Goodell thinking about changing playoff format (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

I didn't find any threads on this when searching.

Apparently in his state of the NFL address before the Super Bowl, Goodell mentioned a potential change to the playoff format. If a Division Winner has a worse record than a Wildcard team, the Wildcard team would get the home game instead of the Division Winner getting it.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the seedings would change. It could be adopted to just affect home field for a game, but the matchups for both games would still pit a Division Winner against a Wildcard Team. There are other variations being looked at though including seeding on record as well, according to Goodell.

Links to stories on it:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/nfl_exper...-?urn=nfl,65500

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022008/sport...keup_615641.htm

It would still have to pass an ownership vote to happen, but it sounds like he's looking into it.

 

[jonessed]

Seems strange not to have seedings match homefield advantage.

 

[bostonfred]

I'm torn on this. The team with the best record should be more likely to represent their conference in the playoffs. But the division winners are supposed to have an advantage, too. I always want teams to have a reason to win, but I also want division games to win more. I know that in fantasy football leagues, I prefer winners to have an advantage over division winners, but in the real NFL, there's so much more meaning to division games when the difference between the three seed and five seed is so big.

 

[B Maverick]

why make the change? You are diminishing the accomplishment of being a division winner by removing the home game in the playoffs. this is a change for the sake of change. No reason.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am in favor of this change. How is it fair for a wild card team who might be 12-4 to play on the road against a 10-6 team that only won their division because of how crappy it was?

It would also ensure that more teams play to really win every game. For example, Tampa Bay wouldn't have all but tanked their games in weeks 16 and 17 this past season, instead of going into the playoffs as a 9-7 division winner that only got a home game because they won a crappy division.

 

[Walter Slovotsky]

I am in favor of this change. How is it fair for a wild card team who might be 12-4 to play on the road against a 10-6 team that only won their division because of how crappy it was? It would also ensure that more teams play to really win every game. For example, Tampa Bay wouldn't have all but tanked their games in weeks 16 and 17 this past season, instead of going into the playoffs as a 9-7 division winner that only got a home game because they won a crappy division.

Then why even have divisions? Just line em up, 1-16..

 

[B Maverick]

So Jax should get a home game when it couldnt beat Indy? I dont see how the level of the division should matter. At one time or another each division goes through a down year some teams are stronger then others, so have more injuries.

Also, how does a team like JAX get a better record then Pitt? By beating a lot of lesser teams like Arizona. Schedule has a lot to do with recrod as well.

If you arent going to give the home game to a division winner why have divisions? Lets just have two conferences, no divisions and the top 6 in each goes to the playoffs?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Odd scenario but not impossible: Let's say the two best teams in the AFC record-wise are Indy at 14-2 and Jacksonville at 13-3. New England is the next highest record at 12-4. Indy gets #1 seed, a bye and HFA throughout. Sounds like Jax still gets the #5 seed as a non-division winner, and New England gets the #2 seed and the other 1st round bye.

If the 1st round results created a matchup pitting JAX and NE in round 2, who would host the game? Sounds like JAX under this new idea. You could have a scenario where a team gets a bye, but then has to go on the road. That just doesn't make sense.

I say keep it how it is - this idea is way better in theory than in practice.

 

[tombonneau]

Odd scenario but not impossible: Let's say the two best teams in the AFC record-wise are Indy at 14-2 and Jacksonville at 13-3. New England is the next highest record at 12-4. Indy gets #1 seed, a bye and HFA throughout. Sounds like Jax still gets the #5 seed as a non-division winner, and New England gets the #2 seed and the other 1st round bye.If the 1st round results created a matchup pitting JAX and NE in round 2, who would host the game? Sounds like JAX under this new idea. You could have a scenario where a team gets a bye, but then has to go on the road. That just doesn't make sense.I say keep it how it is - this idea is way better in theory than in practice.

Agreed. All it will take is one division winner in a hard division and a hard schedule who goes 10-6 and then the second place team in a creampuff division with a cake schedule goes 11-5 and hosts the division winner. I think there would be (rightfully) more outrage than we currently have when a 12-4 wild card has to travel to an 11-5 division winner.

 

[TitusIII]

I like it...division winners are still guaranteed a playoff berth, which is all they should be guaranteed, imo...

 

[GregR_2]

I like it...division winners are still guaranteed a playoff berth, which is all they should be guaranteed, imo...

