Playoff Seeding is Nonsense (4 Viewers)

[Stinkin Ref]

back in the day when the jags and panthers sprang into existence and division realignment was to take place i heard the perfect solution but it would never be implemented cause the league makes more money the way it is and they like rivalries. but the best and fairest solution is to kill divisions. just two big conferences. every one plays every team in their conference once and alternate home/away each year. the one (now two) out of conference games are matched up by pervious year finish. fair for everyone. but you might never get the out of conference matchups we get every few years ever

It’s an interesting idea.

Divisional Rivalries would cease to be though, and a lot of what makes the NFL compelling along with it.

I think there would still be some sense of rivalries based on the past....and do we really need to see like the Panthers play the Saints twice....?...once is enough...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

back in the day when the jags and panthers sprang into existence and division realignment was to take place i heard the perfect solution but it would never be implemented cause the league makes more money the way it is and they like rivalries. but the best and fairest solution is to kill divisions. just two big conferences. every one plays every team in their conference once and alternate home/away each year. the one (now two) out of conference games are matched up by pervious year finish. fair for everyone. but you might never get the out of conference matchups we get every few years ever

It’s an interesting idea.

Divisional Rivalries would cease to be though, and a lot of what makes the NFL compelling along with it.

Yep. I like the fact that each division has its own flavor, and I like that I have a lot of reason to care about my team's divisional rivals and much less reason to care about teams in the other conference. Getting rid of divisions would make the playoff system fairer in some abstract sense, but I'd rather live with the injustice of seeing the Vikings go on the road as a wild card team than lose out the mutual hatred that comes from the divisional system.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

the two conferences of 16 and playing them each once would really magnify the importance of every week....

 

[Gjallarhorn]

the two conferences of 16 and playing them each once would really magnify the importance of every week....

Add an 18th game and play each team in your division twice?

 

[General Malaise]

back in the day when the jags and panthers sprang into existence and division realignment was to take place i heard the perfect solution but it would never be implemented cause the league makes more money the way it is and they like rivalries. but the best and fairest solution is to kill divisions. just two big conferences. every one plays every team in their conference once and alternate home/away each year. the one (now two) out of conference games are matched up by pervious year finish. fair for everyone. but you might never get the out of conference matchups we get every few years ever

It’s an interesting idea.

Divisional Rivalries would cease to be though, and a lot of what makes the NFL compelling along with it.

But we've had teams move divisions before. I don't see any complaints about the Cowboys/Cardinals rivalry dying out 20 years ago or whatever. Hell, we've had teams move conferences - Seahawks developed newer, better rivalries this way. The NFL will be fine. It's always fine.

Division disparity is a problem and it needs to be fixed. Teams with lesser records shouldn't be hosting playoff games against teams with better records. Full stop.

I think you're confusing rivalry with annual curb stomping.

Tom Tupa once threw for 300 yards in a Cardinals' beat down of Dallas.

 

[General Malaise]

back in the day when the jags and panthers sprang into existence and division realignment was to take place i heard the perfect solution but it would never be implemented cause the league makes more money the way it is and they like rivalries. but the best and fairest solution is to kill divisions. just two big conferences. every one plays every team in their conference once and alternate home/away each year. the one (now two) out of conference games are matched up by pervious year finish. fair for everyone. but you might never get the out of conference matchups we get every few years ever

It’s an interesting idea.

Divisional Rivalries would cease to be though, and a lot of what makes the NFL compelling along with it.

But we've had teams move divisions before. I don't see any complaints about the Cowboys/Cardinals rivalry dying out 20 years ago or whatever. Hell, we've had teams move conferences - Seahawks developed newer, better rivalries this way. The NFL will be fine. It's always fine.

Division disparity is a problem and it needs to be fixed. Teams with lesser records shouldn't be hosting playoff games against teams with better records. Full stop.

I’m still irritated that the 49ers play the Seahawks 2x a year & don’t face the saints.

