NFL Lions propose change in the way the playoffs are seeded (41 Viewers)

[Icon]

Yawn.

0% of these "BECAUSE 2010 SEAHAWKS!!!!!" posters would have made any posts about the Saints not deserving to host a home playoff game if they had actually been efficient enough to take advantage of some of those seasons in which a single-digit win total was enough to win the NFC South (2007, 2014, 2023).

 

[St.Dan]

Yawn.

0% of these "BECAUSE 2010 SEAHAWKS!!!!!" posters would have made any posts about the Saints not deserving to host a home playoff game if they had actually been efficient enough to take advantage of some of those seasons in which a single-digit win total was enough to win the NFC South (2007, 2014, 2023).

Two of those three seasons were ones in which the defense had regressed compared to the previous season. Ended up 7-9 solely on the strength of a future Hall of Famer under center.

That last one was one where both sides of the ball were inconsistent, yet the team finished 9-8. Life is strange, indeed!

 

[IceHot]

The first season I remember in full as a kid happens to have been the strike-shortened 1982 season, when only nine regular season games were played. The playoffs that year were seeded by straight-up record and not by whoever won whichever division.

I dare say it might be a better system -- one that might eliminate weak division winners from getting home playoff games. The 2010 Seahawks and recent Buccaneer teams come to mind.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...e-playoff-seeding-record-not-division-winners

Unless they are going to take Lombardis name of the trophy and put Shulas on instead I am against this change.

Ive mentioned before Shula coached a team that had the best record in the NFL and was left out of the playoffs because they didnt win their division. Lombardi won the Superbowl that year giving him 2 Superbowls. Had Shula been given a chance he might easily have 3 or more.

How is that possible you might ask? In 1967 two teams in the Coastal Divisiion finished 11-1-2 while the Packers finished 9-4-1. The Rams won the tie breaker because they beat Shula's Colts in the final season of the game (having tied the other head-to-head matchup).

So if you cant win your own division dont cry!

 

[St.Dan]

Unless they are going to take Lombardis name of the trophy and put Shulas on instead I am against this change.

Ive mentioned before Shula coached a team that had the best record in the NFL and was left out of the playoffs because they didnt win their division. Lombardi won the Superbowl that year giving him 2 Superbowls. Had Shula been given a chance he might easily have 3 or more.

How is that possible you might ask? In 1967 two teams in the Coastal Divisiion finished 11-1-2 while the Packers finished 9-4-1. The Rams won the tie breaker because they beat Shula's Colts in the final season of the game (having tied the other head-to-head matchup).

So if you cant win your own division dont cry!

Ah, yes. The pre-merger NFL. That loss, coupled with the Colts losing Super Bowl III, likely greased the skids out of town in Baltimore for Shula. Only division winners made the playoffs back then, as there were no wild card teams at all. That changed with richer TV contracts through the years, of course.

Any seeding system in 1967 would've worked out well for the Colts, as long as wild cards could've been part of it.

 

[IceHot]

It's not watering it down. You still get in. No 7-9 team should be hosting an 11-5 team.

It is watering it down. Why should you get in if you cant win your division?...isnt getting in for a wild card spot enough of a reward...why do you deserve a home game if you cant win your division?

 

[St. Geezy]

Unless they are going to take Lombardis name of the trophy and put Shulas on instead I am against this change.

Ive mentioned before Shula coached a team that had the best record in the NFL and was left out of the playoffs because they didnt win their division. Lombardi won the Superbowl that year giving him 2 Superbowls. Had Shula been given a chance he might easily have 3 or more.

How is that possible you might ask? In 1967 two teams in the Coastal Divisiion finished 11-1-2 while the Packers finished 9-4-1. The Rams won the tie breaker because they beat Shula's Colts in the final season of the game (having tied the other head-to-head matchup).

So if you cant win your own division dont cry!

Two questions -

1. In a single elimination sudden death playoff, do you want to see the best teams identified and given the easiest path to where you can see the best two teams in the end rounds?

2. Does winning your division at 9-8 make you a better team than a 14-3 non-division winner?

 

[IceHot]

Two questions -

1. In a single elimination sudden death playoff, do you want to see the best teams identified and given the easiest path to where you can see the best two teams in the end rounds?

2. Does winning your division at 9-8 make you a better team than a 14-3 non-division winner?

The premise is that it could ...you just might have a better record because your division was easier or your schedule was lighter.

I want to see the division winners in the playoffs... Wild Card spots are nothing more than a money grab.

 

[St.Dan]

The premise is that it could ...you just might have a better record because your division was easier or your schedule was lighter.

I want to see the division winners in the playoffs... Wild Card spots are nothing more than a money grab.

I've gone ahead and bolded your last sentence as well, cuz you're not wrong on that point, for sure!

.....but I just think any mathematical chance of a weak division winner having a home playoff game is just wrong. Perhaps a "smart" system is best, one that provides for the current system to stay in place as long as the worst division winner is at the very least 9-8. If not, then it automatically becomes based on straight-up record.

