks with a home playoff game.

I disagree

 

[WizardHawk]

Aren't they talking about adding another wild card team? They keep on tinkering with it and aren't likely to stop any time soon. I have no idea what a 3 wild in each conf playoff will look like, but they should still keep the division winners as guaranteed home over any/all WC's.

 

[sfsportsfan]

Aren't they talking about adding another wild card team? They keep on tinkering with it and aren't likely to stop any time soon. I have no idea what a 3 wild in each conf playoff will look like, but they should still keep the division winners as guaranteed home over any/all WC's.

would that mean only the #1 seed gets a bye?

2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5?

 

[WizardHawk]

would that mean only the #1 seed gets a bye?

2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5?

Probably, but I haven't heard anything official, just that the league was talking about it. On the one hand it would have let Arizona in this year? But who would have got in from the AFC? There are times where a good team is left out, but we have seen some rather pathetic #6 seeds as it is as well.

 

[Podunkparte]

there is honestly no justifiable reason the 49ers at 12-4 should have had to play on the frozen tundra against an 8-8 packers team. That was stacked against them, but clearly they earned a higher position than that. z

Same could be said about the 2010 7-9 seahawks with a home playoff game.

I disagree

The Hawks and Packers won their divisions. That's a justifiable reason because those are the rules of the playoff format. Don't like it? Win your division. Shouldn't have been that hard in 2010 but your 9ers failed to beat out a 7-9 team.

 

[sfsportsfan]

Probably, but I haven't heard anything official, just that the league was talking about it. On the one hand it would have let Arizona in this year? But who would have got in from the AFC? There are times where a good team is left out, but we have seen some rather pathetic #6 seeds as it is as well.

yeah, wasnt there a chance either the Jets or Tenn would have got in last year or two years ago?

Arizona probably deserved it, but the steelers were 500. not exactly deserving of being in the playoffs, imo.

 

[Uhsplit]

there is honestly no justifiable reason the 49ers at 12-4 should have had to play on the frozen tundra against an 8-8 packers team. That was stacked against them, but clearly they earned a higher position than that. z

Same could be said about the 2010 7-9 seahawks with a home playoff game.

I disagree

The 1st team goal is to win your division. Win it and your team is rewarded. Fail and you get the hard road.
It is the best way with 32 teams unless you want to eliminate WC games. That will never happen due to $.

 

[JDM]

The 1st team goal is to win your division. Win it and your team is rewarded. Fail and you get the hard road.
It is the best way with 32 teams unless you want to eliminate WC games. That will never happen due to $.

Exactly this. Win your shit.

 

[Mondio]

if you want a home game, win your division. If you don't, you play where the seeding takes you. If you get rid of that, you're getting rid of the divisions, you get rid of the history and the divisions and the competition within the competition and final goal you take away from the game.

 

[Steelboy84]

I am of the opinion that the team with the better record should get home field. They could keep it with four division winners and two wild card teams, but personally I don't think it's fair that teams like the Eagles (or the Redskins last year, for example) get a home game just for being the best of the worst over a team that finished with a much better record, which may also include head-to-head games during the regular season.

I find that wild card teams in general are always much more deserving of a playoff spot than the lesser of the division winners. Based on this weekend's results, that stance is well justified.

If you're not good enough to win your own division, why should you get a home game over someone who did? This same argument was made in 2007-08 when Pittsburgh went 10-6 and Jax went 11-5, but Jax didnt win the south.

 

[Broncos6482]

there is honestly no justifiable reason the 49ers at 12-4 should have had to play on the frozen tundra against an 8-8 packers team. That was stacked against them, but clearly they earned a higher position than that. z

Same could be said about the 2010 7-9 seahawks with a home playoff game.

I disagree

The Packers weren't 8-8.

And there is a justifiable reason: the Packers won their division and the 49ers didn't.

I never understand all of the whining about a wild card team with a better record going on the road to a divisional winner with a worse record. I'm not feeling sorry for you. You should have won your division if you wanted a home playoff game. Beyond that, if you're truly a better team, then beat them on the road. If you can't do that then you weren't really better and had no beef to begin with.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I am of the opinion that the team with the better record should get home field. They could keep it with four division winners and two wild card teams, but personally I don't think it's fair that teams like the Eagles (or the Redskins last year, for example) get a home game just for being the best of the worst over a team that finished with a much better record, which may also include head-to-head games during the regular season.

I find that wild card teams in general are always much more deserving of a playoff spot than the lesser of the division winners. Based on this weekend's results, that stance is well justified.

The balance of power changes...right now the NFCW is one the strongest if not the strongest in the NFL...5 years ago they were among the worst.

So...lets say the NFCW played the AFCS, and NFCE two fairly weak DIVs...and SEA and SF rack up 12 or 13 wins each. One take the DIV, the other the WC.

The NFCE plays the NFCW, and AFCN and the DIV winner gets by with 9 wins...that DIV still should get a home game. If they also played the AFCS then you have a more apples to apples competition and maybe the best record should be the higher seed.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

If you're not good enough to win your own division, why should you get a home game over someone who did? This same argument was made in 2007-08 when Pittsburgh went 10-6 and Jax went 11-5, but Jax didnt win the south.

Because when you play in a bad division like the Packers / Eagles, you are being rewarded for playing a weaker schedule. If the Packers / Eagles are in the NFC West, they don't even make the playoffs. Just making the playoffs is their reward for winning the division.

Surely, the 49ers were good enough to win the Eagles or Packers division, but because they played in a tough division, they were punished.

If you win your division you are rewarded with a playoff birth. From there they should seed by record. It is the most fair way of doing it.

 

[Mondio]

oh whaaaaaaaaa. Win your division, get a home playoff game. Wasn't long ago YOUR division hosted a home game with a losing record. Remember that? and they earned it.

Reseeding according to record isn't fair either because divisions play different conference opponents too. The beginning of this year the north looked like one of the toughest divisions in the league, then injuries happened, the season played out and they didn't look like everyone thought they were. Big deal, The packers won their division and were rewarded with a home playoff game. Just like they should have been.

Start to make divisions and the competition within the competition meaningless and the game will lose it's flavor in time.

 

[LoftonPack80]

Because when you play in a bad division like the Packers / Eagles, you are being rewarded for playing a weaker schedule. If the Packers / Eagles are in the NFC West, they don't even make the playoffs. Just making the playoffs is their reward for winning the division.

Surely, the 49ers were good enough to win the Eagles or Packers division, but because they played in a tough division, they were punished.

If you win your division you are rewarded with a playoff birth. From there they should seed by record. It is the most fair way of doing it.

An last year the NFC North had two playoff teams and a 10 win team that didn't get in. 3-4 years ago the NFC West was garbage. The AFC West has been garbage the last few years until this year. My point is balance of power shifts all the time from division to division.
Every year its the fans who feel slighted. Well heres a solution, win your division, take care of your shit and then you don't have to worry about the other stuff. And as said before, if you really are a better team then win on the road and prove it like SF did yesterday.