I hated that move, and will always think of Seattle as an AFC team & rival to the Raiders. I’ve never seen them as a rival to SF, and likely never will.

Just because you haven’t seen an affect doesn’t mean it’s not there.

I'd rather play the Saints than the Seahawks twice a year too as they were usually guaranteed wins for San Francisco. But putting New Orleans in the NFC West is lunacy. Pick up a damn atlas. Dallas in the East is dumb too.

Split the conferences into 2 divisions. There should NEVER be a team with a sub .500 record hosting a playoff game vs a team with a better record. It's asinine.

 

[BassNBrew]

the two conferences of 16 and playing them each once would really magnify the importance of every week....

Yeah, and as a bonus most NFC teams wouldn't ever have to worry about being jobbed by the Refs due to playing the Chefs.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So insane that the Vikings only lost to 2 teams this season and they have to play one of them on the road to start the playoffs.

 

[-OZ-]

So insane that the Vikings only lost to 2 teams this season and they have to play one of them on the road to start the playoffs.

That’s just happenstance. But yeah, wild

 

[need2know]

It's fine as it is. Green Bay only lost one game outside their division, but that wasn't good enough. The division matters. Some divisions are tough and others are easy, and it flips every few years.

You want a home game? Win your division. Take care of business or go on the road.

Yes zod

 

[Gally]

So insane that the Vikings only lost to 2 teams this season and they have to play one of them on the road to start the playoffs.

How about their two losses (before yesterday) were back to back to the Lions and the Rams. Now they lose the Lions only to play the Rams the following week. Deja vu

 

[Mt. Man]

Wild Card Weekend for 2010 (so playing early January 2011):
Jets (11-5) at Colts (10-6)
Ravens (12-4) at Dolphins (10-6)
Packers (10-6) at Eagles (10-6)
Saints (11-5) at Seahawks (7-9)
FWIW, only the Seahawks won as a home team.

If they didn't change it shortly after that, they probably aren't now. For good or ill.
Overall, when the visiting team has a better record in the Wild Card, they've gone 14-13.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Am I alone thinking it’s complete nonsense

Yes. It really isn’t “nonsense”. You might disagree with the current setup but there’s a logic to it.
I prefer it. Divisions should mean something. Now we watch while the Packers, Texans and Rams get blown out.

Fixed it for you

 

[joey]

I like this current format, personally.

i like only the very top team getting the bye.

I like how they make the final week of the seasons be all divisional games. Gives us lots of rivalries plus the “you might stink this year but if you beat your division rival, you knock them out of the playoffs or hurt their playoff seeding”.

It was a great final weekend to the season with only a few playoff spots still in play.

Color me a sucker for the the product the NFL is providing.

 

[-OZ-]

Am I alone thinking it’s complete nonsense

Yes. It really isn’t “nonsense”. You might disagree with the current setup but there’s a logic to it.
I prefer it. Divisions should mean something. Now we watch while the Packers, Texans and Rams get blown out.

Fixed it for you

Maybe, but the packers didn’t win the division.

 

[General Malaise]

For a league that celebrates and points to parity as a strength, the current format is incredibly flawed.

Consider this: The AFC South has exactly one team with a Superbowl Trophy between the 4 teams. Indy has that division's only title. The rest of the teams are hapless and have been hapless since they expanded into the league. Why should that division winner get to host a playoff game every year when their division is perpetually weaker than others? Being the best team in the AFC South is like being the tallest mountain in Kansas.

Meanwhile, a team like Cincy is going to miss out of the playoffs entirely because they play in a much tougher division - true now, true historically. Put Cincy in the South and they're the class of that division.

Being the best of 4 is a really dumb way to determine playoff seeding and who gets to host the game. Fix that.

 

[rockaction]

Being the best of 4 is a really dumb way to determine playoff seeding and who gets to host the game. Fix that.

