NFL to Have Vote That Would Alter Playoff Seeding

[chongli]

59 minutes ago, K D said:

If you are a division winner with a losing record then you shouldn't make the playoffs. Simple as that.

 

Then we would have been denied the pleasure of watching the Beastquake:

 

 

 

 

[K-9]

Imo, four division winners in each conference should get a bye and there should be four WC teams in each conference as well. Division winners with crappy records and WC teams with better records is irrelevant. Winning your division is job one every year and a team shouldn’t be penalized for playing in a weak division. Likewise, a non-division winner in a stronger division shouldn’t be rewarded for not being able to win it, either. Just my two cents. 

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, Beast said:

Just stupid. Leave it the way it is. Strength of schedule comes into play and there is no fair way to figure that in.

It's not really stupid. What is stupid is a 14-3 team playing a wild card game on the road. I understand the NFL consistently tweaks a product most of us would rather not be tweaked, but some advancements can actually better the game.  

[djp14150]

2 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

this should absolutely happen.

Win your Division clinches playoff birth....but does not guarantee home game

 

Teams who go 9-8 or 10-7  being at home against a 13 or 14 win team is a joke 

 

 

 

"Detroit’s proposal would be for the four division champions and three wild cards in each conference to make the playoffs. Those seven teams would then be seeded strictly by record, rather than assigning the top seeds to the division winners (which is how it’s been done since the merger), with the wild cards to follow. If teams have the same record, being a division champion would be the first tiebreaker—regardless of head-to-head record."

"A change in Detroit’s proposal from March is for the teams then to be reseeded after the first round. So, in this case, the No. 1 seed would play the lowest-remaining seed in the conference, rather than automatically facing the winner of the No. 4 vs. No. 5 matchup, with the other two remaining teams playing in the other divisional round game.

In March, when commissioner Roger Goodell conducted an unofficial vote on the idea, only a handful of teams were ready to vote the proposal through. But there was also new logic to the idea that teams were considering, prompting Goodell to table an official vote until May.

That logic is right there in the NFL’s rules proposal memo that went to clubs this week. The reason, in Detroit’s proposal, reads: Competitive equity. Provides excitement and competition in late-season games. Rewards the best-performing teams from the regular season."

 

 

You should factor in strength of schedule in the seeding and award winning your division.

 

POINTS= 

Winning pct×10

+ weighted played SOSx10 ( factoring in SOV, Hv R vN)

+some points for division placement/ win div 0-5)

 

Max is 25 points

[Doc Brown]

58 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

You should factor in strength of schedule in the seeding and award winning your division.

 

POINTS= 

Winning pct×10

+ weighted played SOSx10 ( factoring in SOV, Hv R vN)

+some points for division placement/ win div 0-5)

 

Max is 25 points

I can see Terry Bradshaw explaining it to us in the studios come week 18 next year.

[BullBuchanan]

seems like a dumb idea. I'd be more in favor of just going back to 6 teams with 2 byes, but of course that's not happening. Pretty soon we'll have 10 teams in the playoffs.

[Matt_In_NH]

It makes sense so you will still get a reward if you win your division of you are guaranteed playoffs even if there is a non division winner with a better record.   It is just not guaranteed to be at home. Seems reasonable

[Jalan81]

I would add another team and get rid of the bye for the top seed.

[Mr. WEO]

this fails 31-1

[ColoradoBills]

I don't like it.

 

Teams having to play their division teams twice along with the luck of the draw playing the other divisions every year makes

the math skewed so much that the re-seeding will ALWAYS have issues.

 

Either have divisions (and the winners mean something) or get rid of the all the divisions and just go with just a conference.

 

[Beast]

On 5/16/2025 at 4:31 PM, Mikie2times said:

It's not really stupid. What is stupid is a 14-3 team playing a wild card game on the road. I understand the NFL consistently tweaks a product most of us would rather not be tweaked, but some advancements can actually better the game.  

No, winning your division should always hold more water than a wildcard team, no matter their records.

 

If you want to have the team with the best record always play host then just eliminate the divisions and play every team in your conference once and play 2 out of conference games. (As @ColoradoBills stated above)

Edited 3 hours ago by Beast

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, Beast said:

No, winning your division should always hold more water than a wildcard team, no matter their records.

 

If you want to have the team with the best record always play host then just eliminate the divisions and play every team in your conference once and play 2 out of conference games. (As @ColoradoBills stated above)

If you win a division you deserve one home playoff game minimum. If the NFL wants to make the divisions better by making only 3 divisions per conference that is fine but a division must mean something.