Time for NFL to update seedings for playoffs

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Makes division titles almost meaningless. Will never happen. League depends on the division rivalries for ratings.

And we were the #1 seed twice this century and still couldn't win a game.

 

[Vtwin]

If they didn't change anything the year the Pats went 11-5 and didn't qualify for the playoffs, they aren't changing anything now.

 

[Toro9]

Should Division winners automatically get in though? A team can win their division with 7 wins and get in while a team with the third or 4th-best record in their division wins 8 or more and misses the playoffs. I think it should be NFC vs AFC all the way.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Should Division winners automatically get in though? Countless times, it seems, a team wins their division with 7 wins while a team with the third best record in their division wins 8 or more and misses the playoffs. I think it should be NFC vs AFC all the way.

If by "countless times" you mean 3, then you're right. Plus last year, TB got in at 8-9. So 4 teams have won their divisions with losing records.

But here's the thing. That division winning team beat out three teams that essentially played the same schedule. That 3rd-place 9-win team in another division played a completely different schedule, with almost no common games. That other division probably had 3 winning teams because they all got to play a bunch of crummy opponents. So your proposal rewards teams for facing a weak schedule and punishes teams for facing a tough schedule, which seems like the opposite of what we should be doing.

 

[Diehardblues]

If by "countless times" you mean 3, then you're right. Plus last year, TB got in at 8-9. So 4 teams have won their divisions with losing records.

But here's the thing. That division winning team beat out three teams that essentially played the same schedule. That 3rd-place 9-win team in another division played a completely different schedule, with almost no common games. That other division probably had 3 winning teams because they all got to play a bunch of crummy opponents. So your proposal rewards teams for facing a weak schedule and punishes teams for facing a tough schedule, which seems like the opposite of what we should be doing.

So what you’re proposing is to implement strength of schedule as a qualifier despite the win/loss record as some sort of tiebreaker ?

 

[JD_KaPow]

So what you’re proposing is to implement strength of schedule as a qualifier despite the win/loss record as some sort of tiebreaker ?

No, I'm proposing they keep things the way they are. I mean, I'd prefer fewer playoff teams, but there's no putting that genie back in the bottle.

Once you accept that the postseason is not about determining the best team but is simply about crowning a champion, all this stuff matters less.

 

[JustChip]

It's not the 6 games against each other. It's the fact that teams in the same division play very similar schedules (only 3 games different). Teams in different divisions play wildly different schedules, with as few as one common game (I think that's possible). You can't compare those records without ignoring the huge differences in strength of schedule that can exist.

This has been my argument every time this gets brought up. It makes sense in the NBA because of an 82 game regular season vs. 17 for the NFL. An individual game in the NBA represents 1.2% of the season vs. 5.9% in the NFL.

 

[Whyjerry]

Now that we’ve added another Wild Card with 14 teams making the playoffs out of 32 which is almost half its time to update our playoff seedings .

It would be easy to implement what the NBA did several years ago. Division winners still make the playoffs but seedings are based on records.

Teams with better records like the Cowboys last year shouldn’t be on the road against division winners with 4 less wins .

Maybe if we finish 3rd again as Wild Card needing to win 3 games on the road in the playoffs , Jethro will lead the way implementing change .

Makes too much sense. The NFL is far too stupid for that.

 

[OGSixshooter]

This change - while well-intentioned - would have the unintended effect of watering down team rivalries. Teams put a TON of capital into winning their division games...it fills the stands, the pocketbook and guarantees more money in the playoffs. If you allowed a team to pass on beating a division foe because we got another team from another division/conference that we know we can beat...the rivalry doesn't mean anything. For the most part, losing division games almost always hurts your playoff chances. This is why rivalry games feel like playoff games.

 

[Bagman]

LOL...let's change the format because of the perception that Dallas was hindered last season so by all means fix it because only Dallas is important.

Thats why we're talking about it now. No one has an iron in the fire RIGHT NOW. I agree that complaining at playoff time looks bad. But make fair changes before the season starts. Who knows, a rule change could help Philly or KC this year.

