What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

A Division Winner with a Losing Record Shouldn't Host a Playoff Game (1 Viewer)

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
Why should a 7-9 or 8-8 team (I'm looking at you NFC East, possibly the worst division this millennium) host a 12-4 or 13-3 team in a playoff game? 

It's playing out this year when either SF or Seattle will have to travel to Philly or Dallas. Anyone watching has seen how strong the former has been playing and how weak the latter has. 

Would it be crazy for the NFL to update the rules in the offseason to have some sort of 10 win caveat to host a playoff game? 

 
why would a 10-win team deserve to host a 13-win team?
They shouldn't, but I doubt they'd ever completely redo the format. 

What I do know is that it def needs some sort of adjustment. 

Pretty confident that we might see the largest road favorite in playoff game history come Wildcard Weekend. 

 
They shouldn't, but I doubt they'd ever completely redo the format. 

What I do know is that it def needs some sort of adjustment. 

Pretty confident that we might see the largest road favorite in playoff game history come Wildcard Weekend. 
it seems a lot more sensible just to seed by record than to come up with some arbritrary win cut-off.

 
it seems a lot more sensible just to seed by record than to come up with some arbritrary win cut-off.
That's basically eliminating divisions. Regardless, I think anyone watching knows there is some glitch in the system when either Dallas or Philly will host either SF or Seattle. 

 
Play better, win your division 

nothing to cry about 
If we flipped it and had the team with the best record host, we could say:

Play better, win more games. Nothing to cry about. 

Works either way. I personally think playing better and winning more games should be rewarded. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Win your division if you want to host a playoff game.   It's an imperfect system, but it makes division games meaningful and has been very successful in building rivalries over the years. 

Other than the strike year, it's happened twice...ever.   Seahawks went 7-9 in 2010 and beat the Saints.   Panthers went 7-8-1 in 2014 and beat the Cardinals.  Doesn't really seem like a problem that needs to be fixed.

 
Win your division if you want to host a playoff game.   It's an imperfect system, but it makes division games meaningful and has been very successful in building rivalries over the years. 

Other than the strike year, it's happened twice...ever.   Seahawks went 7-9 in 2010 and beat the Saints.   Panthers went 7-8-1 in 2014 and beat the Cardinals.  Doesn't really seem like a problem that needs to be fixed.
Just came in to post about the Seahawks/Saints game, if solely to remind everybody of Beast Mode and the registry on the Richter.

I have more of a problem with the unbalanced schedule teams play outside of their division. 

 
Just came in to post about the Seahawks/Saints game, if solely to remind everybody of Beast Mode and the registry on the Richter.

I have more of a problem with the unbalanced schedule teams play outside of their division. 
But this speaks to the problem, would the results been the same if the Seahawks traveled to New Orleans? At 7-9 they don't deserve to host, period. 

 
But this speaks to the problem, would the results been the same if the Seahawks traveled to New Orleans? At 7-9 they don't deserve to host, period. 
So your argument keeps the division-centered system but determines home and away by record?

I won't argue, but be forewarned if it's as criticized as arbitrary of a result as what we have.

On a micro level, they're going to be tinkering with even the amount of teams reaching the playoffs before the next CBA in 2020 or 1, so this may be moot. One of the trial balloons they floated was seventeen games for each team with seven playoff teams from each conference. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is why my league voted down divisions. Just increases the luck factor in a game that already has enough luck.

 
On the flip side, let's talk about the AFC East.  Since 2001 when Brady became the starter, the Pats have either outright won the division, or finished with tied for first every year.  That's 18 straight seasons, and headed for a 19th.  During this time, NE has 230 wins, compared to 136 for MIA and NYJ, and 128 for BUF.  NE has had more winning seasons than all 3 other teams combined.  NE has been getting home field advantage by default, based on their schedule.

