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.