Deamon
Footballguy
Again, why do we have to fix something that is such a rarity? A team with a losing record has won their division twice in history. And it's unlikely it happens this year.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
A Division Winner with a Losing Record Shouldn't Host a Playoff Game (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fantasycurse42
- Start date
DropKick
Footballguy
It addresses, not just losing records but, mediocre records. Is 8 or 9 wins that much better? A common complaint here is that New England has 6 games every year against week opponents. I don't necessarily agree with that but it is the product of small divisions.
Deamon
Footballguy
That's what I mean... 8 or 9 wins is not much better. Saying "disallow teams with 'losing records' to host a playoff game" is what I disagree with.
If you want to do the whole thing by record, then sure. But that's another story.
DropKick
Footballguy
Admittedly, my approach is a radical (and subsequently unlikely) change to the current set-up. Four divisions of eight teams with a 17 game schedule. Guaranteed play-off home game and a bye to the 4 well deserved division winners. 8 league wide wild cards based on record.
No more complaints about weak divisions, fewer "redundant" games, higher consequence of late season games... interesting thought if we're just spitballing.
Am I wrong in thinking the NFC East could still technically be won by the Redskins or Giants? If the season ended today the Giants would be the #2 pick in the draft, but if they win out, and Dallas loses out, and Philly only wins once(over Dallas) then the Giants could take it right?
From a story perspective, that would be amazing if Eli somehow lead them to the playoffs at 6-10 despite being benched and essentially left for dead. Highly unlikely obviously, but that would be something.
From a story perspective, that would be amazing if Eli somehow lead them to the playoffs at 6-10 despite being benched and essentially left for dead. Highly unlikely obviously, but that would be something.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
It's not just about teams with losing records hosting a playoff game. It's about mediocre teams with 8 or 9 wins who get to host an 11 or 12-win team -- something that almost never happened prior to the switch to 4 divisions. You're basically punishing the 12-win team because they had the misfortune of playing in a division that just happened to also contain one of the best teams in the league. (Meanwhile, you're rewarding the mediocre team that plays in a division full of also-rans.)
Here's some sobering stats:
TEAMS WITH A LOSING RECORD THAT MADE THE PLAYOFFS (excluding strike years):
1933-2001: 0
2002-2018: 2
TEAMS WITH A LESSER RECORD THAT GOT TO HOST A PLAYOFF GAME:
1975-2001: 0
2002-2018: 23
12-WIN TEAMS THAT HAD TO PLAY A ROAD GAME IN THE FIRST ROUND:
1978-2001: 1
2002-2018: 8
TEAMS WITH 10+ WINS WHO MISSED THE PLAYOFFS:
1990-2001: 2
2002-2018: 10
The system is broken, my friends. The NFL needs to fix the playoff setup ASAP. There are a number of potential solutions, but I'll quickly address some of them:
1. leave everything as-is, but have special rule preventing sub-.500 teams from hosting playoff games. (The problem with this idea is that you could still end up with a 7-7-2 team hosting a 12-win team.)
2. keep 4-division setup but arrange all seedings strictly by won/loss record. (This is the way to go, IMO.)
3. keep 4-division setup, but only guarantee a home game for the top-3 division winners. (Not a bad compromise, IMO.)
4. go back to 3-division setup. (The problem with this is that one division in each conference will have 6 teams, which would make it almost impossible to have a fair and balanced schedule.)
5. get rid of divisions altogether. (This one might be too radical but it would virtually eliminate the possibility of a sub-.500 team making the playoffs.)
Here's some sobering stats:
TEAMS WITH A LOSING RECORD THAT MADE THE PLAYOFFS (excluding strike years):
1933-2001: 0
2002-2018: 2
TEAMS WITH A LESSER RECORD THAT GOT TO HOST A PLAYOFF GAME:
1975-2001: 0
2002-2018: 23
12-WIN TEAMS THAT HAD TO PLAY A ROAD GAME IN THE FIRST ROUND:
1978-2001: 1
2002-2018: 8
TEAMS WITH 10+ WINS WHO MISSED THE PLAYOFFS:
1990-2001: 2
2002-2018: 10
The system is broken, my friends. The NFL needs to fix the playoff setup ASAP. There are a number of potential solutions, but I'll quickly address some of them:
1. leave everything as-is, but have special rule preventing sub-.500 teams from hosting playoff games. (The problem with this idea is that you could still end up with a 7-7-2 team hosting a 12-win team.)
2. keep 4-division setup but arrange all seedings strictly by won/loss record. (This is the way to go, IMO.)
3. keep 4-division setup, but only guarantee a home game for the top-3 division winners. (Not a bad compromise, IMO.)
4. go back to 3-division setup. (The problem with this is that one division in each conference will have 6 teams, which would make it almost impossible to have a fair and balanced schedule.)
