Something has to change with these divisions

[Broncos6482]

I just don't even understand your point. You are arguing that an automatic playoff bid is not a reward when everyone on here understands that no team in the NFCE would sniff the playoffs this year without it. You tell me another way that the Giants, Cowboys, Eagles or Redskins get into the playoffs without winning the division.

Why does this mean they have to have a home game as well?

How is it a reward when non division winners get it as well? That's my point.

Why should a team that can't even win it's own division be rewarded with a home game? Congratulations on not winning your division, here's a home playoff game! That's crap.

 

[Broncos6482]

It's really quite simple: the reward for winning your division is a home playoff game.

The reward for being a good team but not quite good enough to win your division is a playoff game.

Putting a non-division winning team above a division winning team makes no sense.

 

[Money]

How is it a reward when non division winners get it as well? That's my point.

Why should a team that can't even win it's own division be rewarded with a home game? Congratulations on not winning your division, here's a home playoff game! That's crap.

I understand how you look at it. I look at it as...congratulations for being the least shitty of 4 really shitty teams, here's a home playoff game!

 

[Money]

Putting a non-division winning team above a division winning team makes no sense.

I agree...if they are in the same division. Otherwise, it's just luck.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

You compared a 13-3 wild card team with a 3-13 division winner. That's not the same as an 11-5 wild card team and a 7-9 division winner.

Your taking that literally ... I just told you I exaggerated that but yet you bring it up again... lol ... Bottom line, we could see a 5 or 6 win team with the NFC East and host a wildcard game... That's BS ... NFL needs to fix that...

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Only way to change it is do away with divisions and go by w/l records

You could keep the divisions though, and award the division winner with a playoff spot regardless of record.. But just don't award home field if there record sucks... I would be down for that...

 

[chf]

That's BS ... NFL needs to fix that...

And yet without that BS, we wouldn't have one of the top few moments in Seahawks history.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

And yet without that BS, we wouldn't have one of the top few moments in Seahawks history.

Yeah but we can't be selfish... ;] We could a got it done in there house... !!

 

[JMR]

This comes up every year when we are on the verge of seeing a double digit win team have to go on the road to play a potentially losing team just because that losing record team was better than the other garbage in a 4 team division. It was dumb when the Saints had to travel to 7-9 Seattle, and it will be dumb when Seattle has to go play the Least champ.

If the NFL changed the rules next year to seed based on record, is anyone going to be up in arms that a 7 win division champ is screwed by having to travel to an 11 win wild card team? No, this thread wouldn't exist. There would be no one talking about how the NFL has it all wrong that a 7 win team isn't getting to stay home against an 11 game winner. "Oh man, it was so much better when 7-8-1 got you a home game against 11-5". No, wouldn't happen.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

to me, my goal would be to try & eliminate sub .500 teams from making the playoffs. For that to happen I would say eliminate a division. Go back to three divisions, or even go to two divisions.
Call them North & south or East & west, left/right, animal/mineral, hell I don't care what you call the divisions. But whether we like it or not they will soon extend the games from 16 to 18.
2 divisions of 8 in a conference makes 14 games in the division (if we stayed with the 2 games a piece) then 2 against the other division & 2 against the other conference.
Division champs gets byes in 1st week of playoffs while the 4 wild cards play each other.


but even if we went back to just 3 divisions in a conference, it would make it very hard for a 7-9 team to make the playoffs. but merging 2 of the 4 divisions together to make just 2 divisions would make it simpler to keep all the rivalries in tact.

 

[jarntt]

It's not fair at all how the NFC East and AFC South get rewarded with home playoff games for playing like shit all year long.

Yes, because the NFC East has been so horrible for so long, right???
It's cyclical and winning your division is usually goal #1 in many sports....

 

[MHSL82]

It's probably been said many times, many ways... but I'm not reading 7 pages to see it.

Just guarantee playoffs for division winners, figure out seeding and home/away based upon records (or if anyone has a better determinant).

