Anyone else want to see a 6-10 team win the NFC South?

[Red Dragon]

I do. I think it would be hilarious, and perhaps more importantly, it might finally lead to some reform of the NFL playoff system.

 

[CowboyChris]

No matter how bad it gets, I doubt that one day the division winner will not be eligible for the playoffs.

 

[joseephuss]

No matter how bad it gets, I doubt that one day the division winner will not be eligible for the playoffs.

Maybe, but at the least they don't deserve to host a playoff game. I would like to see that minor tweak.

 

[Hardline]

I like the rule as it currently stands.

 

[joseephuss]

The rule as it currently stands was made with the expectation that the division winners would also have winning records. Having a losing record is a rarity, but that doesn't mean that type of specific case can't be evaluated or tweaked for the future.

 

[Rogah]

I like the rule as it currently stands.

Me too. Every time someone wants to tweak a rule because of something which happens once every 7 years, they generally create some other problem - which they then immediately start whining about.

The cream will rise to the top. If, in the meantime, a losing record division winner gets to host a game over a stronger wild card team roughly once per 7 or 8 years, then tough tizzies.

 

[joseephuss]

How does tweaking this rule create some other problem?

 

[Rogah]

How does tweaking this rule create some other problem?

In order for me to answer that question, you would have to provide a specific solution for what your proposed tweak is.

Keep in mind, of course, that we live in a sports society where whiners get more attention than people who actually like the status quo. So no matter what system you create, there will always be someone whining about how unfair it is.

 

[joseephuss]

I propose that a team that wins their division has to have a winning record in order to host a playoff game or at least a better record than the WC team they are playing. That is the least I would want to see.

If I take it one step further. I want a division winner to have at least an 8-8 record to make the playoffs if there is a WC team with a better record. If there is a WC team with a better record, then that WC team jumps the division leader with the losing record(7-9 or worse).

I want to avoid the major overhaul of completely re-seeding or not considering division winners. These are relatively small tweaks, especially my first proposal.

Of course there will always be someone whining about something. The whining is all relative. What is the bigger whine? Supporting a system that allows for a 7-9 or 6-10 team to get into and host a playoff game? Or supporting a system that allows for some flexibility to tweak an inequity or two from time to time? I think allowing a team with a losing record to host a playoff game diminishes the league and also discounts the regular season.

 

[Rogah]

I propose that a team that wins their division has to have a winning record in order to host a playoff game or at least a better record than the WC team they are playing. That is the least I would want to see.

So, according to what you said, an 8-8 division winner would have to go on the road to an 8-8 wild card team, because the division winner doesn't have a winning record nor do they have a better record than the WC team. Yeah, that'll go over well.

If I take it one step further. I want a division winner to have at least an 8-8 record to make the playoffs if there is a WC team with a better record. If there is a WC team with a better record, then that WC team jumps the division leader with the losing record(7-9 or worse).

If you think the complaining is bad now, just wait until you have a division winner who actually misses the playoffs which could happen under this proposal.

Of course there will always be someone whining about something. The whining is all relative. What is the bigger whine? Supporting a system that allows for a 7-9 or 6-10 team to get into and host a playoff game? Or supporting a system that allows for some flexibility to tweak an inequity or two from time to time? I think allowing a team with a losing record to host a playoff game diminishes the league and also discounts the regular season.

How does a 7-9 team hosting a playoff game "diminish the league"..?!? Your changes diminish the whole concept of sorting teams into divisions. No matter what system you pick, you are going to diminish something.

This is the 13th year we have had the current divisions format. If a sub-.500 team wins the NFC South, that will be only the 2nd time in 13 years we've seen that. The cream will rise to that top. There's simply no need to tweak the rules for something which happens once every 6.5 years on average.

 

[joseephuss]

So, according to what you said, an 8-8 division winner would have to go on the road to an 8-8 wild card team, because the division winner doesn't have a winning record nor do they have a better record than the WC team. Yeah, that'll go over well.
If you think the complaining is bad now, just wait until you have a division winner who actually misses the playoffs which could happen under this proposal.
Your changes diminishes the whole concept of sorting teams into divisions. No matter what system you pick, you are going to diminish something.

