Should The NFL Award The #2 Seed In Each Conference Regardless Of Division Winners? (1 Viewer)

[HairyGOATee]

Should The NFL Award The #2 Seed In Each Conference Regardless Of Division Winners?

For instance, this past season, the Chargers finished with a better record than the Patriots, but since the Chargers did not win their division, the Patriots got the first round bye and HFA, while the Chargers have to play two games on the road (Baltimore and then again up in New England). 

If the NFL were to change the system, then I'd propose seeding each team based off of their records. If that were the case this past season, then the Chargers would have had the #2 seed, with the Pats losing out on the first round bye and playing the Colts instead. Obviously, this would have given the Chargers a home game in the 2nd round, and forced the Pats to play on the road if they advanced.

So what do you all think? Should the NFL only guarantee division winners a playoff spot and not necessarily a home game in the playoffs?

 

[Interseptopus]

no

/thread

 

[wgoldsph]

Then why have divisions at all?

 

[Sarlakticacid]

Yes. Division winners make playoffs but seeding for playoffs is dependant on W-L

 

[BobbyLayne]

Nope 

Would devalue the Division Title

 

[Shrek]

No to the #2 seed, yes to making the remaining 4 seeds floating seeds. Since only the top 2 get byes, I would be cool with floating the remaining 4 based on record. Still makes winning your division important, since you'd be playing to get a bye. But after the top 2 are gone, an 8-8 team should not be hosting a 12-4 team in the wild card round.

 

[barackdhouse]

No.

The parity that exists in one division may not exist in another. Winning a division at 10-6 may actually be more impressive than winning a different division at 12-4. Like winning the AFC West vs winning the AFC East. It's not as impressive that the Pats dominate such a ####ty division (except the fact they do it year after year - *that* part is impressive).

I think the teams that win the NFC South or North are going to have to overcome some serious competition in their division. The Giants and Redskins are going to be so bad that if the Eagles or Cowboys finish 1st with a better record than say the Bears or Packers, does it really mean they performed better?

Winning your division should get you in. Period.

 

[HairyGOATee]

Then why have divisions at all?

Division winner would still automatically make playoffs though.

 

[HairyGOATee]

No.

The parity that exists in one division may not exist in another. Winning a division at 10-6 may actually be more impressive than winning a different division at 12-4. Like winning the AFC West vs winning the AFC East. It's not as impressive that the Pats dominate such a ####ty division (except the fact they do it year after year - *that* part is impressive).

I think the teams that win the NFC South or North are going to have to overcome some serious competition in their division. The Giants and Redskins are going to be so bad that if the Eagles or Cowboys finish 1st with a better record than say the Bears or Packers, does it really mean they performed better?

Winning your division should get you in. Period.

So the division winner rule wouldn't go away at all. Division winner would still automatically make playoffs. Looking at the AFC from last season, the only difference is that a team like the Chargers would get the #2 seed, while the Pats would get #3, and all other teams would then be pushed down spot. 

 

[HairyGOATee]

no

/thread

Why do you say no? What makes you think that way?

 

[HairyGOATee]

No to the #2 seed, yes to making the remaining 4 seeds floating seeds. Since only the top 2 get byes, I would be cool with floating the remaining 4 based on record. Still makes winning your division important, since you'd be playing to get a bye. But after the top 2 are gone, an 8-8 team should not be hosting a 12-4 team in the wild card round.

That's an interesting compromise I might be OK with. But if the NFL expands playoffs to 7 teams, then that 2nd bye goes away. My friend keeps telling me that the NFL will pass a 14 team playoff bracket rule sometime soon, but I've just read stuff about it being tough for the TV schedule.

Anyway though, I am digressing. Something I wanted to ask is whether you think winning your division is a more "objective" measure than having a better regular season record? Again, using the Pats and Chargers example, do you think the argument that the Pats won their division had more clout than the argument that the Chargers wound up with the better record?

Finally, let's say everything was the same from last season, except that the Chargers beat the Pats during the regular season. So then the Chargers would not only have the better regular season record, but they'd also have the better head-to-head record. Do you still think the Pats should have the #2 seed over the Chargers then?