 

[Diehardblues]

And we were the #1 seed twice this century and still couldn't win a game.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean our odds are better to win as a 5th seed.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Makes division titles almost meaningless. Will never happen. League depends on the division rivalries for ratings.

How so?

RIght now..the system makes winning records and "seeding" almost meaningless. Or CAN...like Cowboys/Bucs last year. The better team (er...better record?) should always host.

It's how seeding is meant to work. With SOME exceptions of course.

 

[PAPPYDOG]

LOL...let's change the format because of the perception that Dallas was hindered last season so by all means fix it because only Dallas is important.

We also need to void the cap in the NFL so uncle Jerry can buy us another SB........

 

[StarOfGlory]

If the 2022 season was seeded NBA-style, it would have looked like this:

1.Philly
2. Minnesota
3. San Fran
4. Dallas
5. Giants
6. Seahawks
7. Tampa (Detroit with better record but Tampa won division)

First Round:
1. Eagles--Bye
Minnesota vs. Tampa @ Minnesota
San Fran vs. Seahawks @ San Fran
Dallas vs. Giants @ Jerry World

Assming the top seeds won, we would have played Philly in the next round. But Minnesota probably chokes to Tampa, so Philly would have played Tampa and we would have played San Fran anyway.

 

[jsb357]

LOL...let's change the format because of the perception that Dallas was hindered last season so by all means fix it because only Dallas is important.

jerry's pocketbook was hindered

 

[Diehardblues]

If the 2022 season was seeded NBA-style, it would have looked like this:

1.Philly
2. Minnesota
3. San Fran
4. Dallas
5. Giants
6. Seahawks
7. Tampa (Detroit with better record but Tampa won division)

First Round:
1. Eagles--Bye
Minnesota vs. Tampa @ Minnesota
San Fran vs. Seahawks @ San Fran
Dallas vs. Giants @ Jerry World

Assming the top seeds won, we would have played Philly in the next round. But Minnesota probably chokes to Tampa, so Philly would have played Tampa and we would have played San Fran anyway.

Correct

1.Philly
2. Minnesota
3. San Fran
4. Dallas
5. Giants
6. Seahawks
7. Tampa (Detroit with better record but Tampa won division)

First Round:
1. Eagles--Bye
Minnesota vs. Tampa @ Minnesota
San Fran vs. Seahawks @ San Fran
Dallas vs. Giants @ Jerry World

 

[McKDaddy]

Makes division titles almost meaningless. Will never happen. League depends on the division rivalries for ratings.

Each team should play 8 games from the opposing conference & 9 from their own conference. 2 teams from the other 3 divisions in your conference & 1 game against each of your division rivals = 9.

That makes every record meaningful because it's as good a cross section of opponents as possible. Playoffs & seeding is based on record. Should be available tie breakers based on common opponents, etc.

Getting easy wins when a division is garbage and making the playoffs around .500 while other teams won more games has always been & will always be WEAK. To the victor goes the spoils!! That should be the mantra of a gladiator sport.

 

[stiletto]

How so?

RIght now..the system makes winning records and "seeding" almost meaningless. Or CAN...like Cowboys/Bucs last year. The better team (er...better record?) should always host.

It's how seeding is meant to work. With SOME exceptions of course.

The rule has always been to win the division first. The teams with the better record in other divisions should not be rewarded for not winning their own division. Don't care about the record. Works the same way in MLB.

 

[thunderpimp91]

Should Division winners automatically get in though? A team can win their division with 7 wins and get in while a team with the third or 4th-best record in their division wins 8 or more and misses the playoffs. I think it should be NFC vs AFC all the way.

I think they should unless you just do away completely with divisions which is maybe what you're getting at here. I'm a fan of keeping divisions and then making a minimum win requirement to be playoff-eligible. So if a 7 win team does win a division but there is a 9 win team that misses out, that 9 win team gets make the playoffs instead.

 

[OGSixshooter]

The rule has always been to win the division first. The teams with the better record in other divisions should not be rewarded for not winning their own division. Don't care about the record. Works the same way in MLB.

Exactly. Without it you lose "rivalries". College sport is BUILT on rivalries...from the very first game. NFL teams try to replicate that with divisions and division crowns.