Proposal to Re-seed Playoffs (1 Viewer)

[JKL]

The competition committee is proposing a change to the playoff format, that would allow a wildcard team to host a wildcard round game if it has the better record. If a division winner and wild card team finish with the same record, then the first tiebreaker automatically goes to the division winner. The stated purpose of such rule change is to increase the number of competitive games in the final weeks of the season. There would be increased competition for home games, and division winners who had clinched a division, but were locked into a #3 or #4 seed, would not do what Tampa Bay did this season.

24 of the 32 owners will need to vote in favor of the change in order for it to take effect.

Here are the occasions where the rule change would have had an impact based on end of season records, since the league went to 8 divisions in 2002:

2002: #4 Indianapolis (10-6) hosts New York Jets (9-7)

2003: #4 Tennessee (12-4) hosts Baltimore (10-6)

2005: #3 Jacksonville (12-4) hosts New England (10-6)

2007: #4 Jacksonville (11-5) hosts Pittsburgh (10-6)

2007: #4 NY Giants (10-6) hosts Tampa Bay (9-7)

And some where the rule may have also had an impact on how other teams played:

2002: San Fran (locked in the #4 seed) and Atlanta (clinched wildcard) both lost meaningless road games in week 17. With rule, a San Fran loss + Atlanta win would have given Atlanta #4 seed, moved San Fran to #5 and the NY Giants to #6.

2003: Denver could have moved up to a #5 seed and avoided Indy with a win. Instead, they rested starters and lost 31-3 at Green Bay, a game GB needed to make playoffs, and which they won without contest. In NFC, Dallas was locked into wildcard spot, and lost meaningless game to NO, but could have moved to #4 seed with win.

2005: Cincinnati and New England wouldn't have played hot potato with the #3 seed in week 17 and rested starters. A Cincinnati win would have given them the #3 seed and a home game. A Cincy loss and NE win would have given NE the #4 seed, and knocked Cincy to the #5. Jacksonville, who won a meaningless game, would have had the pressure of needing the win to get a home game as well.

2006: Dallas lost a meaningless game at home to 2-13 Detroit, having clinched the #5 seed. Under the proposal, a win in that game could have moved Dallas around Seattle, so that Romo would have been holding for a kick in Dallas Stadium, instead of Seattle.

2007: In AFC, Jacksonville lost to Houston, and Pittsburgh lost to Baltimore in week 17. Under the proposal, Jacksonville would have needed a win to insure a home game, San Diego would need a win to insure a home game, and Pittsburgh would get a home game with a win, and either a SD or JAC loss. In NFC, Tampa rested starters after clinching the division at 9-5, and lost to SF and CAR. Seattle lost to Atlanta in week 17 after clinching #3 seed. NY Giants would have been playing for a home game against NE, and Seattle and Tampa would need to win to guarantee a home game, or leave their fates in the NY Giants' hands against NE.

 

[KoolKat]

Doing this would degrade the acheivement of winning a division.

 

[kerpow]

Is winning a division really such an acheivement? Only 4 teams in it.

Also, we've seen NYG and Pitt win the SB as wild card teams so is home field that much of a big deal? I suppose there is a certain level of prestige ffrom hosting a playoff game and perhaps some extra revenue.

But I suspect this is much more of a money/TV ratings move. If a game is meaningless it won't attract as much attention and viewing figures so this would be a way of ensuring that every game is a must watch.

Besides, there will continue to be meaningless games. Look at the Colts this year, 12-2 with 2 weeks to go. They couldn't get the top seed from NE and couldn't lose the 2nd seed.

 

[JKL]

Is winning a division really such an acheivement? Only 4 teams in it.

Depends. If you are outmaneuvering franchises owned by the Bidwells or Fords, not so much.

Also, we've seen NYG and Pitt win the SB as wild card teams so is home field that much of a big deal? I suppose there is a certain level of prestige ffrom hosting a playoff game and perhaps some extra revenue.

It's not the end-all, be-all, but it certainly does matter. Just because a small percentage of teams win multiple games on the road in the playoffs doesn't mean Home Field Advantage doesn't exist. It's more important if you are a warm weather team to try to avoid playing in cold, because climate change does increase home field advantage as well.

But I suspect this is much more of a money/TV ratings move. If a game is meaningless it won't attract as much attention and viewing figures so this would be a way of ensuring that every game is a must watch.Besides, there will continue to be meaningless games. Look at the Colts this year, 12-2 with 2 weeks to go. They couldn't get the top seed from NE and couldn't lose the 2nd seed.

