Wildcard weekend lineup proves need for playoff changes
 

The NFL seriously needs to look at changing the way it seeds playoff teams. This season points that out in bold...


(12-4) Ravens at Chiefs (10-6)
(11-5) Saints at Seahawks (7-9)
(11-5) Jets at Colts (10-6)
(10-6) Packers at Eagles (10-6)


In three of the four wildcard matches, the team with the weaker record is hosting the team with the better record.

The fourth matchup contains two teams with the same record, but the Packers have already met and defeated the Eagles in the regular season, in a sense giving them a "tiebreaker".

I understand what you are saying ARSAINT, but I disagree ... Winning your division should mean something. While it sucks that we are ON THE ROAD against a terrible 7-9 team ... They are division winners and we are NOT.

The NFL is cyclical ... We've had our day (and will again) where it will play in our favor ... Unfortunately this year --- it did not.

Its not that I don't think Seattle should be in the playoffs because they did win their division (don't you know Giants and Bucs fans are sick), but I don't think they should be guaranteed a home game...

yeah i just think if they win under .500 they shouldnt have a home game. But the Saints should have taken care of business more. Im ok with Ravens loss and even the loss against the Browns bc they came in with a plan but we should not have lost against the Falcons, Bucs, and Cards at all this season.

While I can see your point ... I think the NFL owners voted on this very issue a few years back and while 18 owner's agreed with your point .... there were 14 who did not and it takes 24 to get something changed.

It sucks for us THIS year, but I'll be in the next 10 years you'll see this potentially help us in the NFC South ... Our division won't always be tough as nails ... It's cyclical. I'm not happy either that we have to travel to SEA (I think it's going to be an incredibly tough venue to win at), but rules are rules are rules.

I would rather have gone to St. Louise (e added intentionally) ... SEA is going to be a lot more difficult. Great discussion though ARSAINT --- I think all of us are frustrated THIS year about it.

Well, this is the FIRST time in NFL history that it's ever happened, so obviously no one ever expected that to be an issue ... O well, if we can't go in there and beat them --- we won't deserve to continue against ANYONE else.

Time to take care of business ...

I agree with BING... we didn't get the job done. Seattle did. Records be darned. Bucs/Giants had plenty of chances to make the playoffs. Congrats Seattle.. too bad you have a bad draw with the Champions coming to your place.

Personally I think they should change it so that if a division winner has an 8-8 record or worse and there is a team with a winning record, the division winner, should stay at home and watch the playoffs from the couch, while the team with the winning record goes in.

If there is an issue, it is the NFL and its constitution at fault.

I watch many other sports so my idealistic view is that you must be the best in your division/conference/league if you expect to represent that division/conference/league.

The NFL has the conference thing - fine, and then the division thing - to me not fine. Too compartmentalised . (Gosh is that my longest word of 2011 so far?). And then there are anomalies on home and away games, and you can play a slightly different schedule based on your previous years record - and yet the Championship is played for this year.

If we really can't have every team in ONE conference playing each other at least once, every year, then we will continue to get divisional winners at home to an apparently better team. Especially when the division winner takes all the tiebreaks. Why not, I ask myself, is the CONFERENCE record the statistic of choice to represent your conference, followed by head-to-head or overall wins? Just provoking y'all.

Now my counter argument. Maybe it should be the overall record adjusted for "strength of schedule". Are the great records of the NFC South (Carolina excluded) partly due to the pathetic NFC West? As I said..... just provoking.

Winning a division does get you something. Banner and different T-Shirts, that plus a guaranteed playoff spot is all it needs to mean.

In my honest opinion, best record or best conference record should host period. This will also add meaning to some of the late season games. As tight as things are for playoff spots and 1 and 2 seeds getting bye weeks, at least make them play their last games with meaning. Division champs only means you played well in 6 games against 3 teams. That does not mean you earned anything outside of your division

I understand the argument but the reason that conference record doesn't mean beans compared to division is because all the teams in a conference cannot possibly play all of the other teams in a conference. Then we would be having the "yeah they had a good record but look who they played" conversation.

Let's please never ever ever ever bring "strength of schedule" in the mix.

It is fine the way it is.

If it isn't broke don't fix it. I haven't been convinced that there is anything wrong with the system. Everything isn't perfect and any changes made someone isn't going to be happy.

