New Playoff System

MatticusHB6 · #1 02-08-2008, 03:36 PM

No more home field advantage for division winners wild cards with better records would host the 1st round.

I'm completely down with this no more resting because you have a shitty division.

Best record hosts

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/nfl...?urn=nfl,65500

ACC Rulez · #2 02-08-2008, 03:44 PM

Is this a new rule or is it being discussed? Sound like it is only a discussion at this point.

MatticusHB6 · #3 02-08-2008, 03:46 PM

Discussion

It better go through so sick of teams sitting players weeks 16 and 17

buckeye215 · #4 02-08-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusHB6

Discussion

It better go through so sick of teams sitting players weeks 16 and 17

Fuck that no way does this go through, while it sucks for people with fantasy leagues teams earn the right to rest players in the final weeks of the season.

ACC Rulez · #5 02-08-2008, 06:02 PM

You haven't earned it if you don't have a better record than the opposing team. This year, the Giants and Jags had better records than their opening playoff oponents and played on the road. Even though they both won....one would think they should take a serious look at this rule.

Luffsta · #6 02-08-2008, 06:39 PM

I like the idea of best record hosting. I also think it would slow down the resting of starters in weeks 16 & 17. Considering what fans pay to go to games it is ridiculous that a lot of them have to watch pre-season worthy football the last 2 weeks of the season. As far as resting starters go. I think the last few years have shown that the best way to lose in the playoffs is to rest the starters at the end of the season.

islesmetsgiantsfan · #7 02-08-2008, 06:42 PM

They should look at this rule. Not only did the Giants have as good if not a better record than TB, but they played in a tougher division. Granted the Giants played better on the road but that is rare. They shouldn't be penalized for not winning their division.

The only question is how far will they take this? Although not probable, it is possible that you could have 1 really weak division (ie 9-7 record) and teams with a 10-6 record fighting for the wild card. Would they automatically eliminate one of those for a division winner with a worse record?

wvette609 · #8 02-08-2008, 06:42 PM

HFA in the NFL is over-rated as proven by the Steelers in '05, Giants this year and even the Colts in '06 had to go on the road WC weekend.

That being said, I think this is a dumb rule.

A WC team may make it in with a great record if the rest of their division sucks.

Meanwhile a team in a division with 4 strong teams that wins the division should get HFA for winning that division.

To me this is like the Chiefs complaint about wanting to expand the playoffs a few years ago after missing out.

cmnelson1987 · #9 02-08-2008, 08:02 PM

Any scenario based soley on record is going to result in teams getting the bad end of the deal probably 1/2 the time. You're going to have better teams with a tougher division/schedule that end up with worse records than a lesser team with a weak division/schedule. So if you go better record plays at home, teams are gonna get screwed. If you go with Division winner gets to play at home, then you're going to have better teams with better records but a tougher division play on the road against a lesser team with a weaker division.

Either way, you're going to have situations were someone isn't happy. The only way to completely eliminate the wrong team getting the home game would be to have some crazy formula. And that would probably lead to more emphasis on stats than simply winning and losing. I really hope it doesn't end up going in that direction.

So, I don't think it matters what they decide, someone is gonna have to suck it up and deal with playing on the road and proving they are the better team.

gco211 · #10 02-08-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmnelson1987

Any scenario based soley on record is going to result in teams getting the bad end of the deal probably 1/2 the time. You're going to have better teams with a tougher division/schedule that end up with worse records than a lesser team with a weak division/schedule. So if you go better record plays at home, teams are gonna get screwed. If you go with Division winner gets to play at home, then you're going to have better teams with better records but a tougher division play on the road against a lesser team with a weaker division.

Either way, you're going to have situations were someone isn't happy. The only way to completely eliminate the wrong team getting the home game would be to have some crazy formula. And that would probably lead to more emphasis on stats than simply winning and losing. I really hope it doesn't end up going in that direction.

So, I don't think it matters what they decide, someone is gonna have to suck it up and deal with playing on the road and proving they are the better team.

I think this is more the league trying to keep teams playing through week 17 than anything else. If there's more competition for HFA, more teams will have to play.

Poser · #11 02-08-2008, 09:27 PM

seeding based on record is the norm, not the exception. This is a problem that has been experienced throughout all of professional sports, and leads to lopsided or uninteresting matchups. I personally think, that more often than not, if you seed based on record... you will get the best matchups in the end with appopriate teams recieving HFA

E Smith 22 · #12 02-08-2008, 09:46 PM

What happens if for the wild card positions there are more teams with better records than a division winner? Does a division winner make it regardless of record? What about a team that doesn't make it to the playoffs but has a better record than the division winner?

gco211 · #13 02-09-2008, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poser

seeding based on record is the norm, not the exception. This is a problem that has been experienced throughout all of professional sports, and leads to lopsided or uninteresting matchups. I personally think, that more often than not, if you seed based on record... you will get the best matchups in the end with appopriate teams recieving HFA

It doesn't affect the seedings. It's the same system the NBA and NHL have in place, I believe (I know it is in the NHL, but am not positive about the NBA). The division winners get the top seeds but being a higher seed doesn't guarantee HFA. So, while the winner of a division who comes in third as far as division winners go is guaranteed to play the worst wild card team (same as now), if that wild card team happens to have a better record, then the wild card team has HFA.

gco211 · #14 02-09-2008, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Smith 22

What happens if for the wild card positions there are more teams with better records than a division winner? Does a division winner make it regardless of record? What about a team that doesn't make it to the playoffs but has a better record than the division winner?

