Should a losing team go to playoffs?

[frostbitmic]

Winning your division gets you into the playoffs as it should, whatever your record is.

[Artem Lipatov]

I think it could be easy and fair rule: if a division champ has losing record it’s playoffs spot goes to wild card team with winning record.

Wild card team who has has winning record in strong division deserves it more than less stinkiest team in stinky division

[without a drought]

I think they should pick the wildcard teams out of a hat. No matter what their record is.

It hardly seems like a wildcard if they are just the next best team. 

[blacklabel]

I definitely feel like a team with a better record should get in over a team with a worse record but a division title. The league still wants the divisions to mean something. But in the interest of fairness, it's kinda crap that a 6-10 team might host a playoff game. If I were to change it up, I would say, fine, if you win your division you're in the playoffs but if a wild card team holds a better record than you than they get the home game. 

[Artem Lipatov]

Winning division with losing record means the team already had advantage in regular season  playing 6 games vs very bad teams and still couldn’t get decent record. Then they are awarded with home field advantage at playoffs. Very strange 🙃

[LeGOATski]

They could do away with divisions, for all I care. Equalize the schedules even more and the best records go to the playoffs.

 

Part of it is the NFL wanting to preserve classic rivalries, but that's dinosaur thinking.

[Alphadawg7]

7-9 Seahawks beat the Saints in the first round of the playoffs.  

 

That pretty much puts a nail in this argument for me.  

[LeGOATski]

They're treating it like the world cup where you get representation from all regions/leagues, but the NFL is one region and one league.

 

Just have two conferences and you'll still have classic intra-conference rivalries plus the overarching inter-conference rivalry.

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

7-9 Seahawks beat the Saints in the first round of the playoffs.  

 

That pretty much puts a nail in this argument for me.  

Not me. Underdog stories will still happen, either way.

[Gugny]

Rules are rules.  Division winners get in.

[without a drought]

 Mathematically, with no ties, a team could be in a 4 way tie in their division at 3-13 and make the playoffs by splitting the games in the division and losing the rest. The winner would be based on strength of schedule.

 

 If ties were common then you could do the same with the division winner finishing in a 4 way tie at 0-10-6. Just lose all non division games and tie all division games. and once again winner goes by strength of schedule.

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

3 hours ago, Groin said:

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.

 

The 2014-15 Panthers won the NFC South with a 7-8-1 record. Those Panthers and the 2010 Seahawks you mentioned both won their first round playoff game after qualifying for the playoffs with a losing record. 

 

Interestingly enough the only other times a team made it to the playoffs with a losing record was 1982. Both the Browns and Lions qualified with 4-5 records in a shortened season (I'm not sure if they should really count or not). 

 

If Wasington loses and NYG win we'll have a 6-10 division winner which would be the worst win % ever to make the playoffs. 

[TheCockSportif]

Just now, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

The 2014-15 Panthers won the NFC South with a 7-8-1 record. Those Panthers and the 2010 Seahawks you mentioned both won their first round playoff game after qualifying for the playoffs with a losing record. 

 

Interestingly enough the only other times a team made it to the playoffs with a losing record was 1982. Both the Browns and Lions qualified with 4-5 records in a shortened season (I'm not sure if they should really count or not). 

 

If Wasington loses and NYG win we'll have a 6-10 division winner which would be the worst win % ever to make the playoffs. 

Oh yeah!  I forgot about that Panthers squad.  So true!

 

And I pretty much discounted everything that happened before the current divisional realignment.

[Alphadawg7]

56 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Not me. Underdog stories will still happen, either way.

 

Not sure what you mean by that...

 

I was saying if a 7-9 team can enter the playoffs and beat a winning team, then that seals the case that they should be allowed in if they win their division.  Your reply sounds like its agreeing with me even though you wrote "Not me." to open it, but cant tell.

 

Either way, its a silly discussion, if you win your division you should be in IMO.  I mean there are so many potential circumstances around that division winner possibly being only 7-9.  Maybe a slew of injuries to critical players early in the season caused them to start slow.  Its just to subjective to just flat out say no one under .500 should be allowed in.  

 

You win your division, you earn a playoff birth.  And given the fact not that long ago a 7-9 team went into the playoffs and beat the Saints in the first round shows that they shouldn't just flat out be banned from the playoffs.  

Edited December 29, 2020 by Alphadawg7

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

4 hours ago, MPL said:

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.

Imagine the giants knocking out bradys team again lol

[NoSaint]

5 hours 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. 

 

Disagree.