I could careless who hosts a damn Wild-Card Game. Win the Division, finish with the best record you host through-out the playoffs. Anything short of that it just doesn't matter. Flip a coin for all I care.

The most important thing is that we make the play-offs.

As I said in another thread, if it were me...



Top 2 seeds (based on records and tiebreakers, not on division winners) get byes.

Other 4 seeded by record, but keep the division winners in the playoffs no matter their record is. Also use head-head on teams tied (ie Philly - GB) instead of seeding the division winner higher...

For this year it would be:

#1 Falcons 13-3
#2 Saints 11-5 (9-3 in NFC)
#3 Bears 11-5 (8-4 in NFC)
#4 Packers 10-6 (beat Eagles)
#5 Eagles 10-6
#6 NFC West winner

It should mean you make the playoffs, no more.

I mean christ how can you justify Seattle playing in a division as weak as theirs and not having more wins?

We play in a divy where the top 3 teams have 10, 11, and 13 wins.

I agree that the division winner should make the playoffs, but after that they should reseat.

Think about this- how many week 17 games would have been played full out for a chance at either a bye or home game?

It will improve the game overall. I do agree with allowing division winners to make the playoffs.

It is broke

I agree- division winners should make playoffs. if not then you ruin the importance of the divisions, but they should reseat

It isn't broke...

You win your division or shut up. Unless you want to do away with division's all together and I don't see that happening... NFL has a system of creating rivals with the division. That adds a certain element to it. If you re-seed then Divisions mean nothing. 40 years don't count they had it all wrong. C'mon.

We could then start a season much like the NCAA basketball tournement. Everyone is in at the start of the season. So everyone has a 'fair chance'. Nothing is broke, if one says it is broke that means for the past

It's fine, ball just didn't bounce our way this year.

That doesn't make any sense. I already said that the division winner should make the playoffs. So Tampa still would not have made it this year.

If it was you win your division or shut up then you wouldn't have wild card teams. You would have 4 teams and 4 teams only. All I said is that they should reseat before the first playoff game. There should be no extra benefit of winning your division beside making the playoffs.

If the NFL wants every game to be competitive, and if they want teams to play every week- well this is one way to accomplish this.

changing the playoff format would be as reactionary as changing the overtime format. I disagree with both.

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.

WOW, I didn't see that. Now I have to rethink my whole view on this subject.

I still feel the system isn't broke at all and it encourages teams to go out and win every game not just those six.

With this logic Raiders should be complaining like mad, for them the system is broke. Technically the Raiders should be the Division Champs and should represent their division.

Man I watch that game lastnight with Seahawks and Rams and i don't know if they were just feeling each other out or they both are just sorry we should have a field day agains the Seahawks injurys or not. Payton put your foot on the gas and stay on it the whole game. So the league were still the champs.

As we all know it (a team like Seattle making the playoffs) happens so rarely it's almost, to me, a non-issue.

I look at it like this: The Saints should have beat Arizona and Cleveland and they should have beaten Atlanta twice. Seattle won their division. They don't owe anybody an apology. They did what they had to do. Had we done the same we'd be off this week getting healed up for a game in the dome.

Im old and im tired of seeing changes, just for the sake of changes.

I'd like to see one thing stay the same.

The only change I like since 1975 is cell phones, but just for making calls.

And now for my serious answer:

Life isnt fair. We used to be a good team in the same division with Joe Montana, and John Robinson's Rams. It wasnt fair back then either, but
we all started out 0-0. If you win, you win, and it doesnt matter what happens elsewhere. We should have beat the Browns, should not have let Ray Rice run over us, should kick 11 yard FG's, and damn sure shouldnt lose to the dumbazz CARDINALS!

It is crazy, but Im glad to be us, and its a great day to be a Saint!

...and now we have to line up against these guys who slipped on a banana peel to get in, and it may not be the cake walk that many think. Its a whole new season with a different kind of mind set and having been there is not what gets you back there again. This one is not automagically in the bag.

good point, Darstep.

Where is portcity?

Uh huh. What about internet porn? Huh? Huh? :mrgreen:

Shreveport. I-20 at I-49

I dont know. I kinda miss dirty magazines. You know all them cartoons and the a****** of the month were pretty funny. Now you understand my warped mind.
i'll be damn, another NWLA! Represent, my brother.

I was raised in the NO - I just left way before the flood.