Change Playoff Rule

[Buffalo716]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

if

 

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

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.

I still do not believe that was true Shaw 

 

You were the seven seed and you upset the two seed.. the seven seed wouldn't get to host a playoff game next week

 

The Giants went on the road and beat higher seats all the way through their playoff run years ago

 

 

[Shaw66]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

I still do not believe that was true Shaw 

 

You were the seven seed and you upset the two seed.. the seven seed wouldn't get to host a playoff game next week

 

The Giants went on the road and beat higher seats all the way through their playoff run years ago

 

 

I don't know. All I did was Google it, and seemed to me it was reported as a change. Maybe all they meant is that in a historic, standard bracket, the team that beat the highest seed acquired the place in the bracket as the highest seed, including home court. 

 

What you say sounds correct.

[Steve O]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

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

 

Here's what Fox Sports says:

 

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.   

It isn't the bracket that stays the same, it's the seed. 1 will not necessarily play the 4-5 winner, they will play the lowest remaining seed. if 4 beats 5, 6 beats 3, and 2 beats 7 then 1 hosts 6 and 2 hosts 4 (no matter their records.) It was the same basic concept before the move to 7 teams. 

 

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My apologies if this is out of date and I missed a playoff chance. 

correct

Edited 10 hours ago by Steve O

[The Wiz]

Divisional winners is good for the league because it generates more money is my guess.

 

Until it doesn't, they wont change it.  I'm as from from a financial expert but I can only conclude that this is the reason.  Even if they are making $2 per game vs making zero.

[Cash]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't know. All I did was Google it, and seemed to me it was reported as a change. Maybe all they meant is that in a historic, standard bracket, the team that beat the highest seed acquired the place in the bracket as the highest seed, including home court. 

 

What you say sounds correct.

 

Yeah, I think you got some bad or misleading info.  I don't think there's been a change to the playoffs outside of the OT rules and the major one of adding the 7 seed.  In my fan-lifetime, the playoffs have always featured dvision winners as higher seeds than wildcards; and the highest seed (who doesn't have a bye) always hosts the lowest seed, followed by 2nd-highest hosting 2nd-lowest, etc.  [Note that shortly before I became a football fan there was another significant change: allowing same-division matchups in the Wildcard round.]

 

When people say re-seeding, they really mean that the lowest seed will travel to the highest seed, not that anyone's seed # will change.  This is opposed to the NBA or NCAA basketball tournaments, where if 8 beats 1, 8 goes on to face the winner of 4/5.

[Reks Ryan]

1 hour ago, Cash said:

 

When people say re-seeding, they really mean that the lowest seed will travel to the highest seed, not that anyone's seed # will change.  This is opposed to the NBA or NCAA basketball tournaments, where if 8 beats 1, 8 goes on to face the winner of 4/5.

Exactly, when you hear re-seeding referenced to NFL playoffs it just means that it is not a bracket format.    The highest remaining seed in the 2nd round of the NFL playoffs will play the lowest remaining seed.  In the current NFL system, a Wildcard qualifier will never be seeded higher / have a home game against a Division winner, no matter the records.  So if the Bills are the 5th seed the only chance to for a home game, would be in the AFCCG if the 6th or 7th seed WC team has 2 upset victories to get to the conference title game.

[Steve O]

1 hour ago, Reks Ryan said:

 So if the Bills are the 5th seed the only chance to for a home game, would be in the AFCCG if the 6th or 7th seed WC team has 2 upset victories to get to the conference title game.

Actually the Bills (or any 5 seed) can potential host 2 games.

It would require 5/6/7 all winning on the road in the wild card road. If that happens then 1 hosts 7 and 5 hosts 6 in the divisional road. 

[RiotAct]

when it won’t benefit the Bills anymore, is when they’ll end up changing it.

[Don Otreply]

Nope!

 

 

[NoSaint]

10 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? 

i like it the way it is. Divisions and rivalries count for something. 

[jaybills]

11 hours ago, boyst said:

I like it, maybe I'm in the minority. Division games are very important and very impactful. Teams plan their offseason for division games to beat other teams in their division. I no we are blind to this since we've been able to walk through our division for years, and before that the Patriots did too. But look at the NFC north, the AFC north, and the AFC south. Maybe even the AFC West. Those teams build teams to beat the teams in their division and win their division crowns. The AFC North beats the crap out of each other just so they can try to win the North and they are more concerned with their division than any other matchup, and rightly so 

 

If you take that away from the game then you might as well get rid of the double headers against teams in the division. Which means you couldn't do strength of schedule scheduling among other things

 

The only thing I would say is that if somehow a division winner is not over .500 then they should forfeit their playoff spot. 

 

There is a chance for a team to win the division being under .500

Yeah, don't change it. I get the discrepancy, but I like the way it is based on what was stated. Teams gear up to take on their division. 

[Buffalo03]

12 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? 

