NFC West is going to screw a good team out of a playoff spot (1 Viewer)

[Flipx99]

Meh. Every team knows the playoff seeding rules. They know what they have to do to get in. All of the contenders right now control their own destiny.

A correction to something that was said above: the 4th place division winner (seed #4) hosts the top wild card team (seed #5). The #3 seed hosts the #6 seed.

One disadvantage of the system that has been proposed here (to seed all teams based on conference ranking and ignore divisions) is that more teams would be eliminated earlier, making for more "meaningless" games late in the season. Using the NFC West as an example, suppose all the NFCw teams are at 6-7 or below with 3 games left, and there are 6 NFC teams with (at least) 10 wins each. Then none of the NFCw teams have any chance of making the playoffs. The current system keeps more teams in the hunt longer and makes the end of the regular season more exciting.

Another disadvantage of the proposed system is that it would weaken divisional rivalries. If playoff seeds were ranked conference-wide, divisional games would be no more important than other conference games. The current system boosts intra-divisional rivalries by raising the stakes of each game. Those rivalries make the game more enjoyable for everyone. Weakening them in the name of "fairness" would be lame.

I say don't change a thing.

Your first point didn't do much for me. No one is claiming unfair surprise, just that a better team is going to be eliminated.

Your second point, however, is enough to shut this discussion down. The current system does create more competition longer into the season. That sells tickets and bolsters ratings, which of course means more money. Hence, you are right - it's not changing.

 

[scott88]

If you don't wanna get screwed, win your division.

Who's to say a 10-6 team should get in over a 9-7 division winner?

Maybe the 10-6 team had a patsy schedule, and the 9-7 division winner had a brutal schedule?

Its fair as it is.

I'd rather not go to a straight seeding, because of the above scenario.

I'm talking about someone from the NFC West might get in and they probably won't have a winning record and if you came out of that division you didn't have a "brutal" schedule

 

[srcampbell]

This year we could actually see a 7-9 team get in over an 11-5 team. Man, that's just wrong no matter how you cut it.

 

[ndcc]

The '87 Saints went 12-3 in a strike-shortened season. The Saints were DEMOLISHED 44-10 @home by the Vikings (...who were 8-7 that year).

 

[schemmy]

Divisions provide rivalries, which might or might not be worth unbalanced schedules and unfair playoff seeding.

 

[RadsRock]

Why?

There is no real reason, other than tradition tbh. The playoffs are not about divisions; it's about conferences.. The playoffs should be a representation of the conferences' best teams..

I'll give you 2 reasons.

1: Well, DomeDude pretty much said it already. It is about divisions. The division rivalries add alot of interest, and if it weren't done this way the current schedule set-up would make no sense.

2: If you're not buying that... well then let's expand on your logic for a moment. If we want the best teams playing for the championship, why is it about conferences then? Why does the Super Bowl have to be one team from the NFC and one from the AFC? What if the two best teams were in the same conference???

So, following your thinking to its conclusion, we would end up throwing the whole current structure out, have the standings be a list of 32 teams, and at the end of the year the best 12 have a tournament.

And hey, if you feel that way then OK, that's cool. Personally, I like it the way it is. And agree with what other people have said -- If you want to be make the playoffs, win your division.

Oh and one other thing (because this 'AFC West sucks' thing keeps being a common theme)... its been something like 8 years with the current format, and another 25 or more since Wildcard was introducted... and how often has one entire division been so bad that this has even been an issue? Talk about over-reaction.

 

[smchls23]

If you don't wanna get screwed, win your division.

Who's to say a 10-6 team should get in over a 9-7 division winner?

Maybe the 10-6 team had a patsy schedule, and the 9-7 division winner had a brutal schedule?

Its fair as it is.

I'd rather not go to a straight seeding, because of the above scenario.

LOL This is perhaps the weakest argument I've ever heard.

Who's to say that a team with the better record should get in to the playoffs? Are you SERIOUS? Maybe we should just throw out the raking-by-wins and allow the NFL to take over a BCS-like system, eh?

 

[Danneaux]

LOL This is perhaps the weakest argument I've ever heard.

Who's to say that a team with the better record should get in to the playoffs? Are you SERIOUS? Maybe we should just throw out the raking-by-wins and allow the NFL to take over a BCS-like system, eh?

How you arrived at that from my post is beyond me, seriously.

The NFL doesn't rank by wins. It ranks by division winners, then the two best remaining records get a wildcard.

A division winner will get in over another team with a better record that did NOT win their division. And this isn't the BCS which is why I'm for the current system.

My point was to illustrate how a 10-6 wildcard may not "deserve" to get in the playoffs over a 9-7 division winner. It would be a rare occurence, but its simply an example.

 

[44slayer]

The wild card system is a sort of safety net to prevent this from happening. If not for the wild card, the Saints who could finished 13-3, would miss the playoffs with the 2nd best record in the conference. I dont think anyone from the NFC west should be allowed in the playoffs, but it is what it is. What I really dont like is homefield advantage. The NFC West winner will no doubt have the worst record of any playoff team in either conference. They will be a beneficiary of a soft schedule because they play their own division teams twice. So their 7-9 record isnt nearly a representation of the 4-12 to 6-10 team that they truly are.
Then you have the Saints - lets say 12-4 and have played a much harder schedule who will have to travel to Seattle. I can understand winning your division - front offices build teams to first and foremost win their division - but to give a team homefield advantage and were potentially 6 games worse that the opposing team? That just doesnt make sense at all.

 

[State Of Affairs]

Well, 2 of the last 5 Conference champions were from the NFC West, and 6 of the last 6 NFC West champions have won at least one playoff game, so I don't think they're exactly wasting a spot.

dude.... a 6-10 team can win a game any given weekend but it doesn't mean they deserve to be in the playoffs... No excuses.... a bad team is a bad team..

 

[REBEL_SOUL]

dude.... a 6-10 team can win a game any given weekend but it doesn't mean they deserve to be in the playoffs... No excuses.... a bad team is a bad team..

How would your correct this scenerio?
Re-structure the divisions or
Re-format the entire playoff seeding criteria?

 

[krushing]

How would your correct this scenerio?
Re-structure the divisions or
Re-format the entire playoff seeding criteria?

I would make it a requirement for a team to have a winning record to win a division. If no team in the division has a winning record, three wild card teams are selected instead of two with the best record wild card team replacing the division winner for home field advantage, etc.

 

[syracuse saint]

Well, 2 of the last 5 Conference champions were from the NFC West, and 6 of the last 6 NFC West champions have won at least one playoff game, so I don't think they're exactly wasting a spot.

Yea, but this year is exceptionally bad for NFC West. It's the rules, but that doesn't make it a perfect system. Can you imagine a team with a losing record could go in ahead of an 11-5 team??

 

[suthernbreez]

They've been screwing good teams out of playoff spots for a while.

Yes they have. I just posted similar comments in another thread about this same thing. I feel that if one team in another division has a better record than another team, who happens to be the division leader, the better record should trump the worse. IMO

 

[MudBugger]

If we win our division, we have nothing to worry about. If we don't, we'll probably grab a top wild-card spot, smash Seattle in seattle in the first round, and then do our best to get from the Wild-card to the Super Bowl (quite a few teams have done it)

Under your scenario with Seattle winning the West and the Saints as the top wild card team, the Saints will not play Seattle in the first round. The Saints would host the 2nd place wild card team in the first round. Seattle will host the 3rd place wild card team.