I am not sure I follow the logic- but basically you are saying that you don't make a change because of a perceived flaw?

I am not sure I agree, but that is your opinion.

The OT format I liked previously because I thought it added more excitement. I like sudden death. I see the logic to the new system

For the playoffs I think you can look at it as improving the overall game by making all games important. Just my opinion.

Most changes are reactionary- I am not sure that argument holds much water.

I respect your opinion though.

I just see it as being the same argument.

It "wasn't fair" that the Vikings lost that way last year.

It "isn't fair" that the Saints don't get to host a playoff game.

I, too, liked the sudden death format. I think if they had to change it, they should give both teams a chance to score, and if both do, let it run out the whole 15 minutes before declaring a victor.

I don't think I used the argument it wasn't fair for the Saints. My point is that week 17 becomes just as important as all other weeks and makes the entire season interesting for fans

How many of the NFC seeds were set before yesterday?

The NFL is never going to change the playoff seeding. We should not over look this game with the Hawks. also remember the Saints have lost more games at home then on the road. Once GB beats the Eagles the Falcons will be next. We take care of business in Seattle & Chicago then we play the NFC championship at home.

current system, all but atlanta. The likelihood that they were going to lose was next to nothing. Which is more than likely why so many people were held out by us. We couldn't move, bears couldn't, eagles couldn't.

Eagles aren't sitting people if the system changes, and neither are we, minus maybe colston.

Bears ended up playing in that game, but that is the exception, not the norm.

this is the first time in 40 years a losing team has made the playoffs.

I agree that the system has its flaws, i just think the historical awfulness of the NFC west is a very rare exception, and that it really doesn't merit a change.

On that point, we'll just have to disagree.

Yeah that's cool- nothing wrong with it

Changing the seeding would be nice but it will not happen. But saying you don't derserve a home game without winning your division isn't right either because technically winning your division doesn't mean you won the most games against your division. Just look at the Raiders. They are the first team in 40 years that go 6-0 against their division and miss the playoffs. So with that said, basically it's the team with the most overall wins that wins the division which now lets you argue against the way the current seeding is done in my opinion.

Good spot.

Good point.