Should a losing team go to playoffs?

[BananaB]

Watching what is unfolding in the NFC East me and friends had a debate yesterday about this because I don’t think a team who can’t place a .500 record should be in playoffs. Maybe even a above .500 record. Definitely shouldn’t be hosting a game. 

You got teams in the AFC that might miss with 10 and 11 wins and a team going in NFC going in with 7. I understand the division rules but think there should be an exception if no one in a division can get to 8 wins.  Just a thought. 

 

[BuffaloRebound]

There’s too many divisions.  If a division winner is not .500 or better, then they should go to an extra wildcard team.  If that happens to be the below .500 division winner, then so be it and at least they’re seeded properly.  

[BITE ME]

I have no problem with it.  Washington beat the Steelers.  The Giants beat Seattle.  The Eagles beat the Saints. The Cowboys have won 3 in a row.  The NFC East is not that bad.  I wouldn't want to play Washington in the first round if the have a healthy QB.  They are a good football team.

[Bob in STL]

9 minutes ago, BananaB said:

Watching what is unfolding in the NFC East me and friends had a debate yesterday about this because I don’t think a team who can’t place a .500 record should be in playoffs. Maybe even a above .500 record. Definitely shouldn’t be hosting a game. 

You got teams in the AFC that might miss with 10 and 11 wins and a team going in NFC going in with 7. I understand the division rules but think there should be an exception if no one in a division can get to 8 wins.  Just a thought. 

 

These extreme cases are rare but happen occasionally.  No sense making up rules for this.  

[BuffaloRebound]

8 divisions for 32 teams has always been stupid.  It creates imbalances.  Getting stuck in New England’s 4 team pod the past 20 years has severely disadvantaged the bills, Jets, and Dolphins.  Going to 3 wildcard teams is a nice start to correcting this.  Now, make the 4 team division winner finish .500 or better.  

[prissythecat]

I think having a team with a losing record go to playoffs is a travesty.   A few owners will likely argue about changing the rules in the offseason.

[FieldGeneral]

These things happen. The Giants won it all as a Wildcard and 9-7. 

[prissythecat]

Just now, FieldGeneral said:

These things happen. The Giants won it all as a Wildcard and 9-7. 

 

9-7 is a winning record though.  

[BananaB]

If the Bills missed the playoffs next year with 11 wins and a team in the AFC South went with 7 I think this board would go crazy. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

I'm not sure why they don't just get rid of divisions. You should play every team in the conference 1 time and then play 1 out of conference game a year. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Buffalo_Stampede

[BuffaloRebound]

1 minute ago, FieldGeneral said:

These things happen. The Giants won it all as a Wildcard and 9-7. 

 No problems with a 9-7 wildcard or even a 7-9 wildcard.  Always had big problem with 7-9 division winner of 4 team pod getting in playoffs and also hosting a playoff game.  

[Ramza86]

Yes. For all you know the division can be super competitive that year and they could have a very hard schedule that year.

 

Too many outliers to just say...losing record should not go.

[MJS]

I am perfectly fine with how it is now. The NFC could also have a .500 wild card team this year as well. The NFC is just not very strong.

 

I like that there is incentive to win your division. I would not change that.

[TH3]

6 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

8 divisions for 32 teams has always been stupid.  It creates imbalances.  Getting stuck in New England’s 4 team pod the past 20 years has severely disadvantaged the bills, Jets, and Dolphins.  Going to 3 wildcard teams is a nice start to correcting this.  Now, make the 4 team division winner finish .500 or better.  

Sucking for 20 years disadvantaged the Bills.

 

I like 12 playoff teams...keep the regular season important....don't need to add more playoff teams to "correct" mediocrity. . 

[Rochesterfan]

I have no issue with it.  Don’t change the rules - if you want to correct it - change the divisions.  If you are keeping the divisions - then this will happen rarely.

 

You should not create rules to impact a rare thing - if you want to eliminate a losing team from making the playoffs you have no divisions or 8 teams in 2 divisions and adjust the schedule accordingly.