5. get rid of divisions altogether. (This one might be too radical but it would virtually eliminate the possibility of a sub-.500 team making the playoffs.)
rockaction
Footballguy
play a conference round robin, one pick 'em game for the teevees, then playoffs within conference, and then interleague play for the Super Bowl.[scooter] said:
Both reactionary and forwardly-thinking rational at the same time!
I find those holes, baby.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nah, interleague play is too good a way for expat fans to get cheap seats. I don’t want to give up the cheap Steelers tickets at FedEx every 4th year!
Insein
Footballguy
You can't make the playoffs in baseball with a losing record. It's almost statistically impossible.
need2know
Footballguy
Nationals were like 25-5 of their last 30 and finished way above. 500. going into the playoffs they were the hottest team.
Terribly wrong
Last edited by a moderator:
Manster
Footballguy
Yea thanks.....I've been corrected by like 5 people now....I don't watch MLB....sorry I was wrong.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
How would this work for scheduling (either 16 or 17 games per year)? You can't really play each team in the division twice as that would be 14 games and only leave 2 or 3 left over. That would really mess up the competitive balance of the league if the divisions aren't evenly matched. If teams played each team in the their division only once, where would the 9 or 10 other games come from? There wouldn't be a good way to have a uniform and fair schedule from year to year.
For example, if you had 7 divisional games and won your division, one option would be to play 3 games against the other 3 divisions . . . but which teams? The three best ones? That would seem like a killer slate of games. Maybe all your division and all the teams in a division in the other conference? And the other two finishers at the same spot in the other two divisions? Maybe that would work, but there is the same risk that a team could be in a strong division playing another strong division.
Even though the schedule as currently constituted sometimes has blips like this year, it at least has consistency to it. In the current schedule, no one can really say it is unfair as every team knows who they will play with the rotating divisional assignments.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Among the reasons we love sports is to argue inequity with partisans and to see the unusual, the unpredictable. Anomalies are what keep us interested. If we fix them all we will miss them. They add flavor to our passion.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Devil's advocate.
The reward for winning your division is earning a playoff spot. If that team was in any other division, it wouldn't even get in the playoffs. Not sure why they can't take 4 division winners and 2 wild cards (or whatever number they decide in the future) and then seed the teams based on record. That way, in those rare times when the two best records are in the same division, the second best team in the conference could host a playoff game while the team with a losing record has to go on the road for the entirety of the playoffs.
IIRC, since going to a 16 game schedule in 1978, the two best teams have come from the same division in a conference 14 times (including the AFC West last year).
Then you have a road game vs a non-division winner... and the Divisions are of utmost importance in the NFL and always have been. If you change it, then you change that nuance.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
IMO, there are two different issues. There's the sub .500 one . . . which is essentially an outgrowth of the main one (teams with way better records having to go on the road and/or not making the playoffs). I don't think the league would ever snub a division winner for a team that would miss the playoffs with a better record. For example, dumping this year's AFC East winner (currently 6-7) and taking the Rams instead (currently 8-5). But I do think that at some point they might entertain a wildcard team with a much better record hosting a playoff game (in this case, the 10-3 Seahawks). I think it will depend on if they change the divisional alignment and playoff format.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
since the NFL has to play an unbalanced schedule every year....IMO the current format is just fine....sometimes the "losing record team that gets to host a playoff game" maybe had a bad run against like say the AFC west last year when LAC and KC were lights out and two of the best teams......if you had to play the AFC West it was tougher than say the AFC East....your two loses against KC and LAC may have been wins against MIA and the Jets.....so you wouldn't have maybe had a losing record....sometimes that is just the way the cookie crumbles....for the most part things work out in the end......again, if you don't want to worry about it....win more games, don't come in second in your division....don't lay an egg and have any hiccups.....bring it every week.....you can control whether you host or not....
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I can't say that I agree. You can't control another team getting a cupcake schedule and you having to face a ton of the best teams and missing the playoffs. Sure, it's east to say win more games. Tell that to the Raiders, who have traveled more than any other team, went 7 weeks without a true home game (only home game was in the UK in that stretch), and had to play the AFC South and NFC North (three decent teams in each). Meanwhile, the Bills didn't travel much at all, feasted on the AFC East, Dolphins, Jets, Bengals, and Broncos, and who are going to claim a playoff spot.
I get it, life isn't fair, things at some point will balance out (in theory), and there is no way to keep everyone happy. But that doesn't change that year to year there will be teams that benefit from the schedule and those that don't.
DropKick
Footballguy
In "my" realignment plan, the season is expanded to 17 games. You play everyone in your division once; alternate home and away yearly. Play another division (8 games); this would alternate every three years so you play every team in the league that often. The last two games are, similar to the current schedule, one game each against the corresponding team from the other two divisions. So, last year's #1 would play the #1 from all three remaining divisions.
