Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

NFL to consider changing playoff seeding format
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
eagles101


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 9155
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
eagles101 wrote:
But you can switch that to the siutaion were a team is in a weak division weak schedule and barely wins because they are best bad team in in. The other team is a strong division strong schedule and barely loses the number one spot.


Yes you can, which goes back to "It's harder to win your division and you are lucky it's not JUST division winners" argument. If the WC team is that much better, they should be able to go into an "inferior" division champion's house and win. It gives a weight and value appropriate to division play, since only schedules and records within it's own division is a good measure against each other. There is too much variation in schedules between the divisions. The division race is the primary race. Therefore they get seeded 1-4. Then, you get the 2 wild card teams. The difference in records between the division isn't a great barometer of the teams because they played at most 4 of 16 games against the same teams.

I think the NFL regular season and playoff format is as fair, balanced, and exciting a system as it can possibly be. I don't think any change at all in seeding, number of teams, structure, or anything else can do anything but make it worse.


how? how in the world is it harder. if you took San Fran or the saints and put them in the packers or eagles division and they would get first easily. heck if you put the cardinals in those division they most likely would have won it. not only did the eagles and packers win their crappy divisions we played each others crappy division. there is nothing at all to back that winning a crappy division is somehow harder then getting a better record in a harder division.

you cant gauge against one vs another but yet we do. for the byes and home games we use the record. so why cant we use that same system to judge, once again, to pick home field.

and for the why cant they go in and beat the weaker team, look at both the nfc wildcard games this year. the saints worse on the road and cold. that is honestly the only reason i think that game was close. then you have GB and SF, its going to be freezing in GB and the packers are going to be out in it, getting adapted to it. its not like the playoff team with a bad record is the worse team and doesnt matter how much help they get a good team should beat them. there is no reason why a team who is in a crap division should get a home game over a team who has a better record in a good division.


(and non fan wise the team loses revenue for not having a home game.)
_________________
vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10624
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eagles101 wrote:
spilltray wrote:
eagles101 wrote:
But you can switch that to the siutaion were a team is in a weak division weak schedule and barely wins because they are best bad team in in. The other team is a strong division strong schedule and barely loses the number one spot.


Yes you can, which goes back to "It's harder to win your division and you are lucky it's not JUST division winners" argument. If the WC team is that much better, they should be able to go into an "inferior" division champion's house and win. It gives a weight and value appropriate to division play, since only schedules and records within it's own division is a good measure against each other. There is too much variation in schedules between the divisions. The division race is the primary race. Therefore they get seeded 1-4. Then, you get the 2 wild card teams. The difference in records between the division isn't a great barometer of the teams because they played at most 4 of 16 games against the same teams.

I think the NFL regular season and playoff format is as fair, balanced, and exciting a system as it can possibly be. I don't think any change at all in seeding, number of teams, structure, or anything else can do anything but make it worse.


how? how in the world is it harder. if you took San Fran or the saints and put them in the packers or eagles division and they would get first easily. heck if you put the cardinals in those division they most likely would have won it. not only did the eagles and packers win their crappy divisions we played each others crappy division. there is nothing at all to back that winning a crappy division is somehow harder then getting a better record in a harder division.

you cant gauge against one vs another but yet we do. for the byes and home games we use the record. so why cant we use that same system to judge, once again, to pick home field.

and for the why cant they go in and beat the weaker team, look at both the nfc wildcard games this year. the saints worse on the road and cold. that is honestly the only reason i think that game was close. then you have GB and SF, its going to be freezing in GB and the packers are going to be out in it, getting adapted to it. its not like the playoff team with a bad record is the worse team and doesnt matter how much help they get a good team should beat them. there is no reason why a team who is in a crap division should get a home game over a team who has a better record in a good division.


(and non fan wise the team loses revenue for not having a home game.)


You are completely guessing. Maybe SF or Arizona would have won in the NFC North, maybe not. Fact is, they didn't play close to the same teams so that is a pretty big projection.

It's more difficult to win your division because you have to be the best. No matter what. A 2nd or 3rd team in one division can get a wild card. The division is the best barometer because those are the only 4 teams in the league that have a similar enough schedule to give a really good ranking against each other. Obviously you still need conference seeding and the like, so you use those same records for all of that, but the best comparison is in the division, and that's why giving the winners the 1-4 seeds makes sense. Sure you COULD just use record, but divisions first is the better indicator.

