Proposal to Re-seed Playoffs (1 Viewer)

[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.

works for me.

This isn't 100% effective - see Indy / Tenn last year - but it does improve matters.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, pro basketball and pro hockey are silly. That shouldn't be grounds for defending the bloated NFL playoffs. Hell, NCAA basketball is the biggest abomination of them all. It's absolutely sickening to me to see a season's champion determined by a single-elimination, large-field basketball tournamnent.Nonetheless, the NFL playoff system is horrible. The fact that other professional sports leagues have worse methods doesn't lessen my disgust of the NFL's way.

 

[renesauz]

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.

Yeah, pro basketball and pro hockey are silly. That shouldn't be grounds for defending the bloated NFL playoffs. Hell, NCAA basketball is the biggest abomination of them all. It's absolutely sickening to me to see a season's champion determined by a single-elimination, large-field basketball tournamnent.Nonetheless, the NFL playoff system is horrible. The fact that other professional sports leagues have worse methods doesn't lessen my disgust of the NFL's way.

WOW! I'm honestly surprised that anyone feels this way. I have felt for years that the NFL had about the perfect playoff number. Baseball has too few...most teams are done LONG before the regular season is over. Basketball and hockey have way too many. 1/3 sounds about right to me as it keeps most teams in contention long enough to make the season interesting later in the season (for the only casual fan, of which precious few would ever visit a site like this), but low enough as to not dilute the importance of any single regular season game AND ensure that poor teams don't enter the postseason.I wil agree that the NCAA tournament is ridiculous, but for the life of me I can't think of another reasonable way to crown an NCAA champ. I would think that the individual conferance championships could do better then single elimation tourneys though.

 

[AB in DC]

This isn't 100% effective - see Indy / Tenn last year - but it does improve matters.

Nobody's going to propose a system that prevents a team from clinching a #1 seed before the season is over, so this is somewhat beside the point.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, pro basketball and pro hockey are silly. That shouldn't be grounds for defending the bloated NFL playoffs. Hell, NCAA basketball is the biggest abomination of them all. It's absolutely sickening to me to see a season's champion determined by a single-elimination, large-field basketball tournamnent.Nonetheless, the NFL playoff system is horrible. The fact that other professional sports leagues have worse methods doesn't lessen my disgust of the NFL's way.

WOW! I'm honestly surprised that anyone feels this way. I have felt for years that the NFL had about the perfect playoff number. Baseball has too few...most teams are done LONG before the regular season is over. Basketball and hockey have way too many. 1/3 sounds about right to me as it keeps most teams in contention long enough to make the season interesting later in the season (for the only casual fan, of which precious few would ever visit a site like this), but low enough as to not dilute the importance of any single regular season game AND ensure that poor teams don't enter the postseason.I wil agree that the NCAA tournament is ridiculous, but for the life of me I can't think of another reasonable way to crown an NCAA champ. I would think that the individual conferance championships could do better then single elimation tourneys though.

Series FTW Single basketball games determining anything meaningful are like flipping coins for rolls.

 

[Tom Servo]

YES voter here. Anything that keeps games interested (and butts in seats and eyeballs on TVs) is a good thing.

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.

Actually, this is not a bad idea. Why should a weak division winner be placed on the same level as a 15-1 or 14-2 team? In reality, they shouldn't. They should have to fight and scrap just to get in like any similarly-recorded wild card team.My

 

[moleculo]

YES voter here. Anything that keeps games interested (and butts in seats and eyeballs on TVs) is a good thing.

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.

Actually, this is not a bad idea. Why should a weak division winner be placed on the same level as a 15-1 or 14-2 team? In reality, they shouldn't. They should have to fight and scrap just to get in like any similarly-recorded wild card team.My

first round bye down?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

YES voter here. Anything that keeps games interested (and butts in seats and eyeballs on TVs) is a good thing.

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.

Actually, this is not a bad idea. Why should a weak division winner be placed on the same level as a 15-1 or 14-2 team? In reality, they shouldn't. They should have to fight and scrap just to get in like any similarly-recorded wild card team.My

The importance of divisions is really tied to the imbalance of the schedule. 6 of 16 games vs. your division (and it used to be 8 of 16).

 

[Buckna]

Don't see how this proposal in any way dilutes the importance of winning the division in any meaningful way. A division winner still automatically gets a playoff bid which is the true carrot and reward of being division winner. The change is they won't be guaranteed home-field advantage which is more like the icing on the cake.

If they really want that home-field advantage, have them play for it the last couple of weeks. Makes for a more meaningful, more entertaining and more succesful NFL.

 

[JKL]

With over 100 votes, the Shark Pool is checking in at a 53% to 47% split in favor of the proposal. However, 75% is required for passage. If we are going to make any assumptions, I think its that the Shark Pool represents a fair and accurate sampling of the thoughts of billionaire owners. I think the Pool collectively did a good job of summing up the various positions that will likely be stated by various groups of owners.

Don Banks of SI updates on the owners meetings here..

My guess: The proposal fails to pass this year, I'll set the over/under at 19.5 yes votes. I've already seen Pittsburgh and Tampa come out against it, Bowlen of Denver against it. Jacksonville is for it, Cleveland (at least per GM Savage) is likely for it. In Banks' article, Polian is for it, but don't know whether that represents the views of the Colts ownership. Haven't seen any other public comments.

However, I will predict that this, or something similar, will be the playoff structure by the 10th season under the 32 team, 4 team per division format, in 2011.

 

[zanti8]

if we are going to have divisions, division champs should get a home game .

or put the league back like separate leagues .

no divisions . 16 afc and 16 nfc teams . each team plays every conference opponent once ( 15 games) and one afc opponent . the afc that finished same spot as nfc . super bowl is replayed every year, afc 6th place team plays nfc 6th, afc 14th plays nfc 14th, etc...

 

[DaPummeller]

Doing this would degrade the acheivement of winning a division.

If it ain't broke...don't fix it.

 

[shredhead]

I voted yes, I'd rather see them go back to 3 divisions and 3 wild cards per conference though. The playoff format has been worse than before since the realignment to 4 divisions per conference.

 

[Chase Stuart]

People seem to forget that division winners getting an automatic home game is a relatively new development.