Agreed. This does not change the #1 and #2 seeds. It would not affect Indy's decision to play Sorgi against Tennessee. If they are slotted already, they will still do what they want. It wouldn't have changed Philly and Atlanta in 2004, once they clinched, for example. The difference is in the quantity though. Prior to 2002, #3 and #4 seeds rarely rested starters, because they were competing to still make the playoffs or get a home game. If a team was winning its division at 9-7, because of the 5 team divisions, it was likely in a dog fight to the end to gain that spot.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The #3, 4 and 5 seeds resting their starters is a big problem. This is a good proposal to nip it.

 

[Rockchild]

The #3, 4 and 5 seeds resting their starters is a big problem. This is a good proposal to nip it.

And not just for fantasy football purposes although that would be a good reason itself . It's bad business to have teams not playing their best players as much as possible.

 

[jurb26]

Doing this would degrade the acheivement of winning a division.

All divisions where NOT created equal.

 

[FUBAR]

Doing this would degrade the acheivement of winning a division.

All divisions where NOT created equal.

exactly why I say no. If you have to play the Cowboys, Eagles, and Redskins 6 times, you will probably come out with a lesser record than you would if you're playing the Bears, Lions, and Vikings.

 

[comfortably numb]

Voted to change, but then again, I would be in favor of seeing 1-12 in hopes of truly pinning the 2 best teams in the end each year.

 

[Godsbrother]

Doing this would degrade the acheivement of winning a division.

All divisions where NOT created equal.

exactly why I say no. If you have to play the Cowboys, Eagles, and Redskins 6 times, you will probably come out with a lesser record than you would if you're playing the Bears, Lions, and Vikings.

If everyone in the conference played the same opponents then I would be for this change. But it isn't fair to penalize the winner of a tough division in favor of a team that didn't even win their division. If I were an owner I would be voting NO.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Might as well just get rid of the divisions if this change takes place.

 

[DropKick]

Doing this would degrade the acheivement of winning a division.

All divisions where NOT created equal.

exactly why I say no. If you have to play the Cowboys, Eagles, and Redskins 6 times, you will probably come out with a lesser record than you would if you're playing the Bears, Lions, and Vikings.

If everyone in the conference played the same opponents then I would be for this change. But it isn't fair to penalize the winner of a tough division in favor of a team that didn't even win their division. If I were an owner I would be voting NO.

Tough or mediocre division? Was Tampa (9-7) in a tough division last season? Granted they tanked late and it caught up to them, but they still were in a marginal division. I see it the other way. If a team like the '05 Jaguars can compile a 12-4 record, with an Indy in their division, I think they deserve to host the play-off game over a 10-6 division winner. In the situations this rule would have applied, the road team has won 4 of 5 games. Also, I don't think any of the 10-6, 9-7 division winners were in particularly tough divisions. There's some evidence the team with the better record was the better team.2002: #4 Indianapolis (10-6) hosts New York Jets (9-7)........ won by Indy2003: #4 Tennessee (12-4) hosts Baltimore (10-6).............. won by Tenn2005: #3 Jacksonville (12-4) hosts New England (10-6)........ won by NE2007: #4 Jacksonville (11-5) hosts Pittsburgh (10-6)............ won by Jax2007: #4 NY Giants (10-6) hosts Tampa Bay (9-7)............... won by NYGVote: YesETA And who doesn't like more meaningful late season games?

 

[Ksquared]

If this question was related to FF, I would hope the overwhelming opinion would be all for it. This may help keep some more top players having to be used in the last couple of weeks rather than a series or two and they sit. Since the seedings will become much more fluid, more games will have meaning late and that can only be a good thing.

 

[moleculo]

I don't like it. You want a home playoff game? Win your division. I think the system is about perfect right now.

It may make more games meaningful, but because winning the division will have less meaning, games between division rivals will be less important. I LOVE how important those late season, rival games are - say Den/KC/SD, NYG/PHI/DAL, CHI/GB, etc...these rivalry games are what makes the NFL amazing to watch, and their value will be diluted.

 

[JKL]

Doing this would degrade the acheivement of winning a division.

All divisions where NOT created equal.

exactly why I say no. If you have to play the Cowboys, Eagles, and Redskins 6 times, you will probably come out with a lesser record than you would if you're playing the Bears, Lions, and Vikings.

If everyone in the conference played the same opponents then I would be for this change. But it isn't fair to penalize the winner of a tough division in favor of a team that didn't even win their division.

If I were an owner I would be voting NO.

