I'd like a million dollars for Christmas, but you know. I can't get anything I want.

I'm telling you a 9-7 team is more deserving of a playoff spot than a team with a losing record, because they aren't losers. Winning teams compete for championships.

For comparison's sake, a 6-10 team has the same winning percentage as a baseball team that went 61-101. They sound deserving of playing for a championship.

So a 9-7 team is significantly better than a 8-8 team?

Probably not. Put them both in the playoffs.

I want deserving teams in the playoffs, Mike. Going 6-10 doesn't make you deserving, you didn't play like a team that deserves to compete for a championship in January. It's not that hard of a concept.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 1:49:00 PM (view original):
I want deserving teams in the playoffs, Mike. Going 6-10 doesn't make you deserving, you didn't play like a team that deserves to compete for a championship in January. It's not that hard of a concept.

So you only want "deserving" teams to be in the playoffs?

Pray tell how you'd determine "deserving".

Here, I'll get to the point.

If you win your division, you're in the playoffs.   No qualifiers. 

If this does not work for you, do away with divisions.   Two 16 teams conferences.   Everyone plays everyone.    1 "special" game against the other conference.   Top 6 go in.

Don't 'tard it up with "4 division winners unless one of the division winners is sub .500."    That's some Goodell-level **** there.   "It's two games for you, 6 games for you and 6 games for you but we might reduce it to 4."

Posted by stinenavy on 12/11/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):
If you win your division, you deserve to be in the playoffs.

but do you deserve to host a playoff game?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Here, I'll get to the point.

If you win your division, you're in the playoffs.   No qualifiers. 

If this does not work for you, do away with divisions.   Two 16 teams conferences.   Everyone plays everyone.    1 "special" game against the other conference.   Top 6 go in.

Don't 'tard it up with "4 division winners unless one of the division winners is sub .500."    That's some Goodell-level **** there.   "It's two games for you, 6 games for you and 6 games for you but we might reduce it to 4."

If you win your division, you're in the playoffs. Unless you lose more games than you win. Losing teams don't compete for a championship.

Phew. That was easy.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Here, I'll get to the point.

If you win your division, you're in the playoffs.   No qualifiers. 

If this does not work for you, do away with divisions.   Two 16 teams conferences.   Everyone plays everyone.    1 "special" game against the other conference.   Top 6 go in.

Don't 'tard it up with "4 division winners unless one of the division winners is sub .500."    That's some Goodell-level **** there.   "It's two games for you, 6 games for you and 6 games for you but we might reduce it to 4."

If you win your division, you're in the playoffs. Unless you lose more games than you win. Losing teams don't compete for a championship.

Phew. That was easy.

That is what is called "a qualifier".

Why not just do away with divisions if winning a division might not mean a damn thing?   You want to play your "rivals" twice?   Go ahead.    But don't muck up the playoff system with "You're in unless this happens" bullshit. 

Divisions are great! And winning the division is a great accomplishment.  And if you win it, you're in. Unless that 1% chance happens where every team in the division stinks. That's a division that doesn't deserve a playoff team this year.

Obviously that 1% chance is the sticking point.

Winning your division should mean something.   Or it shouldn't.    No "but if...." bullshit.

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.

You do recognize that there's a huge difference between 0 and 1 while it's much "smaller" between 3 and 4, right?

If your 11-5 team couldn't out-do their 12-4 rival and have to travel to 6-10 ATL, or 6-10 NO or 6-9-1 CAR and can't win that game, then **** 'em, they don't deserve to win the Super Bowl. 
If you're going to have divisions, the winning the division should matter.