NFL should seed by record Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Per burnsy, it does.   Unless it doesn't. 
12/12/2014 6:10 AM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by moranis on 12/11/2014 4:33:00 PM (view original):
I'm all for division winners making the playoffs, I just don't think a division winner should be hosting a playoff game unless their record dictates that.  A 5-8 team should not be hosting a playoff game against a 9-4 team (and I know the playoffs don't start to day, but even if the 5th and 6th seed lost their final 3 games, they would both still have a better record than the winner of the NFC South even if said team won its final 3 to finish at 8-8). 

I really don't see the issue with seeding by record, but if you wanted to put some more protection on it, you could.  Maybe to get a bye you have to be a division winner (so 1 and 2 seeds have to be division winners).  Maybe you just keep seeding the same, but the team with the better record is the host of the game (or if the lower seed has a better record, it must be at least 2 games better to host the game if you want a bit more protection on it).  That way a 11-5 team would still play at the 10--6  team, but the 11-5 team would host against the 9-7 team. 

The NBA saw this as a problem and altered their seeding slightly.  The three division winners have to be a top 4 seed, but don't have to be 1, 2, and 3.  Additionally, if the 5 seed has a better record than the 4 seed, the 5 seed would get the extra game in the series (i.e. be the home team).  I don't see why the NFL can't do something similar.

Remember how some of us have been saying "might different if if schedules were the same/similar"?  That's the NBA, at least in conference.  It's an 82 game schedule that, for teams in the same conference, varies by a handful of games.  Everyone plays 2 games against the teams from the other conference, 4 games against 10 teams from their conference (including their entire division) and 3 games against the remaining 4 teams from their conference.  

There's no comparison to the 16 game NFL schedule that can be almost completely different.
12/12/2014 7:26 AM
moranis
Posts: 2919 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 7 6 19 42 51 1 2
Prospect
Sure the schedules aren't the same, which is why I mentioned things like 2 games better as a reasonable cut off.  This year a team that is currently 4 games better would be on the road against a team that is 4 games worse.  That is a problem and it is one that is easy to fix without drastic changes.  Just let the team that is 2 games better host the playoff game.  Not hard at all.
12/12/2014 7:50 AM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
I've already said I'm fine with not letting a sub .500 team host a first round game.  "Problem" solved. Beyond that, I don't really care, and I don't even really care that much about doing that.

12/12/2014 8:00 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Now you're doing the same thing as burnsy.   "It matters except when it doesn't."

Try looking at it this way.    ****** NO has 8 wins with one left but they've clinched the division.   They play at 1.    Crappy SF has 9 wins and plays at 4.    Since they've clinched a spot and a home game, they'd normally sit key players after a quarter or half.  But, under your convoluted rules, they might need to win.    So, in a tight game, they have to use the entire playbook thus saving nothing for a PLAYOFF game.    Even worse, Drew Brees is injured late in the 4th quarter and they lose.   So does SF.   Yay!!!  NO gets a home game.    Without their QB. 

Call me crazy but I'd rather a team be full strength for a PLAYOFF game rather than scrapping for a win they MIGHT need in the last week. 

12/12/2014 8:10 AM
moranis
Posts: 2919 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 7 6 19 42 51 1 2
Prospect
Mike, I think they should just seed by record period.  Some years you might have an easier schedule and benefit, some years you might have a harder schedule and it be a detriment, but I think it would work out over time.  Just seed by record and be done with it.  The only caveat is that I would let all division winners into the playoffs,  no matter record, I just wouldn't guarantee them a top 4 seed.  That is it.  So this year the NFC South division winner would be the 6th seed, not the 4th seed.
12/12/2014 9:01 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So, 24 hours later, you're shitcanning your convoluted "2 game difference" idea?    Good. 

I don't really care, I don't watch all regular season games in the NFL, but I catch a lot of the playoffs.   I just want good games.  Forcing a division winner to play all out in game 16 in order to "win" a home game seems to work against what I want.   

As I said to burnsy, if you want to throw out divisions, go ahead.   I'm fine with that.   If you want to change it to 4 divisions of 8 with only the division winners getting byes/home games, go ahead.    But don't "punish" division winners because they may have had a tougher road, and thus less wins, than a WC team. 
12/12/2014 9:21 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Explain to me how a 7-9 team had a tougher road than a 10-6 team that missed the playoffs? The 7-9 team automatically had 6 games against teams with worse records than 7-9. 

There are lots of things in life that are "This happens when you do this, unless..." and there are good reasons for the "unless." This would be one of them. Teams that played poorly during the year don't deserve playoff spots.
12/12/2014 9:34 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'll do that when you breakdown the 7-6 AFC teams and tell me which one is the most "deserving".
12/12/2014 9:46 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Well, none of them are deserving at this point, because 7-6 isn't good enough to make the playoffs.  