Tough or mediocre division? Was Tampa (9-7) in a tough division last season? Granted they tanked late and it caught up to them, but they still were in a marginal division. I see it the other way. If a team like the '05 Jaguars can compile a 12-4 record, with an Indy in their division, I think they deserve to host the play-off game over a 10-6 division winner. In the situations this rule would have applied, the road team has won 4 of 5 games. Also, I don't think any of the 10-6, 9-7 division winners were in particularly tough divisions. There's some evidence the team with the better record was the better team.

2002: #4 Indianapolis (10-6) hosts New York Jets (9-7)........ won by Indy

2003: #4 Tennessee (12-4) hosts Baltimore (10-6).............. won by Tenn

2005: #3 Jacksonville (12-4) hosts New England (10-6)........ won by NE

2007: #4 Jacksonville (11-5) hosts Pittsburgh (10-6)............ won by Jax

2007: #4 NY Giants (10-6) hosts Tampa Bay (9-7)............... won by NYG

Vote: Yes

ETA And who doesn't like more meaningful late season games?

The Jets beat the Colts 41-0 in New York in the wildcard round. That, in fact, is the one exception, where due to extreme imbalance in schedule, the Jets were the better team despite the record. The AFC West/East featured 8 teams that all finished with at least 8 wins, and the Jets got in on a 3-way tiebreaker over the Patriots and Dolphins, while the Colts got the expansion Texans twice and the Bengals, plus a Jags team that was going into rebuilding mode. As for the arguments that it penalizes the winner of a tough division, that is not a true statement, as a general rule. In fact, teams from the divisions that have tough teams should be the ones in favor of the rule, out of self-interest. It's teams like Seattle, who get to compete for a division title and auto home game against the Arizonas, that should be leading the "NO" charge.

Let's think about this. If a wildcard team is 12-4, that means at least one other team in its division is 12-4 or better, while the others are 12-4 or worse. If a division winner is only 9-7, then it almost universally means the division is under .500 overall, because every other team has to have 9 or fewer wins. Here is a trivia question:

How many times has the lowest seeded division winner advanced to the Super Bowl, since 1978, when the league expanded to add a wildcard round?

 

[nerangers]

If they are going to go this far, then why not just take the top six teams in the Conference? If winning your division is not going to guarantee you a home game, maybe it shouldn't guarantee you a playoff spot either. OK, I am playing Devil's advocate here, since many will say that teams from the stronger divisions knock each other out, which can give you a lower record. There was a time when the AFC East was a strong division. I think just leave it alone.

 

[JKL]

I don't like it. You want a home playoff game? Win your division. I think the system is about perfect right now.

It may make more games meaningful, but because winning the division will have less meaning, games between division rivals will be less important. I LOVE how important those late season, rival games are - say Den/KC/SD, NYG/PHI/DAL, CHI/GB, etc...these rivalry games are what makes the NFL amazing to watch, and their value will be diluted.

I appreciate all the opinions, and there are good arguments on both sides. This particular one I personally don't understand. If Denver goes to San Diego in week 16, tied for the division lead at 8-6 (with a wildcard team already at 10-4), is that game less important? Is it going to draw fewer fans?What about if Kansas City and Oakland meet in week 16, both with four wins, does this affect how passionate the fans are in their hatred for each other? I dont think so.

Or a matchup between the Giants and Eagles in week 3?

As for the late season rivalry games, I'm assuming these are other compelling late season rivalry games besides watching Jim Sorgi against division rival Tennessee, Dallas going through the motions against hated rival Washington, the Bears tanking against the Packers at home in the final week two years ago, New England playing Matt Cassel at QB at home against Miami in 2005, or Tampa at home against Carolina this year. Teams have demonstrated they are just as likely to not care about a division game as any other.

Personally, if I'm going to spend money to go to Arrowhead in late December to see San Diego, I want LaDainian Tomlinson and Antonio Gates to play.

 

[cdwood]

I voted no. The NFL is basically built around the philosophy of division rivals, win your division and you're guaranteed a playoff spot and a home game, that is a huge carrot. Ask any team at the beginning of the season what their goal is, they'll say to win the division. I feel that if you take away the importance of winning your division, then you may as well get rid of all of the divisions and just base standings on 16 team conferences.

There will always be meaningless games towards the end of the season because there will be teams that are locked into their position before the end of the regular season.

Christopher

 

[Sinrman]

I can see from both sides of this. I can see it helping with teams resting players, and make them continue to play hard. However, a team that does well enough to rest their players, I think, earned it. So why risk it and force them to

play and potentially hurt players? But on the reverse side, I can see the NFL being frustrated, along with fans, as some

of the games in the last week or two are worthless, as you don't see the stars play hardly at all.