I like it too. A division winner can get in over another team that had a better record. I don't see why they also need the advantage of home field. Particularly when making this rule change will be added incentive for teams to actually play out their schedule and not rest players the last two weeks. As a fan, I don't see how that can not be a very positive thing for the NFL to have more regular season games be meaningful.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Odd scenario but not impossible: Let's say the two best teams in the AFC record-wise are Indy at 14-2 and Jacksonville at 13-3. New England is the next highest record at 12-4. Indy gets #1 seed, a bye and HFA throughout. Sounds like Jax still gets the #5 seed as a non-division winner, and New England gets the #2 seed and the other 1st round bye.

If the 1st round results created a matchup pitting JAX and NE in round 2, who would host the game? Sounds like JAX under this new idea. You could have a scenario where a team gets a bye, but then has to go on the road. That just doesn't make sense.

I say keep it how it is - this idea is way better in theory than in practice.

Agreed. All it will take is one division winner in a hard division and a hard schedule who goes 10-6 and then the second place team in a creampuff division with a cake schedule goes 11-5 and hosts the division winner. I think there would be (rightfully) more outrage than we currently have when a 12-4 wild card has to travel to an 11-5 division winner.

How hard could the division be if 10-6 wins it?I'd say all it will take is an 8-8 division winner hosting an 11-5 wildcard team and then people will realize how good an idea this is.

 

[morris4903]

Dumb idea. Eliminates the importance of winning your division.

 

[GregR_2]

Odd scenario but not impossible: Let's say the two best teams in the AFC record-wise are Indy at 14-2 and Jacksonville at 13-3. New England is the next highest record at 12-4. Indy gets #1 seed, a bye and HFA throughout. Sounds like Jax still gets the #5 seed as a non-division winner, and New England gets the #2 seed and the other 1st round bye.

If the 1st round results created a matchup pitting JAX and NE in round 2, who would host the game? Sounds like JAX under this new idea. You could have a scenario where a team gets a bye, but then has to go on the road. That just doesn't make sense.

I say keep it how it is - this idea is way better in theory than in practice.

Agreed. All it will take is one division winner in a hard division and a hard schedule who goes 10-6 and then the second place team in a creampuff division with a cake schedule goes 11-5 and hosts the division winner. I think there would be (rightfully) more outrage than we currently have when a 12-4 wild card has to travel to an 11-5 division winner.

How hard could the division be if 10-6 wins it?I'd say all it will take is an 8-8 division winner hosting an 11-5 wildcard team and then people will realize how good an idea this is.

Great posting.

 

[GregR_2]

Dumb idea. Eliminates the importance of winning your division.

Ask Cleveland and Pittsburgh whether winning their division was important this year, even if home field advantage wouldn't have been a perk from it.

 

[top dog]

I like it...division winners are still guaranteed a playoff berth, which is all they should be guaranteed, imo...

I like it too. A division winner can get in over another team that had a better record. I don't see why they also need the advantage of home field. Particularly when making this rule change will be added incentive for teams to actually play out their schedule and not rest players the last two weeks. As a fan, I don't see how that can not be a very positive thing for the NFL to have more regular season games be meaningful.

I heard a radio report that this was in direct response to the Indy / Tenn. game at the end of the year not being played out.

 

[morris4903]

Dumb idea. Eliminates the importance of winning your division.

Ask Cleveland and Pittsburgh whether winning their division was important this year, even if home field advantage wouldn't have been a perk from it.

That's a good point and I also like the idea of teams that have clinched their division already to continue play to win games.But if you do this, why not just take the 6 best records from each conference and eliminate divisions?

 

[Christo]

Dumb idea. Eliminates the importance of winning your division.

I though the importance of winning your division was guarantying a playoff spot. As it is 1 in 4 teams win their division. It's not necessarily that great of an accomplishment. Just look at the difference in what it took TB and Indy to win their respective divisions this year. TB was the only team with a winning record in its division while there were three double digit winners and no team with a losing record in Indy's.

 

[tombonneau]

Odd scenario but not impossible: Let's say the two best teams in the AFC record-wise are Indy at 14-2 and Jacksonville at 13-3. New England is the next highest record at 12-4. Indy gets #1 seed, a bye and HFA throughout. Sounds like Jax still gets the #5 seed as a non-division winner, and New England gets the #2 seed and the other 1st round bye.

If the 1st round results created a matchup pitting JAX and NE in round 2, who would host the game? Sounds like JAX under this new idea. You could have a scenario where a team gets a bye, but then has to go on the road. That just doesn't make sense.