 

[JKL]

People seem to forget that division winners getting an automatic home game is a relatively new development.

1990 was the first year all division winners got the added revenue of hosting a home game.In the old NFL (pre-Super Bowl), the teams that won the two divisions would meet, but the site would rotate every other year between divisions, which is why the 1951 Cleveland Browns could go 11-1, including a win at the Los Angeles Rams by 15, and still have to play the 8-4 Rams on the road for the championship (and lose by a touchdown).

After the Super Bowl era began, but pre-merger, the NFL had 16 teams, 4 divisions, (just like today) but no wildcards, and the best division winners weren't guaranteed home games. This is why, in the 1967 season, the Colts could go 11-1-2, tie for the best record in the league, and miss the playoffs entirely with a loss in the final week to the Rams. And why the Rams, despite the 11-1-2 record, had to go to the frozen tundra of 9-4-1 Green Bay in the semifinals.

After the merger, and prior to 1978, the division winner with the better record still didn't necessarily get home field advantage throughout the playoffs, as it was pre-determined and rotated. This is why in 1972 undefeated Miami had to play at Pittsburgh in the AFCCG. Or the two division winners with the best records in the NFC played each other, with Green Bay at 10-4 going on the road to Washington, while 8-5-1 San Fransisco hosted a playoff game.

So yeah, claims that this league was historically built upon the division winner getting that extra carrot of a home game may be revisionist.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If we are going to make any assumptions, I think its that the Shark Pool represents a fair and accurate sampling of the thoughts of billionaire owners.

Sigworthy.

 

[moleculo]

People seem to forget that division winners getting an automatic home game is a relatively new development.

1990 was the first year all division winners got the added revenue of hosting a home game.In the old NFL (pre-Super Bowl), the teams that won the two divisions would meet, but the site would rotate every other year between divisions, which is why the 1951 Cleveland Browns could go 11-1, including a win at the Los Angeles Rams by 15, and still have to play the 8-4 Rams on the road for the championship (and lose by a touchdown).

After the Super Bowl era began, but pre-merger, the NFL had 16 teams, 4 divisions, (just like today) but no wildcards, and the best division winners weren't guaranteed home games. This is why, in the 1967 season, the Colts could go 11-1-2, tie for the best record in the league, and miss the playoffs entirely with a loss in the final week to the Rams. And why the Rams, despite the 11-1-2 record, had to go to the frozen tundra of 9-4-1 Green Bay in the semifinals.

After the merger, and prior to 1978, the division winner with the better record still didn't necessarily get home field advantage throughout the playoffs, as it was pre-determined and rotated. This is why in 1972 undefeated Miami had to play at Pittsburgh in the AFCCG. Or the two division winners with the best records in the NFC played each other, with Green Bay at 10-4 going on the road to Washington, while 8-5-1 San Fransisco hosted a playoff game.

So yeah, claims that this league was historically built upon the division winner getting that extra carrot of a home game may be revisionist.

so division winners getting automatic home games has been around for 18 years. Well, maybe that is "recent" relative to the entire history of the NFL, but it's not like this happened yesterday. 18 years is a long time. The past 18 years has seen tremendous growth, in terms of popularity, revenue, and # of teams (28-32). One could even argue that 1990 established the beginning of the current era of the game.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

Agreed, the first thing you need to do is win your division. If after 16 games you were not able to do that then you are lucky to be able to go to the playoffs. Making the team that already proved they were not the best go on the road is OK by me.I am very much against making a division winner go on the road to face a 2nd place team

 

[H.K.]

It's bad business to have teams not playing their best players as much as possible.

These decisions are made by the owners for a reason.

 

[GregR_2]

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.

Agreed, the first thing you need to do is win your division. If after 16 games you were not able to do that then you are lucky to be able to go to the playoffs. Making the team that already proved they were not the best go on the road is OK by me.I am very much against making a division winner go on the road to face a 2nd place team

And I'm very much against making a wildcard team with the greater accomplishment of a better record go on the road to face a division winner with a lesser accomplishment of a worse record, just because the division winner was lucky enough to not have any division opponent of the same quality as the one the wildcard team faced and lost the division to.The nice thing about this proposal is, if that isn't the case, if the wildcard team does not have the better accomplishment in terms of record, the division winner still gets the home field, including getting the tiebreak automatically.But when you come down to it, whether this passes or not is going to be based on whether it makes games at the end of the season more meaningful, increasing viewership and attendance and thus increasing owner income. I would also argue meaningful games at the end of the season are good for the fans who want to watch their teams actually play.

 

[3C's]

Re-seeding idea shot down according to ESPN.

force out rule is no more. Receiver must get 2 feet down.

 

[golfguy]

well my proposal if you want more valuable games late in the season, have 18 regular games and 2-3 preseason not 4-5 preseason games.

i don't think there is anyway this gets passed this year. some owners are going to be dead set against it. remember a home playoff game is a huge ticket and money maker for a team owner, not to mention all the divisional winner t-shirts, hats, etc that they sell. if that doesn't matter, will as many people buy this stuff?

force out rule is no more. Receiver must get 2 feet down.

ouch that hurts a lot of numbers for qbs and wrs i would presume. so you have to get 2 feet in, control the ball and catch, not have it move around at all when you hit the ground and come up with it for it to be a catch? i can't wait to see some catches next year. cris carter needs to come out of retirement.

 

[renesauz]

well my proposal if you want more valuable games late in the season, have 18 regular games and 2-3 preseason not 4-5 preseason games.

i don't think there is anyway this gets passed this year. some owners are going to be dead set against it. remember a home playoff game is a huge ticket and money maker for a team owner, not to mention all the divisional winner t-shirts, hats, etc that they sell. if that doesn't matter, will as many people buy this stuff?

force out rule is no more. Receiver must get 2 feet down.

ouch that hurts a lot of numbers for qbs and wrs i would presume. so you have to get 2 feet in, control the ball and catch, not have it move around at all when you hit the ground and come up with it for it to be a catch? i can't wait to see some catches next year. cris carter needs to come out of retirement.