It’s really quite simple. Expand to thirty-six, move Jacksonville somewhere the owner wants. St. Louis Bob is wonderful, but probably not St. Louis. Move L.A. back to San Diego where they belong. Put one in London, one in Germany, one in Barcelona, one in Prague. Play everybody in your conference once. Seventeen games.

Playoffs can stay as-is. Real Super Bowl at the end of the year.

Easy Peasy. Get her done.

eta* Maybe acknowledge climate change and move Jacksonville up to Boise, ID on the blue turf. Synergy, baby!

eta2* And if you’re asking “Why the Czech Republic?” I’ll answer with, “I always wanted to see Prague!”

 

[General Malaise]

Rock for commissioner!

 

[Insein]

For a league that celebrates and points to parity as a strength, the current format is incredibly flawed.

Consider this: The AFC South has exactly one team with a Superbowl Trophy between the 4 teams. Indy has that division's only title. The rest of the teams are hapless and have been hapless since they expanded into the league. Why should that division winner get to host a playoff game every year when their division is perpetually weaker than others? Being the best team in the AFC South is like being the tallest mountain in Kansas.

Meanwhile, a team like Cincy is going to miss out of the playoffs entirely because they play in a much tougher division - true now, true historically. Put Cincy in the South and they're the class of that division.

Being the best of 4 is a really dumb way to determine playoff seeding and who gets to host the game. Fix that.

AFC East has been one good team and 3 scrubs for like 25 years. Every division has taken a turn being the laughing stock of the league including the AFC, NFC North and NFC East. The league moves in cycles. Any team can get good and any team can go bad.

 

[Sunday Gravy]

NHL has the best playoff format in my opinion. 4 divisions. Top 4 from each division have a mini tournament. 4 winners of those division tournaments go to final 4.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm okay that the "selection committee" placed the team with gaudy won-loss record, but had a relatively soft schedule, and few if any quality wins in the 5 seed. Especially when the opportunity for that quality win was present, and they fell flat. The fact that the "selection committee" is just how things worked out, and not actual people then all the better. Now if they want to place a chip on their shoulders because of the lack of respect and push through the playoffs with it, then all the more enjoyable for all of us.

 

[General Malaise]

For a league that celebrates and points to parity as a strength, the current format is incredibly flawed.

Consider this: The AFC South has exactly one team with a Superbowl Trophy between the 4 teams. Indy has that division's only title. The rest of the teams are hapless and have been hapless since they expanded into the league. Why should that division winner get to host a playoff game every year when their division is perpetually weaker than others? Being the best team in the AFC South is like being the tallest mountain in Kansas.

Meanwhile, a team like Cincy is going to miss out of the playoffs entirely because they play in a much tougher division - true now, true historically. Put Cincy in the South and they're the class of that division.

Being the best of 4 is a really dumb way to determine playoff seeding and who gets to host the game. Fix that.

AFC East has been one good team and 3 scrubs for like 25 years. Every division has taken a turn being the laughing stock of the league including the AFC, NFC North and NFC East. The league moves in cycles. Any team can get good and any team can go bad.

Then why are we limiting divisions to four teams? Open it up to 8 and get rid of this arbitrary nonsense of a non-competitve division.

And the AFC East as a whole has 3 teams that have won a title, another who has played and lost 4 Super Bowls and the greatest team in the hisotry of the NFL. That's your go-to comp for the AFC South that has only one Lombardi and less than 3 appearances in the Super Bowl total?

 

[Insein]

For a league that celebrates and points to parity as a strength, the current format is incredibly flawed.

Consider this: The AFC South has exactly one team with a Superbowl Trophy between the 4 teams. Indy has that division's only title. The rest of the teams are hapless and have been hapless since they expanded into the league. Why should that division winner get to host a playoff game every year when their division is perpetually weaker than others? Being the best team in the AFC South is like being the tallest mountain in Kansas.