[Warcodered]

I don't see why the NFC gets two bye games in the playoffs and AFC only gets 1.

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

2 hours ago, Artem Lipatov said:

Winning division with losing record means the team already had advantage in regular season  playing 6 games vs very bad teams and still couldn’t get decent record. Then they are awarded with home field advantage at playoffs. Very strange 🙃

Or your division drew a schedule of really tough games...nfc east got the afc north this year.  The bengals were a tough out even when burrow was healthy

[Putin]

5 hours 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. 

 

Didn’t the panthers or I can’t remember who was also 7-9 and made the playoffs few years back , but back to your point I thought about that so many times and IMO I don’t care if you won your pathetic division you should have at least a winning record, (9-7) 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

4 hours ago, BuffaloRebound said:

Because sometimes winning your 4 team division is a case of being the tallest midget. 

That's it...it's 'go' time! 😠

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Ridgewaycynic2013

[LeGOATski]

4 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Not sure what you mean by that...

 

I was saying if a 7-9 team can enter the playoffs and beat a winning team, then that seals the case that they should be allowed in if they win their division.  Your reply sounds like its agreeing with me even though you wrote "Not me." to open it, but cant tell.

 

Either way, its a silly discussion, if you win your division you should be in IMO.  I mean there are so many potential circumstances around that division winner possibly being only 7-9.  Maybe a slew of injuries to critical players early in the season caused them to start slow.  Its just to subjective to just flat out say no one under .500 should be allowed in.  

 

You win your division, you earn a playoff birth.  And given the fact not that long ago a 7-9 team went into the playoffs and beat the Saints in the first round shows that they shouldn't just flat out be banned from the playoffs.  

I guess I misinterpreted that post. 

 

To your actual point though, your argument is based on the rule. Rules can simply be changed.

 

There's parity in this league, so of course a lesser team still has a chance for a playoff victory. The rule currently allows a more deserving team to miss that playoff opportunity, which is a bit of a problem.

[LeGOATski]

4 hours ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

Or your division drew a schedule of really tough games...nfc east got the afc north this year.  The bengals were a tough out even when burrow was healthy

So, you aren't what your record says you are?

 

Even if we accept that, this can be fixed by getting rid of divisions, not playing the same teams twice and further equalizing the schedules across the conference. I think that would be a good move, but NFL execs are a long way from agreeing to that.

[The Wiz]

45 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

So, you aren't what your record says you are?

 

Even if we accept that, this can be fixed by getting rid of divisions, not playing the same teams twice and further equalizing the schedules across the conference. I think that would be a good move, but NFL execs are a long way from agreeing to that.

It could be a good move the problem is that removing divisions causes a massive runoff effect on the rest of the standings for the playoffs.  Hell, the way they are now is confusing once you get passed the division and head-to-head.  Imagine having to rewrite the rules for the standings with a new format.  There are threads about who the bills will play based on different scenarios and some of them have the same W/L for different teams and but the standings are different.

 

All things considered though, I don't care if a losing team makes the playoffs.  If you're the best in the division then that's what you are even if you are a 6-10, 7-9 team.

[May Day 10]

32 divisions.  Everyone makes the playoffs

[BobbyC81]

11 hours ago, prissythecat said:

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.

At least have a rule that if a division winner’s record is worse than the wild cards then they don’t get a home game.  It doesn’t matter as much this season with no fans or reduced number. 
 

Anybody hear what they’re planning to do about fans for the Super Bowl?  Odds are there will be another spike in COVID cases post-Christmas, which could affect that decision.  Only 6 weeks away unless they delay it.

[FireChans]

10 hours ago, BuffaloRebound said:

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. 

Then beat them.

 

Every team can't be good. It's a zero sum league. If you don't want to get dominated by a division opponent for 20 years, get better and beat them.

 

The 49ers have had to face Wilson for 8 years. They built multiple Super Bowl caliber teams in that span and beat the man.

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

I guess I misinterpreted that post. 

 

To your actual point though, your argument is based on the rule. Rules can simply be changed.

 

There's parity in this league, so of course a lesser team still has a chance for a playoff victory. The rule currently allows a more deserving team to miss that playoff opportunity, which is a bit of a problem.

Then they didn't deserve it.

[BobbyC81]

11 hours ago, MPL said:

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.

I’m rooting for the same.   Although, having Dallas win and Jerra having to answer questions about if he thinks his team deserves to be in the playoffs might be entertaining.

[El Guapo]

If you win your division, you’re in and host. I have no problem with it. Otherwise, what difference would divisions make?  Rivalries are built on division play. 
 

this happens every so often, and while it stinks, who thinks the NFC East Champ is advancing?

