It’s even possible for a 3-13 team to win its division. Or a 0-10-6 team :D. You could theoretically win your division without scoring a point.
The current seeding method doesn’t bother me too much, but switching it to ignore division records would be fine with me too. The funny thing then will be when two teams from the same division finish 1 and 2 after feasting on an easy schedule. For instance this year if the Chiefs were a bit better and the Chargers weren’t the Chargers, they could both have won 12 or 13. That’s another once-in-a-blue-moon scenario that would bug people.
One advantage the change would have is that it would make for more competitive games at the end of the season. This year, Chicago was locked into the #2 and NO the #5 (after Atlanta was obviously winning). Under the different seeding method, they would have been in competition for the #2 spot. Maybe Philly would have had incentive to play against Dallas (not sure about the tiebreakers).
Yeah, i thought that was probably the case, but i played it safe and went for 4-12.
Anyway, i understand the arguments that the critics of the system are making, and i sympathize with them. But it’s not like this is a new development, and many people seem to be treating it that way just because we finally got a situation where a team won its division with a losing record.
I’m going to jump into this argument and say that I’ve felt this way about these kinds of division winners long before this current season. The season the 11-5 Patriots missed the playoffs and the 8-8 Chargers made it was a travesty.
I have no dog in this fight because I’m a Bills fan and we weren’t even close to the playoffs. But I do feel the playoff system could use some major revision.
I written before that I think they should eliminate the divisions and conferences. Just take the eight teams with the best regular season records and they go to the playoffs. Seed them by the records.
This would eliminate teams getting into the playoffs because they won a weak division. And it would eliminate the situation where you sometimes have the top best teams playing in a conference championship two weeks before the Superbowl.
These year’s playoff’s would have been something like:
Week 1:
Game 1 - Indianapolis Colts at New England Patriots
Game 2 - New York Jets at Atlanta Falcons
Game 3 - New Orleans Saints at Pittsburgh Steelers
Game 4 - Chicago Bears at Baltimore Ravens
Week 2:
Winner of Game 1 v winner of Game 4
Winner of Game 2 v winner of Game 3
I’ve always been critical of playoff systems that automatically award the top seeds to division winners, though perhaps not necessarily on this message board. I usually complain about the instances when they happen, like this year with Seattle. Great, you won your division, now you get to go to the playoffs. But now your seed should reflect your record, not league alignment.
I disagree. That’s the reward for winning a division. You get a home game. Actually, I don’t see why there’s even any need for Wild Cards at all anymore.
I obviously agree. There’s no point in having a divisional based playoff unless you can guarantee parity between your divisions. If not, you just end up sending weak teams to the playoffs while keeping stronger teams out.
I actually like your proposal better (and there’s no arguing that it is the most fair), but de-constructing the divisional model would be very unsettling to a lot of people and I think you would have to have at least 10 playoff teams. I’m not even sure I’m ready for that commitment.
That is the reward for winning a division, but it shouldn’t be for a 7-9 team. Seattle received two rewards. The first for making the playoffs with the 8th ranked record and then the home game.
Home game, schmome game. The other three away teams won this weekend, against much harder teams.
I think the playoff are just fine the way they are. You change them and you completely get rid of the divisional dynamic. The only way to guarantee yourself a good spot is to be the best team in your division. Some year, a division might be crappy, the next year it could be great. The beauty of football, if not all sports, is that on opening day, the season could go anywhere. Maybe, you have to go at least 10-6 to have a shot to get in, or maybe you could go 8-8 and still get a wild card spot.
I figured eight teams out of thirty-two was reasonable (plus easy to set up for playoff rounds). If a team can’t break into the top quarter during the regular season, it really shouldn’t be in the playoffs.
Good luck getting the NFL to agree to forgo the revenue from a full round of playoff games. I’m somewhat annoyed that MLB looks like they’re about to expand the playoffs.
I also suspect that the league, and most of the teams, like the concept of the wild card slots, since it keeps more teams in the hunt for playoff spots, deeper into the season. When a team is still in contention, it’ll lead to more interest (and higher ratings) for its games.
This was the crux of the question I was asking you a couple of days ago: under what logic is ‘ok’ for Seattle to be in playoffs at the expense of New York (by virtue of winning their division), but it’s a ‘injustice’ for that game to have been in Seattle instead of New Orleans? It seems like either they’re both an injustice, and we should go with Little Nemo’s plan, or the concept of justice is meaningless here, and we should stop citing it.
Personally, though I’m sympathetic to a strict non-divisional, non-conference, put-the-top-teams-in-the-playoffs-and-seed-them-by-record-and-standard-tie-breakers, ultimately I prefer the current system for the same reason I suspect the NFL does: it results in more interesting games later in the season.
The logic of the divisional model. You have to award the winner of a division a playoff spot, otherwise what’s the point. It’s not necessarily ok–Seattle shouldn’t be in the playoffs at all–but it’s mandatory under a divisional system.
Because Seattle had the worst record of all the playoff teams and lost to New Orleans. You have to give the winner of a division a playoff spot as outlined above, but you don’t necessarily have to give them an inappropriate seed. To determine if they won their division you compare their record against only the teams in their division. Once in the playoffs, you consider their record against the rest of the playoff teams–their new division.
But the whole logic of having playoffs in the first place is to test the relative strengths of teams coming out of potentially unequal fields. Remember where playoffs come from: contests between the champions of entirely separate leagues.
If it were somehow possible to guarantee absolute parity between divisions–or if all teams played exactly equivalent schedules in the same big league–there would be no reason to have a playoff at all. You’d know who was best just from the season standings.