As I say in my other post, it doesn't affect the matchups or the participants of playoff games. It merely states that whoever has the best record of the two playoff teams is going to be home, regardless of record.

E Smith 22 · #15 02-09-2008, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gco211

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Smith 22

What happens if for the wild card positions there are more teams with better records than a division winner? Does a division winner make it regardless of record? What about a team that doesn't make it to the playoffs but has a better record than the division winner?

As I say in my other post, it doesn't affect the matchups or the participants of playoff games. It merely states that whoever has the best record of the two playoff teams is going to be home, regardless of record.

Ahh missed that, thanx. So in this example the same teams that made into this years playoffs would still be the same, with the same division winners and same wild card teams but for example, Tampa would play in NY because the wild card had the better record than the division winner.

I like that. I like it a lot!

But what happens, say if you have the division winners like this.

NFC

East Dallas 13-3
North Green Bay 13-3
South Tampa Bay 9-7
West Seattle 10-6

Then for wild cards you have for the sake of argument you have three non divisional winner with a 10-6 record, and with the tie breakers is ends up like this...

NY 10-6
Washington 10-6
Minnesota 10-6

Here you have a 3rd team, non divisional winner, with a better record, possibly better team stats, and a better season than a team in the playoffs (Tampa) and Minnesota would not make it in. What then?

I personally would like to see them keep divisional winners but them not guaranteed a playoff spot. I would like to see the top 6 teams in each conference get in, regardless if the won the division or not. Keep a divisional winner title. In the article it suggests that division winners are not guaranteed HFA. I wonder if we say to teams, you must have the better record, be in the top six, regardless if you win a division.

A team like Minnesota would then be rewarded for having a successful year, or a better year than a 9-6 divisional winner which is a joke.

The way it worked out this year, it wouldn't have affected this years playoffs. Every team that made would have been invited to the tournament. I even went back as far as 1994 and there didn't seem to be an incedent that my scenario occured. So if they adopted the top 6 teams format it would seem extremely rare that a divisional winner wouldn't make it in, but it would only take once and then teams and fans would be upset. So taking this method would not have eliminated and divisional winner since 94 (unless I missed anything) but it would make room for the possibility of a better team, not making the playoffs because a worse divisional winner did.

...since we're talking about play off restructuring...

wvette609 · #16 02-09-2008, 09:26 AM

No offense but that is a terrible idea. If you're going to do that, why even have divisions? Why even have leagues?

Just seed the teams 1-12 based on record.

In 2005 your example would have put the Pats in limbo as they finished 10-6 as did the Cheifs who missed the playoffs.

I think that's a terrible idea and one which takes away from the division rivalries and the value of those games.

islesmetsgiantsfan · #17 02-09-2008, 10:56 AM

I think in general the NFL system works because the best teams do make the playoffs and usually in the correct order of record. Because football is so physical, I don't blame coaches for sitting top players for the final game to give them extra rest, especially if they are playing the next week. 2 weeks off like TB is too much.

The Giants used the last game as a springboard and got a huge emotional lift. Don't forget that the Giants lost Sam Madison and Shawn O'hara in that game for the first playoff game. The Giants overcame those injuries but that could have been a killer. It is a fine line. It looks great because they won the SB but if they got knocked out in the first round, Coughlin probably would have been fired for playing those guys in a "meaningless" game.

E Smith 22 · #18 02-09-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvette609

No offense but that is a terrible idea. If you're going to do that, why even have divisions? Why even have leagues?

Just seed the teams 1-12 based on record.

In 2005 your example would have put the Pats in limbo as they finished 10-6 as did the Cheifs who missed the playoffs.

I think that's a terrible idea and one which takes away from the division rivalries and the value of those games.

No offense taken at all. That's where tie breakers come in and you could still have divisions. I certainly know it's out there, but it is not that far removed from having a weeker division winner on the road to a wild card team. If Pitt has an 11-5 record and better than say division winner KC that has a 9-7. but there are already 2 wildcard teams tied with Pitt and won the tiebreaker, Pitt doesn't make it but a 9-7 team does, how is it that your team doesn't deserve to get in the playoffs moreso than KC? They played well ALL YEAR, and miss out at a chance to play for the Super Bowl win and team and organization that is mediocre, with average talent, has a chance??...

I agree it's out there, but I'm sure you would be dissappointed... or at least I would be.

wvette609 · #19 02-09-2008, 02:00 PM

To me it just takes away from the point of having a division and a division winner.

Bill Cowher used to talk all the time about the division games being of the utmost importance. Heck this year the Steelers got in the playoffs mainly because they beat the Browns twice and thus had the division tie breakers.

Wildcards are meant to add to the playoffs...almost a bonus for those teams who can't win their division. In that instance if you're a wildcard then you should have to go out and win a ton of games so you don't have to worry about tiebreakers.

Sure if my team had a great record as a WC and didn't get in while a division winner did then I'd be pissed. As would anyone.

I'd be more pissed if my team won a hard faught division title and missed out cause a wildcard team coasted through an easier season.

gribbzz · #20 02-09-2008, 06:17 PM

I think they should not only do this but take it one step further. Only divisional winners have guaranteed spots in the playoffs. The wilcard teams would be the best of the rest so if there were 3 NFC teams and 1 AFC team in the top 4 of the rest of the league they would get in.

I know it wouldn't happen because then there would be all kinds of whining like "The AFC is tougher competition so they wouldn't have as many wins automatically' Although I would argue that if one league is more dominant than the other the 4 teams below the top 8 is where it shows the most. Nothing makes me roll my eyes more than seeing a team that is 9-7 or 8-8 get into the playoffs.