 

[MHSL82]

to me, my goal would be to try & eliminate sub .500 teams from making the playoffs. For that to happen I would say eliminate a division. Go back to three divisions, or even go to two divisions.
Call them North & south or East & west, left/right, animal/mineral, hell I don't care what you call the divisions. But whether we like it or not they will soon extend the games from 16 to 18.
2 divisions of 8 in a conference makes 14 games in the division (if we stayed with the 2 games a piece) then 2 against the other division & 2 against the other conference.
Division champs gets byes in 1st week of playoffs while the 4 wild cards play each other.


but even if we went back to just 3 divisions in a conference, it would make it very hard for a 7-9 team to make the playoffs. but merging 2 of the 4 divisions together to make just 2 divisions would make it simpler to keep all the rivalries in tact.

My friend who is big into basketball, but not very into football, suggested two against your division and once against everyone else in your conference. That would make 18 games. I said, but then you don't play the other conference. He said, you would in the Super Bowl.

If it weren't for injuries and watering down the importance of each game, I love football so much that I wouldn't mind a 34 game schedule (the above scenario plus every the other conference). Then, the top 16 teams go to the playoffs. No playoff bye weeks (16 would be hard to schedule with them). Again, if there were no injuries. (Impossible but hypothetical situation.)

 

[Money]

It's probably been said many times, many ways... but I'm not reading 7 pages to see it.

Just guarantee playoffs for division winners, figure out seeding and home/away based upon records (or if anyone has a better determinant).

It's been said by a couple of us and opposed by some seriously stubborn ass posters.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

It's really quite simple: the reward for winning your division is a home playoff game.

The reward for being a good team but not quite good enough to win your division is a playoff game.

Putting a non-division winning team above a division winning team makes no sense.

It does if one team is 7-9 and the other is 11-5.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

It does if one team is 7-9 and the other is 11-5.

IDK, if the Seahawks have to go on the road and play a NFCE team with a worse record, I don't see the problem. If your as good as your record you'll whip them anyway...right? If not, most likely not going far into the playoffs regardless if you got a home game.

 

[Wazmankg]

The problem with this theory is nobody said this about the NFC East when things were reversed. Back in the early 90s the Skins, Dallas, Philly and the Giants were all kick ass team. 11-5 wouldnt even get you a wild card spot back then.

Actually this argument comes up every time it happens. Nobody is picking on the NFC East. Including this year if the NFC East's form holds, every division in the NFC, and 1 or 2 in the AFC, will have had a division winner with 8 or fewer wins and that's just the past 5 seasons. Winning your division should get you in the playoffs but there's no reason for it to guarantee a home game against a team with a much better record.

 

[MHSL82]

IDK, if the Seahawks have to go on the road and play a NFCE team with a worse record, I don't see the problem. If your as good as your record you'll whip them anyway...right? If not, most likely not going far into the playoffs regardless if you got a home game.

I don't understand the motivation of people who want the team with the better record to go on. You should just want for whoever wins the game to advance or your team to advance. So I would be upset if my team with a better record had to go on the road, but I'd be happy to host someone else if that meant we had a better chance to win. There's no loyalty to justice or altruistic reason to want one way or another. I just want my team to have the best chance to advance.

 

[Cyder]

It's really quite simple: the reward for winning your division is a home playoff game.

The reward for being a good team but not quite good enough to win your division is a playoff game.

Putting a non-division winning team above a division winning team makes no sense.

I used to agree with that when there were 6 divisions and 6 wild cards. Sure you got a clunker division winner now and again but it has become more prevalent with 8 and 4. Not sure I approve of any reseeding but going back to 6 and 6 would be my choice. Not that it'll ever happen, the NFL loves this. The NFC East completely sucks but all the teams are still in it which is exactly what the NFL wants.

 

[antone112]

A few years ago the owners unanimously voted down a proposal to make sub .500 division winners play on the road. I can't imagine anything happening soon, if ever.