Meanwhile, a team like Cincy is going to miss out of the playoffs entirely because they play in a much tougher division - true now, true historically. Put Cincy in the South and they're the class of that division.

Being the best of 4 is a really dumb way to determine playoff seeding and who gets to host the game. Fix that.

AFC East has been one good team and 3 scrubs for like 25 years. Every division has taken a turn being the laughing stock of the league including the AFC, NFC North and NFC East. The league moves in cycles. Any team can get good and any team can go bad.

Then why are we limiting divisions to four teams? Open it up to 8 and get rid of this arbitrary nonsense of a non-competitve division.

And the AFC East as a whole has 3 teams that have won a title, another who has played and lost 4 Super Bowls and the greatest team in the hisotry of the NFL. That's your go-to comp for the AFC South that has only one Lombardi and less than 3 appearances in the Super Bowl total?

Because this is not the NBA where you get watered down generic slop as a product where nothing in the regular season matters. The NFL for all its faults, got the schedule and division rivalry thing figured out.

 

[FairWarning]

back in the day when the jags and panthers sprang into existence and division realignment was to take place i heard the perfect solution but it would never be implemented cause the league makes more money the way it is and they like rivalries. but the best and fairest solution is to kill divisions. just two big conferences. every one plays every team in their conference once and alternate home/away each year. the one (now two) out of conference games are matched up by pervious year finish. fair for everyone. but you might never get the out of conference matchups we get every few years ever

It’s an interesting idea.

Divisional Rivalries would cease to be though, and a lot of what makes the NFL compelling along with it.

Yep. I like the fact that each division has its own flavor, and I like that I have a lot of reason to care about my team's divisional rivals and much less reason to care about teams in the other conference. Getting rid of divisions would make the playoff system fairer in some abstract sense, but I'd rather live with the injustice of seeing the Vikings go on the road as a wild card team than lose out the mutual hatred that comes from the divisional system.

I think if you do away with divisions, then it is like the college football playoff mess. A weaker division champ like Houston is still better than choosing the top 7 teams in a conference. If we want to take this years playoff teams and seed them based on record, that's fine. Houston can play on the road, while Minn plays a home game. Doing that does take the suspense out of the week 18 Minn-Detroit game though.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Being the best of 4 is a really dumb way to determine playoff seeding and who gets to host the game. Fix that.

It’s really quite simple. Expand to thirty-six, move Jacksonville somewhere the owner wants. St. Louis Bob is wonderful, but probably not St. Louis. Move L.A. back to San Diego where they belong. Put one in London, one in Germany, one in Barcelona, one in Prague. Play everybody in your conference once. Seventeen games.

Playoffs can stay as-is. Real Super Bowl at the end of the year.

Easy Peasy. Get her done.

eta* Maybe acknowledge climate change and move Jacksonville up to Boise, ID on the blue turf. Synergy, baby!

eta2* And if you’re asking “Why the Czech Republic?” I’ll answer with, “I always wanted to see Prague!”

I recognize and appreciate the snark inherent to the majority of this post but ... the bolded is a genuinely fantastic idea. I'm almost embarrassed to admit that, because I've been an EPL fan for 25 years and somehow it has never occurred to me that their scheduling format could be adapted to the NFL this easily. Every team that has to go on the road for the playoffs will know it's because their hosts played the same schedule they did and finished with a better record. Hard to claim any inherent unfairness in a case like that.

Now ... add in some promotion / relegation with whatever semi-pro league eventually grows out of the smoking ruins of the NCAA and you'd really be cooking with gas.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

So go to the old MLB model.

 

[ghostguy123]

Or just keep it the way it is and complain about one thing every few years

 

[jasvic]

NHL has the best playoff format in my opinion. 4 divisions. Top 4 from each division have a mini tournament. 4 winners of those division tournaments go to final 4.

Had. It hasn't been like that since '93.