You would presume wrong...the old rule was rarely utilized. I think I saw that the force out was only rules like 16 times all year, or less then once a week, or, if you wil, once per TEAM FOR THE YEAR.Refs very rarely called it, and that was part of the problem, because it's obvious that the situation hapened far more often then that, but how do you (as a ref) give a 20 yard completion unless you're 100% positive the WR would have gotten the foot down? It was a good rule in theory, but way too hard to implement...and that's why it's now gone.

In the end, this should have very very little impact on the game we've been watching.

 

[3C's]

well my proposal if you want more valuable games late in the season, have 18 regular games and 2-3 preseason not 4-5 preseason games.

i don't think there is anyway this gets passed this year. some owners are going to be dead set against it. remember a home playoff game is a huge ticket and money maker for a team owner, not to mention all the divisional winner t-shirts, hats, etc that they sell. if that doesn't matter, will as many people buy this stuff?

force out rule is no more. Receiver must get 2 feet down.

ouch that hurts a lot of numbers for qbs and wrs i would presume. so you have to get 2 feet in, control the ball and catch, not have it move around at all when you hit the ground and come up with it for it to be a catch? i can't wait to see some catches next year. cris carter needs to come out of retirement.

You would presume wrong...the old rule was rarely utilized. I think I saw that the force out was only rules like 16 times all year, or less then once a week, or, if you wil, once per TEAM FOR THE YEAR.Refs very rarely called it, and that was part of the problem, because it's obvious that the situation hapened far more often then that, but how do you (as a ref) give a 20 yard completion unless you're 100% positive the WR would have gotten the foot down? It was a good rule in theory, but way too hard to implement...and that's why it's now gone.

In the end, this should have very very little impact on the game we've been watching.

But now DB's can push receivers out. If they don't get two feet down, not a catch. DB's avoided pushing guys out before, not anymore.

 

[AB in DC]

DB's avoided pushing guys out before, not anymore.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

Agreed, the first thing you need to do is win your division. If after 16 games you were not able to do that then you are lucky to be able to go to the playoffs. Making the team that already proved they were not the best go on the road is OK by me.I am very much against making a division winner go on the road to face a 2nd place team

And I'm very much against making a wildcard team with the greater accomplishment of a better record go on the road to face a division winner with a lesser accomplishment of a worse record, just because the division winner was lucky enough to not have any division opponent of the same quality as the one the wildcard team faced and lost the division to.The nice thing about this proposal is, if that isn't the case, if the wildcard team does not have the better accomplishment in terms of record, the division winner still gets the home field, including getting the tiebreak automatically.But when you come down to it, whether this passes or not is going to be based on whether it makes games at the end of the season more meaningful, increasing viewership and attendance and thus increasing owner income. I would also argue meaningful games at the end of the season are good for the fans who want to watch their teams actually play.

You are making what could be an incorrect assumption that it is a greater accomplishment to have a better record in a weaker division than winning the division in a top to bottom better division. Most of the time, the reason a team is able to have a good record and finish 2nd is because the teams below them in the division are very weak. Bottom line is that the SB is supposed to try and find the best team and the one thing you do know is that over 16 games there is a team that finished higher than the team you want to give home field against. This is why playing an unbalanced schedule is good and why the division winner should mean something.

 

[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.

Agreed, the first thing you need to do is win your division. If after 16 games you were not able to do that then you are lucky to be able to go to the playoffs. Making the team that already proved they were not the best go on the road is OK by me.I am very much against making a division winner go on the road to face a 2nd place team

And I'm very much against making a wildcard team with the greater accomplishment of a better record go on the road to face a division winner with a lesser accomplishment of a worse record, just because the division winner was lucky enough to not have any division opponent of the same quality as the one the wildcard team faced and lost the division to.The nice thing about this proposal is, if that isn't the case, if the wildcard team does not have the better accomplishment in terms of record, the division winner still gets the home field, including getting the tiebreak automatically.

But when you come down to it, whether this passes or not is going to be based on whether it makes games at the end of the season more meaningful, increasing viewership and attendance and thus increasing owner income. I would also argue meaningful games at the end of the season are good for the fans who want to watch their teams actually play.

You are making what could be an incorrect assumption that it is a greater accomplishment to have a better record in a weaker division than winning the division in a top to bottom better division. Most of the time, the reason a team is able to have a good record and finish 2nd is because the teams below them in the division are very weak. Bottom line is that the SB is supposed to try and find the best team and the one thing you do know is that over 16 games there is a team that finished higher than the team you want to give home field against. This is why playing an unbalanced schedule is good and why the division winner should mean something.

I've already addressed this earlier, but you are the one making the incorrect assumption--that a second place wildcard team with a better record played in a weaker division than a division winner with a worse record. History does not support that statement. If the purpose is to generally reward the better team, then you should generally have the wildcard host if they have a better record. Here is the complete list of the division winners who were seeded lowest (i.e., worst record among division winners) in their conference who advanced to a Super Bowl since 1978:1979 Los Angeles Rams (9-7; 3rd seed)

1987 Washington Redskins (11-4; 3rd seed, lost tiebreaker to 11-4 Chicago)

That's all. And 1987 was the strike year where one game was lost, and three others were played by replacement, so I don't think the Skins were your typical lowest seeded division winner. These teams that would be losing the home games would (typically) be the mediocre teams who won sub-par divisions, and were just lucky not to have any good teams in their division, so they could qualify at 9-7 or 10-6. The wildcards who won 11+ games were typically very good teams who lost out to another elite team on a tiebreaker or by a game, and many of them did make a run to the Championship game or Super Bowl.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

Agreed, the first thing you need to do is win your division. If after 16 games you were not able to do that then you are lucky to be able to go to the playoffs. Making the team that already proved they were not the best go on the road is OK by me.I am very much against making a division winner go on the road to face a 2nd place team

And I'm very much against making a wildcard team with the greater accomplishment of a better record go on the road to face a division winner with a lesser accomplishment of a worse record, just because the division winner was lucky enough to not have any division opponent of the same quality as the one the wildcard team faced and lost the division to.The nice thing about this proposal is, if that isn't the case, if the wildcard team does not have the better accomplishment in terms of record, the division winner still gets the home field, including getting the tiebreak automatically.

