Playoff Seeding (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

Would you support the six playoff teams all being seeded by record?

The 5th seed this year may be 11-5 while whoever wins the NFC East may be 8-8 (hell the 6th seed might be 11-5)

I know some will say that you should get a reward for winning your division and that reward is a home playoff game

I’d argue that the reward is a playoff spot

In a year like this it’s possible that the 7th seeded team, and therefore out of the playoffs, may have a better record than the NFC East winner

So the reward is you’re in, if it was six best teams in the conference you’d be out

How different would the game have been if 7-9 division winner Seattle had to come to New Orleans?

I’d be curious to see that if this was the format how the seeding would changed for say the past five years

 

[jayd265]

I'd like it to be like you said. 4 division winners, next 2 best teams, then once those top 6 spots are full it goes off records for 1-6.

i can see the argument for both points. but 2010 having to travel to seattle changed my mind.

 

[zeketombar]

I like the format. I hated losing to Seattle in 2011 but theoretically it was fun to have a 7-9 team alive. This year of 10-6 likely not making it is an anomaly. 85% of the time 10-6 gets you in and about 1/2 of the time 9-7 teams make it.

Most of the time the 7th seed goes 9-7.

Only twice in the current format (since 2002) has a team with a losing record made the post season - 2010 Seahawks and 2014 Panthers. Both won their first playoff game.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I like the format. I hated losing to Seattle in 2011 but theoretically it was fun to have a 7-9 team alive. This year of 10-6 likely not making it is an anomaly. 85% of the time 10-6 gets you in and about 1/2 of the time 9-7 teams make it.

Most of the time the 7th seed goes 9-7.

Only twice in the current format (since 2002) has a team with a losing record made the post season - 2010 Seahawks and 2014 Panthers. Both won their first playoff game.

The Hawks still would have been alive

They just wouldn’t have had a home game

Anyone know how many times the 5th seed had a better record than the 4th?

 

[kennydfresh]

I like it but it also opens up the possibility of expansion and doing away with divisions and having records going strictly by best record in conference.

 

[Alan12]

Anyone know how many times the 5th seed had a better record than the 4th?

I know in 2013 that both wildcard teams had better records than the 3rd and 4th seeds.

1st seed: Seahawks (13-3)
2nd seed: Panthers (12-4)
3rd seed: Eagles (10-6)
4th seed: Packers (8-7-1)
5th seed: 49ers (12-4)
6th seed: Saints (11-5)

If it would’ve been seeded by record we would’ve been the 4th seed and hosted the 5th seed Eagles instead of having to go there and the 49ers would’ve hosted the Packers instead of having to go to Green Bay. Both road teams ended up winning though so they likely still would’ve at home anyway.

 

[OutlawSaint]

If it just goes by record then divisions/division games wouldn't matter as much. Just get the best record you can.

 

[Clintonrebel]

No, I would not support this. The division schedule is set up so that records within the division are somewhat comparable because we play so many of the same teams. The south teams play whole divisions from the NFC and AFC. The north and west teams play different divisions. Comparing the south records to the west and north are not as comparable.

And even if it makes a little sense this year, as soon as they change it, the Saints will be the team that gets hosed by the new rule. .

 

[zeketombar]

The Hawks still would have been alive

They just wouldn’t have had a home game

Anyone know how many times the 5th seed had a better record than the 4th?

I looked at the NFC since 2002, and we have 10 cases where the 5 seed has the better record; three where it is worse; four where it is the same. All 10 cases were in a row, from 2007-2016. Last two years the records have been the same.

 

[LiterOCola]

I like the current system as it makes winning your division mean something (a guaranteed home playoff game).

If a team doesn’t want to be a 12 win road team, they shouldn’t have been the second best team in their division.

 

[IceHot]

This is a total joke until you take Lombardi's name off the trophy.

In 1967 Lombardi won the Superbowl while Don Shulas team did not even get to play in the playoffs despite having the BEST record in the NFL.

Nope. Division Champions are Champions and should get a home game. Dont be a buttercup. Win your division or play on the road.

 

[bobad]

It's very sad to see a 12-4 team not get a berth, and an 8-8 team get in only to get slaughtered on the first weekend.

I found a points system proposal on Tiger Droppings. (I know, a bunch of wanton savages hang out there)

Your wins = A
Your opponents’ wins = B
Your opponents’ opponents’ wins = C
Maximum number of games played= D


Add them all up, and your rating = R

It's a simple, elegant system that generates points well over 5000. I think it would be perfect for Pro and college football playoffs. ABCD could be weighted appropriately, of course A would carry the most weight.

 

[superchuck500]

Division Champions are Champions and should get a home game. Dont be a buttercup. Win your division or play on the road.

Agree

 

[Saint Jack]

The League will never get rid of divisions because it holds too much historical significance within the history of the NFL.
That’s the League’s foundation.
It’s not like that in the NBA for example where the default standing you get is conference standings.
I’d say keep it the way it is. The ONLY concession I would make is that the division champion has to reach 8 wins to retain home field. That’s it. Just get to .500.

 

[Infoman]

If there is no reward for winning a division... then why even have a division? Just base the seeding on the best 6 records in each conference.... or leave it alone.