 

[Sunday Gravy]

NHL has the best playoff format in my opinion. 4 divisions. Top 4 from each division have a mini tournament. 4 winners of those division tournaments go to final 4.

Had. It hasn't been like that since '93.

They did it last year

 

[belljr]

NHL has the best playoff format in my opinion. 4 divisions. Top 4 from each division have a mini tournament. 4 winners of those division tournaments go to final 4.

Had. It hasn't been like that since '93.

They did it last year

No they didn't.

Top 3 each division and 2 WC for 8 conference teams

The East just happened to work out that way

 

[joey]

NHL has the best playoff format in my opinion. 4 divisions. Top 4 from each division have a mini tournament. 4 winners of those division tournaments go to final 4.

Had. It hasn't been like that since '93.

They did it last year

No they didn't.

Top 3 each division and 2 WC for 8 conference teams

The East just happened to work out that way

This.

 

[joey]

NHL has the best playoff format in my opinion. 4 divisions. Top 4 from each division have a mini tournament. 4 winners of those division tournaments go to final 4.

Had. It hasn't been like that since '93.

They did it last year

No they didn't.

Top 3 each division and 2 WC for 8 conference teams

The East just happened to work out that way

This.

Ps. My Raiders suck so bad that I’m happily transitioning to hockey mode

 

[renesauz]

At first glance the proposal seems like a solid idea. It seems like every year there's a WC team that has more wins then the 3/4 seeds. In many cases it feels like that team got the short end of the playoff stick. But that's at first glance....

Often, a 10 or 11 win team comes from a division where 3 or 4 teams were super competitive. Often that WC team with 12 or 13 wins had only one team worth a darn in their own division. Throw in vast disparities in quality of opponents, especially when comparing teams in different divisions, and the picture become less clear. Sure it makes sense when a 14 win team is compared to an 11 win team, but more often then not you're looking at a 12 win team compared to an 11 win team...and in that case I think the division winner should keep the home game as their prize for winning their own division.

In the end it's probably not worth messing with. If that 12 win team really is significantly better they'll win on the road. If they aren't they probably didn't deserve the home game anyway. Once in a great while something like the 2024 Vikings will happen....and that sucks for them but the unintended consequences matter.

If they DO change this, they need to at least make division standing the first tiebreaker for it. But I don't think they should change it, or they should put in a caveat that it requires a W total at least 2 higher then the team being displaced to the 5 or 6 seed. NO to stealing the home game by having 12 wins vs 11.

 

[rockaction]

In the end it's probably not worth messing with. If that 12 win team really is significantly better they'll win on the road. If they aren't they probably didn't deserve the home game anyway. Once in a great while something like the 2024 Vikings will happen....and that sucks for them but the unintended consequences matter.

It's not. I know it's the NFL and every game is a battle, but Minnesota played a soft-*** schedule this year and became paper tigers. Those NFC North teams got to play the AFC South and the NFC East (IIRC), two moribund divisions aside from Philly and maybe Houston. The other two games out of the three remaining were also against cupcake teams. The only team that had a tough schedule in the NFC North were the Lions. Green Bay and Minnesota were vastly overrated and went out like kittens. They played nobody and had really big flaws, regardless of their record.

I still can't believe Seattle gave up Geno and signed Bradford for a hundred million dollars for the year he had. Oh my.

 

[Donnybrook]

In the end it's probably not worth messing with. If that 12 win team really is significantly better they'll win on the road. If they aren't they probably didn't deserve the home game anyway. Once in a great while something like the 2024 Vikings will happen....and that sucks for them but the unintended consequences matter.

It's not. I know it's the NFL and every game is a battle, but Minnesota played a soft-*** schedule this year and became paper tigers. Those NFC North teams got to play the AFC South and the NFC East (IIRC), two moribund divisions aside from Philly and maybe Houston. The other two games out of the three remaining were also against cupcake teams. The only team that had a tough schedule in the NFC North were the Lions. Green Bay and Minnesota were vastly overrated and went out like kittens. They played nobody and had really big flaws, regardless of their record.