 

[HairyGOATee]

Nope 

Would devalue the Division Title

How would it devalue it and why is that such a bad thing?

Were division titles devalued when the NFL went from 3 divisions per conference to 4 divisions per conference?

 

[jdkapow]

It's a terrible idea. Two words: unbalanced schedules. Teams in the same division play similar schedules. Teams in different divisions play very different schedules. That's why winning the division means something and comparing W-L records across the conference means much less.

 

[HairyGOATee]

Yes. Division winners make playoffs but seeding for playoffs is dependant on W-L

I agree. Giving division winners an automatic playoff berth, home field advantage for their first game, AND possibly a bye is just too much. Just give them an auto berth and base it all off of record after that. Giving them the berth, HFA, and possibly a bye is just letting them have their cake and eat it too. That can lead to gaming the system, whereas doing it by a strict record probably makes week 17 games more competitive, as there would be more on the line. 

 

[BobbyLayne]

How would it devalue it and why is that such a bad thing?

Were division titles devalued when the NFL went from 3 divisions per conference to 4 divisions per conference?

Because winning division is a foundational goal for every team. In your proposed format we might as well just have two conferences and Eli are divisions.

Better Q

Who exactly thinks this is even an issue? Ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It’s not as wackadoodle as an 18 game season but the consensus behind it is about the same.

 

[HairyGOATee]

Because winning division is a foundational goal for every team. In your proposed format we might as well just have two conferences and Eli are divisions.

Better Q

Who exactly thinks this is even an issue? Ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It’s not as wackadoodle as an 18 game season but the consensus behind it is about the same.

In my proposed format, you'd still make playoffs if you won the division though. That's why the fundamental goal is still in play and not eliminated.

Fair point about the better Q. Seems like there is a lot of hoopla over 18 games, but personally, after seeing 11-5 Pats not make the playoffs in 2008, the 2011 Saints not have a home game, and then the 2019 Chargers not get a first round bye, I do think there is a problem. There are a lot of issues with the NFL right now, and this is one of them. It isn't the most pressing, I can agree to that, but it definitely is broke.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Fair enough, good discussion.

I think maybe one way to think about doing it would be keep the basic format the same but give one of WC teams a shot at hosting. So...

#1 & #2 seeds - division winners with the best records 

#3 & #4 seeds - next two best records. I think it would be super rare to have both of the WC home games go to non-division winners, but haven’t looked it up.

BUT I feel like most years we have 1-2 weak divisions where 8 or 9 wins gets a home game. If you’re the 6th best team in your conference maybe you deserve a first round road game.

 

[HairyGOATee]

Fair enough, good discussion.

I think maybe one way to think about doing it would be keep the basic format the same but give one of WC teams a shot at hosting. So...

#1 & #2 seeds - division winners with the best records 

#3 & #4 seeds - next two best records. I think it would be super rare to have both of the WC home games go to non-division winners, but haven’t looked it up.

BUT I feel like most years we have 1-2 weak divisions where 8 or 9 wins gets a home game. If you’re the 6th best team in your conference maybe you deserve a first round road game.

Yeah, I guess that's the best compromise. I hope they adopt that sometime soon. Would be easier to do than expanding playoffs to 7 or 8 teams on each side too.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

how often does it even happen that a wild card team has a better record than the 2 seed?

 

[Yogibear]

Rewarding the #2 Seed in Each Conference regardless of record only works in the NBA and not the NFL.  The NFL playoff format is fine as it is.

 

[Gally]

I agree. Giving division winners an automatic playoff berth, home field advantage for their first game, AND possibly a bye is just too much. Just give them an auto berth and base it all off of record after that. Giving them the berth, HFA, and possibly a bye is just letting them have their cake and eat it too. That can lead to gaming the system, whereas doing it by a strict record probably makes week 17 games more competitive, as there would be more on the line. 

How exactly is a division winner gaming the system?  They just play the games.  It's not like they decide to lose a game to get a better seed or home field advantage.  There is no way to game the system.  Each team tries to win every game they play (as long as they aren't already locked into a spot going into week 17 and need to rest players).