[letsgoteam]

It doesn't happen very often, but it is what it is. If you win your division, you win your division. No reason to change the rules, its just part of sports. No travesties here.

[Nextmanup]

12 hours ago, Bob in STL said:

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

I agree with you!

 

The game is grossly over regulated as it is.

 

We don't need to make it more complicated, make it simple.

 

Eliminate the divisions, best X number of teams from each conference go to the playoffs with tie breakers so there can't be ties.   

 

Simple.

 

 

[The Red King]

If your loss column has more digits then your win column maybe you shouldn't be a playoff team? 😁

 

On the other hand, I think I would pay money to see Brady lose a wild card game to a 6-10 Giants team.  I mean, they played them tight in the regular season.

[LeGOATski]

3 hours ago, The Wiz said:

It could be a good move the problem is that removing divisions causes a massive runoff effect on the rest of the standings for the playoffs.  Hell, the way they are now is confusing once you get passed the division and head-to-head.  Imagine having to rewrite the rules for the standings with a new format.  There are threads about who the bills will play based on different scenarios and some of them have the same W/L for different teams and but the standings are different.

That doesn't seem so daunting. Adequate tie breaker scenarios would still exist.

[Virgil]

14 hours 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. 

 

If we go to a 17 game season, I think they should re-do the divisions and make them larger.  Maybe go back to 3 divisions per conference. 

[Alphadawg7]

4 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

I guess I misinterpreted that post. 

 

To your actual point though, your argument is based on the rule. Rules can simply be changed.

 

There's parity in this league, so of course a lesser team still has a chance for a playoff victory. The rule currently allows a more deserving team to miss that playoff opportunity, which is a bit of a problem.

 

I disagree.  Everyone has the same task to start the season.  Win your division.  I would make the case that because you have a better record than another division winner doesn't make you automatically more deserving IMO.  Strength of schedules, injuries, strength of division, etc all make that an impossible thing to measure accurately (who is more deserving or the better team).  

 

Im fine with the rule, win your division and you are in.  Divisions create rivalries too which make the game better IMO too.  

[Nelius]

15 hours ago, BITE ME said:

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.

 

Their QB depth chart is Taylor Heinicke and Steven Montez? No, they are not a good team. Chase Young is fantastic and they've got some nice pieces, but if you're dressing Colorado Buffs sort-of legend Steven Montez as an actual NFL QB in 2020, then you've got some things to sort out before you're a legitimately good football team.

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I disagree.  Everyone has the same task to start the season.  Win your division.  I would make the case that because you have a better record than another division winner doesn't make you automatically more deserving IMO.  Strength of schedules, injuries, strength of division, etc all make that an impossible thing to measure accurately (who is more deserving or the better team).  

 

Im fine with the rule, win your division and you are in.  Divisions create rivalries too which make the game better IMO too.  

It becomes much easier if you get rid of the divisions. They're just perpetuating established rivalries, for the most part. Those will continue within conference play. They can schedule them once a year. If the rivalry is actually good, they could play again in the playoffs.

 

Make rivalries that actually matter. We all know good rivalries are made when great teams/players play other great team/players, and the league can exploit those as needed from year to year. Like Manning vs Brady or Steelers vs Pats the past 15 years. Could be Mahomes vs Allen the next 15 years. I'd like to see more of that than Bills vs Jets...

[Alphadawg7]

23 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

It becomes much easier if you get rid of the divisions. They're just perpetuating established rivalries, for the most part. Those will continue within conference play. They can schedule them once a year. If the rivalry is actually good, they could play again in the playoffs.

 

Make rivalries that actually matter. We all know good rivalries are made when great teams/players play other great team/players, and the league can exploit those as needed from year to year. Like Manning vs Brady or Steelers vs Pats the past 15 years. Could be Mahomes vs Allen the next 15 years. I'd like to see more of that than Bills vs Jets...

I’m a fan of divisional rivalries.  Picking one of the worst franchises in the league as an example in the Jets doesn’t really paint the true value of rivalries.  AFC West, AFC North, NFC East, NFC West, NFC North etc all have long historical rivalries for example.  We used to have them in the AFC East but that was squashed by Pats dominance while rest of division stayed mediocre or worse. 
 

So I don’t get why people want to get rid of divisions, nothing wrong with how it’s set up now IMHO.  

[billsfan89]

They definitely shouldn't get a home game if they are under .500. I also agree with the take that if a division winner is under .500 then a 4th wildcard should open up.