I say keep it how it is - this idea is way better in theory than in practice.

Agreed. All it will take is one division winner in a hard division and a hard schedule who goes 10-6 and then the second place team in a creampuff division with a cake schedule goes 11-5 and hosts the division winner. I think there would be (rightfully) more outrage than we currently have when a 12-4 wild card has to travel to an 11-5 division winner.

How hard could the division be if 10-6 wins it?I'd say all it will take is an 8-8 division winner hosting an 11-5 wildcard team and then people will realize how good an idea this is.

If a division has 4 teams at:10-6

9-7

9-7

8-8

I'd say that is a tough division. In today's NFL it just takes having 4 teams .500 or better to define it as good.

We've already had 9-7 or 10-6 division winners hosting teams with better records. It happens all the time. No one complains that loudly because that's the way it's always been. But if you change it, people will be up in arms.

I just don't see it being that big of a problem. And given that 2 of the last 3 SB winners were #5/6 seeded WC teams that won 3 straight on the road it apparently isn't.

 

[GregR_2]

Dumb idea. Eliminates the importance of winning your division.

Ask Cleveland and Pittsburgh whether winning their division was important this year, even if home field advantage wouldn't have been a perk from it.

That's a good point and I also like the idea of teams that have clinched their division already to continue play to win games.But if you do this, why not just take the 6 best records from each conference and eliminate divisions?

Divisions do have their positives such as the creation of rivalries, and a natural way of rotating what teams play each other. It also does give a way to have some component of making the playoffs be based on smaller groupings with similar schedules than you would get if you just took the top 6.I don't know that I could argue that taking the top 6 wouldn't be more fair to all the teams. But I think I could argue there are enough benefits, including tradition, to divisions they are worth keeping in some form. I think Goodell's proposal would still keep some of the benefits, while removing some of the unfairness of a better accomplishment team not having home field.Though, I tend to think you just seed by record, and division winner is maybe a tie breaker, rather than keep the seedings as-is and just change home field.

 

[AllVolUT]

So Jax should get a home game when it couldnt beat Indy? I dont see how the level of the division should matter. At one time or another each division goes through a down year some teams are stronger then others, so have more injuries.

Also, how does a team like JAX get a better record then Pitt? By beating a lot of lesser teams like Arizona. Schedule has a lot to do with recrod as well.

If you arent going to give the home game to a division winner why have divisions? Lets just have two conferences, no divisions and the top 6 in each goes to the playoffs?

1. Jax never played Arizona, Pitt did.2. Jax opponents had a winning percentage of .516%, whereas Pitt opponents had a winning percentage of .457%.

3. In terms of overall record, Jax played in the toughest division in football.

4. Jax already beat Pitt @ Heinz three weeks before they met in the WC game.

I'm not necessarily a lobbyist for the proposed system, but using this as a parameter is not a fair statement.

 

[SSOG]

How hard could the division be if 10-6 wins it?I'd say all it will take is an 8-8 division winner hosting an 11-5 wildcard team and then people will realize how good an idea this is.

I still remember the 1997 Denver Broncos finishing with the second best record in the AFC and not only missing out on the first round bye, but also having to go on the road in the AFCCG against a Pittsburgh squad with a worse record.

Dumb idea. Eliminates the importance of winning your division.

Ask Cleveland and Pittsburgh whether winning their division was important this year, even if home field advantage wouldn't have been a perk from it.

That's a good point and I also like the idea of teams that have clinched their division already to continue play to win games.But if you do this, why not just take the 6 best records from each conference and eliminate divisions?

Divisions = rivalries, which are good for the game.

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't like it. You want a home playoff game? Win your division.

 

[delusional]

Dumb idea. Eliminates the importance of winning your division.

actually if you don't win your division, you have a less chance of making the playoffs...so winning the div is still highly important as it means you are in the playoffs no matter whati like the change, now about overtime ....

 

[radiohead417]

So Jax should get a home game when it couldnt beat Indy? I dont see how the level of the division should matter. At one time or another each division goes through a down year some teams are stronger then others, so have more injuries.

Also, how does a team like JAX get a better record then Pitt? By beating a lot of lesser teams like Arizona. Schedule has a lot to do with recrod as well.

If you arent going to give the home game to a division winner why have divisions? Lets just have two conferences, no divisions and the top 6 in each goes to the playoffs?

1. Jax never played Arizona, Pitt did.2. Jax opponents had a winning percentage of .516%, whereas Pitt opponents had a winning percentage of .457%.

