Question about Seeding
 

Okay, if the Saints run the table on their last 4 games, we end up with a 13-3 record.

The Falcons play Carolina (1-11) twice, and Seattle (6-6) once, and the Saints. Chances are they will only lose that one game against the Saints leaving them with a 13-3 record.

The Chicago Bears (9-3) have games against the Pats, the Jets, the Vikings, and Green Bay coming up. Chances are they drop at least one of those games, ending no better than 12-4.

Philly, Green Bay, and the Giants are all 8-4 with no chance of a better record than 12-4.

If this scenario works out, the Saints and Falcons would be tied in both record (13-3) and division record (5-1). I believe the tie breaker would go to the Falcons since they have defeated two teams we have lost to (The Browns and the Cardinals) while we have only defeated one team they have lost to (The Steelers).

So if the Falcons win the NFC South with a 13-3 record + Tie breaker, and the Saints get a wildcard spot with a 13-3 record which is better than all the winners of the other divisions (Probably 12-4, 11-5, and 9-7) will we have the 2nd seed because of our record or the 5th seed because we didn't win our division (which would really, REALLY suck).

If one missed kick in week 3 costs us a 1st round bye in the playoffs I'm going to be the conductor on the Garrett Hartley hate train.

We will be the fifth seed if we win out. The tiebreaker goes by record(which would be tied), div record(which would be tied), the third would be wins against common opponents which would be the one that would kick us to number 5 with a first round away game with the stellar NFC West. That kick was huge. Atlanta will lose two more games, one to us and one in Seattle. Seattle is a different team at home.

What the Saints are doing this year will make the owners vote on a change of how the seeding process works. No way in the world a 13-3 team should have to travel to a 8-8 or possibly 7-9 team that they beat earlier in the season. Doesn't do us any good this year but it will be changed because of us!

God I hope so.


God I hope so.


DAMN YOU HARTLEY!!!!

A lot of people here will jump on the "hate hartely" bandwagon.

But everyone here should be smart enough to know that there were hundreds of plays we could've won any of our three losses with but didn't.

#1 may be out of reach now. Tampa was our best shot, but maybe the Falcons will slip up somewhere on a three game road trip.

Part of me really has trouble seeing them win 8 in a row.


If we can't win #1, we have to hold on to #5.

#6 will travel to Chicago/Philly/NYG/GB. I'd rather we pass on that wildcard freeze.

#5 will be in Seattle (could be bad weather) or more likely St Louis inside their dome.


I think if Seattle can beat ATL, we get the #1 seed and Seattle wins the West. If ATL beats them, we'll be #5 and the Rams will win the West (and we'll open at their place).

We beat them, travel to ATL and kick their butts (again) at their place and the probably have to travel to Philly or Chicago for the NFCCG.

[QUOTE=Budsdrinker;267797]What the Saints are doing this year will make the owners vote on a change of how the seeding process works. No way in the world a 13-3 team should have to travel to a 8-8 or possibly 7-9 team that they beat earlier in the season. Doesn't do us any good this year but it will be changed because of us![/QUOTE.
They talked about this on Serius. The owners actually like the way it is now.
It spreads the glory around and more importantly the profits.

[quote=Beastmode;267882]Not so sure about profits... TV revenue is an even split, and over half of the teams in the league don't sell out.
Locals go to games to see their team win; are they going to pay big money for playoff tickets to see the heavily favored Saints? Doubt it.

At last year's Jets @ Bengals PO game there were seats still available on game day. Could see the same in St.Louis or Seattle

I'm no fan of Hartley, but there is a lot of blame to spread around in that game. ATL pushed us all over the field that day. Still question why when we were finally able to start moving the ball we kick on first down.

I'd be much happier with HFA......but we are the defending Superbowl champions and should have the moxy to step it up

[quote=ScottF;267884]Most of the profits are shared but I don't believe all the stadium profits are.
I see your point about a playoff team not selling out the stadium, it happens but more often than not they do sell out. All I know is that the owners don't want to change the playoff criteria to go with wins vs division records and when they want something it comes down to money.