I still can't believe Seattle gave up Geno and signed Bradford for a hundred million dollars for the year he had. Oh my.

What are you talking about? According to this, Vikings had one of the hardest schedules last season. https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/nfl-strength-of-schedule/

Why hasn't Geno has signed an extension? He wants north of 40 M / season. You have to take into how the contract is structured. Seattle can get out from Darnold contract after one year.

 

[rockaction]

According to this, Vikings had one of the hardest schedules last season

That's taken from Vegas and pre-season odds vs. post-season odds. It's Sharp Football, which is often GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). The NFL/ESPN has your SOS at 25th after the seventeenth and final game of 2024, which makes it the eighth easiest. I'll explain why after the link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/1husqoc/nfl_teams_final_strength_of_schedule_ranked/

The Vikings played ten games against teams with losing records overall. That's quite a bit. It was an easy schedule. They played the AFC South for four (rubbish), the NFC West (mediocre maybe) for five including the playoff game, themselves (NFC North) for six, and the Giants, Jets, and Falcons (two rubbish, one mediocre).

Teams with winning records they played against were the Lions (lost twice), Rams (lost twice), Texans (won), Seahawks (won). Green Bay got the same grade inflation you did and you beat them twice.

Outside of those whopping five teams with a winning record:

AFC South was the Colts (8-9 mediocre at best), Jaguars (4-13, terrible), Titans (3-14, terrible) —all teams picking in the top fourteen, Titans pick first overall and the Jags fifth overall.

NFC West they played the Cardinals (8-9, mediocre), and San Francisco (6-11 and kinda terrible, picking eleventh overall).

In the NFC North division they beat the Bears (5-12, terrible, picking tenth overall) and the Packers twice and lost to the Lions twice.

Then in the non-specified or non-locked-in games it's on to the Giants (terrible, 3-14, picking third overall), the Jets (terrible, 5-12, picking seventh overall) and the Falcons (8-9, mediocre at best, fifteenth overall)

I mean, they played eleven games out of their division. Only three of those teams had winning records (you played four games against those teams because of the Rams twice) That's eight or nine teams you played with losing records, and those teams were dogs. Not mainly 8-9 teams, but five teams picking in the top ten overall in the draft and one picking eleventh and one picking fourteenth and one fifteenth.

I know you're a homer and you'll hate this, but it is what it is. Given free agency and additions, you'll have a better team next year even if your record is worse (which it likely will be).

 

[Donnybrook]

According to this, Vikings had one of the hardest schedules last season

That's taken from Vegas and pre-season odds vs. post-season odds. It's Sharp Football, which is often GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). The NFL/ESPN has your SOS at 25th after the seventeenth and final game of 2024, which makes it the eighth easiest. I'll explain why after the link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/1husqoc/nfl_teams_final_strength_of_schedule_ranked/

The Vikings played ten games against teams with losing records overall. That's quite a bit. It was an easy schedule. They played the AFC South for four (rubbish), the NFC West (mediocre maybe) for five including the playoff game, themselves (NFC North) for six, and the Giants, Jets, and Falcons (two rubbish, one mediocre).

Teams with winning records they played against were the Lions (lost twice), Rams (lost twice), Texans (won), Seahawks (won). Green Bay got the same grade inflation you did and you beat them twice.

Outside of those whopping five teams with a winning record:

AFC South was the Colts (8-9 mediocre at best), Jaguars (4-13, terrible), Titans (3-14, terrible) —all teams picking in the top fourteen, Titans pick first overall and the Jags fifth overall.

NFC West they played the Cardinals (8-9, mediocre), and San Francisco (6-11 and kinda terrible, picking eleventh overall).

In the NFC North division they beat the Bears (5-12, terrible, picking tenth overall) and the Packers twice and lost to the Lions twice.

