ok, somebody set me straight...

[deepBLUE]

what happens if we don't win the division (very likely), but we have the 2nd best record in the nfc? we can't be the 5th seed (wildcard), and yet get a first-round bye....

 

[Don Corleone]

what happens if we don't win the division (very likely), but we have the 2nd best record in the nfc? we can't be the 5th seed (wildcard), and yet get a first-round bye....

If that is true, then the other teams had better watch out in the playoffs.

 

[The Panch]

what happens if we don't win the division (very likely), but we have the 2nd best record in the nfc? we can't be the 5th seed (wildcard), and yet get a first-round bye....

No. If you dont win the division, the only way to get into the playoffs is as a wild card team playing on the road atleast the 1st week of the post season against the #3 seed. The only way we could get a home game is the same way Indy got one two years ago. They were the #3 seed and hosted the AFC championship game because they and New England(the #4 seed) both beat higher seeds in the Divisional Round. That's even less likely with us having to hope for a #6 seed to do the same if we even do make the playoffs to begin with.

 

[deepBLUE]

i wonder if it's ever happened?...a team obtains the 2nd best conference record, and yet only makes a wildcard (no bye); because they didn't win their division...

 

[big dog cowboy]

If we do not win the division, but have the 2nd best conference record we won't get the bye week as we would be a wild card team.

The top two seeds get the bye week and those are always division winners.

 

[THUMPER]

i wonder if it's ever happened?...a team obtains the 2nd best conference record, and yet only makes a wildcard (no bye); because they didn't win their division...

1997 was the last time it happened. The Chiefs went 13-3 and won the AFC West and the Broncos went 12-4 and got a Wild Card spot. The Stealers went 11-5 and won the AFC Central, the Patriots went 10-6 and won the AFC East. The Jags went 11-5 and were a Wild Card team an the Dolphins went 9-7 and took the last WC spot.

In the 1st round of the playoffs, the Broncos hosted the Jags and won 42-17, the Patriots (as the division winner with the worst record) hosted the Dolphins and won 17-3.

The Broncos went on to beat the Chiefs in the Divisional round, then the Stealers in the AFC Championship game, and finally the Packers in the SB.

I would have to look some more to see if it had happened prior to that. I just started at 2007 and worked backwards, 1997 was the first one I saw.

 

[THUMPER]

OK, found another one...

1993, the Cowboys went 13-3 and won the NFC East. The Giants went 11-5 and were a Wild Card team. The Lions went 10-6 and won the NFC Central and the 49ERs went 10-6 and won the NFC West. The Packers and Vikings were the other Wild Card teams, both going 9-7.

The Giants were crushed by the 49ERs 44-3 in the 1st round of the playoffs. We went on to beat the 49ERs and then the Bills in the SB.

There were several times when a Wild Card team tied with a division winner for the 2nd best record but only a few times that one had the 2nd best record outright.

 

[Future]

The only home game we could possibly have is if we get the 5th seed and play the other wild card team in the NFC Championship game

 

[deepBLUE]

OK, found another one...

1993, the Cowboys went 13-3 and won the NFC East. The Giants went 11-5 and were a Wild Card team. The Lions went 10-6 and won the NFC Central and the 49ERs went 10-6 and won the NFC West. The Packers and Vikings were the other Wild Card teams, both going 9-7.

The Giants were crushed by the 49ERs 44-3 in the 1st round of the playoffs. We went on to beat the 49ERs and then the Bills in the SB.

There were several times when a Wild Card team tied with a division winner for the 2nd best record but only a few times that one had the 2nd best record outright.

an antiquated system that needs tweaking...if you have the 2nd best record in the conference, an exception should be invoked that puts you ahead of a division winner (who has a worse record). time for a change, eh, goodell?

 

[Future]

an antiquated system that needs tweaking...if you have the 2nd best record in the conference, an exception should be invoked that puts you ahead of a division winner (who has a worse record). time for a change, eh, goodell?

That won't ever happen because it would almost eliminate the importance of Divisions. It would be a lot like the NHL and NBA.

The way the NFL is set up is the best in sports. I know it might suck for a team occassionally, but this is the best way to do it.

 

[THUMPER]

an antiquated system that needs tweaking...if you have the 2nd best record in the conference, an exception should be invoked that puts you ahead of a division winner (who has a worse record). time for a change, eh, goodell?

Not necessarily. If you play in a weak division with two good teams and two really bad ones, you could end up with a very good record compared with a team who won a very tough division.

A team might have had a very easy schedule too. The Giants in 1993 showed that even though they had a better record than the 49ers, they were no match for them, getting crushed 44-3 in the first round.

Besides, it has only happened twice in the past 20 years so I don't think it's a big problem.

 

[CowboysFan02]

That won't ever happen because it would almost eliminate the importance of Divisions. It would be a lot like the NHL and NBA.

The way the NFL is set up is the best in sports. I know it might suck for a team occassionally, but this is the best way to do it.

I like the way hockey does it, but the NFL plays too few games for a system similar to the NHL's to work. The NHL plays 82 games where a win is 2 points, getting to OT is 1 and a non-OT loss is 0. But with that many games and 6 against divisional opponents(tougher games) I think the point system works.

 

[Reality]

an antiquated system that needs tweaking...if you have the 2nd best record in the conference, an exception should be invoked that puts you ahead of a division winner (who has a worse record). time for a change, eh, goodell?