But when you come down to it, whether this passes or not is going to be based on whether it makes games at the end of the season more meaningful, increasing viewership and attendance and thus increasing owner income. I would also argue meaningful games at the end of the season are good for the fans who want to watch their teams actually play.

You are making what could be an incorrect assumption that it is a greater accomplishment to have a better record in a weaker division than winning the division in a top to bottom better division. Most of the time, the reason a team is able to have a good record and finish 2nd is because the teams below them in the division are very weak. Bottom line is that the SB is supposed to try and find the best team and the one thing you do know is that over 16 games there is a team that finished higher than the team you want to give home field against. This is why playing an unbalanced schedule is good and why the division winner should mean something.

I've already addressed this earlier, but you are the one making the incorrect assumption--that a second place wildcard team with a better record played in a weaker division than a division winner with a worse record. History does not support that statement. If the purpose is to generally reward the better team, then you should generally have the wildcard host if they have a better record. Here is the complete list of the division winners who were seeded lowest (i.e., worst record among division winners) in their conference who advanced to a Super Bowl since 1978:1979 Los Angeles Rams (9-7; 3rd seed)

1987 Washington Redskins (11-4; 3rd seed, lost tiebreaker to 11-4 Chicago)

That's all. And 1987 was the strike year where one game was lost, and three others were played by replacement, so I don't think the Skins were your typical lowest seeded division winner. These teams that would be losing the home games would (typically) be the mediocre teams who won sub-par divisions, and were just lucky not to have any good teams in their division, so they could qualify at 9-7 or 10-6. The wildcards who won 11+ games were typically very good teams who lost out to another elite team on a tiebreaker or by a game, and many of them did make a run to the Championship game or Super Bowl.

Not sure what that has to do with coming to a conclusion that a wild card team with a better record should host a division winner? I looked at the past years to see if a 2nd place team with a better record had weak teams behind it. 2005 showed that to be the case, but last year Jacksonville had a good record and the division was not bad (.500 at the bottom). The bottom line is that divisions play certain other divisions and have an unbalanced schedule so using record is not a fair comparison for another division that could play an easy or even tough schedule. Win the division first and then a team that didn't win their own division has to go on the road and prove what they couldn't prove in the regular season...I don't really see why one would want it a different way? I am glad the league agreed.

That being said, I find it interesting that the league wanted to feet in bounds because "they didn't want the referees to make judgment calls." Yet other rules are all about judgment calls they are making, such as what is a catch anymore? It used to be two feet down, but now a guy can take 3 steps and they rule it incomplete when he is hit, not who the heck knows? Separate discussion...

 

[comfortably numb]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but if this passes would it be possible for 2 teams in the same division to get the BYE?

 

[GregR_2]

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.

Agreed, the first thing you need to do is win your division. If after 16 games you were not able to do that then you are lucky to be able to go to the playoffs. Making the team that already proved they were not the best go on the road is OK by me.I am very much against making a division winner go on the road to face a 2nd place team

And I'm very much against making a wildcard team with the greater accomplishment of a better record go on the road to face a division winner with a lesser accomplishment of a worse record, just because the division winner was lucky enough to not have any division opponent of the same quality as the one the wildcard team faced and lost the division to.The nice thing about this proposal is, if that isn't the case, if the wildcard team does not have the better accomplishment in terms of record, the division winner still gets the home field, including getting the tiebreak automatically.

But when you come down to it, whether this passes or not is going to be based on whether it makes games at the end of the season more meaningful, increasing viewership and attendance and thus increasing owner income. I would also argue meaningful games at the end of the season are good for the fans who want to watch their teams actually play.

You are making what could be an incorrect assumption that it is a greater accomplishment to have a better record in a weaker division than winning the division in a top to bottom better division. Most of the time, the reason a team is able to have a good record and finish 2nd is because the teams below them in the division are very weak. Bottom line is that the SB is supposed to try and find the best team and the one thing you do know is that over 16 games there is a team that finished higher than the team you want to give home field against. This is why playing an unbalanced schedule is good and why the division winner should mean something.

I've already addressed this earlier, but you are the one making the incorrect assumption--that a second place wildcard team with a better record played in a weaker division than a division winner with a worse record. History does not support that statement. If the purpose is to generally reward the better team, then you should generally have the wildcard host if they have a better record. Here is the complete list of the division winners who were seeded lowest (i.e., worst record among division winners) in their conference who advanced to a Super Bowl since 1978:1979 Los Angeles Rams (9-7; 3rd seed)

1987 Washington Redskins (11-4; 3rd seed, lost tiebreaker to 11-4 Chicago)

That's all. And 1987 was the strike year where one game was lost, and three others were played by replacement, so I don't think the Skins were your typical lowest seeded division winner. These teams that would be losing the home games would (typically) be the mediocre teams who won sub-par divisions, and were just lucky not to have any good teams in their division, so they could qualify at 9-7 or 10-6. The wildcards who won 11+ games were typically very good teams who lost out to another elite team on a tiebreaker or by a game, and many of them did make a run to the Championship game or Super Bowl.

Not sure what that has to do with coming to a conclusion that a wild card team with a better record should host a division winner? I looked at the past years to see if a 2nd place team with a better record had weak teams behind it. 2005 showed that to be the case, but last year Jacksonville had a good record and the division was not bad (.500 at the bottom). The bottom line is that divisions play certain other divisions and have an unbalanced schedule so using record is not a fair comparison for another division that could play an easy or even tough schedule. Win the division first and then a team that didn't win their own division has to go on the road and prove what they couldn't prove in the regular season...I don't really see why one would want it a different way? I am glad the league agreed.

That being said, I find it interesting that the league wanted to feet in bounds because "they didn't want the referees to make judgment calls." Yet other rules are all about judgment calls they are making, such as what is a catch anymore? It used to be two feet down, but now a guy can take 3 steps and they rule it incomplete when he is hit, not who the heck knows? Separate discussion...

