Change Playoff Rule

[NewEra]

48 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

I've been thinking about this change for awhile. I wanted to get some input. Currently, the division winners get an automatic playoff home game. This is despite if another playoff team has a better record. Likely going to happen to the Bills this year. 

 

I get the NFL wants to reward division winners but it's at the expense of other teams good seasonal records. Personally, I think it's more fair to have the team with the better record to host the playoff game instead of the divisional winner. 

 

What are your thoughts? Do you think at some point this might happen? 

Never.  Dumb idea 

[ticketssince61]

I suggest division winners make the playoffs but seeding for playoff games is based on overall record

 

Not fair that last year a 14-3 vikings team had to play on the road

 

If the Bills win out, it would be possible to be 13 - 4 and having to go on the road to a team that is 9-8 or 8-9

 

Also, it could make the last week of the season more interesting as teams playoff slots will not necessarily be locked in

[loyal2dagame]

The current format gives all teams every incentive to play their best players until seeding is set or they are eliminated.

If any change happens, add back the 2 seed bye and add another playoff team slot

[pennstate10]

57 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

I've been thinking about this change for awhile. I wanted to get some input. Currently, the division winners get an automatic playoff home game. This is despite if another playoff team has a better record. Likely going to happen to the Bills this year. 

 

I get the NFL wants to reward division winners but it's at the expense of other teams good seasonal records. Personally, I think it's more fair to have the team with the better record to host the playoff game instead of the divisional winner. 

 

What are your thoughts? Do you think at some point this might happen? 

I’m with you. Seasons not over yet, but it’s entirely possible that a 12-5 Bills team will be seeded lower than an 8-9 Ravens team. That somehow seems wrong. 

[Metal Man]

44 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

The change the NFL did make, which I like, is that they now reseed the playoffs after the first round.  That means that if the AFC North team survives the first round with a home win, they're going on the road the next game, even if they have a wildcard opponent.  

 

Is this true? 

 

Unless I am not understanding, what you are saying is that if the 4th seed wins along with the 6 and 7 the first weekend then the 4th seed could potentially have to go on the road against the 6 if the 6 has a better overall record?

 

I don't recall seeing this before.

[Tanoros]

1 hour ago, newcam2012 said:

I've been thinking about this change for awhile. I wanted to get some input. Currently, the division winners get an automatic playoff home game. This is despite if another playoff team has a better record. Likely going to happen to the Bills this year. 

 

I get the NFL wants to reward division winners but it's at the expense of other teams good seasonal records. Personally, I think it's more fair to have the team with the better record to host the playoff game instead of the divisional winner. 

 

What are your thoughts? Do you think at some point this might happen? 

Might as well get rid of divisions if you do that. It’s important for the Divisions to mean something. Plus a team with a better record going on the road in the playoffs adds parity, and if they are better and worth of a Super Bowl, then they should win the game anyway. There’s nothing wrong with the current format and I don’t see it changing. 

[947]

Remember the 2010 Wild Card game when the defending champ 11-5 Saints had to go into Seattle to play 7-9 division winning Seahawks? That was the game with the insane Lynch run to ice it. 

 

It was an iconic game, but at the same time it's a farce that a 7-9 team got to host a playoff game.

[WotAGuy]

The team with the cooler fan base should always get the home games. 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, dorquemada said:

teams shouldnt be punished for playing in more difficult divisions. the rule should stand

Agree.

If you make divisions irrelevant, then why are they playing unbalanced schedules?

It becomes like the NBA. I don't even understand why they have anything other than West and East anymore.

[Tanoros]

14 minutes ago, Metal Man said:

 

Is this true? 

 

Unless I am not understanding, what you are saying is that if the 4th seed wins along with the 6 and 7 the first weekend then the 4th seed could potentially have to go on the road against the 6 if the 6 has a better overall record?

 

I don't recall seeing this before.

I don’t believe this is true. The seeding is locked, lowest seed remaining plays the 1 seed, and the other two left play with the higher seed being the home team. 

[Virgil]

There's always going to be a one off.  Even if there is one division in each conference who gets a team into the playoffs with barely a .500 record, that's only affecting two of the 14 playoff teams.  Don't adjust rules for a one off.  

[Tanoros]

3 minutes ago, 947 said:

Remember the 2010 Wild Card game when the defending champ 11-5 Saints had to go into Seattle to play 7-9 division winning Seahawks? That was the game with the insane Lynch run to ice it. 

 

It was an iconic game, but at the same time it's a farce that a 7-9 team got to host a playoff game.

In my opinion this game is why this current system works. There is every incentive to win the Division, it makes Division games so meaningful and leads to the Division arms races that happens. 

[Shaw66]

13 minutes ago, Metal Man said:

 

Is this true? 

 

Unless I am not understanding, what you are saying is that if the 4th seed wins along with the 6 and 7 the first weekend then the 4th seed could potentially have to go on the road against the 6 if the 6 has a better overall record?

 

I don't recall seeing this before.

Yes, as I understand, they changed this a year or two ago. Now, after each round they reseed. I believe it used to be that if the #7 seed beat the #2, the #7 seed would get the next game. Not any more. If you're the 7th seed, you are on the road the whole way. At least that's my understanding.

[Steve O]

9 minutes ago, Metal Man said:

 

Is this true? 

Unless I am not understanding, what you are saying is that if the 4th seed wins along with the 6 and 7 the first weekend then the 4th seed could potentially have to go on the road against the 6 if the 6 has a better overall record?