This is the 13th year we have had the current divisions format. If a sub-.500 team wins the NFC South, that will be only the 2nd time in 13 years we've seen that. The cream will rise to that top. There's simply no need to tweak the rules for something which happens once every 6.5 years on average.

Let me clarify my first proposal. The division winner has to be 8-8(I consider that to be a winning or at least not a losing record) to guarantee they host a playoff game. They can still host a game to a WC team with a better record. A 7-9 or worse and then they go on the road in the playoffs if of course all the WC teams that qualified have better records.

I have no problem watching a division winner with a 7-9 or worse record miss the playoffs. Win games. That matters more to me.

The whole division system got diminished when they went to the current 4 team format. Used to be you could win all your division games, lose every other game and you would finish at worst 8-8. Under the current format that only means a 6-10 record. Sure there will be complaints, but they will be complaining in support of mediocrity. Finishing 7-9 or worse and winning your division not only means you aren't a good team, but that you are in a weak division. That does more to diminish the division format to me.

The cream doesn't rise to the top if it is not allowed to under an inequitable system. A system that allows better teams to get left out while a 6-10 division winner make and host playoff games. I would honestly would be okay if Dallas won the division at 6-10 and didn't make the playoffs.

I don't care that it only happens once every decade. That frequency of the event alone does not determine on whether it should be addressed or not.

 

[Rogah]

Let me clarify my first proposal. The division winner has to be 8-8(I consider that to be a winning or at least not a losing record) to guarantee they host a playoff game. They can still host a game to a WC team with a better record. A 7-9 or worse and then they go on the road in the playoffs if of course all the WC teams that qualified have better records.

I have no problem watching a division winner with a 7-9 or worse record miss the playoffs. Win games. That matters more to me.

So your whole tweak is to fix something which has happened twice in 13 years. Can't say I see much worth losing sleep over. What you should realize that if your suggestion was implemented, people would whine any complain about your arbitrary 8-8 cutoff figure. Why should an 8-8 team host an 11-5 team? Or why should an 8-8 team even be in the playoffs if an 11-5 team got excluded?

The cream doesn't rise to the top if it is not allowed to under an inequitable system.

Sure it does. Win your division and you got nothing to complain about.

I don't care that it only happens once every decade. That frequency of the event alone does not determine on whether it should be addressed or not.

Sorry but the frequency with which these things happen is a consideration. If it happened every year, I'd agree that there should be a change. But I can't say I support throwing the whole concept of divisions out the window for something that happens twice in 13 years.

 

[joseephuss]

So your whole tweak is to fix something which has happened twice in 13 years. Can't say I see much worth losing sleep over. What you should realize that if your suggestion was implemented, people would whine any complain about your arbitrary 8-8 cutoff figure. Why should an 8-8 team host an 11-5 team? Or why should an 8-8 team even be in the playoffs if an 11-5 team got excluded?
Sure it does. Win your division and you got nothing to complain about.Sorry but the frequency with which these things happen is a consideration. If it happened every year, I'd agree that there should be a change. But I can't say I support throwing the whole concept of divisions out the window for something that happens twice in 13 years.

Yes, 8-8 is arbitrary, but it is not a losing record. Why reward a losing record? It doesn't throw out the whole concept of division winners. It only takes into consideration having a winning record while also winning your division. Making a division winner miss the playoffs with a 9-7 record due to WC teams having better winning records would be throwing out the concept of the divisions.

I'm not losing sleep over any of this. I just prefer not to have teams with losing records in the playoffs even if it is only once every 10 years. Why reward mediocrity?

As you keep saying people are always going to complain. Nothing will change with that fact. That is why we are having this discussion in the first place. People are complaining about a team with a losing record getting into and hosting a playoff game. Tweak the rules to keep that from happening and there will still be complaints. Those complaints seem more empty to me since they are in support of a team with a losing record.