For those saying winning a division isn't that big of a deal anymore, as some divisions can be easier than others. But on the reverse side, I'd say that some team's schedules are easier than others too, so it works that way as well. *shrug*

 

[renesauz]

I voted no. The NFL is basically built around the philosophy of division rivals, win your division and you're guaranteed a playoff spot and a home game, that is a huge carrot. Ask any team at the beginning of the season what their goal is, they'll say to win the division. I feel that if you take away the importance of winning your division, then you may as well get rid of all of the divisions and just base standings on 16 team conferences.There will always be meaningless games towards the end of the season because there will be teams that are locked into their position before the end of the regular season.Christopher

But it DOESN'T take away the importance of winning your division. In fact, it hardly touches it at all.If you're in a weak division (with lesser records), then chances are you're both fighting for your playoff lives and aren't really thinking about home field advantages as much as simply getting in.Dominant wildcard teams had to play twice against one of the league's best teams.... 9-7 division winners have usually had a very easy go against division rivals. For a 9-7 team to even be in the playoffs is reward enough.FOR THOSE ARGUING AGAINST THIS...did you notice the first tiebreaker? It's different then any other tiebreakers....The 10-6 division record, hosts the 10-6 wildcard, regardless of who they played, conferance/division records, etc. The division winner has the first tiebreaker. Don't underestimate the importance of that, because it means that for this new seeding rule to apply, it really does have to be a weak division winner against a dominant non-division winner.I LOVE THE NEW PROPOSAL. (Of course, it's fantasy implications have a little to do with the depth of my feelings about it, but I would still be for it.)

 

[Maroney=Speed]

I voted no. The NFL is basically built around the philosophy of division rivals, win your division and you're guaranteed a playoff spot and a home game, that is a huge carrot. Ask any team at the beginning of the season what their goal is, they'll say to win the division. I feel that if you take away the importance of winning your division, then you may as well get rid of all of the divisions and just base standings on 16 team conferences.There will always be meaningless games towards the end of the season because there will be teams that are locked into their position before the end of the regular season.Christopher

But it DOESN'T take away the importance of winning your division. In fact, it hardly touches it at all.If you're in a weak division (with lesser records), then chances are you're both fighting for your playoff lives and aren't really thinking about home field advantages as much as simply getting in.Dominant wildcard teams had to play twice against one of the league's best teams.... 9-7 division winners have usually had a very easy go against division rivals. For a 9-7 team to even be in the playoffs is reward enough.FOR THOSE ARGUING AGAINST THIS...did you notice the first tiebreaker? It's different then any other tiebreakers....The 10-6 division record, hosts the 10-6 wildcard, regardless of who they played, conferance/division records, etc. The division winner has the first tiebreaker. Don't underestimate the importance of that, because it means that for this new seeding rule to apply, it really does have to be a weak division winner against a dominant non-division winner.I LOVE THE NEW PROPOSAL. (Of course, it's fantasy implications have a little to do with the depth of my feelings about it, but I would still be for it.)

If you play in Fantasy Football Leagues, which I think some do here. This rule is great. Nothing more nothing less.Why does this not surprise me? Yes [ 31 ] [49.21%] No [ 32 ] [50.79%] Why would anyone vote No?

 

[nittanylion]

Voted to change, but then again, I would be in favor of seeing 1-12 in hopes of truly pinning the 2 best teams in the end each year.

Completely agree. Seed all the Teams, regardless of Conference, 1-12.Byes to the top 4, 5 v12 6v11 7v10 8v9, etc, etc...the two that survive that Gauntlet play in the Championship Game...Winning your Division guarantees you an automatic berth in 'The Playoff Tournament', and that should be reward enough.Once you're there, Seeding should be determined by how you compare vs THE REST OF THE PLAYOFF QUALIFIERS.

 

[FUBAR]

Might as well just get rid of the divisions if this change takes place.

There's still some pride in winning the division.

 

[FUBAR]

Voted to change, but then again, I would be in favor of seeing 1-12 in hopes of truly pinning the 2 best teams in the end each year.

Completely agree. Seed all the Teams, regardless of Conference, 1-12.

Byes to the top 4, 5 v12 6v11 7v10 8v9, etc, etc...the two that survive that Gauntlet play in the Championship Game...

Winning your Division guarantees you an automatic berth in 'The Playoff Tournament', and that should be reward enough.

Once you're there, Seeding should be determined by how you compare vs THE REST OF THE PLAYOFF QUALIFIERS.

