NFL Playoff Seeding.

[PhilSimms11]

I hate the way they seed the playoff teams. I'm all for division winners getting a playoff spot, but I don't agree with giving them a home game. It makes no sense to me. I know this is not a new subject, but it's just asinine asi-10, asi-11, and asi-12 that they do it this way. People say, "Well, if you want to do it that way get rid of the divisions." You can keep the divisions. There's no way I want to get rid of divisions. I believe in rewarding the teams with the better W-L record that's all. This is how I'd seed the teams. The AFC happened to fall the way I'd actually do it. The problem is when a non-division winner has a better record than a division winner. Had KC beaten SD yesterday they'd have been bumped up to the #3.

AFC
1)DEN (13-3)
2)NE (12-4)

6)SD (9-7) @ 3)CIN (11-5) (HTH over IND)
5)KC (11-5) @ 4)IND (11-5) (HTH over KC)

NFC
1)SEA (13-3)
2)CAR (12-4) (HTH over SF)

6)GB (8-7-1) @ 3)SF (12-4)
5)PHI (10-6) @ 4)NO (11-5)

 

[tshirt]

it is weird that the NFC lEast and North actually got rewarded for being crappy this year. Lot of warm weather teams going to play in the cold this weekend

11-5 Chiefs at 11-5 Colts - Lucas Oil Stadium

9-7 Chargers at 11-5 Bengals - Paul Brown Stadium (outdoor)

11-5 Saints at 10-6 Eagles - Lincoln Financial Field (outdoor)

12-4 49ers at 8-7-1 Green Bay - Lambeau Field (outdoor)

 

[Broncos6482]

No. Leave it alone. You want a home playoff game, win your division. If you're a wild card team and you're truly better than a bad division winner, then beat them in the playoffs. It shouldn't matter if you're on the road if you're the better team.

 

[geezer]

So what is the reward for winning your division if you can lose home field to a team that didn't win their division.

It sucks to be a wild card with a better record than some division winners but that is the rules and everybody plays by the same rules. I have yet to hear a better system of playoff seeding.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

i am all for it with these 2 rules...
1. non division winner can not get a bye
2. all ties go to the division winners...

 

[RoboticDreams]

 

[Wolverine830872]

If you take away the automatic home game for divisional winners then you should also change the scheduling. You should no longer play six of your 16 games in your division

 

[_phiLLies_]

it's really irritating to hear how bad a division is, how the winner doesn't deserve this or that. what makes the 11-6 bengals or colts so special? the packers were 5-2 before rodgers was hurt, then 6-2 given their win against the bears yesterday. the eagles have won 7 of their last 8.

it happens. not every division winner can have 13+ wins. not all of them can stay healthy or have teams breathing down their necks. there always has to be weaker divisions to go along with the strong ones.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

It's fine...DIV games are the hardest to win because of familiarity most of the time...a home game is a worthwhile reward for wining your DIV. Otherwise you could see a lot more meaningless games on the final week.

 

[The Derski]

People can call the NFC North weak if they want but if Rodgers was healthy all season the Packers probably finish with 11-12 wins and no one would be saying squat about the North. Fact is the Packers carry the North year after year.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

I don't think anyone really wants to play a hot Eagles or Rodgers-Packers right now.


I don't think either one of those teams should be dismissed for the work other QBs did.


I have no doubts both would have around 11-13 wins if Foles/Rodgers had gotten the starts.


Aaron Rodgers and Nick Foles are a combined 13-3 in games they started and finished.

 

[CaptainStubing]

I hate the way they seed the playoff teams. I'm all for division winners getting a playoff spot, but I don't agree with giving them a home game. It makes no sense to me. I know this is not a new subject, but it's just asinine asi-10, asi-11, and asi-12 that they do it this way. People say, "Well, if you want to do it that way get rid of the divisions." You can keep the divisions. There's no way I want to get rid of divisions. I believe in rewarding the teams with the better W-L record that's all. This is how I'd seed the teams. The AFC happened to fall the way I'd actually do it. The problem is when a non-division winner has a better record than a division winner. Had KC beaten SD yesterday they'd have been bumped up to the #3.

AFC
1)DEN (13-3)
2)NE (12-4)

6)SD (9-7) @ 3)CIN (11-5) (HTH over IND)
5)KC (11-5) @ 4)IND (11-5) (HTH over KC)

NFC
1)SEA (13-3)
2)CAR (12-4) (HTH over SF)

6)GB (8-7-1) @ 3)SF (12-4)
5)PHI (10-6) @ 4)NO (11-5)

you know, this isn't a bad idea for 2 reasons:

1) You still keep the importance of division championships/rivalries
2) It gives more teams incentive to keep playing in week 17 (maybe trying to get a home game with a better record).

I like it.

 

[JDM]

The system is perfection. Win your division or win on the road.

 

[CaptainStubing]

The system is perfection. Win your division or win on the road.

spoken from a fan of a team in a consistently weak division ............

 

[Mondio]

There is not better way to do it. If you want a home game, win your division. It's that simple

 

[JDM]

spoken from a fan of a team in a consistently weak division ............

The numbers don't bear out the particular belief, at least in terms of wins and losses.

Also we don't benefit from it. We get our seeding regardless of how you do it.

 

[LoftonPack80]

As said above. Want a home game, then win your division. Take care of your own business and don't count on help from other teams to achieve your goals.
This goes with the argument of taking the 6 best teams and getting away from divisions. Some years there are teams with 9-7 records getting in over a 11-5 team because they won their division. And sometimes there are years when all division winners have 10,11,12 wins. Nobody bitches then. It happens. So take care of your own shit and not put yourself in a position where you get "screwed" out of a playoff spot.

 

[CaptainStubing]

The numbers don't bear out the particular belief, at least in terms of wins and losses.

Also we don't benefit from it. We get our seeding regardless of how you do it.

um, the patriots have the bills, jets, and dolphins, who have all been mediocre, at best, over the past 10 years. the pats have a very favorable lot in life. end of discussion.

 

[JDM]

I'll post the records for you when I get around to it. The AFC east has actually been better than many based on record the last ten years. The biggest reason they have that reputation is because the patriots have dominated the division.

 

[CaptainStubing]

I'll post the records for you when I get around to it. The AFC east has actually been better than many based on record the last ten years. The biggest reason they have that reputation is because the patriots have dominated the division.

don't worry about it. i have some time to post it. Since 2000 (14 seasons), when Bill Belichick was hired as head coach:

The Bills have had ONE winning season

The Jets have had 8 winning seasons (a little over half the time)

The Dolphins have had 6 winning seasons (a little less than half the time)

So, over the long run, you basically face 2 'average' organizations in the Jets and Dolphins and 1 horrid organization in the Bills. That's not exactly a murderer's row.