7-9 division winners are very likely to have weaker schedules than a 10-6 team missed the playoffs because, without knowing anything else, the 7-9 team has already played 38% of their games against teams with losing records, and the 10-6 team has played a team with a 69%+ winning percentage twice. It's very unlikely the 7-9 team played a harder schedule.

A 7-9 team that wins division is a team that did not play well that year.  Not a team that was unlucky in its record. Teams that play poorly are not deserving of a playoff spot.
12/12/2014 9:56 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Falcons are 5-8.   Lost by 1 to Detroit(Smith inexplicably called a timeout to make the Lions life easier) and by 2 to Cleveland(Hoyer made his last stand) on last second FG. 

Are they somehow more "deserving" if the kickers miss those FG with less than 10 seconds on the clock?
12/12/2014 10:45 AM
moranis
Posts: 2919 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 7 6 19 42 51 1 2
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):
So, 24 hours later, you're shitcanning your convoluted "2 game difference" idea?    Good. 

I don't really care, I don't watch all regular season games in the NFL, but I catch a lot of the playoffs.   I just want good games.  Forcing a division winner to play all out in game 16 in order to "win" a home game seems to work against what I want.   

As I said to burnsy, if you want to throw out divisions, go ahead.   I'm fine with that.   If you want to change it to 4 divisions of 8 with only the division winners getting byes/home games, go ahead.    But don't "punish" division winners because they may have had a tougher road, and thus less wins, than a WC team. 
Mike, I have been consistent in this thread.  I just brought up those other ideas in response to others claims and objection to the very easy to do, seed by record.

who is to say the division winner had a tougher road though?  Maybe the 9-7 division winner had an easier schedule than the 11-5 non-division winner.  Winning games should matter more than anything else.

Teams all the time rest players the last week when it might matter for seeding.  It shouldn't be any different just because you've already won your division.  I mean every year you see teams that have won their division already make the analysis on rest or play based on seeding.  Some teams even rest players when they could improve their seeding in a victory.  It is a team by team thing. 

I've been consistent, winning the division should get you into the playoffs, it shouldn't get you a home game.

12/12/2014 10:48 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 10:45:00 AM (view original):
Falcons are 5-8.   Lost by 1 to Detroit(Smith inexplicably called a timeout to make the Lions life easier) and by 2 to Cleveland(Hoyer made his last stand) on last second FG. 

Are they somehow more "deserving" if the kickers miss those FG with less than 10 seconds on the clock?
Yes, obviously.  They would have won more games.  That could be said of any team that misses the playoffs by a game or two. "We're deserving, if only X happened in that close game, and Y happened in that close game..."

Maybe if the Falcons beat teams like the Vikings, Giants, or Bears, or maybe do better than 1-5 against teams with a winning records? Maybe then they'd be deserving too.  But they didn't, because they haven't played like a good team this year.  Right now, they aren't deserving of playing for a championship in January.

12/12/2014 11:06 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So, because they did nothing but stand on the field and watch a kicker miss a FG they're more "deserving"?

Look, I believe in the "you are your record" thing(Parcells?).     But I don't want to hear about "deserving".  

If there are divisions, the powers that be are saying "You must beat these teams".    As I've repeated over and over and over again, if you want to do away with divisions, fine.    
12/12/2014 11:15 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by moranis on 12/12/2014 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):
So, 24 hours later, you're shitcanning your convoluted "2 game difference" idea?    Good. 

I don't really care, I don't watch all regular season games in the NFL, but I catch a lot of the playoffs.   I just want good games.  Forcing a division winner to play all out in game 16 in order to "win" a home game seems to work against what I want.   

As I said to burnsy, if you want to throw out divisions, go ahead.   I'm fine with that.   If you want to change it to 4 divisions of 8 with only the division winners getting byes/home games, go ahead.    But don't "punish" division winners because they may have had a tougher road, and thus less wins, than a WC team. 
Mike, I have been consistent in this thread.  I just brought up those other ideas in response to others claims and objection to the very easy to do, seed by record.

who is to say the division winner had a tougher road though?  Maybe the 9-7 division winner had an easier schedule than the 11-5 non-division winner.  Winning games should matter more than anything else.

Teams all the time rest players the last week when it might matter for seeding.  It shouldn't be any different just because you've already won your division.  I mean every year you see teams that have won their division already make the analysis on rest or play based on seeding.  Some teams even rest players when they could improve their seeding in a victory.  It is a team by team thing. 

I've been consistent, winning the division should get you into the playoffs, it shouldn't get you a home game.

Yes, it should get you a home game.  

If the WC is so much better, or "deserving", just kick the *** of that "undeserving" division winner and move on. 
12/12/2014 11:17 AM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8|9 Next ▸
NFL should seed by record Topic
△Top△Bottom

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.