DropKick
Footballguy
As long as you rock the party and come correct, with cuts on time and rhymes connect
Anarchy99
Footballguy
That’s essentially one of the optionsI listed, except one issue would be tiebreakers (unless they change that too). Some teams would have 8 conference games while some others would have 15. Obviously they couldn’t use conference record as a tiebreaker then.
DropKick
Footballguy
Actually, I lose the conferences with the Super Divisions plan.
Division winners get a bye. Then 8 league wide wild cards based on records, etc. That's why any two teams could meet in the SB.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
DropKick
Footballguy
Today, a team plays 6 of 16 games against the same teams year after year. If those teams are weak, the schedule can be very imbalanced.
Within my plan, 15 of 17 games are against distinct opponents and common for all 8 teams in a division. That diversity should go a long way in making the schedules comparable.
DropKick
Footballguy
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Meh...its not really a surprise....these teams basically know what their schedule will be through infinity at this point give or take....yeah some teams may benefit and maybe some won’t here or there but it is what it is and pretty close to as good as we can expect with 32 teams and a 17 week schedule....there will always be complaints but the cream usually rises to the top...
Deamon
Footballguy
I'll assume you meant the NFC East.
I just don't think the system is broken. People are up in arms about Philly and Dallas being 6-7. They played all their hard games at the start of the year and have an easy schedule at the end. It balances out. It's almost impossible for the div winner to be below .500 this year.
Soon people will be saying that the 10 win Texans don't deserve to host a playoff game if they end at 10 this year. Is the 10 wins it takes to win the AFC South this year really that much better than the 8-9 it's going to take to win the NFC East this year?
Godsbrother
Footballguy
I am fine with it as-is. I think we need to stop trying to fix things in the NFL that aren't broken.
[scooter]
Footballguy
The Texans should not be hosting a playoff game against a 12-win team. (It probably won't happen this year, but it could.)
Deamon
Footballguy
If that's your opinion that it should be based on record, then that's totally fine. There's debatable positives and negatives to that rule change.
This thread was more suggesting that there should be some sort of threshold where a 10 win Texans team should be allowed to host a 12 win team, but an 8 win Dallas/Philly should not be allowed to host a 12 win team.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Obviously, not all 8-win teams are alike, just like not all 12-win teams are alike. It would be impossible to come up with a method of accurately determining which team is the better team. So, failing that, we should go by wins and losses.
A 12-win team should not be playing a road game in the first round.
Deamon
Footballguy
Fair if you think that. I disagree because it makes the divs pointless, and because that 12 win team should be able to beat the 8 win team even on the road and if they can't then they aren't a SB team anyways. But that is just rehashing many of the points in this thread. OP's original comment was that there should be some arbitrary threshold number of wins that allows you to host which is ridiculous.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I get that there will always be quirks in the system, there is no perfect way to do things, and there will be seasons that yield sub-optimal outcomes and results. But when a team that has 11 wins (NE 2008 the Matt Cassel year) doesn't even make the playoffs while the 8-8 Chargers get to host a playoff game just seems wrong to me (and they beat the 12-4 Colts to boot). Same thing with the 1985 Broncos, who were left out of the playoffs while the lowly 8-8 Browns made it in. Granted, those were the only two times that 11-win teams didn't qualify for the post season, but IMO those were two times too many.
Deamon
Footballguy
You're throwing two arguments into one. If you're upset that the 11 win Pats didn't make it and the 8-8 chargers did, then that has NOTHING to do with how they get to host a playoff game.
If you think the 11 win Pats should have made the playoffs and the 8-8 Chargers should not have, then you have a valid point that can be debated. But in that case you are saying divisions should be completely and totally abolished.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I know . . . I mentioned something similar earlier in the thread. There are several different issues getting discussed in here at this point . . . who makes the playoffs, who gets to host games, how to align the league, and how to create a schedule that doesn't have some teams facing a murderer's row while others face all cupcakes.
There isn't a great solution that will address all of those that will be unilaterally fair to all teams all the time. I don't hate the schedule and playoff rules as currently constituted. Sure, it seems illogical at times but until there is a plan that seems to be better they should probably just stick with what they have. At least teams in the same division have 14 common games, which gives some credence and validation to winning your division. That still doesn't really address the issue of teams with better records getting left out (or having to go on the road in the post season), and to be honest I don't think the league cares all that much about it. It's the fans that are the ones that would be the most upset.
Although it doesn't happen very often, there have been a few times when one division had multiple teams with strong records and could have had several of the league's best teams in it. It seems a shame to leave out some of those teams (or as you would say, the abolish all division argument). I think having 8 team divisions of two 16 team leagues sounds potentially good in theory, but I don't see a great way to come up with a schedule that would make sense.