 
On the flip side, let's talk about the AFC East.  Since 2001 when Brady became the starter, the Pats have either outright won the division, or finished with tied for first every year.  That's 18 straight seasons, and headed for a 19th.  During this time, NE has 230 wins, compared to 136 for MIA and NYJ, and 128 for BUF.  NE has had more winning seasons than all 3 other teams combined.  NE has been getting home field advantage by default, based on their schedule.
Not really. Most divisions do not have four strong teams. I would say the majority of the years the bottom two teams in every division have no chance. I think the odds are pretty high that for the past 20 years, the patriots would’ve swept the bottom two teams in almost every division nearly every year. 
 

As to the OP, I have no problems with a bad team making the playoffs because they win their division. I do have an issue with them being allowed to host a game. Taking away a home playoff game does not take away rivalries or divisions. If you win your division, you still get a playoff spot.

 
Win your division if you want to host a playoff game.   It's an imperfect system, but it makes division games meaningful and has been very successful in building rivalries over the years. 

Other than the strike year, it's happened twice...ever.   Seahawks went 7-9 in 2010 and beat the Saints.   Panthers went 7-8-1 in 2014 and beat the Cardinals.  Doesn't really seem like a problem that needs to be fixed.
This guy gets it. Aberrations like this years NFC East don’t happen often enough to go making drastic changes. Leave it alone IMO. 

 
Slippery slope that leads to doing away with divisions and rivalries.

Pretty sure the world champion Washington Nationals were a wildcard team with a losing record.  They have pitching, got hot and won it all.....not saying anyone from the NFC East will do that, but it is possible

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought they had a worse record.  Admittedly, I don't pay close attention to MLB.....but pretty sure they were a WC team at least
They were. And I'm just messing with you. I think you're getting caught up in the sobs of Houston and LA and NY fans, who probably did have better and deeper teams for modern baseball, all things considered.

 
They shouldn't, but I doubt they'd ever completely redo the format. 

What I do know is that it def needs some sort of adjustment. 

Pretty confident that we might see the largest road favorite in playoff game history come Wildcard Weekend. 
Saints were 11 point favorite over Seattle, seems doubtful the line exceeds that.

 
I'm all for keeping divisions for rivalry and travel, but seeding playoffs based on record for the conference 

also get rid of the playoff best w/l record bye week and make it 3 weeks of playoffs top 3 teams get home field play 3 next best w/l records so a division "winner" could possibly miss the playoffs... what the heck give it a shot

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think anything needs changed. Win your division and you get to host. Has it ever been any different? Tough ####### for those 10 win teams. 

How to fix it? More parity. When someone figures out how to do that let me know.

 
The NFL is designed for parity, which sells hope to 32 franchises and their fans. 

The current division setup sells hope because you just need to be the best of your rivals. Plus it sells rivalries. Perfect. 

 
Why should a 7-9 or 8-8 team (I'm looking at you NFC East, possibly the worst division this millennium) host a 12-4 or 13-3 team in a playoff game? 

It's playing out this year when either SF or Seattle will have to travel to Philly or Dallas. Anyone watching has seen how strong the former has been playing and how weak the latter has. 

Would it be crazy for the NFL to update the rules in the offseason to have some sort of 10 win caveat to host a playoff game? 
Imagine your outrage when the Redskins backdoor into a NFC East title and they get to host a WC game.

 
That's basically eliminating divisions. Regardless, I think anyone watching knows there is some glitch in the system when either Dallas or Philly will host either SF or Seattle. 
I think he's saying division winners automatically make playoffs but then reseed 

 
Hate this argument (and honestly not just saying that as an Eagles fan)

1. There's no way they would actually say an 8-8 team could host but not a 7-9 team. 

2. Don't change the rules for something that happens once every decade.

3.  If that 13-3 team is so vastly better than the 7-9 team, they shouldn't have a problem going and beating them in their stadium.


Also, I do kinda doubt the div winner is going to end 7-9 this year.  The Div winner is likely going to go 8-8 or 9-7.

 
Hate this argument (and honestly not just saying that as an Eagles fan)

1. There's no way they would actually say an 8-8 team could host but not a 7-9 team. 

2. Don't change the rules for something that happens once every decade.

3.  If that 13-3 team is so vastly better than the 7-9 team, they shouldn't have a problem going and beating them in their stadium.