 

I have no issue with an NFC East team (or NFC west like a few years ago) winning a division with a losing record and getting the advantage of a division winner because that is how it is set up and fits the rules fairly over time.

[MJS]

1 minute ago, BuffaloRebound said:

 No problems with a 9-7 wildcard or even a 7-9 wildcard.  Always had big problem with 7-9 division winner of 4 team pod getting in playoffs and also hosting a playoff game.  

I really don't see what the big deal is, honestly. If you want a home game you have to win your division. If you didn't win your division you don't get to complain.

 

Each team has their own destiny in their own hands. Some divisions are harder than others and I like that, actually.

9 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

8 divisions for 32 teams has always been stupid.  It creates imbalances.  Getting stuck in New England’s 4 team pod the past 20 years has severely disadvantaged the bills, Jets, and Dolphins.  Going to 3 wildcard teams is a nice start to correcting this.  Now, make the 4 team division winner finish .500 or better.  

The Bills, Jets, and Dolphins should have not sucked so bad. That's their problem.

[ProcessTruster]

no problem with it.  in fact would be cool to see comeback player of the year Alex Smith QB a home playoff game.   So impressed with his whole story.  

[LabattBlue]

So it’s okay for an 8-8 team to be in the playoffs, but not a 7-9 team?  Leave it alone.

[BuffaloRebound]

2 minutes ago, MJS said:

I really don't see what the big deal is, honestly. If you want a home game you have to win your division. If you didn't win your division you don't get to complain.

 

Each team has their own destiny in their own hands. Some divisions are harder than others and I like that, actually.

Because sometimes winning your 4 team division is a case of being the tallest midget.  Or in the case of the Bills, Dolphins and Jets for 20 years, your competing for 2 wildcard spots against the rest of the conference while being saddled with 2 almost sure losses.  Same thing is gonna happen to Raiders, chargers, and Broncos.  

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

28 minutes ago, BananaB said:

Watching what is unfolding in the NFC East me and friends had a debate yesterday about this because I don’t think a team who can’t place a .500 record should be in playoffs. Maybe even a above .500 record. Definitely shouldn’t be hosting a game. 

You got teams in the AFC that might miss with 10 and 11 wins and a team going in NFC going in with 7. I understand the division rules but think there should be an exception if no one in a division can get to 8 wins.  Just a thought. 

 

 

Division winners with a losing record happens so infrequently I don't have any issue with the current rule. 

 

I'll also point out that if you applied a new rule to deny the NFC East winner a playoff berth this season, you'd end up with an extra 9-7 or 8-8 wild card team (Cardinals or Bears). 

 

Would having a 7-9 Washington Football Team make the playoffs over an 8-8 Chicago Bears team be some sort of travesty? I doubt even Bears fans would complain.

[MJS]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

Because sometimes winning your 4 team division is a case of being the tallest midget.  Or in the case of the Bills, Dolphins and Jets for 20 years, your competing for 2 wildcard spots against the rest of the conference while being saddled with 2 almost sure losses.  Same thing is gonna happen to Raiders, chargers, and Broncos.  

Then don't suck at football. Get better and beat them.

 

I have no problem with it at all.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

While I don't necessarily disagree with OP's premise, I do have to point out the 2011 Seahawks example of a stunning playoff upset where the 7-9 Seahawks upset the defending SB champ Saints...

https://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=310108026

[GunnerBill]

If they won their division, yes. 

[djp14150]

You have unbalanced schedules so this will result in some divisions skewing down with 500 or below records.

 

the nfc east poorer play has inflated nfc west and afc north records.  Clevrland and baltimore went 4-0.  The play a harder division they be 2-2 and there wouldn’t be thus WC race.

[BuffaloRebound]

Just now, MJS said:

Then don't suck at football. Get better and beat them.

 

I have no problem with it at all.

 Easy to say.  It’s not about sucking at football.  It’s about being stuck in a division with generational talents like Brady and Mahomes.  You have almost no chance of ever hosting a playoff game even if you do beat out the rest of the conference for those 2 wildcard spots.  

