Something has to change with these divisions

[cdumler7]

That's two prizes.

1. Playoff game
2. It's home

The division structure is important. Division rivalries are great. An automatic spot in the playoffs (no matter how bad your record may be) is an incredible prize for winning your division. I just don't see the need in adding to it by saying they get to also play at home.

You could argue that from either side. I mean it is a nice prize to make the playoffs for any team. So then being rewarded a home game even though you didn't win the division can be just as easily looked at as having been gifted 2 prizes.

Throw in as others have said you would be comparing apples and oranges when it comes to schedule. A great example is the AFC North last year in they were given some of the easiest schedules I have ever seen other than divisional games. I mean even the terrible Browns finished 7-9 last year. Should an 11-5 non-division winner in the AFC North really be given a home game over a 10-6 team that maybe went against the two toughest divisions but still finished 10-6?

No matter the system there are going to be flaws but I think right now for the most part the system we have does pretty well.

 

[Broncos6482]

Ask Seattle how easy it is to win their division (or GB or Min) and you want to gift wrap a home playoff game to whatever lame ass team comes away with the NFCE title.

If Seattle is so great, they should have no problem going to whatever team wins the NFC East and winning easily.

 

[Money]

If Seattle is so great, they should have no problem going to whatever team wins the NFC East and winning easily.

They shouldn't have to though. That's my point. The whole theory behind seeding is ranking teams from best to worst. The 4 seed should not be a substantially worse team than the 5 seed.

Also...stop acting like not getting to play at home in front of your fan base is no big deal. Having to travel and not being at home.

 

[Broncos6482]

They shouldn't have to though. That's my point. The whole theory behind seeding is ranking teams from best to worst. The 4 seed should not be a substantially worse team than the 5 seed.

Also...stop acting like not getting to play at home in front of your fan base is no big deal. Having to travel and not being at home.

Why shouldn't they have to? They didn't win their division. That's my point.

The fact is, you don't know if a 4 seed division winner with a poor record is better or worse than a 5 seed wild card team with a good record. I already pointed out the discrepancy in schedule is too great.

So just man up and win your division, and if you can't do that, you deserve to start the playoffs on the road, regardless of record.

 

[molsaniceman]

Why shouldn't they have to? They didn't win their division. That's my point.

The fact is, you don't know if a 4 seed division winner with a poor record is better or worse than a 5 seed wild card team with a good record. I already pointed out the discrepancy in schedule is too great.

So just man up and win your division, and if you can't do that, you deserve to start the playoffs on the road, regardless of record.

Bingo or we can do like college ball and condoleeza rice helps figure out whose in the playoffs

 

[Money]

Why shouldn't they have to? They didn't win their division. That's my point.

The fact is, you don't know if a 4 seed division winner with a poor record is better or worse than a 5 seed wild card team with a good record. I already pointed out the discrepancy in schedule is too great.

So just man up and win your division, and if you can't do that, you deserve to start the playoffs on the road, regardless of record.

I understand. Not every team is lucky enough to be in the NFCE this year. Hell...as horrendous as the Ravens are this year, they would only be one game out of a home playoff game if they were in the NFCE. Think about that for second.

BTW...you may not know that Seattle is significantly better than any team in the NFCE, but I sure as hell do. I also happen to know that there are several teams who won't be in the playoffs this year that are better than the NFCE winner. I'm okay with that though. There should certainly be a prize for winning a division.

 

[Broncosr0k]

2010 the 7-9, inferior seahawks hosted the 11-5, superior saints and proceeded to beat them.

Why change what works?

 

[Broncos6482]

I understand. Not every team is lucky enough to be in the NFCE this year. Hell...as horrendous as the Ravens are this year, they would only be one game out of a home playoff game if they were in the NFCE. Think about that for second.

BTW...you may not know that Seattle is significantly better than any team in the NFCE, but I sure as hell do. I also happen to know that there are several teams who won't be in the playoffs this year that are better than the NFCE winner. I'm okay with that though. There should certainly be a prize for winning a division.

Sure, maybe Seattle is better than every team in the NFC East this season, but that's not the point. Is every single wild card team with a good record better than every single division winner with a poor record? Because I don't think they are, and that's why the division winner should always get a home game.

But these things go in cycles: last year, it was the NFC South that was awful. A few years ago, it was the NFC North. Before that, it was the AFC West. Before that, it was the NFC West.

 

[chf]

Ask Seattle how easy it is to win their division (or GB or Min) and you want to gift wrap a home playoff game to whatever lame ass team comes away with the NFCE title.

Again, why not? If we can't go into another mediocre team's building and win on the road, then we weren't as good as advertised anyway.

