NFL should seed by record Topic

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/18/2013 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Disagree.   If every team had the same schedule, sure.   They don't. 

A little less relevant this time because the NFC South is complete crap and obviously will send the worst team to the playoffs but teams still don't play the same schedule. 

12/11/2014 10:41 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/19/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):
As an aside - ever since Seattle made the playoffs at 7-9, I've felt this way - if you win your division and you have a losing record, you don't get in.  The next wild card team does.  There's little reason why a team that can't win half their games deserves a playoff spot over teams that go 10-6.  The best WC team gets a home playoff game against the next best wild card team.
I still believe this to be true. If 6-10 NFC South team makes playoffs and an 11-5 team doesn't, that's complete horseshit.
12/11/2014 10:50 AM
At the VERY least - you can't host a playoff game. So go screw, Atlanta, you're going to Seattle.
12/11/2014 10:51 AM
I'm sure I'm repeating myself from last year but I like division winners getting home games.   It's more of a reward(if watching your team get shitkicked in the playoffs is a reward) to the fans.   You've gone to 8 home games, watched your team win 3-4 in an otherwise hopeless season and you get to see one more game from your seat.    IOW, screw your Seattle.   Win your division if you want to play at home.
12/11/2014 11:13 AM
If you're not concerned with divisional games meaning "more", change the NFL to 4 divisions of 8.  Only 4 division winners are guaranteed to have home games.   The other 4 are seeded based on record.
12/11/2014 11:16 AM
Yea, I'd argue that 6-10 teams, regardless of what division you play in, don't deserve a reward. Fans of an 10-6 Dallas team would deserve a reward much more than fans of a 6-10 Atlanta team. At least win half your games if you want to be in the playoffs.
12/11/2014 11:16 AM
I wouldn't balk at requiring a .500 record for a division winner to get a playoff bid, or require that to host the first round game, but I don't care if it happens either.  I still wouldn't seed everyone by record only.
12/11/2014 11:17 AM
This year could have been another great example of the problem with that at the top end of the seedings.  A couple weeks ago, everyone in the AFC North was at least 3 games over .500. Loaded division, or largely a product of playing the NFC and AFC South (most notably Jacksonville and Tennessee) as their common out of division slates?  
12/11/2014 11:25 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Yea, I'd argue that 6-10 teams, regardless of what division you play in, don't deserve a reward. Fans of an 10-6 Dallas team would deserve a reward much more than fans of a 6-10 Atlanta team. At least win half your games if you want to be in the playoffs.
I'd argue that the FANS of a 6-10 team deserve a reward more than FANS of a 10-6 team.   They've been watching their crap team stink it up for 8 home games.

As a goddam Raiders fan, I deserve a medal of honor or some ****.   Back in the day, you couldn't swing a dead cat in a bar without hitting a Raiders fan.   Now, it's a rare sighting. 
12/11/2014 11:38 AM
Then why don't we just do playoff games for ****** teams? I mean, ****, you had to watch that **** all year.
12/11/2014 11:43 AM
They were all 3 games over .500 but it wouldn't have affected the top end of the standings as there are plenty of good teams.  I know there are problems with that and there are certainly times where an 8-8 team is better than a 10-6 team, but that doesn't mean the 8-8 team should be hosting a playoff game either. 

Division winners make the playoffs, but shouldn't automatically host a playoff game either.  That is what I'm getting at.  I do think seeding by record, by and large, will work out better in the long run than the current system.  I mean last year 12-4 San Francisco beat 8-7-1 Green Bay in the regular season and then had to go to Lambeau in the playoffs and win again.  11-5 New Orleans had to go to 10-6 Philadelphia in the playoffs.  Now granted the road team won those games, but they shouldn't have had to be the road team. 

Maybe you keep the seeding the same, but if the road team is 2 games or more better it gets to host the game.  So this year Atlanta is still the 4 seed and Seattle is still the 5 seed, but the game is played in Seattle as a result of the difference in record.  That might be a functional compromise. 
12/11/2014 11:47 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Then why don't we just do playoff games for ****** teams? I mean, ****, you had to watch that **** all year.
Well, the NFC South will be repped, right?   That's a step in that direction.

If you don't want divisions to mean anything, don't have divisions.     Two 16 team conferences.   Top 6 make the playoffs and are seed accordingly.    Done.
12/11/2014 12:07 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/20/2013 11:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/20/2013 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Why have divisions if a division championship means nothing?  
This.  Fighting for the division is fun.  And when you play your division 6 out of 16 times, winning it should mean something.  Home-field in a playoff game.
Of course, this conflicts with what you want today. 
12/11/2014 12:09 PM
I don't think we should rank playoff teams based on record alone.  Winning the division should mean something, unless you lose most of the games you play.
12/11/2014 12:16 PM
The only reason it didn't affect the top end of the standings was because those 4 teams all appear to be similar in their mediocrity.  If there are two teams in that division that are clearly better than the other two, they are both easily in contention for the #1 and #2 seeds if record is the only factor.  Like what almost happened with Kansas City last year that prompted the creation of this thread.

I don't like the idea of sub .500 teams getting into the playoffs to begin with, so pretty much anything you want to do with them, I'm cool with.  But given the diversity of the schedules, I think going any further than that is just a bad idea.


12/11/2014 12:17 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...9 Next ▸
NFL should seed by record Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.