If winning the division is a bigger accomplishment than having a better record, then are you in favor of redoing the NFL draft order so that wild card teams automatically pick earlier than division winners, even if the wild card team has the better record?I think the automatic playoff spot is enough. If you didn't do at least as good as another team in the win-loss column, you don't deserve to be seeded ahead of them.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

Agreed, the first thing you need to do is win your division. If after 16 games you were not able to do that then you are lucky to be able to go to the playoffs. Making the team that already proved they were not the best go on the road is OK by me.I am very much against making a division winner go on the road to face a 2nd place team

And I'm very much against making a wildcard team with the greater accomplishment of a better record go on the road to face a division winner with a lesser accomplishment of a worse record, just because the division winner was lucky enough to not have any division opponent of the same quality as the one the wildcard team faced and lost the division to.The nice thing about this proposal is, if that isn't the case, if the wildcard team does not have the better accomplishment in terms of record, the division winner still gets the home field, including getting the tiebreak automatically.

But when you come down to it, whether this passes or not is going to be based on whether it makes games at the end of the season more meaningful, increasing viewership and attendance and thus increasing owner income. I would also argue meaningful games at the end of the season are good for the fans who want to watch their teams actually play.

You are making what could be an incorrect assumption that it is a greater accomplishment to have a better record in a weaker division than winning the division in a top to bottom better division. Most of the time, the reason a team is able to have a good record and finish 2nd is because the teams below them in the division are very weak. Bottom line is that the SB is supposed to try and find the best team and the one thing you do know is that over 16 games there is a team that finished higher than the team you want to give home field against. This is why playing an unbalanced schedule is good and why the division winner should mean something.

I've already addressed this earlier, but you are the one making the incorrect assumption--that a second place wildcard team with a better record played in a weaker division than a division winner with a worse record. History does not support that statement. If the purpose is to generally reward the better team, then you should generally have the wildcard host if they have a better record. Here is the complete list of the division winners who were seeded lowest (i.e., worst record among division winners) in their conference who advanced to a Super Bowl since 1978:1979 Los Angeles Rams (9-7; 3rd seed)

1987 Washington Redskins (11-4; 3rd seed, lost tiebreaker to 11-4 Chicago)

That's all. And 1987 was the strike year where one game was lost, and three others were played by replacement, so I don't think the Skins were your typical lowest seeded division winner. These teams that would be losing the home games would (typically) be the mediocre teams who won sub-par divisions, and were just lucky not to have any good teams in their division, so they could qualify at 9-7 or 10-6. The wildcards who won 11+ games were typically very good teams who lost out to another elite team on a tiebreaker or by a game, and many of them did make a run to the Championship game or Super Bowl.

Not sure what that has to do with coming to a conclusion that a wild card team with a better record should host a division winner? I looked at the past years to see if a 2nd place team with a better record had weak teams behind it. 2005 showed that to be the case, but last year Jacksonville had a good record and the division was not bad (.500 at the bottom). The bottom line is that divisions play certain other divisions and have an unbalanced schedule so using record is not a fair comparison for another division that could play an easy or even tough schedule. Win the division first and then a team that didn't win their own division has to go on the road and prove what they couldn't prove in the regular season...I don't really see why one would want it a different way? I am glad the league agreed.

That being said, I find it interesting that the league wanted to feet in bounds because "they didn't want the referees to make judgment calls." Yet other rules are all about judgment calls they are making, such as what is a catch anymore? It used to be two feet down, but now a guy can take 3 steps and they rule it incomplete when he is hit, not who the heck knows? Separate discussion...

If winning the division is a bigger accomplishment than having a better record, then are you in favor of redoing the NFL draft order so that wild card teams automatically pick earlier than division winners, even if the wild card team has the better record?I think the automatic playoff spot is enough. If you didn't do at least as good as another team in the win-loss column, you don't deserve to be seeded ahead of them.

You are entitled to your opinion, I just disagree as I surely do think they deserve and should be seeded ahead of a team that has already proved they are not the best team within their own division. Also, yes of course, a division winner who got knocked out in the same round as a WC team (with a better record) should be drafting after the WC team.

 

[nittanylion]

I have to wonder why something that seems so obvious to me is being somewhat ignored in this discussion, by a group of my peers who's opinions I generally respect.

Maybe I'M the one looking at this the wrong way. Here's what I keep coming back to:

These 'Playoffs' we're discussing are the CONFERENCE PLAYOFFS.

Conference Playoffs. NOT Division Playoffs.

Six Teams in each Conference receive INVITATIONS to this exclusive event.

Four Teams, those who win their Divisions, get a FREE TICKET. In addition to this you will receive recognition of your accomplishment by the Conference and the League in the form of a banner to be displayed proudly in your Stadium, recognizing your accomplishment!

Think of the Regular Season as a Contest, with rules:

Hey AFC/NFC Teams!

After 17 Weeks of grueling Competition, Six of Sixteen Lucky Contestants will receive tickets to an exclusive event - The Postseason Conference Tournament.

TWO WAYS TO WIN!!!

Win your Division get a Free Ticket!!!

The remaining two Tickets will be distributed to the two Teams of the remaining 10 who's body of work merits their selection.

The Free Ticket is a HUGE reward, because the two remaining Invitees have to compete with ten other Teams for the coveted last two Invites. They have to EARN their Tickets by submitting a resume along with the other 10 or less Teams meriting consideration, and based on their unique profile, are awarded the final two TICKETS.

Division Winners avoid such scrutiny.

Every Team invited to the Conference Playoffs is that, and only that: a member of an exclusive subset: AN INVITEE, who either got a Free Invite OR had to earn it. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the Invitations, just how one went about getting it.

Automatically getting in, without having to submit your resume vs the other Teams IS the Reward.

When Regular Season concludes, the differentiation starts and finishes with this:

Six Teams make the Playoffs.

Ten Teams do not.

Good-Bye, 10 Teams who didn't make it! Thanks for Playing - Try again next Season!

Now, we're left with Six Teams, the Playoff Invitees.

Doesn't matter how you got there. That stopped being important once the Season ended, and we segregated the have's and have nots.

Now, for Seeding purposes, we compare the Lucky Ticket Winners - who represent ALL the Divisions - with (gasp) their peer group - EACH OTHER.

Division Champ doesn't count - that card was ALREADY PLAYED when they got their FREE Invite.

So, based on how they stack up against Each Other, record, H2H, Points, etc, we determine the Seedings and who gets the Home Games, and Home Field Advantage.

What's so difficult about that?

 

[H.K.]