[MPL]

I, for one, am hoping the Cowboys and Redskins Football Team both lose, opening the door for the 6-10 Giants to make the playoffs. I think it would be hilarious.

[SirAndrew]

I’m surprised how many people are cool with a garbage team getting a home playoff

game. It doesn’t happen often, but it stinks when it does. A 10 or 11 win team could miss out to a 6 or 7 win team in this current format. There needs to be something that prevents it from happening imo. I like the idea of a conference based playoff seeding system. Divisions became silly when they had less than five teams. I’m not extremely passionate about this issue, but I want to see the best quality football possible. Having a division champ with a losing record potentially knock out a winning team is not how you get quality football. The WFT or the Cowboys don’t belong anywhere near the playoffs this season, and I probably wouldn’t watch their playoff game. 

[GunnerBill]

15 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Sucking for 20 years disadvantaged the Bills.

 

I like 12 playoff teams...keep the regular season important....don't need to add more playoff teams to "correct" mediocrity. . 

 

Agree. I don't like the playoff expansion. I was ambivalent when it was announced but seeing how the season has played out, meh, I'm against it. And not because the Bills might be a #2 seed with a bye... think the wildcard race loses something. In the AFC having four 10 win teams for 2 places instead of 3 would be epic and in the NFC you'd have 3 teams for 1 place. 

[BuffaloRebound]

7 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

While I don't necessarily disagree with OP's premise, I do have to point out the 2011 Seahawks example of a stunning playoff upset where the 7-9 Seahawks upset the defending SB champ Saints...

https://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=310108026

At home 

[MJS]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

 Easy to say.  It’s not about sucking at football.  It’s about being stuck in a division with generational talents like Brady and Mahomes.  You have almost no chance of ever hosting a playoff game even if you do beat out the rest of the conference for those 2 wildcard spots.  

I have no problem with that.

 

And it IS about sucking. The Bills, Dolphins, and Jets have not been competently run organizations. That has little to do with the Patriots. Bad hires. Bad drafting. Bad player development. Bad coaching.

 

And what happened to the Bills when they got good at those things? They started going to the playoffs, even WITH the Patriots still good and losing to them.

 

No excuses. Go win your games. Every team operates under the same rules and the same salary cap.

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

1 minute ago, SirAndrew said:

I’m surprised how many people are cool with a garbage team getting a home playoff

game. It doesn’t happen often, but it stinks when it does. A 10 or 11 win team could miss out to a 6 or 7 win team in this current format. There needs to be something that prevents it from happening imo. I like the idea of a conference based playoff seeding system. Divisions became silly when they had less than five teams. I’m not extremely passionate about this issue, but I want to see the best quality football possible. Having a division champ with a losing record potentially knock out a winning team is not how you get quality football. The WFT or the Cowboys don’t belong anywhere near the playoffs this season, and I probably wouldn’t watch their playoff game. 

 

That's not happening this season. Only one of the Cardinals/Bears will miss the playoffs, and they're both 8-7 right now. With the current system of 4 division winners and 3 wild cards it's going to be almost impossible to see a division winner with a losing record, and a 10+ win team (in the same conference) miss the playoffs. 

[BuffaloRebound]

2 minutes ago, MJS said:

I have no problem with that.

 

And it IS about sucking. The Bills, Dolphins, and Jets have not been competently run organizations. That has little to do with the Patriots. Bad hires. Bad drafting. Bad player development. Bad coaching.

 

And what happened to the Bills when they got good at those things? They started going to the playoffs, even WITH the Patriots still good and losing to them.

 

No excuses. Go win your games. Every team operates under the same rules and the same salary cap.

This is glossing over the last 20 years.  If McDermott and Beane arrived in 2004 instead of 2017, there’s a 99% chance they’d both have been fired by year 6 after multiple wildcard playoff bids but no playoff wins.  It’s what the Raiders, Broncos and Chargers have to look forward to for the next 15 years.  Just a coincidence that those teams are looking a lot like the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins of the past 20 years. 