Not to disagree, but off hand, when's the last time the #1 seeds met each other in the Super Bowl? (I'm lazy)

 

[King of the Wolfies]

I like it simply for the reason that so many teams are phoning it in in weeks 16 and 17 and by doing so affecting the playoff structure in a negative way. This wont completely stop it, but should help.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Doing this would degrade the acheivement of winning a division.

That about sums it up.If you have 2 bad teams in your division, two teams gets 4 wins and could split with each other, getting a 5-1 leg up on the rest of the conference. A division with 3-4 good teams would mean 1-2 extra losses.When 6 of 16 games are in division, the importance should be placed on the division. Shouldn't the scheduling of nearly 40% of your games signify the importance?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I don't like it. You want a home playoff game? Win your division. I think the system is about perfect right now.It may make more games meaningful, but because winning the division will have less meaning, games between division rivals will be less important. I LOVE how important those late season, rival games are - say Den/KC/SD, NYG/PHI/DAL, CHI/GB, etc...these rivalry games are what makes the NFL amazing to watch, and their value will be diluted.

Here's your solution right here. Play divisional games Weeks 16 and 17. That should accomplish the lack of resting starters most of the time.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Doing this would degrade the acheivement of winning a division.

That about sums it up.If you have 2 bad teams in your division, two teams gets 4 wins and could split with each other, getting a 5-1 leg up on the rest of the conference. A division with 3-4 good teams would mean 1-2 extra losses.When 6 of 16 games are in division, the importance should be placed on the division. Shouldn't the scheduling of nearly 40% of your games signify the importance?

The division is important. That's why the winner makes the playoffs.Home field is an unnecessary perk to give to a division winner with a weaker record than a wild card team, and it clearly reduces the competitiveness of weeks 16 and 17.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am in favor of this. What if a division winner is 10-6 (and every other team was terrible), but a wild card is 12-4, but were unlucky and played in the same division as a 15-1 team? Why should the 12-4 team being penalized by playing a weak division winner on the road, and a division winner be rewarded for winning a horrible division? The way I see it, getting to be called the division winner is reward enough (as teams often put up banners for that and such).

 

[Blackhawk 69]

I am in favor of this. What if a division winner is 10-6 (and every other team was terrible), but a wild card is 12-4, but were unlucky and played in the same division as a 15-1 team? Why should the 12-4 team being penalized by playing a weak division winner on the road, and a division winner be rewarded for winning a horrible division? The way I see it, getting to be called the division winner is reward enough (as teams often put up banners for that and such).

John Clayton it taking this stand right now on ESPN Radio.http://espnradio.espn.go.com/espnradio/index

Click on link.

Click Listen, on right... then wait.

Live until 8:00pm today.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I am in favor of this. What if a division winner is 10-6 (and every other team was terrible), but a wild card is 12-4, but were unlucky and played in the same division as a 15-1 team? Why should the 12-4 team being penalized by playing a weak division winner on the road, and a division winner be rewarded for winning a horrible division? The way I see it, getting to be called the division winner is reward enough (as teams often put up banners for that and such).

That same luck that puts them in a division with two teams that got crushed by two better teams?The odds of a team rolling up a better record than another division winner AND also playing in a stronger division are rather low. Why penalize the winner of a hard fought division that wins 10-6 or 11-5 because they didn't get to play against two easy teams 25% of their schedule?

The current system is pretty good, I don't really see the need to tweak it like this.

Like I said earlier, if you put more meaningful games at the end of the season (such as not having AFC/NFC matchups) the risk of mailing it in goes down.

 

[renesauz]

I don't understand the argument about it diluting the importance of winning the division. As I already mentioned, most "division winners" in this situation are fighting for their playoff lives late season, and are generally happy to just be in OR SHOULD BE!)

The division winner still has the FIRST TIEBREAKER over any WC team for the home game...and had the automatic playoff berth.....there is still a TON of reasons to care about winning the division. The importance of it has NOT been significantly diluted. It could be reasonably argued that it really hasn't been diluted at all....without winning the division, that team might not be in the playoffs at all!

 

[jurb26]

I don't understand the argument about it diluting the importance of winning the division. As I already mentioned, most "division winners" in this situation are fighting for their playoff lives late season, and are generally happy to just be in OR SHOULD BE!)The division winner still has the FIRST TIEBREAKER over any WC team for the home game...and had the automatic playoff berth.....there is still a TON of reasons to care about winning the division. The importance of it has NOT been significantly diluted. It could be reasonably argued that it really hasn't been diluted at all....without winning the division, that team might not be in the playoffs at all!

I don't get it either. I just don't see how this dilutes things. IMO, all it really does is reward the "better" team.