I have to wonder why something that seems so obvious to me is being somewhat ignored in this discussion, by a group of my peers who's opinions I generally respect.Maybe I'M the one looking at this the wrong way. Here's what I keep coming back to:These 'Playoffs' we're discussing are the CONFERENCE PLAYOFFS.Conference Playoffs. NOT Division Playoffs.Six Teams in each Conference receive INVITATIONS to this exclusive event.Four Teams, those who win their Divisions, get a FREE TICKET. In addition to this you will receive recognition of your accomplishment by the Conference and the League in the form of a banner to be displayed proudly in your Stadium, recognizing your accomplishment!Think of the Regular Season as a Contest, with rules:Hey AFC/NFC Teams!After 17 Weeks of grueling Competition, Six of Sixteen Lucky Contestants will receive tickets to an exclusive event - The Postseason Conference Tournament.TWO WAYS TO WIN!!!Win your Division get a Free Ticket!!!The remaining two Tickets will be distributed to the two Teams of the remaining 10 who's body of work merits their selection.The Free Ticket is a HUGE reward, because the two remaining Invitees have to compete with ten other Teams for the coveted last two Invites. They have to EARN their Tickets by submitting a resume along with the other 10 or less Teams meriting consideration, and based on their unique profile, are awarded the final two TICKETS.Division Winners avoid such scrutiny.Every Team invited to the Conference Playoffs is that, and only that: a member of an exclusive subset: AN INVITEE, who either got a Free Invite OR had to earn it. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the Invitations, just how one went about getting it.Automatically getting in, without having to submit your resume vs the other Teams IS the Reward.When Regular Season concludes, the differentiation starts and finishes with this:Six Teams make the Playoffs.Ten Teams do not.Good-Bye, 10 Teams who didn't make it! Thanks for Playing - Try again next Season!Now, we're left with Six Teams, the Playoff Invitees.Doesn't matter how you got there. That stopped being important once the Season ended, and we segregated the have's and have nots.Now, for Seeding purposes, we compare the Lucky Ticket Winners - who represent ALL the Divisions - with (gasp) their peer group - EACH OTHER.Division Champ doesn't count - that card was ALREADY PLAYED when they got their FREE Invite.So, based on how they stack up against Each Other, record, H2H, Points, etc, we determine the Seedings and who gets the Home Games, and Home Field Advantage.What's so difficult about that?

Along the same line of thinking, but from an owner's perspective: If a team wins its division (accomplished by being better than three other teams in your division) then the owner gets a home playoff game and the revenue from it. Change the formula for seeding and then a team must be better than 12 teams in its conference to ensure the owner of at least one home playoff game. If you own the team and get a vote on this topic, what would you do?

 

[Doug Drinen]

Along the same line of thinking, but from an owner's perspective: If a team wins its division (accomplished by being better than three other teams in your division) then the owner gets a home playoff game and the revenue from it. Change the formula for seeding and then a team must be better than 12 teams in its conference to ensure the owner of at least one home playoff game. If you own the team and get a vote on this topic, what would you do?

In the short run, if I owned the Seahawks or 49ers or Cards or Rams, I'd want the division title to get automatic home field, but if I owned the Jags or Titans or Texans or Colts (or Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, or Giants), I'd probably want the wildcard with the better record to get it.In the long run, why would any owner think he'd be hurt by this rule more often than helped?

 

[Doug Drinen]

...

Division Champ doesn't count - that card was ALREADY PLAYED when they got their FREE Invite.

...

I pretty much agree with nittanylion's rant. Despite having been a football fan all my life, I never got the memo about the sanctity of finishing at the top of an arbitrary group of four teams. Besides, even under the new rules, the division title is still pretty important. As someone else said in an earlier thread about this, just ask the Browns.I'm not one of these eliminate-divisions-and-take-the-top-6-teams advocates, because I think the divisions promote rivalries, and that's kind of fun. If a really crummy team gets into the playoffs every once in awhile because of it, I'm OK with that. But, like nittanylion, I don't understand why we have to let them in and bump them ahead of teams with better records.

 

[H.K.]

Along the same line of thinking, but from an owner's perspective: If a team wins its division (accomplished by being better than three other teams in your division) then the owner gets a home playoff game and the revenue from it. Change the formula for seeding and then a team must be better than 12 teams in its conference to ensure the owner of at least one home playoff game. If you own the team and get a vote on this topic, what would you do?

In the short run, if I owned the Seahawks or 49ers or Cards or Rams, I'd want the division title to get automatic home field, but if I owned the Jags or Titans or Texans or Colts (or Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, or Giants), I'd probably want the wildcard with the better record to get it.In the long run, why would any owner think he'd be hurt by this rule more often than helped?

One owner's take: "I do believe that if you win your division it's good for your fans to understand that there is a home playoff game. I think that means a lot." - Bob KraftAlso, the measure was tabled, meaning it was not even presented for a formal vote. Just a guess, but I'd say most the owners prefer the chance of guaranteeing a home game when they only need to be better than three teams instead of twelve.

 

[GregR_2]

Along the same line of thinking, but from an owner's perspective: If a team wins its division (accomplished by being better than three other teams in your division) then the owner gets a home playoff game and the revenue from it. Change the formula for seeding and then a team must be better than 12 teams in its conference to ensure the owner of at least one home playoff game. If you own the team and get a vote on this topic, what would you do?

In the short run, if I owned the Seahawks or 49ers or Cards or Rams, I'd want the division title to get automatic home field, but if I owned the Jags or Titans or Texans or Colts (or Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, or Giants), I'd probably want the wildcard with the better record to get it.In the long run, why would any owner think he'd be hurt by this rule more often than helped?

One owner's take: "I do believe that if you win your division it's good for your fans to understand that there is a home playoff game. I think that means a lot." - Bob KraftAlso, the measure was tabled, meaning it was not even presented for a formal vote. Just a guess, but I'd say most the owners prefer the chance of guaranteeing a home game when they only need to be better than three teams instead of twelve.

Is this because you think they believe a 1 in 4 chance is better than a 4 in 16 chance?If the owners aren't morons they'll realize the odds of getting a home playoff game are the same. And if they are smart businessmen they'll realize more meaningful games weeks 16 and 17 translate to more people who show up at games which means more concessions and merchandise sales which means more money for the league as a whole.