[SirAndrew]

1 minute ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

That's not happening this season. Only one of the Cardinals/Bears will miss the playoffs, and they're both 8-7 right now. With the current system of 4 division winners and 3 wild cards it's going to be almost impossible to see a division winner with a losing record, and a 10+ win team (in the same conference) miss the playoffs. 

Fair enough, but it could happen, and I don’t think it should be possible. I’m not a math guy so I don’t know how unlikely it would be for a 10 win team to miss out to a team with a losing record, but I don’t like the fact there’s any chance it could happen. It could have easily happened this season if the Cards didn’t blow it. If the Cards or Bears win this weekend they’ll have 9 wins.  That’s a far more deserving team than the NFC East trash.
 

As a fan, I’d prefer to watch the Cards in a wildcard game over any NFC East team. I’m less concerned about fairness, and more concerned with what makes the league fun to watch. We’ve been punished with enough NFC East primetime

games this season, they have no business sending a team to the playoffs. It’s not a big deal to most fans, and the world will obviously move on. The NFC East team will get knocked out early, and everyone will forget. I just think it’s a bad way to offer the highest quality product possible. 

[benderbender]

20 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

At home 

But that was back in the olden days when there were those things...what do you call them...fanatics? Paying customers? Noisemakers? Anyway, I can't remember anything past March of this year so it was probably just an urban legend.

[BillsCuse]

Absolutely not, if a losing team wins their division then it means their division sucks.  Winning that division means nothing and another team should go.  And getting a home game 1st round is BS as well.

Edited December 29, 2020 by BillsCuse

[TheCockSportif]

This is the second time over the last decade that this happened.  (2010 Hawks were the last including, if memory serves, a Beast Mode run for a win.)

 

If this is what the rules say then that's what we've got to roll with for the time being.  But really it should be teams per conference rather than division.

[Curt]

What is the purpose of having divisions anyway? It's a North American thing. They don't do that elsewhere in the world. Miami with Buffalo? New York with Dallas? Los Angeles not with Los Angeles? New York not with New York? Not only there is no logic but also it's not fair. 32 team league and you play 6 of your 16 games against the same 3 teams year after year after year. You see Wilson, Rodgers and Brees once every 8 years. As a fan I would rather play 15 different teams every season with a rotation.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Curt
Spelling

[SirAndrew]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

What is the purpose of having divisions anyway? It's a North American thing. They don't do that elsewhere in the world. Miami with Buffalo? New York with Dallas? Los Angeles not with Los Angeles? New York not with New York? No only there is no logic but also it's not fair. 32 team league and you play 6 of your 16 games against the same 3 teams year after year after year. You see Wilson, Rodgers and Brees once every 8 years. As a fan I would rather play 15 different teams every season with a rotation.

I agree from a fan prospective. If I were a season ticket holder, I’d prefer that almost half of the schedule weren’t the same teams every year. It’d be a fun change up not seeing the Jets, Fish, and Pats twice a season. It wouldn’t surprise me if many people disagree. People cling tightly to tradition, and often times change isn’t for the better, but that’s a change I’d love. 

[MikeSpeed]

Well then, let's 86 the 2 conferences also. Place the 8 best teams in the NFL into the playoffs. There's always the possibility that a team in one conference makes the playoffs with a worse record than a team in the other conference. 

Personally I like the format as it is. 

[Rochesterfan]

40 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree. I don't like the playoff expansion. I was ambivalent when it was announced but seeing how the season has played out, meh, I'm against it. And not because the Bills might be a #2 seed with a bye... think the wildcard race loses something. In the AFC having four 10 win teams for 2 places instead of 3 would be epic and in the NFC you'd have 3 teams for 1 place. 

 

Not only that in the AFC the Bills and Steelers would both be fighting for the #2 seed because of the bye in the old system, but now with the set-up 2 versus 3 seed has little meaning so either or both teams might rest guys rather than play the string out.

 

I love having more games, but not sure it provides the excitement they thought.