I don't recall seeing this before.

https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/nfl-playoff-format-how-does-the-nfl-postseason-work

I believe Shaw is mistaken, at least according to this Fox sports article a few weeks ago. The reseeding in the NFL is actually that you keep your seed rather than take the seed of a team you beat. If 4, 6, and 7 seeds win wildcard round 7 goes to 1 and 6 goes to 4 for the divisional round even if 6 has the better record. The only way a wildcard team hosts is to host a lower seeded wildcard team. At least that's how I'm reading this.

[Cash]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Whenever I think about this problem, I always conclude the NFL has it right. Every season there are one or two weak divisions, and this rule makes those division races much more interesting. Your way makes the division races almost irrelevant - it means the teams are fighting for a chance to be the seventh seed in the tournament and have to go to the number two seed in the first round. If you're a fan of a team in a week division, you want to think that your team has some kind of shot in the tournament, and home field for the first game gives them at least a little edge.  

 

The message to the Bills, which is the message to every team every season is simple:  You want home field? Win your division.  The Bills should have thought a little more about that when they played NE the first time, and certainly when they played the Dolphins. Win one of those games, and the Bills would have been where they wanted to be.  

 

The change the NFL did make, which I like, is that they now reseed the playoffs after the first round.  That means that if the AFC North team survives the first round with a home win, they're going on the road the next game, even if they have a wildcard opponent.  

Are you sure of that last point? Because I don’t think that’s actually how it works. The 4 seed (worst division winner) stays the 4 seed, and hosts if they’re playing a lower seed (including a wildcard with a better record.) 

 

My apologies if this is out of date and I missed a playoff chance. 

[Taro Nimbus]

This is why you push to win your division.  To host a playoff game.   I really don’t know why have an issue with this.    If this is such a problem, just get rid of divisions and do two conferences like the nba.  And do 8 team playoffs.   1 vs 8. 2vs 7. So on, so on. 

[TheWeatherMan]

2 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

I've been thinking about this change for awhile. I wanted to get some input. Currently, the division winners get an automatic playoff home game. This is despite if another playoff team has a better record. Likely going to happen to the Bills this year. 

 

I get the NFL wants to reward division winners but it's at the expense of other teams good seasonal records. Personally, I think it's more fair to have the team with the better record to host the playoff game instead of the divisional winner. 

 

What are your thoughts? Do you think at some point this might happen? 

Playoff seeding should be based on ESPN power rankings.  That would fix everything! 

[corta765]

It isn't fully fair but every player and coach says their is major value to winning your division and being rewarded with a home game. Teams mold their rosters based on their division opponents given you play 33% of your games against them.

 

The NFL has lightly mulled the idea of a provision that you need a specific record or amount of wins to host as a division winner and it dies every time. Why? Money for owners is big and the last thing they want to do is give it up.

 

The true way to fix the division issue is to go back to just an East & West division per conference merging the Conference East & North divisions and West & South. You would never have a bad division winner again, you would end up playing 75% of the conference yearly, you can still rotate a rivalry game from the old division you were in so you get a home and home every three years, and it would allow wild cards to host again. Years ago I explained how to do this and the basic format in a threat. 

If you ever want to see wildcard teams host you need to condense divisions so the prize is greater across the board.

[newcam2012]

1 hour ago, Taro Nimbus said:

This is why you push to win your division.  To host a playoff game.   I really don’t know why have an issue with this.    If this is such a problem, just get rid of divisions and do two conferences like the nba.  And do 8 team playoffs.   1 vs 8. 2vs 7. So on, so on. 

I think the NBA system would work fine in the NFL. At least a new seeding system based on record doesn't screw any team. Never will it do that. The current system does definitely does that. The issue isn't if it's a one off or happens infrequently. The system has a major flaw in it. I think most here are over emphasizing divisional games. So what if they happen to lessened. 

17 minutes ago, corta765 said:

It isn't fully fair but every player and coach says their is major value to winning your division and being rewarded with a home game. Teams mold their rosters based on their division opponents given you play 33% of your games against them.

 

The NFL has lightly mulled the idea of a provision that you need a specific record or amount of wins to host as a division winner and it dies every time. Why? Money for owners is big and the last thing they want to do is give it up.

 

The true way to fix the division issue is to go back to just an East & West division per conference merging the Conference East & North divisions and West & South. You would never have a bad division winner again, you would end up playing 75% of the conference yearly, you can still rotate a rivalry game from the old division you were in so you get a home and home every three years, and it would allow wild cards to host again. Years ago I explained how to do this and the basic format in a threat. 

If you ever want to see wildcard teams host you need to condense divisions so the prize is greater across the board.

Great post!!!

Edited 1 hour ago by newcam2012

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Cash said:

Are you sure of that last point? Because I don’t think that’s actually how it works. The 4 seed (worst division winner) stays the 4 seed, and hosts if they’re playing a lower seed (including a wildcard with a better record.) 

 

My apologies if this is out of date and I missed a playoff chance. 

No, thanks to you.  I don't know exactly how this works. 

 

Here's what Fox Sports says:

 

Quote

While there is no reseeding in the NFL playoffs, the host of each game is determined by seeding number, not position in the bracket. After the wild-card games are completed, the matchups of the divisional playoffs feature the lowest remaining seed in each conference traveling to the highest remaining seed and the second-lowest remaining seed traveling to the second-highest remaining seed.

So, I think what this means is this: The bracket stays the same.  Wildcard:  1 gets a bye, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, and 4 plays 5. Higher seed is the home team.  In the next round (divisional) 1 will play the 4-5 winner, and 2-7 plays 3-6.  It used to be that if 7 beats 2, then in the next round, 7 would host - that is, the right to host belonged to 2 and 7 took it. They've changed it so that 7 doesn't get that benefit any more.  The 3-6 winner will host.