In the long run, the "more meaningful games" aspect should trump every other aspect of this discussion, whether from the standpoint of what is good for the league, or what its good for the fans.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Along the same line of thinking, but from an owner's perspective: If a team wins its division (accomplished by being better than three other teams in your division) then the owner gets a home playoff game and the revenue from it. Change the formula for seeding and then a team must be better than 12 teams in its conference to ensure the owner of at least one home playoff game. If you own the team and get a vote on this topic, what would you do?

In the short run, if I owned the Seahawks or 49ers or Cards or Rams, I'd want the division title to get automatic home field, but if I owned the Jags or Titans or Texans or Colts (or Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, or Giants), I'd probably want the wildcard with the better record to get it.In the long run, why would any owner think he'd be hurt by this rule more often than helped?

One owner's take: "I do believe that if you win your division it's good for your fans to understand that there is a home playoff game. I think that means a lot." - Bob KraftAlso, the measure was tabled, meaning it was not even presented for a formal vote. Just a guess, but I'd say most the owners prefer the chance of guaranteeing a home game when they only need to be better than three teams instead of twelve.

Is this because you think they believe a 1 in 4 chance is better than a 4 in 16 chance?If the owners aren't morons they'll realize the odds of getting a home playoff game are the same. And if they are smart businessmen they'll realize more meaningful games weeks 16 and 17 translate to more people who show up at games which means more concessions and merchandise sales which means more money for the league as a whole.

In the long run, the "more meaningful games" aspect should trump every other aspect of this discussion, whether from the standpoint of what is good for the league, or what its good for the fans.

 

[H.K.]

Is this because you think they believe a 1 in 4 chance is better than a 4 in 16 chance?If the owners aren't morons they'll realize the odds of getting a home playoff game are the same. And if they are smart businessmen they'll realize more meaningful games weeks 16 and 17 translate to more people who show up at games which means more concessions and merchandise sales which means more money for the league as a whole.In the long run, the "more meaningful games" aspect should trump every other aspect of this discussion, whether from the standpoint of what is good for the league, or what its good for the fans.

The odds are not applicable in this scenario. Any business person prefers less competition when it comes to making money.Think of it this way: If you had an opportunity to compete for $1,000,000, would you want to compete against three people to win it or would you prefer to beat twelve? It doesn't matter if three other people get a million in the scenario with more competition because you still need to beat twelve people to get yours.Another illustration: One team in your division may lose a couple studs early in the year, and then you really only have to be better than two teams to get a home playoff game....that improves your chances a hell of a lot more than needing to have a better record than eleven teams.The "meaningful games" argument is a good one, but if you want meaningful games at the end of the year then simply back load the schedule with divisional contests.

 

[GregR_2]

Is this because you think they believe a 1 in 4 chance is better than a 4 in 16 chance?If the owners aren't morons they'll realize the odds of getting a home playoff game are the same. And if they are smart businessmen they'll realize more meaningful games weeks 16 and 17 translate to more people who show up at games which means more concessions and merchandise sales which means more money for the league as a whole.In the long run, the "more meaningful games" aspect should trump every other aspect of this discussion, whether from the standpoint of what is good for the league, or what its good for the fans.

The odds are not applicable in this scenario. Any business person prefers less competition when it comes to making money.Think of it this way: If you had an opportunity to compete for $1,000,000, would you want to compete against three people to win it or would you prefer to beat twelve? It doesn't matter if three other people get a million in the scenario with more competition because you still need to beat twelve people to get yours....

I assume you meant to say, would I prefer to compete against 3 people for $1,000,000, or against 15 for one of four $1,000,000 prizes. Because otherwise your example doesn't fit our situation. It isn't a valid comparison to just increase the number of competitors without also recognizing that the number of prizes out there for grabs has also increased.The answer is, it doesn't matter, the expectation for me is the same. Unless, as Doug mentioned, I can take into account something like the current state of my team and my division. But over the long term where the league has parity, that shouldn't matter.And those, I don't think, should trump the gain of more meaningful games. Scheduling division games late also isn't a real argument for one way or the other, it would help both system's late games be more meaningful.

 

[H.K.]

I think you meant to say, would I prefer to compete against 3 people for $1,000,000, or against 15 for one of four $1,000,000 prizes. Because otherwise your example doesn't fit our situation. It isn't a valid comparison to just increase the number of competitors without also recognizing that the number of prizes out there for grabs has also increased.The answer is, it doesn't matter, the expectation for me is the same. Unless, as Doug mentioned, I can take into account something like the current state of my team and my division. But over the long term where the league has parity, that shouldn't matter.

If it shouldn't matter, then why did the owners table it? I would appreciate hearing why you think the owners didn't even put this to a vote.

 

[GregR_2]

I wasn't in the room so I don't know. But speculating as to reasons, could be some teams wanted to look at it longer. It could be enough teams are voting based on their short term benefit as the league exists this year, and not going with the long-term impact on their team as situations continually change.

And it could be some people are just of the mindset it has been the way it has for awhile and don't want it to change. People don't always vote in their own self-interest.

 

[Liquid Tension]

...

Division Champ doesn't count - that card was ALREADY PLAYED when they got their FREE Invite.

...

I pretty much agree with nittanylion's rant. Despite having been a football fan all my life, I never got the memo about the sanctity of finishing at the top of an arbitrary group of four teams. Besides, even under the new rules, the division title is still pretty important. As someone else said in an earlier thread about this, just ask the Browns.I'm not one of these eliminate-divisions-and-take-the-top-6-teams advocates, because I think the divisions promote rivalries, and that's kind of fun. If a really crummy team gets into the playoffs every once in awhile because of it, I'm OK with that. But, like nittanylion, I don't understand why we have to let them in and bump them ahead of teams with better records.

Nittany

when they got their FREE Invite

That makes the very dubious conclusion that winning the division where you play 38% of your games is a "free" invite As for Doug's comments I am not sure how you can have it both ways. If you don't like the divisions, then do away with them, but if you do have them, playing the unbalanced schedule and giving them an automatic bid makes the most sense. Yes, the divisions are arbitrary, but as the rivalries mount and the certain type of players and styles (brought on by weather) come into play, you can bet teams construct their teams to get out of the divisions first.

