PFT: Competition Committee Proposes Change To Draft Order

[Chuck 54]

It's all apples and oranges.

Under the proposed change, you'd have NE picking ahead of all those 9-7 and 10-6 teams that made the playoffs despite their 11-5 record. Does that make sense? Should they select ahead of teams who made the playoffs in a conference that allowed 9-7 teams to make the playoffs?

There's no easy solution.

 

[wileedog]

This is so common sense you wonder why it took so long to be proposed. There is no reason a team that is 9-7 and loses the conference championship should pick ahead of a team that lost in the wildcard or divisional round.

But what if the team that lost in the division round went, just for example, 13-3, while the 9-7 team just got hot or a few lucky bounces and made it to the Conference final?

Doesn't mean the 9-7 team is necessarily better or the 13-3 is really worse, and 1 game is a very small sample size to make that judgement on.

I could definitely see why you would exclude the playoffs.

 

[BrassCowboy]

In a free enterprise system.Why are draftees told where they will work just because someone stands at a podium and calls their name?

Any player should be free to negotiate with any team.

so then all the best players would sign with the Cowboys......

although I like the sound of that, it would really drain the talent of all the little teams

 

[Brad0Walker]

I think Dallas shold pick in the Top 10 every year.

I completely agree with this statement.

 

[Verdict]

I think they should leave it the way that it is. Talent wise, the Patriots are a better team than the wild card teams that had a lesser record. Regardless of the system that you use, there will be some situations that don't look fair, as in the cases referred to above. But realistically speaking, the current situation is about as fair as you can get using a draft format.

Instead of retooling the draft order, maybe there should be a modification to the playoff picture. For example saying that the division winner does not make the playoffs unless it has at least 9 wins, or seeding the playoffs based upon wins. I'm not suggesting that should happen, but either would be more palatable to me rather than retooling the draft order.

 

[bluenut]

I have to agree that this is an excellent idea but there's a flipside to this coin. When we start to win playoffs and championships(and we will), we will feel the negative effects of it. Meaning, we'll have to be downgraded in the draft order and loose possible selections we would've received, right? I can live with that.

 

[peplaw06]

This is so common sense you wonder why it took so long to be proposed. There is no reason a team that is 9-7 and loses the conference championship should pick ahead of a team that lost in the wildcard or divisional round.

I disagree. The regular season is a better sample size by which to judge a team than a winner-take-all playoff.

If every other league does it this way, there must be a pretty good reason.

 

[WG5516]

Derp--I always thought this was the rule! who the hell thought of the current structure?

LOL I thought so to. :laugh2:

 

[Jon88]

thats free market principles at work.
did you get to choose where you work or did someone assign it to you?

I don't work for the NFL where those rules apply. The free market principles go into effect after the person plays out his rookie contract that he signs.

 

[Jon88]

I completely agree with this statement.

I mean, hello?

 

[RoadRunner]

In a free enterprise system.Why are draftees told where they will work just because someone stands at a podium and calls their name?

Any player should be free to negotiate with any team.

What free agency that has been allowed into the game has almost ruined it. The league could not keep an even somewhat competitive balance with total free agency.

Besides, these guys are getting millions to play a game rather than work for a living. Its a very small concession to make.

 

[TheCount]

I think Dallas shold pick in the Top 10 every year.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Hostile]

This is so common sense you wonder why it took so long to be proposed. There is no reason a team that is 9-7 and loses the conference championship should pick ahead of a team that lost in the wildcard or divisional round.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[dmq]

This should end up being known as the Cowboy rule since we can't buy a playoff win.

 

[joseephuss]

Free market principles still apply in the NFL. A person if so qualified can decide if he wants to play in the NFL. Maybe he doesn't and wants to be a doctor or an accountant. Maybe he doesn't want to live in New York and play football. Instead he wants to live in Miami and be a fisherman. It is a free society. He can even choose to pursue a football career in another league. That is part of being in a free society.

If the person wants to play in the NFL, then he makes the agreement to play and adhere by their rules and standards. The free market applies to the league as a whole and not to the individual franchises.

I could choose to apply for a job at Dell based here in Austin. They may hire me and then transfer me to Canada or any of their other locations. If I don't want to move then I can quit working with Dell or I can just deal with it for a year or two and see if I earn the right to choose which branch I want to work within the company. A football player in the NFL has the same kinds of choices. If he don't like it then he can choose another career path.

 

[ZeroClub]

It's all apples and oranges.

Under the proposed change, you'd have NE picking ahead of all those 9-7 and 10-6 teams that made the playoffs despite their 11-5 record. Does that make sense? Should they select ahead of teams who made the playoffs in a conference that allowed 9-7 teams to make the playoffs?

There's no easy solution.

That's an excellent point.

The NFL playoff system simply isn't set up to insure that the best 12 teams get into the playoffs and the worst 20 don't. This is a problem and it grew noticeably worse when the league adopted its current 8 division structure.

 

[joseephuss]

It's all apples and oranges.

Under the proposed change, you'd have NE picking ahead of all those 9-7 and 10-6 teams that made the playoffs despite their 11-5 record. Does that make sense? Should they select ahead of teams who made the playoffs in a conference that allowed 9-7 teams to make the playoffs?

There's no easy solution.

No, there is no perfect solution. I do like the proposed changes. It makes more sense than the current system. There will still be some odd cases as your example shows, but I think the proposed changes are better.

 

[wileedog]

No, there is no perfect solution. I do like the proposed changes. It makes more sense than the current system.

I don't think it does, because it makes the assumption that the best team always advances in the playoffs, which we all know is simply not the case.

A 16 game season is a better measure of overall talent than a 2-4 game win and in tournament.

 

[joseephuss]

I don't think it does, because it makes the assumption that the best team always advances in the playoffs, which we all know is simply not the case.

A 16 game season is a better measure of overall talent than a 2-4 game win and in tournament.

For me it is not about figuring out the order of the best teams. It is about listing them by their success in the season. Getting into the playoffs in a bad division is still more successful than not making the playoffs even with a better record in my opinion.

Both systems will work and neither will work perfectly.

 

[wileedog]

For me it is not about figuring out the order of the best teams. .

I guess I'm just looking at it from the other direction - the entire point of a reverse draft order should be the worst teams pick first, not the unluckiest.