The NFC West didn't play either the NFC North or East. They played the NFC South and AFC South. That's a pretty easy road. Look at SF. In those 8 games, they went 5-3. The 3 losses were to the Panthers, Saints, and Colts. The 3 playoff teams out of those 8. The rest were total bottom dwellers.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
eagles101


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 9155
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
eagles101 wrote:
spilltray wrote:
eagles101 wrote:
But you can switch that to the siutaion were a team is in a weak division weak schedule and barely wins because they are best bad team in in. The other team is a strong division strong schedule and barely loses the number one spot.


Yes you can, which goes back to "It's harder to win your division and you are lucky it's not JUST division winners" argument. If the WC team is that much better, they should be able to go into an "inferior" division champion's house and win. It gives a weight and value appropriate to division play, since only schedules and records within it's own division is a good measure against each other. There is too much variation in schedules between the divisions. The division race is the primary race. Therefore they get seeded 1-4. Then, you get the 2 wild card teams. The difference in records between the division isn't a great barometer of the teams because they played at most 4 of 16 games against the same teams.

I think the NFL regular season and playoff format is as fair, balanced, and exciting a system as it can possibly be. I don't think any change at all in seeding, number of teams, structure, or anything else can do anything but make it worse.


how? how in the world is it harder. if you took San Fran or the saints and put them in the packers or eagles division and they would get first easily. heck if you put the cardinals in those division they most likely would have won it. not only did the eagles and packers win their crappy divisions we played each others crappy division. there is nothing at all to back that winning a crappy division is somehow harder then getting a better record in a harder division.

you cant gauge against one vs another but yet we do. for the byes and home games we use the record. so why cant we use that same system to judge, once again, to pick home field.

and for the why cant they go in and beat the weaker team, look at both the nfc wildcard games this year. the saints worse on the road and cold. that is honestly the only reason i think that game was close. then you have GB and SF, its going to be freezing in GB and the packers are going to be out in it, getting adapted to it. its not like the playoff team with a bad record is the worse team and doesnt matter how much help they get a good team should beat them. there is no reason why a team who is in a crap division should get a home game over a team who has a better record in a good division.


(and non fan wise the team loses revenue for not having a home game.)


You are completely guessing. Maybe SF or Arizona would have won in the NFC North, maybe not. Fact is, they didn't play close to the same teams so that is a pretty big projection.

It's more difficult to win your division because you have to be the best. No matter what. A 2nd or 3rd team in one division can get a wild card. The division is the best barometer because those are the only 4 teams in the league that have a similar enough schedule to give a really good ranking against each other. Obviously you still need conference seeding and the like, so you use those same records for all of that, but the best comparison is in the division, and that's why giving the winners the 1-4 seeds makes sense. Sure you COULD just use record, but divisions first is the better indicator.

The NFC West didn't play either the NFC North or East. They played the NFC South and AFC South. That's a pretty easy road. Look at SF. In those 8 games, they went 5-3. The 3 losses were to the Panthers, Saints, and Colts. The 3 playoff teams out of those 8. The rest were total bottom dwellers.


how is being the best of the worse better then being the second best of better teams. with the same logic michigan state deserves a home playoff game because they were the best of their division in college.

the division is only a good barometer in the division. it doesnt have any say between two divisions.

it makes sense why they would get a playoff game. there is no reason for them to also get a home game.

the eagles had a weak schedule to. they played the NFC north and AFC West. of the 4 playoff teams they only beat the packers without rodgers.
_________________
vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RavensfanRD


Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 1681
Location: Baltimore, MD (Land of the Greatness)
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

joru1000 wrote:
Thelonebillsfan wrote:
STOP TRYING TO FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN NFL!


But it is kind of broken.

Stop being such a purist as if these playoffs rules were given by God to Moses.

It was an arbitrary idea by some guys to give home field advantage to division winners over wild cards, regardless of their records, so it's a rule that can be changed.


He is correct. This is nothing but a "I WON THIS MANY-THIS ISN'T FAIR" tactic. While the other team did their part and WON their division. You want home games and bye, do your part and win the division and tie-breakers. It's that simple. You have the same shot to home games just like everybody else. We need to stop crutching everything. Just do your part and everything else will fall into place.
_________________

Ray Lewis wrote:
This it! This it, man! This is it! We goin' for a ring man!

