Playoff Seeding (1 Viewer)

[OutlawSaint]

And I am saying that the method of choosing who makes the playoffs should remain whilst realigning how we choose the seeding. Edit: My previous message already explained why divisions would still matter.

Either way would be possible if just going by records. Thats all lol not saying I prefer one way or the other.

 

[Pocket Hercules]

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.

There would be a reward: you make the playoffs when you otherwise wouldn't have. This year's NFCE champ will be a perfect example. What the **** kind of reward does either Philly or dallass "deserve" for finishing around or perhaps below .500 while playing the likes of Washington and New York twice apiece while little d hasn't beaten a single team with a winning record? Seriously? But a team like Seattle or San Francisco deserves to play on the road playing an entire division twice that would all probably have won the NFCE? That makes zero sense. And it made no sense when the Saints went on the road to play Seattle in 2010 or countless other occasions.

 

[Zack Lee]

Keep it. If a division has four teams that are playing above average, it is hard enough to win the division so then you should not be penalized so heavy for the losses that would inevitably come from playing in a division like that. And I understand that you could use the second place team in such a division to argue the other way but I would not like to see the division games watered down any. Keep it just as important to gut out those division games.

 

[bobad]

There would be a reward: you make the playoffs when you otherwise wouldn't have. This year's NFCE champ will be a perfect example. What the **** kind of reward does either Philly or dallass "deserve" for finishing around or perhaps below .500 while playing the likes of Washington and New York twice apiece while little d hasn't beaten a single team with a winning record? Seriously? But a team like Seattle or San Francisco deserves to play on the road playing an entire division twice that would all probably have won the NFCE? That makes zero sense. And it made no sense when the Saints went on the road to play Seattle in 2010 or countless other occasions.

Thus the formula I mentioned above. No good teams would be left behind.

We could still have divisions, which cuts down on travel and keeps the fun of old rivalries going. Division championships wouldn't mean anything for the playoffs, but you get a nice pennant to hang.

 

[IceHot]

There has never been a 12-4 team that did not make the playoffs.

I would think 11-1-2 is a better record and the Colts were excluded from the playoffs with only a single loss in 67.

 

[IceHot]

I really dont see the big deal about winning only 75% of your games. The NFL Championship game was first played in 1933 since then there have been 15 teams with a season record of 75% or better that did not get a post season game.

Here is a list of 9 of those teams that were bumped from the post season by a division winner with a worse record:

		No Post Season			Bumped by Division Winner
1​	1934​	Lions	10-3		Giants	8-5
2​	1936​	Bears	9-3		Redskins	7-5
3​	1943​	Packers	7-2-1		Redskins/Giants	6-3-1
4​	1948​	Bears	10-2		Eagles	9-2-1
5​	1951​	Giants	9-2-1		Rams	8-4
6​	1956​	Lions	9-3		Giants	8-3-1
7​	1963​	Packers	11-2-1		Giants	11-3
8​	1967​	Colts	11-1-2		Browns/Packers/Cowboys	9-5/9-4-1
9​	1968​	Rams	10-3-1		Browns/Vikings	10-4/8-6

 

[zeketombar]

I would think 11-1-2 is a better record and the Colts were excluded from the playoffs with only a single loss in 67.

That's a brilliant play by you. No wild card then, but excellent move. Well done!

 

[J.T.]

All I know, or at least what I think I know, is if we win out, the packers lose one game and Seattle wins out, Seattle wins the West, Niners are a wildcard and Saints are the #1 seed.