 

[Broncosr0k]

Also, the Patriots get to play the sucky NFC East, AFC South and mediocre AFC East. Do they get the 6 seed no matter their record since they played a big suckpile of a schedule.

 

[Money]

Sure, maybe Seattle is better than every team in the NFC East this season, but that's not the point. Is every single wild card team with a good record better than every single division winner with a poor record? Because I don't think they are, and that's why the division winner should always get a home game.

But these things go in cycles: last year, it was the NFC South that was awful. A few years ago, it was the NFC North. Before that, it was the AFC West. Before that, it was the NFC West.

Right...so it's just the luck of the draw. I don't think luck should factor into playoff seedings.

Look...I'm all in favor of keeping the automatic bid. It keeps winning the division important. I just wouldn't have it affect what a seeding process is supposed to be.

 

[night]

2010 the 7-9, inferior seahawks hosted the 11-5, superior saints and proceeded to beat them.

Why change what works?

Just last year Carolina had a losing record, beat the Cardinals, and gave Seattle a hell of game in the playoffs.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

You want a home playoff game? Win your division. If you can't win your division, you're lucky the NFL even lets you play in the playoffs at all. And if you're really so much superior to that division winner with a 7-9 record, it shouldn't be any problem to go to their house and beat them.

Dude, if you have the 4 best teams in the NFL in your division should rest of the conference catch a break being sub-par ?... I don't like your logic... NO way should a 3 win team be awarded home field over a team that has 13 wins but lost there division because another team had 14 wins... NFL needs to change that.. You can technically win your division with 3 wins if every other teams sucks also... GTFO

 

[Money]

For those clinging to division play being so important.

Why didn't Oakland go to the playoffs in 2010 when they swept everyone else in their division? They swept their division, but didn't win their division??? How did non division play determine the division winner?

Riddle me that

 

[tducey]

I think division winners should get rewarded for winning their division, the NFL has it right here.

 

[Money]

I think division winners should get rewarded for winning their division, the NFL has it right here.

I think everyone agrees with that. That's why they get an automatic playoff bid.

 

[Broncos6482]

Dude, if you have the 4 best teams in the NFL in your division should rest of the conference catch a break being sub-par ?... I don't like your logic... NO way should a 3 win team be awarded home field over a team that has 13 wins but lost there division because another team had 14 wins... NFL needs to change that.. You can technically win your division with 3 wins if every other teams sucks also... GTFO

That's literally never happened in the history of football, and is extremely unlikely to ever happen.

But if it did, and that 13 win team couldn't go and beat the crap out of that 3 win team even if they were on the road, then they didn't deserve to be there in the first place.

 

[Broncos6482]

For those clinging to division play being so important.

Why didn't Oakland go to the playoffs in 2010 when they swept everyone else in their division? They swept their division, but didn't win their division??? How did non division play determine the division winner?

Riddle me that

Simple, they went 2-8 outside of the division. So that's great that they swept the division, but they had 8 other games against the same teams that every other team in the division played, and they went 2-6 in those games. The Chiefs went 6-2 in those same games, and that was enough to overcome their divisional losses.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Right...and I'm saying the prize for winning the DIV should be an automatic spot in the playoffs (when any other 7-9 team doesn't sniff the playoffs). Why does a division winner need two prizes? Theoretically, why does a 14-2 team deserve to be penalized and have to play on the road because they have a 16-0 team in their division.

The league has determined that 6 gms vs well known teams, and 10 gms against other pre-selected DIVs is the best measuring stick for a 16 game season for the teams within that DIV...not all DIVs will play the same level of competition.

EX...AFCN played the NFCS/AFCS, and put 3 teams into the playoffs...the 5 & 6 seeds won 10 gm each. On the flip the AFCS played the AFCN and NFCW and took a beating...the DIV winner was 9-7. That DIV winner has faced a tougher test than either of the WCs from the AFCN...yes, they should get a home game in the playoffs ...one man's opinion.

14-2...You created a great hypothetical, but had to go to an obvious extreme to do it...I ask...are we trying to fix something that's not really broken?

 

[Money]

Simple, they went 2-8 outside of the division. So that's great that they swept the division, but they had 8 other games against the same teams that every other team in the division played, and they went 2-6 in those games. The Chiefs went 6-2 in those same games, and that was enough to overcome their divisional losses.

So winning the division is so important that it should net you a home playoff game, but non-divisional games (10) have more importance than division games (6) in determining the division winner.

Times are a changing. Teams didn't used to have more non-divisional games than divisional games. Some things need to change right along with this (the playoff seeding process included IMHO).