 

[renesauz]

For those favoring the division winners:

Should the MEAC champion be seeded higher then the ACC runner up for the NCAA tournament? After all...they won their conferance tournament!!!!!!!!!

Think about it...it really is a similar question.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

For those favoring the division winners:Should the MEAC champion be seeded higher then the ACC runner up for the NCAA tournament? After all...they won their conferance tournament!!!!!!!!!Think about it...it really is a similar question.

If Hawaii and Boise State both finish 11-0 and 10-1, should the 10-1 team be ranked / seeded higher than the SEC Winner at 9-2?

 

[jurb26]

For those favoring the division winners:Should the MEAC champion be seeded higher then the ACC runner up for the NCAA tournament? After all...they won their conferance tournament!!!!!!!!!Think about it...it really is a similar question.

If Hawaii and Boise State both finish 11-0 and 10-1, should the 10-1 team be ranked / seeded higher than the SEC Winner at 9-2?

I don't think it is a strong argument to relate this to college sports no matter which side of the debate you are one. It's 2 different worlds.

 

[bigmurd]

Might as well just get rid of the divisions if this change takes place.

There's still some pride in winning the division.

And you still make the playoffs!

 

[JKL]

I am in favor of this. What if a division winner is 10-6 (and every other team was terrible), but a wild card is 12-4, but were unlucky and played in the same division as a 15-1 team? Why should the 12-4 team being penalized by playing a weak division winner on the road, and a division winner be rewarded for winning a horrible division? The way I see it, getting to be called the division winner is reward enough (as teams often put up banners for that and such).

That same luck that puts them in a division with two teams that got crushed by two better teams?The odds of a team rolling up a better record than another division winner AND also playing in a stronger division are rather low. Why penalize the winner of a hard fought division that wins 10-6 or 11-5 because they didn't get to play against two easy teams 25% of their schedule?

The current system is pretty good, I don't really see the need to tweak it like this.

Like I said earlier, if you put more meaningful games at the end of the season (such as not having AFC/NFC matchups) the risk of mailing it in goes down.

Not true.1990 9-7 Cincinnati Bengals played in a tougher division than wildcard Miami (12-4) or Kansas City (11-5)? Not true, particularly as to AFC West, all 5 were ranked higher than Cincy by the simple rating system.

1998 10-6 Dallas (where the next "best" team was the Arizona Cardinals and included the 6-10 Redskins and 3-13 Eagles) played in a tougher division than San Fran (versus 14-2 Atlanta) or Green Bay (versus 15-1). No.

I used the simple rating system to go back to 1990 and check how the division winners, who would have dropped in seeding under this proposal, matched up against the teams that would have moved in front of them. The SRS accounts for point differential and strength of schedule.

Here are the results:

Div. Winner significantly better (+5.1 or better in SRS): 0

Div. Winner moderately better (+2.1 to +5.0 in SRS): 1

Teams roughly equal (teams within +/- 2.0 in SRS): 10

Wildcard team moderately better (+2.1 to +5.0 in SRS): 4

Wildcard team significantly better (+5.1 or better in SRS): 6

And the only Division Winner that was rated moderately better was Seattle 1999 (9-7) over Tennessee 1999 (13-3). So the evidence that the Division Winners would be the better teams, just playing a far tougher schedule, is pretty weak. Now, if you want to take a position that you don't want any division winner, ever, to lose a home game just because they played an insane schedule, but were actually better than the team they lost the home game to, I can respect that.

If they wanted to make the rule: 1) division winners automatically guarantee a home game if they have 11+ wins, and 2) wildcards only can get a home game over a division winner if they have 11 wins, I would be fine with that. That rule would basically eliminate most of the "roughly" equals.

I have absolutely no problem with teams like Denver 1997, Tennessee 1999, and Baltimore 2000 getting a #3 seed in the conference tournament, and moving ahead of the likes of Cincinnati 1990, Detroit 1993, or Dallas 1998.

 

[jurb26]

Might as well just get rid of the divisions if this change takes place.

There's still some pride in winning the division.

And you still make the playoffs!

Yeah, I really don't get how people have tried to use this. Are automatic playoff bids now worthless?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

OK, so I can respect the research that shows that on some level that some wild card teams were allegedly better than division winners in certain criteria. That's fine.

I'm not going to debate that point. I'll even say that I'll give it to you that there certainly can be (and has been) wild card teams that were better than division winners.

The point is that the schedules are quite imbalanced between teams of two different divisions in the same conference. It is a guarantee that they will not play the same opponents (different AFC divisions, different NFC divisions, different own divisions, etc.) and not the same frequency either (own division 2x, other conference opponents 1 or 0 times). There's no real remedy for that.