3. In terms of overall record, Jax played in the toughest division in football.

4. Jax already beat Pitt @ Heinz three weeks before they met in the WC game.

I'm not necessarily a lobbyist for the proposed system, but using this as a parameter is not a fair statement.

Jax/Pit is the best example for this. Is there any doubt Jax was the better team, but had to go on the road? If the two best teams in a league happen to be in the same division, the #2 team shouldn't be screwed. That'd be like saying Duke and UNC can't get #1 seeds in the NCAA tourney.If people are that worried about schedules giving a team a better record than they should have, get balanced schedules. Either way, more needs to be based on record than on winning a creampuff division (yes, I'm talking to you, New England).

 

[Koya]

Division winner should absolutely get home field if for no other reason than the winner of a much tougher division where the teams beat each other up could easily be a worse record than a wildcard from a division with two very good teams, and two walk overs.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Dumb idea. Eliminates the importance of winning your division.

Ask Cleveland and Pittsburgh whether winning their division was important this year, even if home field advantage wouldn't have been a perk from it.

That's a good point and I also like the idea of teams that have clinched their division already to continue play to win games.But if you do this, why not just take the 6 best records from each conference and eliminate divisions?

scheduling and rivalries...divisions make scheduling easier and provide rivalries (difficult to not care about a team you play twice a year)

 

[SSOG]

Division winner should absolutely get home field if for no other reason than the winner of a much tougher division where the teams beat each other up could easily be a worse record than a wildcard from a division with two very good teams, and two walk overs.

That knife cuts both ways. The second-place team in a much tougher division where teams beat each other up could easily be a worse record than a division-winner from a division full of walkovers, but I don't see anyone crying over the injustice of it all. And, heck, you could even make that argument WITHIN a division, where one team might wind up with an equal or better record because of the walkovers in the 2 differential games. Despite this, no one has any problem whatsoever with ranking divisional teams against each other based on record, or wildcard teams against each other based on record, or ranking a divisional team with a better record against a creampuff schedule above a wildcard team with a worse record against a meat grinder. The only problem is when it comes time to possibly rank a wildcard team with a better record against creampuffs over a divisional winner with a worse record against a meat grinder. Anyone else notice the hypocrisy here?In all aspects of the playoffs, we judge teams as if they are what their record says they are. In all aspects except for ONE, that is- wildcards are never what their records say they are, apparently.One more hypothetical- the current seeding process is actually unfair to #1 seeds. Imagine the hypothetical 8-8 division champ, and imagine that the two wildcard teams are both 11-5. Let's say the 8-8 team pulls off an upset in round 1, while the other wildcard team manages to get a win. Thanks to the miracle of reseeding, the #1 overall seed is now forced to face the "lesser" 11-5 team while the #2 seed gets "tested" by the "tougher" #4 seeded division champ. Congratulations to the #1 overall seed, be sure to enjoy that scheduling "advantage" that you earned through all of your hard work.

 

[Footballhead]

This doesn't make sense. It penalizes a team for playing in a strong division or a tough schedule.

 

[SSOG]

This doesn't make sense. It penalizes a team for playing in a strong division or a tough schedule.

It also doesn't make sense to admit wildcards based on their record. That penalizes wildcard teams for playing in a strong division or a tough schedule. We should base the #5 and #6 seeds on the final regular season ESPN power poll, instead.

 

[Bri]

This doesn't make sense. It penalizes a team for playing in a strong division or a tough schedule.

It also doesn't make sense to admit wildcards based on their record. That penalizes wildcard teams for playing in a strong division or a tough schedule. We should base the #5 and #6 seeds on the final regular season ESPN power poll, instead.

I don't care for the power poll but I like the thinking of not using records. What I'd suggest is making that tiebreaker where they matchup similar teams played, be what gets them in. Maybe increase it to involve all playoff teams(meaning the clinched division winner teams). To make up an example-Colts, Pats, Broncos have clinched divisions. So if Tennessee has beaten the Pats and Colts and Broncos, they'd edge out the Chargers that lost to the Broncos and Pats but beat the Colts. The downside to this could be some team like say Buffalo has beaten those three but their record is 3-13. So their would have to be a qualifier which...well maybe that's why we roll with W-L record.

 

[Bri]

As a fan, I don't see how that can not be a very positive thing for the NFL to have more regular season games be meaningful.