NFL may have to adjust seeding for sure after this year. You have the same scenario in the AFC with the exception that the weak conference leader is currently 7-5 instead of 6-6.

With two teams of ATL, NO, NYJ and NE probably going 11+ wins and have to travel to a team at or slightly above .500 does need addressing (and always has).

IMO, division winners should get a spot, but not necessarily a home game...

My one exception to what I said would be if the two teams had played during the year and the weak division winner won over the wildcard with the better record.

In that case, I would say let the division winner host even though their record was worse...

Interesting-

Modification proposals

Since the 2002 expansion to 8 divisions, there have been calls to expand the playoffs to 14 teams. Proponents of expansion note the increased revenue that could be gained from an additional two playoff games. They also note that the 12-team playoff system was implemented when the league only had 28 teams and six divisions (of 4 to 5 teams each). With expansion to 32 teams aligned in eight four-team divisions, there has been an effective loss of access to the playoff structure for wild-card teams and greater access to teams in weak divisions (for instance, in 2008, the San Diego Chargers and Arizona Cardinals clinched playoff berths with only 8 wins each [though Arizona later earned a ninth by season's end], but the New England Patriots, with 11 wins, failed to secure a wild card spot).
The opposition to such a move notes that an expansion of the playoffs would "water down" the field by giving access to lower-caliber teams. Opponents to expansion further point to the NBA Playoffs and the NHL playoffs where 16 of 30 teams qualify for the post season, and there is often a decreased emphasis on regular season performance as a result.[17][18]

After the 2007 playoffs saw two wild card teams with better records (Jacksonville Jaguars and eventual Super Bowl XLII champions New York Giants) go on the road to defeat division winners (Pittsburgh Steelers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, respectively) during Wild Card Weekend, the NFL explored another proposal to change the playoffs so that the team with the better record would host the game, even if that meant a division winner went on the road. The NFL's Competition Committee withdrew the request later that offseason,[19] with Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay mentioning that they wanted the idea to simply get a discussion going. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was a strong opponent of the rule change, believing that "if you win a division, it's good for your fans to know you will have a home game.

my real problem with ths 8-8 division winner is this: you play in a crappy division, and the best you can do is 8-8? You have 6 games against really bad teams, and again, 8-8 is your best. That doesn't deserve a home game.

There are a lot of fans that do not want to go to a home play off game to see a 7-9 team get crushed.

I would be disgusted if the Saints had an 11-5 record and missed the playoffs while an 8-8 team hosted a home playoff game.:doh:

I've not liked the overtime scoring rule change, I don't like the idea of the league expanding and adding more teams, or adding more regular season games. But I really like the idea of adding maybe two more wildcard teams to the playoffs (one more for each conference). Like others mentioned, it would really stink to watch a team with 10 or more wins sit at home while a team with only 8 wins gets into the post-season by winning the division title in a weak division.

It would be sweet revenge to beat the Falcons in Atlanta in the playoffs that is if they don't pull off HFA .... as long as they make the playoffs I'm fine with that then its a whole new season and like Rudy T said never underestimate the heart of a champion

and it is very possible for us to be missing with an 11-5 record. Tears won't even matter.

Ya'll are worrying about things outside the control of the Saints this season. It makes for distracting convo, but realistically, irrelevant.

Aside from the Western Division winner, all the NFC teams making the playoffs are good bets to win it all. Each team has flaws, but I think that they're all evenly matched. I also don't think that home field will matter that much given the top 6 team's road records.

It's all going to come down to health at the end. Who's got more of it where.

Agreed ... Looks like we are getting healthy --- PT should see some action this weekend!

I'll worry about what ever I want to worry about, thank you. If this conversation distracts you, don't read it. Also, how does discussing things the Saints do have control over make a conversation "relevant"? You know what is irrelevant? Your reply in regards to the TOPIC of the thread.

and it won't ALL come down to health. Rest, home field advantage, and a little luck would be good. If you don't don't think luck helps, watch the Giant's last SB.

:jkool:

At least the best part ended up on BlackandGold!:bng:

LOL