Then in the non-specified or non-locked-in games it's on to the Giants (terrible, 3-14, picking third overall), the Jets (terrible, 5-12, picking seventh overall) and the Falcons (8-9, mediocre at best, fifteenth overall)

I mean, they played eleven games out of their division. Only three of those teams had winning records (you played four games against those teams because of the Rams twice) That's eight or nine teams you played with losing records, and those teams were dogs. Not mainly 8-9 teams, but five teams picking in the top ten overall in the draft and one picking eleventh and one picking fourteenth and one fifteenth.

I know you're a homer and you'll hate this, but it is what it is. Given free agency and additions, you'll have a better team next year even if your record is worse (which it likely will be).

Vikings are in good company with their supposed cake walk schedule:

25. Minnesota Vikings - .474
26. New England Patriots - .471
t-27. Buffalo Bills - .467
t-27. Los Angeles Chargers - .467
29. Indianapolis Colts - .457
30. Philadelphia Eagles - .453
31. Washington Commanders - .436
32. Miami Dolphins - .419

 

[rockaction]

Yep. Those teams played easier schedules. I was saying that about Philly and Washington all year. Philly was good regardless. I'd expect Washington to actually potentially regress this next year.

LAC was getting ripped all year for it by the local guys around where I live. Just because you're with some of the best doesn't mean they didn't have easy schedules, too. New England and Miami played nobody and still stunk. Just how it goes.

 

[Insein]

NFL becomes the NBA if divisions mean nothing. The owners like money enough to see this. The regular season is the juice for a lot of these fan bases. Take that away and there's nothing.

 

[rockaction]

NFL becomes the NBA if divisions mean nothing. The owners like money enough to see this. The regular season is the juice for a lot of these fan bases. Take that away and there's nothing.

There are only seventeen games. That alone precludes it from winding up like the NBA in any sense.

They're not the same beast because they're not the same sport. They aren't anything alike and won't be even if you tinker with divisional importance.

 

[Insein]

NFL becomes the NBA if divisions mean nothing. The owners like money enough to see this. The regular season is the juice for a lot of these fan bases. Take that away and there's nothing.

There are only seventeen games. That alone precludes it from winding up like the NBA in any sense.

They're not the same beast because they're not the same sport. They aren't anything alike and won't be even if you tinker with divisional importance.

If a lower division has no shot at a home playoff game, owners will be upset. Very rarely will an owner be in the Vikings spot last year. Every owner could be in the position of winning the 4th ranked division at 9-8 or 10-7. No one is going to vote against that.

 

[rockaction]

If a lower division has no shot at a home playoff game, owners will be upset. Very rarely will an owner be in the Vikings spot last year. Every owner could be in the position of winning the 4th ranked division at 9-8 or 10-7. No one is going to vote against that.

This isn't making any sense. You vote the way you vote for the good of the game, not on the off chance you might be the one there. It's just as likely they'll miss the playoffs or be a 14-3 team at some point. They're not voting thinking they're going to be 9-8 constantly. That's a wild assumption to make. So the 9-8 team loses the home game. They might be the 11-5 one taking it away.

Makes no sense.

 

[Insein]

If a lower division has no shot at a home playoff game, owners will be upset. Very rarely will an owner be in the Vikings spot last year. Every owner could be in the position of winning the 4th ranked division at 9-8 or 10-7. No one is going to vote against that.

This isn't making any sense. You vote the way you vote for the good of the game, not on the off chance you might be the one there. It's just as likely they'll miss the playoffs or be a 14-3 team at some point. They're not voting thinking they're going to be 9-8 constantly. That's a wild assumption to make. So the 9-8 team loses the home game. They might be the 11-5 one taking it away.

Makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense. Some of these owners know full well what their team is and what their division is. For some their only shot at a home playoff game and all the revenue is winning their division. Which is why when it comes down to it, they're not going to vote in favor of the unfortunate 11, 12, 13 win team that had a divisional rival win 14 games when the more likely chance of their team finishing with 9 or 10 and getting the division. It also keeps these mediocre and sub par teams a float for longer. Shot at a home playoff game is a lot different than getting blown out on the road.

 

[renesauz]

According to this, Vikings had one of the hardest schedules last season

That's taken from Vegas and pre-season odds vs. post-season odds. It's Sharp Football, which is often GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). The NFL/ESPN has your SOS at 25th after the seventeenth and final game of 2024, which makes it the eighth easiest. I'll explain why after the link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/1husqoc/nfl_teams_final_strength_of_schedule_ranked/

The Vikings played ten games against teams with losing records overall. That's quite a bit. It was an easy schedule. They played the AFC South for four (rubbish), the NFC West (mediocre maybe) for five including the playoff game, themselves (NFC North) for six, and the Giants, Jets, and Falcons (two rubbish, one mediocre).

Teams with winning records they played against were the Lions (lost twice), Rams (lost twice), Texans (won), Seahawks (won). Green Bay got the same grade inflation you did and you beat them twice.

Outside of those whopping five teams with a winning record:

AFC South was the Colts (8-9 mediocre at best), Jaguars (4-13, terrible), Titans (3-14, terrible) —all teams picking in the top fourteen, Titans pick first overall and the Jags fifth overall.

NFC West they played the Cardinals (8-9, mediocre), and San Francisco (6-11 and kinda terrible, picking eleventh overall).

In the NFC North division they beat the Bears (5-12, terrible, picking tenth overall) and the Packers twice and lost to the Lions twice.

Then in the non-specified or non-locked-in games it's on to the Giants (terrible, 3-14, picking third overall), the Jets (terrible, 5-12, picking seventh overall) and the Falcons (8-9, mediocre at best, fifteenth overall)

I mean, they played eleven games out of their division. Only three of those teams had winning records (you played four games against those teams because of the Rams twice) That's eight or nine teams you played with losing records, and those teams were dogs. Not mainly 8-9 teams, but five teams picking in the top ten overall in the draft and one picking eleventh and one picking fourteenth and one fifteenth.

I know you're a homer and you'll hate this, but it is what it is. Given free agency and additions, you'll have a better team next year even if your record is worse (which it likely will be).

Vikings are in good company with their supposed cake walk schedule:

25. Minnesota Vikings - .474
26. New England Patriots - .471
t-27. Buffalo Bills - .467
t-27. Los Angeles Chargers - .467
29. Indianapolis Colts - .457
30. Philadelphia Eagles - .453
31. Washington Commanders - .436
32. Miami Dolphins - .419

Have to be at least a little bit careful when comparing opponents win percentages. By definition, teams with winning records face lower win %s because they beat those teams. It's not a bad place to start, but it certainly isn't a perfect indicator. It's no coincidence that playoff teams tend to be lower on a list like this, and NOT just because they face a softer schedule, but because they drive the win rate down for each opponent they beat, and the more teams they beat, the bigger difference it makes.
For example, winning 5 extra games against teams that would otherwise have been a perfect .500 (IE average opponents) drops them all the way to .482. From that perspective, the Vikings didn't face a soft schedule, but pretty close to an average one. And the Dolphins were even worse then the number here suggests.

 

[rockaction]

Have to be at least a little bit careful when comparing opponents win percentages. By definition, teams with winning records face lower win %s because they beat those teams. It's not a bad place to start, but it certainly isn't a perfect indicator. It's no coincidence that playoff teams tend to be lower on a list like this, and NOT just because they face a softer schedule, but because they drive the win rate down for each opponent they beat, and the more teams they beat, the bigger difference it makes.

Very true. I do indeed know that, but it's the best we've got, really, unless you're using Vegas like Sharp Football was to try and eliminate that effect.