Also, I do kinda doubt the div winner is going to end 7-9 this year.  The Div winner is likely going to go 8-8 or 9-7.
That's what I was going to say. 

 
There is no perfect answer to this. Either get rid of divisions (#### that) or keep it as is. It's part of the beauty of the sport IMO.  

In some seasons it might actually be equally impressive to come out of a very tough division with 9 or 10 wins as it would be to come in 2nd with 11 or 12 wins in a weaker division.

This isn't one of those years since the NFC East is hot garbage. But sometimes the division winner that has less wins than the runner up from a different division, is actually the better team. Or on par at least. Not this year but I can't see tweaking the rules. Win your division you get to host. It's fair. And better than getting rid of divisions. 

 
I agree with the OP.

They should seed the teams 1-6 based on record.  Winning your division would still get you in the playoffs, but wouldn't guarantee you a home game. 

As for the unbalanced schedule that was referred to, instead of having this division plays this division and whatnot, I'd like to see it changed where every division winner plays each other the following seasons, every 2nd place team plays every other 2nd place team.  Basically, 13 of your games would be 6 divisional games and then the 7 teams who finished in their division in the same spot you did the prior year.  And then the other 3 games can be playing the other three teams from one of the 7 divisions you aren't in. 

 
That's basically eliminating divisions. Regardless, I think anyone watching knows there is some glitch in the system when either Dallas or Philly will host either SF or Seattle. 
Doesnt matter where those games are played... SF/SEA will absolutely demolish DAL/PHI anywhere they play 😂

 
I agree with the OP.

They should seed the teams 1-6 based on record.  Winning your division would still get you in the playoffs, but wouldn't guarantee you a home game. 

As for the unbalanced schedule that was referred to, instead of having this division plays this division and whatnot, I'd like to see it changed where every division winner plays each other the following seasons, every 2nd place team plays every other 2nd place team.  Basically, 13 of your games would be 6 divisional games and then the 7 teams who finished in their division in the same spot you did the prior year.  And then the other 3 games can be playing the other three teams from one of the 7 divisions you aren't in. 
I don't like this.  The last place teams would all have an easier schedule than the first place teams.  Why is that better than what we have now?

 
Everything about the NFL schedule is fine the way it is right now.  Six teams from each conference make the playoffs, winning your division earns a home playoff game, rotating the divisions every year ensures each team plays every other team in the league on a somewhat regular schedule.  I really don't get any of the arguments against the current format.

 
Why should a 7-9 or 8-8 team (I'm looking at you NFC East, possibly the worst division this millennium) host a 12-4 or 13-3 team in a playoff game? 
If that 12-4 or 13-3 team are better than the hosting team, they have 60 minutes on the field to prove it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with the OP.

They should seed the teams 1-6 based on record.  Winning your division would still get you in the playoffs, but wouldn't guarantee you a home game. 

As for the unbalanced schedule that was referred to, instead of having this division plays this division and whatnot, I'd like to see it changed where every division winner plays each other the following seasons, every 2nd place team plays every other 2nd place team.  Basically, 13 of your games would be 6 divisional games and then the 7 teams who finished in their division in the same spot you did the prior year.  And then the other 3 games can be playing the other three teams from one of the 7 divisions you aren't in. 
You don't agree with the OP though, he is saying you should have to win 10 games to host that game and it shouldn't be seeded based on record.

As to your 2nd point, That would be far too advantageous for last place teams.  Teams would be tanking at the end of the season.  Also would increase travel by way too much.

 
I agree with the OP.

They should seed the teams 1-6 based on record.  Winning your division would still get you in the playoffs, but wouldn't guarantee you a home game. 

As for the unbalanced schedule that was referred to, instead of having this division plays this division and whatnot, I'd like to see it changed where every division winner plays each other the following seasons, every 2nd place team plays every other 2nd place team.  Basically, 13 of your games would be 6 divisional games and then the 7 teams who finished in their division in the same spot you did the prior year.  And then the other 3 games can be playing the other three teams from one of the 7 divisions you aren't in. 
That's what actually drives me nuts about it. There's an element of that in the current scheduling, if I'm not mistaken. This means the "best teams" presumably don't get in because they're facing the other "best teams" on a consistent basis, whereas merely improving one's team a bit guarantees it a consistently easier game in the scenario you sketch out.