This is a little prob for the league.Season ticket holders get cheated out of watching their team's best players the last two weeks and instead watch backups. If the team is lucky, great, whatever...then weeks later, only 8000 of the 60000 get to see them play in the Supe. Playoffs are when fans get more adamant about their loyalty to a team, more excited for the games etc. NFL needs to offer those very same fans the same quality product IMO. I understand the NFL wanting everyone to see Jim Carrey(just to pick a star for example) enjoying a game. He's great, he's hysterical, he's a star etc. However, should Joe from Brooklyn miss out on watching "his" Giants play in the Supe after watching them and supporting them for 30 years so Jim Carrey can be at the game? Players from teams not in it, being invited to watch vs the longtime fans.....that's just wrong on so many levels.NFL needs to force teams' starters to play all 16(17) weeks and that 8k for the Supe needs to go way up.To beat a rebuttal-I don't care if Tom Brady gets hurt in week 16 and misses the playoffs. That's part of football.

 

[Doug Drinen]

One more hypothetical- the current seeding process is actually unfair to #1 seeds. Imagine the hypothetical 8-8 division champ, and imagine that the two wildcard teams are both 11-5. Let's say the 8-8 team pulls off an upset in round 1, while the other wildcard team manages to get a win. Thanks to the miracle of reseeding, the #1 overall seed is now forced to face the "lesser" 11-5 team while the #2 seed gets "tested" by the "tougher" #4 seeded division champ. Congratulations to the #1 overall seed, be sure to enjoy that scheduling "advantage" that you earned through all of your hard work.

My proposal for fixing this is to let the highest-seeded team choose its opponent in each of the first two rounds. So in the wildcard round, the #3 seed would have the option of playing the #5 or the #6. The #4 would play the other. In the divisional round, the #1 seed would get it's choice of the wildcard winners.

 

[encaitar]

I like this just for the fact that week 17 games might mean something again. If you have your division wrapped up and know you're gonna be a 4th seed, you don't really try that hard in Week 17. However, if you have the 4 seed, but the first wildcard team has the same record as you, you're gonna try harder to win that game to ensure homefield advantage.

I'm all for any rule that encourages teams to play harder.

 

[Pai Mei]

why make the change? You are diminishing the accomplishment of being a division winner by removing the home game in the playoffs. this is a change for the sake of change. No reason.

Agreed. Might as well throw away the 4 division format in each conference and rank them by conference. I think that's what most newspapers do late in the season when they list the NBA standings.

 

[Pai Mei]

One more hypothetical- the current seeding process is actually unfair to #1 seeds. Imagine the hypothetical 8-8 division champ, and imagine that the two wildcard teams are both 11-5. Let's say the 8-8 team pulls off an upset in round 1, while the other wildcard team manages to get a win. Thanks to the miracle of reseeding, the #1 overall seed is now forced to face the "lesser" 11-5 team while the #2 seed gets "tested" by the "tougher" #4 seeded division champ. Congratulations to the #1 overall seed, be sure to enjoy that scheduling "advantage" that you earned through all of your hard work.

My proposal for fixing this is to let the highest-seeded team choose its opponent in each of the first two rounds. So in the wildcard round, the #3 seed would have the option of playing the #5 or the #6. The #4 would play the other. In the divisional round, the #1 seed would get it's choice of the wildcard winners.

Hahahahhaha I LOVE that idea. Imagine the animosity and hatred it would brew between teams if they feel they were "selected" because their playoff opponent thought they were easy to beat.

 

[Pai Mei]

This doesn't make sense. It penalizes a team for playing in a strong division or a tough schedule.

It also doesn't make sense to admit wildcards based on their record. That penalizes wildcard teams for playing in a strong division or a tough schedule. We should base the #5 and #6 seeds on the final regular season ESPN power poll, instead.

That's why you'd probably have to throw away the 8 divisions and just have an AFC with 16 teams and an NFC with 16 teams. Possibility expand to 34 franchises and then everyone has a perfectly equal regular season schedule of playing 16 games all within conference.

 

[Pai Mei]

Personally I prefer the current system of 8 divisions and a guaranteed home game for each division champ. This system is good for the game because it is more inclusive of the entire nation. Fans in all 4 time zones have a good shot at a playoff game played in their region.

 

[trader jake]

Is this new system "more fair"? Yes

Do I want the NFL to change to this? No

IMO, this is the first step in changing the number of teams that will make the playoffs...and I have no interest in that number increasing. Keep the bloated number of teams that make the playoffs shtick in the NBA.