I'm going to go back to the point of this proposed change - to make the late season games more meaningful.

To me, there's no question at all that AFC/NFC matchups are the least important. They are way down in the tiebreaker system, so they should be relegated out of the final two weeks of the schedule. That would solve most of these issues - not deciding the #3 and #4 seeds.

Put divisional matchups in Weeks 16 and 17 and the problem dwindles immensely.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I am in favor of this. What if a division winner is 10-6 (and every other team was terrible), but a wild card is 12-4, but were unlucky and played in the same division as a 15-1 team? Why should the 12-4 team being penalized by playing a weak division winner on the road, and a division winner be rewarded for winning a horrible division? The way I see it, getting to be called the division winner is reward enough (as teams often put up banners for that and such).

That same luck that puts them in a division with two teams that got crushed by two better teams?The odds of a team rolling up a better record than another division winner AND also playing in a stronger division are rather low. Why penalize the winner of a hard fought division that wins 10-6 or 11-5 because they didn't get to play against two easy teams 25% of their schedule?

The current system is pretty good, I don't really see the need to tweak it like this.

Like I said earlier, if you put more meaningful games at the end of the season (such as not having AFC/NFC matchups) the risk of mailing it in goes down.

Not true.1990 9-7 Cincinnati Bengals played in a tougher division than wildcard Miami (12-4) or Kansas City (11-5)? Not true, particularly as to AFC West, all 5 were ranked higher than Cincy by the simple rating system.

1998 10-6 Dallas (where the next "best" team was the Arizona Cardinals and included the 6-10 Redskins and 3-13 Eagles) played in a tougher division than San Fran (versus 14-2 Atlanta) or Green Bay (versus 15-1). No.

I used the simple rating system to go back to 1990 and check how the division winners, who would have dropped in seeding under this proposal, matched up against the teams that would have moved in front of them. The SRS accounts for point differential and strength of schedule.

Here are the results:

Div. Winner significantly better (+5.1 or better in SRS): 0

Div. Winner moderately better (+2.1 to +5.0 in SRS): 1

Teams roughly equal (teams within +/- 2.0 in SRS): 10

Wildcard team moderately better (+2.1 to +5.0 in SRS): 4

Wildcard team significantly better (+5.1 or better in SRS): 6

And the only Division Winner that was rated moderately better was Seattle 1999 (9-7) over Tennessee 1999 (13-3). So the evidence that the Division Winners would be the better teams, just playing a far tougher schedule, is pretty weak. Now, if you want to take a position that you don't want any division winner, ever, to lose a home game just because they played an insane schedule, but were actually better than the team they lost the home game to, I can respect that.

If they wanted to make the rule: 1) division winners automatically guarantee a home game if they have 11+ wins, and 2) wildcards only can get a home game over a division winner if they have 11 wins, I would be fine with that. That rule would basically eliminate most of the "roughly" equals.

I have absolutely no problem with teams like Denver 1997, Tennessee 1999, and Baltimore 2000 getting a #3 seed in the conference tournament, and moving ahead of the likes of Cincinnati 1990, Detroit 1993, or Dallas 1998.

 

[JKL]

OK, so I can respect the research that shows that on some level that some wild card teams were allegedly better than division winners in certain criteria. That's fine.I'm not going to debate that point. I'll even say that I'll give it to you that there certainly can be (and has been) wild card teams that were better than division winners.The point is that the schedules are quite imbalanced between teams of two different divisions in the same conference. It is a guarantee that they will not play the same opponents (different AFC divisions, different NFC divisions, different own divisions, etc.) and not the same frequency either (own division 2x, other conference opponents 1 or 0 times). There's no real remedy for that.I'm going to go back to the point of this proposed change - to make the late season games more meaningful. To me, there's no question at all that AFC/NFC matchups are the least important. They are way down in the tiebreaker system, so they should be relegated out of the final two weeks of the schedule. That would solve most of these issues - not deciding the #3 and #4 seeds.Put divisional matchups in Weeks 16 and 17 and the problem dwindles immensely.

