Would you be in favor of this NFL playoff stipulation...

[RobToxin]

the division Champs need to be in the playoffs, but I would be cool if they did the seeding by record only. 1st tie breaker being division champs.
So if a division champ & a wild card team both had a 11-5 record then it goes to the division champ. if a Wild card team was 11-5 & division Champ was 10-6. Then the wild card is seeded higher. To be honest never should have gone to 4 divisions. Then a sub 500 team making the playoffs would be even harder.

The only time I can remember sub-.500 teams making the playoffs before the realignment was 1982 when the strike made it a nine-game season and they just took the top-eight teams from each conference and a couple 4-5 teams made it.

 

[psaboy]

I like the 6 division idea, but

NFC East:
Giants, Eagles, Cowboys, Football team, Bucs

NFC Central:
Lions, Vikings, Packers, Bears, Falcons, Panthers

NFC West:
Rams, 49ers, Seahawks, Cards, and Saints

AFC East:
Jets, Patriots, Dolphins, Bills, Titans, and Jags

AFC Central:
Browns, Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Colts

AFC West:
Raiders, Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Texans

Bad idea to have one division in each conference having 6 teams while the other two only have 5

 

[PhilSimms11]

The only time I can remember sub-.500 teams making the playoffs before the realignment was 1982 when the strike made it a nine-game season and they just took the top-eight teams from each conference and a couple 4-5 teams made it.

The Browns and Lions.

 

[PhilSimms11]

It's now happened 3 times in the last 11 years and twice in the last 7 in which a losing team makes the playoffs. To me, that's enough of a trend to discuss making some changes.

 

[Moab]

It's now happened 3 times in the last 11 years and twice in the last 7 in which a losing team makes the playoffs. To me, that's enough of a trend to discuss making some changes.

Not to me, take a look at the teams that made it under .500...2 for sure made the superbowl within a couple years...so it gives them a reason to improve...and they do

 

[PhilSimms11]

Not to me, take a look at the teams that made it under .500...2 for sure made the superbowl within a couple years...so it gives them a reason to improve...and they do

Umm....uh....umm?

 

[RobToxin]

Not to me, take a look at the teams that made it under .500...2 for sure made the superbowl within a couple years...so it gives them a reason to improve...and they do

I was thinking about the 1985 Browns who won their division at 8-8.

And went to the AFCCG three of the next four years.

There is a bit of truth in what you say.

 

[PhilSimms11]

Bad idea to have one division in each conference having 6 teams while the other two only have 5

They've had staggered divisions before. It can be done. It's the only way to reduce the divisions from 8 to 6. Ideally, if we had 30 teams we wouldn't be in this predicament. Had the Oilers and Browns stayed put would we still have only 30 teams? Let's say they called me back then and asked me to do the realignment...

West (5)--LAC, LAR, LV, SEA, SF
Midwest (5)--ARZ, DAL, DEN, HOU, KC
North (5)--CHI, DET, GB, IND, MIN
East (5)--NE, NYG, NYJ, PHI, WAS
Central (5)--BUF, CAR, CIN, CLE, PIT
South (5)--ATL, JAX, MIA, NO, TB

Remember: the Ravens and Texans don't exist since neither the Browns nor the Oilers relocated. They did, however, expand with the Jaguars and Panthers (1995).

 

[broncosmitty]

I’m fine división winners getting a home game.

 

[psaboy]

They've had staggered divisions before. It can be done. It's the only way to reduce the divisions from 8 to 6. Ideally, if we had 30 teams we wouldn't be in this predicament. Had the Oilers and Browns stayed put would we still have only 30 teams? Let's say they called me back then and asked me to do the realignment...

West (5)--LAC, LAR, LV, SEA, SF
Midwest (5)--ARZ, DAL, DEN, HOU, KC
North (5)--CHI, DET, GB, IND, MIN
East (5)--NE, NYG, NYJ, PHI, WAS
Central (5)--BUF, CAR, CIN, CLE, PIT
South (5)--ATL, JAX, MIA, NO, TB

Remember: the Ravens and Texans don't exist since neither the Browns nor the Oilers relocated. They did, however, expand with the Jaguars and Panthers (1995).

Nah, add four teams and have 6 divisions with 6 teams. Or keep it as is, no probably here with 8, 4 team divisions.

 

[jarntt]

No, I think it would be dumb. They already added a 3rd Wild Card. Why 8-8? Why not 9-7 or 7-9? The rules are the rules and there will always be outliers and people who whine about them regardless of what they do.

But, I do think it is reasonable and probably a good change to rank the teams on record and not allow Wash/Dallas/NYG a home game. The only issue there is you could have a WC team in a crap division and an easy schedule that gets a bunch of cupcake wins vs a team that wins a solid but not great division and also plays a much tougher schedule so I'm fine either way.

 

[molsaniceman]

still no

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Nope.

 

[Balljim55]

What would be the point of having divisions if there is no reward for winning it? If you insist on making a winning record be a qualifier then just go with 2 conferences with no divisions. The teams with the best records are in the play offs. I would not be in favor of this btw. Shit works pretty good like it is. Every now and then you have an anomaly like this year. So What? The Panthers got in a few years ago at 7-8-1 and they won their first playoff game.

 

[Anointed One]

Bad idea to have one division in each conference having 6 teams while the other two only have 5

Yeah, that used to suck... Hawks were in the AFC West with the Chiefs, Chargers, Broncos and Raiders, while the AFC Central had the Steelers, Bengals, Browns and Oilers at that point... AFC Central teams would go to the playoffs at 9-6-1 or 9-7 during the late 80's/early 90's... Definitely benefited the divisions with 4 teams... 25% chance of winning the division vs 20%... Made it much easier for the 49er's to make the postseason during that time as well because they had the Falcons/Rams in their division who weren't that good during that time... Now granted, 49er's were very good and would've still dominated but 4 teams vs 5 teams gives a competitive advantage...

 

[Robotech]

I'm in favor of this. Any kind of playoff system discounts the regular season at least a little bit, but you absolutely do need a playoff in a sport where a round robin is impossible. However, it is a joke to give a 7-9 team or worse a chance to win the Super Bowl.

 

[rmilia1]

I dont think winning your division should get you a home game regardless of your record. If you win your division at 11-5 but 4 teams are 12-4 then you should be on the road

 

[BigKen]

How about FOUR Divisions? Division winners and the four best records regardless of division for the playoffs?

East:
Giants, Eagles, Steelers, Patriots, Bills, Ravens, Washington, Jets

South
Falcons, Dolphins, Titans, Jaguars, Saints, Buccaneers, Panthers, Texans,

North
Packers, Bears, Lions, Vikings, Browns, Bengals, Chiefs, Colts

West
Raiders, Chargers, Rams, Cardinals, Seahawks, 49ers, Broncos, Cowboys

Each team would play their 7 division rivals and three teams from the three remaining divisions. Scheduling would be a piece of cake.

 

[Tapey]

I think if you do that then you might as well do away with divisions and just have 2 conferences.

 

[Niner Outlaw]

I hate the idea that a team with a losing record could make the playoffs, but this is why we have divisions. It's entirely possible that a playoff-worthy team in the toughest division in the conference gets swept by one division rival and splits with the others when in the same season having to play the toughest division in the other conference. Every team has a surprise loss or 2 and there is always a "weak" team that makes a big jump and surprises people.

Division winners should be rewarded with a playoff spot. However, I would be in favor of a division winner with a losing record not getting a home playoff game.