 

[IceHot]

Two questions -

1. In a single elimination sudden death playoff, do you want to see the best teams identified and given the easiest path to where you can see the best two teams in the end rounds?

2. Does winning your division at 9-8 make you a better team than a 14-3 non-division winner?

Two questions for you...

1. If Divisions dont matter why should Conferences matter?

2. If there are 12 NFC teams with better records why should the AFC still get 8 teams instead of just 4 in the playoffs?

 

[St. Geezy]

The premise is that it could ...you just might have a better record because your division was easier or your schedule was lighter.

I want to see the division winners in the playoffs... Wild Card spots are nothing more than a money grab.

But in this proposal, division winners WOULD be in the playoffs.

The NFL is all about wins and losses though, and the standings is what is used to determine who the best teams are. If you have a better record than a division winner, for all intents and purposes, you are considered the superior team.

Just because you happen to be in the wrong grouping of four teams doesn’t make you a lesser team.

 

[IceHot]

But in this proposal, division winners WOULD be in the playoffs.

What is the arbitrary reason for that?

 

[St. Geezy]

Two questions for you...

1. If Divisions dont matter why should Conferences matter?

2. If there are 12 NFC teams with better records why should the AFC still get 8 teams instead of just 4 in the playoffs?

There’s a lot of vestiges from old, antiquated traditions, one of them is indeed Conferences, initially representing an acknowledgement that we were seeing two leagues merge together. The Super Bowl itself is basically an old acknowledgement of a two league system rivalry culminating with a clash for all the marbles at the end. That’s something I can live with; it's tradition.

But so much has changed over time with the dynamics of the league, parity, the number of divisions, number of playoff participants, etc.

There was a time where we only had three divisions, and it was virtually guaranteed and I believe all but one year that every single division winner in the league had at least 10 wins (I believe one of the mid to late 90s AFC Central winners won it at 9-7 IIRC; it sticks out in my memory because of how odd it was).

When we used to have a 5 team playoff, "Wild card weekend" actually meant WILDCARD Weekend. Those 4 teams (two in each conference) teams faced off with one another for the right to advance to the next round to join the 3 division winners in each conference, who all had great records and a bye.

Then when we introduced a 6 team playoff, the worst division winner got relegated to the wild card round to host the worst wild card team (us being the first NFC team to do so, when we faced the Bears in 1990). And the best wild card winner hosted the second best wild card winner, which to me was always kind of cool, that you could be a wild card team yet still host a playoff game.

Fast forward to now though, we now have four divisions, which significantly watered down the field and made it way more likely that we'd consistently see mediocre, 8 to 9 win teams winning divisions, but not only that, it made it extremely more likely that the best non-division winner would virtually always be a team with an impressive 11+ win record.

I think the definition of division winner has significantly lost value from what its initial intent was. Back in the day, winning your division was a much more impressive feat and you were almost assured to be a really strong 11+ win team, but not anymore.

What is the arbitrary reason for that?

Because it would be an acknowledgement of the victory of winning their grouping within the conference. That to me should be where the advantages/perks end. You won your grouping, you got your automatic bid, now you are competing for the conference championship ranked on how good your overall record is compared to the rest of the conference.

 

[IceHot]

Because it would be an acknowledgement of the victory of winning their grouping within the conference. That to me should be where the advantages/perks end. You won your grouping, you got your automatic bid, now you are competing for the conference championship ranked on how good your overall record is compared to the rest of the conference.

We each enjoy what we each enjoy.

For me I like the tradition of Division winners and would sooner throw out the entire wild card system...

But if Record was to supersede Division winners I am fine with that if we go all-in on the concept...I personally see Conference as being the same historical notion as Divisions and I see no reason to not just take X teams and line them up in the payoffs by record if the goal is to get the teams with the best record.

If winning a Division isnt the most significant thing in making the playoffs I really dont see why it should be significant at all. If a team is getting an unfair shake because it has a better record than a team that doesnt get a home playoff game than it should also follow that a team getting left out of the playoffs in favor of a division winner (even in another conference) is getting worse of an unfair shake.

It seems to me you are only taking the premise of "the best" teams half way and yielding to some level of tradition. Which to me personally doent make much sense.

Some historical notes

Originally there were no playoffs only record (win% particularly) mattered..with some uneven scheduling it lead to things like the Pottsville Maroons getting jobbed out of a championship.

In 1933 they created 2 Divisions and those division champions played in the championship game..originally 5 teams per division. Worth noting in 1934 the very next season the Giants played in the Championship game and the Lions with a better record did not because Division standing was the key..The Giants won the Championship.

In 1950 the AAFC folded and 3 teams were added to the NFL...the 2 Divisions went to 6 teams each and resulted in tied records in both divisions which lead to the first set of playoff games. A similar scenario occurred in 52 and again in 57 and 58. In 1957 the Lions were the beneficiary and ended up winning the NFL Championship after winning their playoff game.