I don't see any evidence, though, that teams rest starters less when the opponent is a division rival. Is this the purpose of your suggestion?I do agree that the league should have all AFC-NFC matchups in the first 15 weeks. It is true that the current schedule is imbalanced. Last year, we could sort teams within the AFC West/South group, and AFC North/East group, but there were very few data points to cross-compare groups. One of my ideas, if the league were to ever expand to 18 games, is to make the final two games flex games, to be played across the two groups within a conference (to create more balance and cross-comparison), and to match teams up with roughly the same records. For example, the AFC West/South would host games against a AFC North/East opponent in game 17, and it would be reversed, with the East/North team (against a different opponent) hosting in game 18. You could get direct matchups to decide close wildcard races, like Cleveland vs. Tennessee, or games to decide seeding, like San Diego vs. Pittsburgh. And if the #1 and #2 seed have clinched their spot, well, then Indy and NE can rematch and have the Sorgi-Cassel love fest because they don't want to give anything away for the playoffs. But at least they are only affecting one game (and NBC would probably choose to televise that one, btw).Sure, you wouldn't know who you were hosting in week 18 (because it would depend on how the season went), but the team would know they were hosting "someone" who was a conference opponent and could already sell tickets.

 

[Ksquared]

This rule is I am sure partially coming about from this past season. Look at the final standings in the AFC South:

Indy 13-3

Jacksonville 11-5

Tennessee 10-6

Houston 8-8

The argument that it would give the WC team in a weak division an advantage over the division winner of tougher division might happen. But it seems to me that I remember the opposite happening quite often.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I voted NO. Then I read all the posts to date. I can see the arguments for both sides of this debate.

Having lost FF championships due to my star players sitting on the pine (or playing a single series) during week 17, I would certainly like to see a change where I can be fairly sure I will get to use them in my championship games. But this really has nothing to do with fantasy football. If Dallas wins the division and the Eagles get in with a wild card birth, yet have to travel to play a division winner with a worse record, so be it. If they truly are the better team, as their record indicates, they will prove it.

Didn't Jacksonville (11-5 WC) go up to Pittsburgh (10-6 DIV) last year and kick their butts all over Heinz Field?

 

[AussieOyOyOy]

It's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't address the real problem. It's absloutely ridiculous that more than one-third of the league has the opportunity to play for a championship after the conclusion of a 16-game season.

 

[Godsbrother]

Didn't Jacksonville (11-5 WC) go up to Pittsburgh (10-6 DIV) last year and kick their butts all over Heinz Field?

Jacksonville had a come-from-behind 2 point win with 0:37 remaining. I would hardly call that a butt-whooping.

 

[Tenderknee]

I voted yes, and my thinking is completely about what I want to happen as a result of the playoff system. I want the best teams to make it through, and give lesser teams a chance should they really make a turn around at the end of the season. If there are two teams in the same division that are the best in their conference, why shouldn't those two teams be allowed to host playoff games.

To the poster who says that too many teams are in the playoffs, I can only give you these arguments. The only way to lessen the games would be to eliminate wildcards. But teams within the same division do not play the same schedule, therefore how can you be certain that the division champ based on win-loss record is the best team from the division? Even when they do play the same opponents from another division/conference, they still do not make one division always home against another division. That would make it easier to gauge teams within the division, but make it harder to differentiate the divisions. therefore how do you make two division champs play and give one a bye, when home and away schedule plays such a big part in the outcome of a game and team record? There is no perfect playoff scenario based on record unless you make the season longer, which they can't do sufficiently.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Didn't Jacksonville (11-5 WC) go up to Pittsburgh (10-6 DIV) last year and kick their butts all over Heinz Field?

Jacksonville had a come-from-behind 2 point win with 0:37 remaining. I would hardly call that a butt-whooping.

Don't take offense, it was meant tongue-in-cheek. The better team with the better record went on the road and won.And no, I'm not a Steeler hater. Quite the opposite in fact. I just thought Jacksonville was the better team last year.

 

[moleculo]

I don't like it. You want a home playoff game? Win your division. I think the system is about perfect right now.It may make more games meaningful, but because winning the division will have less meaning, games between division rivals will be less important. I LOVE how important those late season, rival games are - say Den/KC/SD, NYG/PHI/DAL, CHI/GB, etc...these rivalry games are what makes the NFL amazing to watch, and their value will be diluted.

Here's your solution right here. Play divisional games Weeks 16 and 17. That should accomplish the lack of resting starters most of the time.

works for me.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

It's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't address the real problem. It's absloutely ridiculous that more than one-third of the league has the opportunity to play for a championship after the conclusion of a 16-game season.

That's hardly a big problem, considering that there's only one major sport that has fewer participants in the postseason. If they could play baseball into November, I'd bet that they would expand to 6 teams per league for certain.Hockey and basketball are travesties with 16 teams in the playoffs. They've expanded their leagues to make it less of a problem (hockey was once 16 of 21 making the playoffs, a complete joke), but it still pretty much renders the regular season meaningless. If you care about a particular outcome in October in either sport, you're crazy. Try and say the same about one football game.