I don't like it.

 
That's what actually drives me nuts about it. There's an element of that in the current scheduling, if I'm not mistaken. This means the "best teams" presumably don't get in because they're facing the other "best teams" on a consistent basis, whereas merely improving one's team a bit guarantees it a consistently easier game in the scenario you sketch out.

I don't like it.
Small portion.  Only 2 games of 16 are based on your record the previous year. 

 
Small portion.  Only 2 games of 16 are based on your record the previous year. 
Thanks. Wasn't too aware of the exact number. Makes uber sense. 6,4,4,2. Duh. The intra-conference ones based on record probably give you your good ones that are likely the prime-time ones.

I guess somebody pointed out the record against common opponents is a criteria in determining tiebreak, and since it's based on 14 teams for each team that's quite a lot, and not as unbalanced as I thought.  .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think anything needs changed. Win your division and you get to host. Has it ever been any different? Tough ####### for those 10 win teams. 

How to fix it? More parity. When someone figures out how to do that let me know.
You can try to create parity with draft position, salary caps, schedules and (gasp) even officiating... There will always be better run franchises and teams at different points in their competitive cycles.  The word is over used.

I'd rather see larger divisions - such as 8 teams.  You could eliminate the home/away within the division format in favor of hosting in alternate years.   Pretenders wouldn't win 8 team divisions.  To the extreme, you wouldn't even need conferences.  So, for example, Pittsburgh and Baltimore could play for the Superbowl.

 
Thanks. Wasn't too aware of the exact number. Makes uber sense. 6,4,4,2. Duh. The intra-conference ones based on record probably give you your good ones that are likely the prime-time ones.

I guess somebody pointed out the record against common opponents is a criteria in determining tiebreak, and since it's based on 14 teams for each team that's quite a lot, and not as unbalanced as I thought.  .
Yep you always play 2 full divisions (1 from each conference) as well as the same place finisher in 2 divisions (always from your own conference).   It helps with parity a bit and does create those blockbuster games. 

Common opponents is the tie break only after record, head to head, then div record so its not used all that often.  You can kind of exclude the div games since that goes into the div record category and becomes irrelevant when you go to common games.  So for divisional tie breakers, the common games thing would be based on the 8 games you play against those 2 set divisions.

 
Yep you always play 2 full divisions (1 from each conference) as well as the same place finisher in 2 divisions (always from your own conference).   It helps with parity a bit and does create those blockbuster games. 

Common opponents is the tie break only after record, head to head, then div record so its not used all that often.  You can kind of exclude the div games since that goes into the div record category and becomes irrelevant when you go to common games.  So for divisional tie breakers, the common games thing would be based on the 8 games you play against those 2 set divisions.
Yeah, I'd figured it was actually fourth or fifth on the list just from always watching the run-ups to the playoffs, doing the prob. calculator, etc. So many weird scenarios when a couple teams from the same division are competing for the WC.

Anyway, this foray into has left me a little more satisfied with the scheduling per your insight and a little digging. 

 
I agree with the OP.

They should seed the teams 1-6 based on record.  Winning your division would still get you in the playoffs, but wouldn't guarantee you a home game. 

As for the unbalanced schedule that was referred to, instead of having this division plays this division and whatnot, I'd like to see it changed where every division winner plays each other the following seasons, every 2nd place team plays every other 2nd place team.  Basically, 13 of your games would be 6 divisional games and then the 7 teams who finished in their division in the same spot you did the prior year.  And then the other 3 games can be playing the other three teams from one of the 7 divisions you aren't in. 
This is already true within the conference.  And, since you play every team in a non-conference division, a 1st place team plays 4 games against another 1st place team each season.  A full quarter of their games... 

Extending that to seven is too much.  It ensures the "better" teams will have lesser records and ultimately could put lesser teams into the play-offs. Great if "parity" is your goal but I'd rather see the lesser teams "earn" their play-off spot rather than soften the schedule to that extreme.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top