I agree and have been saying this for years but I get hated on for it. It just makes more sense. A Division winner would be guaranteed a spot but not a home game. The people that say "just win your Division and you won't have that problem" don't understand that there is always one bad Division in each conference. What it takes to win one Division, may be much harder in another Division. If one team goes 13-4 but are behind a 14-3 team in their Division, why should they be visiting a 9-8 Division winner in the playoffs? So, the 9-8 team gets rewarded a home game because their Division was garbage? What's the point of putting everything you have into 13 wins just to basically have it not matter when it comes to seeding? This is blatant common sense but no matter how much sense you make, very few people will agree with you

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Buffalo03

[bubba2018]

People only like this idea because we would benefit from it. Personally, it adds some drama to the season. And that’s just what the NFL wants.

Edited 3 hours ago by bubba2018

[Buffalo03]

4 minutes ago, bubba2018 said:

People only like this idea because we would benefit from it. Personally, it adds some drama to the season. And that’s just what the NFL wants.

Doing seeding by record makes more sense. There is no logical reason why a 14-3 team with a 15-2 Division winner should have to travel to play a 9-8 Division winner. So, one team with a record 5 games better gets punished simply because of being in a better Division and the 9-8 Division winner gets rewarded for being in a garbage Division? In what world is that fair or make sense? It doesn't matter who it benefits. But in the Bills case, let's say a hypothetical. The Steelers or Ravens win the North. The Bills win out, go 13-4 but finish second and are the 5th seed. They would have to travel to play the Ravens or Steelers. Both teams they would have a better record than and both of which they have head to head tie breakers over. That makes no sense at all

[Billz4ever]

12 hours ago, dorquemada said:

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

You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that the AFC North and NFC South are playing in more difficult divisions when the truth is that both divisions are simply butt cheeks. In reality, it's rewarding mediocrity.

[Buffalo03]

2 hours ago, NoSaint said:

i like it the way it is. Divisions and rivalries count for something. 

And they can still count for something by being guaranteed a playoff game. Just not a home game. Last year, the Vikings went 14-3 and were second in their Division to the Lions going 15-2. They had to travel to play the 10-7 Rams. They had a better record by 4 games but because they were in a Division with a team that won 15 games, they had to travel. The current system rewards lesser teams for winning weaker Divisions. It's simple. Win your Division, get in the playoffs (so it still means something) but the home game goes to the team with the better record

[newcam2012]

44 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

Doing seeding by record makes more sense. There is no logical reason why a 14-3 team with a 15-2 Division winner should have to travel to play a 9-8 Division winner. So, one team with a record 5 games better gets punished simply because of being in a better Division and the 9-8 Division winner gets rewarded for being in a garbage Division? In what world is that fair or make sense? It doesn't matter who it benefits. But in the Bills case, let's say a hypothetical. The Steelers or Ravens win the North. The Bills win out, go 13-4 but finish second and are the 5th seed. They would have to travel to play the Ravens or Steelers. Both teams they would have a better record than and both of which they have head to head tie breakers over. That makes no sense at all

I agree. It absolutely penalizes the team with a better regular season record.  The seeding by record doesn't and never will. It's the fairest of systems. 

 

However, I'm getting a clear message here that fans really value divisional games and rivalries within that exist. A new playoff seeding system as presented would or could negatively effect divisional importance. 

 

Personally, I'm always going to side on the fairest system that rewards results appropriately. It's simple math...

Edited 2 hours ago by newcam2012

[Sojourner]

If you’re going to ever shift to that course of change, you have to scrap divisions completely to make it fair. Something I feel most fans will not want. Rivalries are a huge portion of the game and if you keep divisions in tact, there should be some reward for winning your division regardless of your record. 
 

Keeping divisions actually retains some parity in the league by allowing one in every 4 teams a chance at hosting a playoff game and generating more money to that city and its infrastructure. Plus, it’s an added boost to the fans getting that extra game to watch their team at home. 
 

 

On top of that you might be scrapping the whole strength of scheduling which is a huge tiebreaker difference in terms of seeding. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sojourner

[Buffalo03]

17 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

I agree. It absolutely penalizes the team with a better regular season record.  The seeding by record doesn't and never will. It's the fairest of systems. 

 

However, I'm getting a clear message here that fans really value divisional games and rivalries within that exist. A new playoff seeding system as presented would or could negatively effect divisional importance. 

 

Personally, I'm always going to side on the fairest system that rewards results appropriately. It's simple math...

Exactly. It's so obvious but people just don't want to see it that way

[NoSaint]

3 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

I agree and have been saying this for years but I get hated on for it. It just makes more sense. A Division winner would be guaranteed a spot but not a home game. The people that say "just win your Division and you won't have that problem" don't understand that there is always one bad Division in each conference. What it takes to win one Division, may be much harder in another Division. If one team goes 13-4 but are behind a 14-3 team in their Division, why should they be visiting a 9-8 Division winner in the playoffs? So, the 9-8 team gets rewarded a home game because their Division was garbage? What's the point of putting everything you have into 13 wins just to basically have it not matter when it comes to seeding? This is blatant common sense but no matter how much sense you make, very few people will agree with you

 

we understand stand your point but don’t agree 

 

just because you like something doesn’t mean it’s blatant common sense.