This is a bad idea .. at first it sounds great, but then when you think about it, you fully understand the problem.

If you have a weak division, it would be very easy for two teams in that division to end up with great records. Then, better teams in tougher divisions would be at a disadvantage only because they had tougher opponents.

Let's say for example the Commanders and Eagles both went 0-16 .. that would mean 4 wins of the Cowboys and Giants would be very easy and both teams would only have to go 6-6 or 7-5 against the rest of the league to get into the playoffs usually. Now, imagine that the Giants were the wildcard at 11-5 and 4 of their wins were easy yet they have home field advantage over another team that won a division at 10-6 where every team finished over .500.

While a team can have tougher opponents outside their division and that is a factor every year, it's a double whammy when your non-division and division opponents are both tough.

The one change I would like to see if to factor in head-to-head in the seeding as the first factor. That would make games during the year mean more as well. If two teams did not play each other or they split (division opponent) their wins, then the next factor would be common opponents. After that, it would be overall record and if necessary total net points (PF - PA).

-Reality

 

[deepBLUE]

good posts...

unfortunately, the opposite would be true (if dallas pulled off the 2nd best conference record, this season), in this case. dallas has an excruciating division, so they would be more deserving than a division winner in a weaker division...although i understand that the opposite can be true, as well.

oh well, we'll be doing good to get a wildcard...so i guess i won't kick. i do think we have a good chance of getting in.

 

[jobberone]

This is a bad idea .. at first it sounds great, but then when you think about it, you fully understand the problem.

If you have a weak division, it would be very easy for two teams in that division to end up with great records. Then, better teams in tougher divisions would be at a disadvantage only because they had tougher opponents.

Let's say for example the Commanders and Eagles both went 0-16 .. that would mean 4 wins of the Cowboys and Giants would be very easy and both teams would only have to go 6-6 or 7-5 against the rest of the league to get into the playoffs usually. Now, imagine that the Giants were the wildcard at 11-5 and 4 of their wins were easy yet they have home field advantage over another team that won a division at 10-6 where every team finished over .500.

While a team can have tougher opponents outside their division and that is a factor every year, it's a double whammy when your non-division and division opponents are both tough.

The one change I would like to see if to factor in head-to-head in the seeding as the first factor. That would make games during the year mean more as well. If two teams did not play each other or they split (division opponent) their wins, then the next factor would be common opponents. After that, it would be overall record and if necessary total net points (PF - PA).

-Reality

I've never thought about head to head but it makes the most sense although how are you going to forget about the other games in the year if it's just one meeting. And the better team's QB is out. Stuff like that.

Strength of schedule needs to be higher in my opinion but then you get right back to cheap wins. There are no perfect ways I guess.

I like the NFL's system. Esp the reseeding after each round.

 

[THUMPER]

The problem with the head-to-head or common opponents is that teams might have a down day against lame team. Take for instance our situation:

We lost to the Rams 34-14
But the Eagles beat the Rams 38-3
We beat the Eagles 41-37

The Commanders also lost the the Rams but beat the Eagles.

Personally, I like the system the way it is. Win enough games and you're in. If you didn't win enough games to make it into the playoffs then you don' deserve to be there anyway.

 

[Future]

I like the way hockey does it, but the NFL plays too few games for a system similar to the NHL's to work. The NHL plays 82 games where a win is 2 points, getting to OT is 1 and a non-OT loss is 0. But with that many games and 6 against divisional opponents(tougher games) I think the point system works.

I agree, I like the hockey system but the NFL plays too few games to do it that way.

 

[Reality]

I've never thought about head to head but it makes the most sense although how are you going to forget about the other games in the year if it's just one meeting. And the better team's QB is out.

That's the whole point of my idea .. it removes the focus on strength of schedule and puts it more on head-to-head and then common opponents.

As for one team losing a starting QB having an impact, that's just a luck factor just like it is in the current system.

I like the NFL's system. Esp the reseeding after each round.

The NFL does not reseed after each round currently. The previous higher seeds that lost the previous weekend simply are removed, but the overall order remains the same.

 

[jobberone]

That's the whole point of my idea .. it removes the focus on strength of schedule and puts it more on head-to-head and then common opponents.

As for one team losing a starting QB having an impact, that's just a luck factor just like it is in the current system.


The NFL does not reseed after each round currently. The previous higher seeds that lost the previous weekend simply are removed, but the overall order remains the same.

What I was trying to get across is I do like your idea about head to head which is not currently number one. But the reason behind that is stuff does happen and they wish to use the entire season's work first. I get it both ways.

They do reseed as in there is no fixed pairing all the way from the start. Games can change depending on who wins so its not a fixed pairing but reseeded. But you can't climb over a higher seed which I think you're saying.

 

[Reality]

Let's say the playoffs ended today ...

The Jets would play at Tennessee no matter what unfolds in the playoffs even though the Jets easily beat the Titans at Tennessee.

When that game was played, the Titans were 3 games up on the Jets and that game had very little importance to the Titans a result. I mean they wanted to win obviously but the Jets needed the win a LOT more than the Titans due to the Jets being in a tight race in their divison. So, the Titans lost, but it really does not affect them assuming they don't lose two more games than the Jets the rest of the year.

Now, imagine if that head-to-head game was factored into the playoff seeding?

It just seems more fair to me that if the Jets and Titans played in the playoffs, that the game should be at New York since the Jets already handily beat the Titans at Tennessee.

-Reality