 

[JKL]

I think you meant to say, would I prefer to compete against 3 people for $1,000,000, or against 15 for one of four $1,000,000 prizes. Because otherwise your example doesn't fit our situation. It isn't a valid comparison to just increase the number of competitors without also recognizing that the number of prizes out there for grabs has also increased.The answer is, it doesn't matter, the expectation for me is the same. Unless, as Doug mentioned, I can take into account something like the current state of my team and my division. But over the long term where the league has parity, that shouldn't matter.

If it shouldn't matter, then why did the owners table it? I would appreciate hearing why you think the owners didn't even put this to a vote.

Because the vote wasn't borderline, and the competition committee tabled it because it was clear it wouldn't pass with the necessary 24 votes this year. The shark pool is 50/50. If the ownership was even 50/50, that is 8 votes short. Maybe they wanted to explore other options in the short term. Based on comments, I also think some of the owners have a misperception of what is in their interest as well. Bowlen was against it because he believes it would penalize a tough division, and he views the AFC West as a tough division (before last year, this would be historically correct). The problem with this is that no divisions would have benefited more from this rule than the AFC West and NFC East of the last 20 years, the two historically toughest divisions top to bottom over the last 20 years. The league schedule release has been delayed from the original date. Are they backloading the schedule more than it has been in response, following the owners meetings?For those that have suggested that the solution is to play division games late, please explain why this will improve competitive games late. Division games have been scheduled at an above average rate since 2002 in the final two weeks. We've already seen plenty of division games where the favorite tanked and rested starters, every bit as much as we've seen in non-division games. If we institute a rule that all games in the final two weeks are played within a division, this means that each team will have played only 4 division games and 10 other games at that point. Only 13 of the 48 division races (27%) have been decided by one game or less since the league went to the 4 team per division, 8 division format in 2002. From 1995-2001, when each division had at least 5 teams, 22 of 42 division races (52%) were decided by 1 game or less. To me, the net effect of mandating division games to be played in the final two weeks will be alot more meaningless division games. Most divisions will have been decided before those games are ever played.

 

[TheOriginalDoubledown]

I thought the purpose of the new rule proposal was to make games in week 16,17 more competitive and give fans the product they are buying tickets for. Nobody is buying Colts tickets to see Sorgi play on Sunday(and even if his family/friends are in attendance, I doubt they purchased the tickets). I honestly don't feel this rule necessarily addresses this issue in a responsible way.

It's easy to point at different levels of competition in each division, however, with the way the NFL is set up, regarding free agency and salary caps, each team has the same chance to make responsible decisions in making their team better. This would result in natural swing of power as bad teams address problems through the draft, free agent signings, and/or trades.

A division that is a "cream puff" this year should get stronger and then weaker and then stronger over the course of time. Changing the structure of division play and playoff seeding seems more like manipulation of this natural process.

I don't really see how this becomes an "unfair" issue for any team. If all teams are in the business of getting better and winning the Superbowl, then the only excuse for not doing so on a consistant basis would certainly point to irresponsible management of that team. With this as the case, management should make necessary changes to improve this situation for fear of fans refusing to buy tickets to see them play.

Where I think the problem comes in is when two teams playing for a wild card spot and one plays against a team trying to win and the other plays against a team that is resting their starters. If team A plays The Colts at the beginning of the season and loses, and team B plays the colts in week 17 and wins because they are playing the 2nd string colts, I honestly do not think this a fair indication of who should make the last playoff spot. As well, I don't think it gives ticket holders fair value for the products they thought they were purchasing.

If they want to fix the "problem" that the proposal was made to "fix", why not tell owners that if they are going to sit their starters in week 16,17, then they must give ticket holders the opportunity to be refunded for their ticket price. I'm sure that will hit the owners in the one place that will get their attention, their bottom line.

 

[renesauz]

Is this because you think they believe a 1 in 4 chance is better than a 4 in 16 chance?

If the owners aren't morons they'll realize the odds of getting a home playoff game are the same. And if they are smart businessmen they'll realize more meaningful games weeks 16 and 17 translate to more people who show up at games which means more concessions and merchandise sales which means more money for the league as a whole.

In the long run, the "more meaningful games" aspect should trump every other aspect of this discussion, whether from the standpoint of what is good for the league, or what its good for the fans.

The odds are not applicable in this scenario. Any business person prefers less competition when it comes to making money.Think of it this way: If you had an opportunity to compete for $1,000,000, would you want to compete against three people to win it or would you prefer to beat twelve? It doesn't matter if three other people get a million in the scenario with more competition because you still need to beat twelve people to get yours.

I love it when guys get this short-sighted smart in their thinking. They make great targets opponents for my poker games.

 

[H.K.]

Is this because you think they believe a 1 in 4 chance is better than a 4 in 16 chance?

If the owners aren't morons they'll realize the odds of getting a home playoff game are the same. And if they are smart businessmen they'll realize more meaningful games weeks 16 and 17 translate to more people who show up at games which means more concessions and merchandise sales which means more money for the league as a whole.

In the long run, the "more meaningful games" aspect should trump every other aspect of this discussion, whether from the standpoint of what is good for the league, or what its good for the fans.

The odds are not applicable in this scenario. Any business person prefers less competition when it comes to making money.Think of it this way: If you had an opportunity to compete for $1,000,000, would you want to compete against three people to win it or would you prefer to beat twelve? It doesn't matter if three other people get a million in the scenario with more competition because you still need to beat twelve people to get yours.

I love it when guys get this short-sighted smart in their thinking. They make great targets opponents for my poker games.

The odds in poker are fixed based on cards in the deck. Not applicable in this scenario. Two major flaws with the "odds" being the same argument:

1) Not all owners and teams are equal - If we were discussing a random occurance like coin flips or pulling numbered ping pong balls from a bag then they would be, but we are discussing a much more complex series of events with millions of variables.

2) The time period for the odds to "come out a wash" is too limited. - Owners will not live long enough to see the amount of outcomes necessary for the odds to "even out" for their franchise. You can play thousands of hands of poker where the odds will play out over time, but the oldest of owners might see 40 seasons during their tenure if they are lucky....far too small a sample.