The AFL started in 1960 and by 1965 there were 7 teams in each NFL Division and they once again had a playoff game for the Western Division Colts vs Packers

The 1st Superbowl was in 1966 and even then there was only a single championship game in the "NFL" played only by the division winners. (followed by the superbowl)

Note in 1967 which the NFL went to 4 Divisions of 4 teams each it created the aforementioned odd man out scenario. EVen though the Colts got jobbed they stayed with the 4 Division winners until the AFL merged in 1970.

Worth noting is that Homefield advantage at the time was not merited by record but was purely rotational. This eventually lead to the famous Ice Bowl, partially because before it occurred Green Bay with an inferior record hosted a home game against the NFL regular season team with the best record the Rams.

In 1970 they only had 3 Divisions in each conference and thus created the Wild Card team. The divisions were still small with 4 or 5 teams each.

An extra wild card team was added in 1979.

In 1982 they had a strike shortened season so that lead to some anomalies in the post season.

In 2002 because of expansion teams being added and because they specifically wanted smaller Division they realigned the NFL back to 4 Divisions per conference.

Since the playoffs were created in the NFL Divisions and Conference have always been the Priority. If we are going to scrub it because now Record is more important... I can understand that...but then I say scrub the Conferences as well because they are simply there for the same traditions as the Divisions are there for. Conferences should not be an exemption if Records is truly the indicator of best teams.

 

[St. Geezy]

We each enjoy what we each enjoy.

For me I like the tradition of Division winners and would sooner throw out the entire wild card system...

But if Record was to supersede Division winners I am fine with that if we go all-in on the concept...I personally see Conference as being the same historical notion as Divisions and I see no reason to not just take X teams and line them up in the payoffs by record if the goal is to get the teams with the best record.

If winning a Division isnt the most significant thing in making the playoffs I really dont see why it should be significant at all. If a team is getting an unfair shake because it has a better record than a team that doesnt get a home playoff game than it should also follow that a team getting left out of the playoffs in favor of a division winner (even in another conference) is getting worse of an unfair shake.

It seems to me you are only taking the premise of "the best" teams half way and yielding to some level of tradition. Which to me personally doent make much sense.

Some historical notes

Originally there were no playoffs only record (win% particularly) mattered..with some uneven scheduling it lead to thinks like the Pottsville Maroons getting jobbed out of a championship.

In 1933 they created 2 Divisions and those division champions played in the championship game..originally 5 teams per division. Worth noting in 1934 the very next season the Giants played in the Championship game and the Lions with a better record did not because Division standing was the key..The Giants won the Championship.

In 1950 the AAFC folded and 3 teams were added to the NFL...the 2 Divisions went to 6 teams each and resulted in tied records in both divisions which lead to the first set of playoff games. A similar scenario occurred in 52 and again in 57 and 58. In 1957 the Lions were the beneficiary and ended up winning the NFL Championship after winning their playoff game.

The AFL started in 1960 and by 1965 there were 7 teams in each NFL Division and they once again had a playoff game for the Western Division Colts vs Packers

The 1st Superbowl was in 1966 and even then there was only a single championship game in the "NFL" played only by the division winners. (followed by the superbowl)

Note in 1967 which the NFL went to 4 Divisions of 4 teams each it created the aforementioned odd man out scenario. EVen though the Colts got jobbed they stayed with the 4 Division winners until the AFL merged in 1970.

Worth noting is that Homefield advantage at the time was not merited by record but was purely rotational. This eventually lead to the famous Ice Bowl, partially because before it occurred Green Bay with an inferior record hosted a home game against the NFL regular season team with the best record the Rams.

In 1970 they only had 3 Divisions in each conference and thus created the Wild Card team. The divisions were still small with 4 or 5 teams each.

An extra wild card team was added in 1979.

In 1982 they had a strike shortened season so that lead to some anomalies in the post season.

In 2002 because of expansion teams being added and because they specifically wanted smaller Division they realigned the NFL back to 4 Divisions per conference.

Since the playoffs were created in the NFL Divisions and Conference have always been the Priority. If we are going to scrub it because now Record is more important... I can understand that...but then I say scrub the Conferences as well because they are simply there for the same traditions as the Divisions are there for. Conferences should not be an exemption if Records is truly the indicator of best teams.

No one is saying scrub division winners from the playoffs though. We are merely saying that they shouldn’t get the automatic home playoff game. The playoff berth itself is the reward.

 

[IceHot]

No one is saying scrub division winners from the playoffs though. We are merely saying that they shouldn’t get the automatic home playoff game. The playoff berth itself is the reward.

IMO, the playoff berth itself is the reward for a good record but failing to win your division.

And I acknowledge its mostly me saying "scrub the divisions"....if we are going to flip the premise of Records as more important than winning a Division... then in my opinion we should scrub divisions and conferences (outside of scheduling) as neither has more playoff meaning then another as a tradition.

Either way I want to thank you for engaging me in a respectful discussion and giving me a chance to present a differing opinion.