Wise Old Man wrote:
Joe Flacco doesn't believe in miracles; miracles believe in Joe Flacco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goldfishwars


Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Posts: 8631
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wild-card seedings should be based on your record outside your own division.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bstars4evr


Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 4802
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone who argues for the wild card teams to host a playoff game is a complete *******. Records in the NFL don't mean as much as other sports. The issue that we have is sample size. With the NFL, there is only 16 games, with baseball, hockey basketball, there is enough to be able to play every team within your conference an equal amount of time. Due to this, the seedings based off of record make sense. With the NFL, you can't do this because of scheduling. Look up how the scheduling is done, as it pegs the top teams/divisons against each other. This would dilute the product that is put on the field for the playoffs because they would be putting in teams that won a bunch of cupcake games only to get smoked once they have to play against a good team
_________________


Aaron Rodgers wrote:
So what if the Dos Equis' man told me I was the world's most interesting man
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
RavensfanRD


Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 1681
Location: Baltimore, MD (Land of the Greatness)
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bstars4evr wrote:
Anyone who argues for the wild card teams to host a playoff game is a complete *******. Records in the NFL don't mean as much as other sports. The issue that we have is sample size. With the NFL, there is only 16 games, with baseball, hockey basketball, there is enough to be able to play every team within your conference an equal amount of time. Due to this, the seedings based off of record make sense. With the NFL, you can't do this because of scheduling. Look up how the scheduling is done, as it pegs the top teams/divisons against each other. This would dilute the product that is put on the field for the playoffs because they would be putting in teams that won a bunch of cupcake games only to get smoked once they have to play against a good team


Again... WIN. You have an automatic game at home if you win your division. Why are people trying to make chicken sammiches when we already have chicken sammiches?
_________________

Ray Lewis wrote:
This it! This it, man! This is it! We goin' for a ring man!

Wise Old Man wrote:
Joe Flacco doesn't believe in miracles; miracles believe in Joe Flacco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
91jmay


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 24977
Location: Wonderland
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bungleodeon wrote:
91jmay wrote:
Laughing this is just sad. Quote me saying what you accuse me of, otherwise you are simply a liar and this can go no further.

Erm, my opinion is my point dummy. Thats what this whole discussion, its about our opinions on the playoff structure. I almost feel bad for you.
I thought a discussion board wasn't just a place to plaster your opinion, but actually attempt to back it up with some sort of logic. I'm sorry you fell short of my expectations.

I'm not going to back and quote anything. Heck, you quoted yourself and tried to deny what you wrote.

If you thought that, why aren't you doing it then?

You clearly lack reading comprehension, no point in continuing further with someone who lacks knowledge of, well, anything.
_________________
Silver&Black88 wrote:
smokey1212 wrote:

Allen said he would play the hot hand, in what world is McFadden's hand hot?

He touched Dennis Allen's seat before the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
drew39k


Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 2959
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd. Much prefer keeping it as is. Wild cards are lucky just to be in the playoffs. They couldn't win their division and still get into the postseason.

I could see a case being made that after wildcard weekend teams are reseeded so that the no. 1 plays the weakest remaining and the 2 plays the stronger team. But that would be the extent.
_________________
LackToast wrote:
Technically yes... BUT by laws of playoff football, The Andrew Lucks lost to the Quarterbackbowl 47 winning Joe Flaccos. Whereas the Russel Wilsons lost to the Matt Ryans, who didnt even beat the Colin Kaepernicks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Strat


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 700
Location: Boston
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Didn't read the thread so i'm not sure if anyone has mentioned something like this yet, but here's my solution. Teams are seeded based on record alone so the NFC seeds would be:

1. SEA
2. CAR
3. SF
4. NO
5. PHI
6. GB

However, all division winners get a home playoff game so the matchups would be SF-GB at GB and NO-PHI at Philly, which works out to be the same as reality this year. If GB had won, they would play SEA. So in effect, the top seed has the right to always play the team with the worst record instead of often playing a very dangerous top wild card team in their first game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wackywabbit


Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 7264
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One seeding change I would approve of would be that higher seeds get to pick their opponent after each round. That way there is more of a reward for being seeded higher and we'll get some entertaining build up: "They wanted US. THEY WANTED US!!!" Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wilmtalk


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 182
Location: nor cal
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="spilltray"][quote="eagles101"][quote="spilltray"]
eagles101 wrote:
.
You are completely guessing. Maybe SF or Arizona would have won in the NFC North, maybe not. Fact is, they didn't play close to the same teams so that is a pretty big projection. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NFC West didn't play either the NFC North or East. They played the NFC South and AFC South. That's a pretty easy road. Look at SF. In those 8 games, they went 5-3. The 3 losses were to the Panthers, Saints, and Colts. The 3 playoff teams out of those 8. The rest were total bottom dwellers.


They didn't play the same teams but then no one actually does play the exact same schedule. It is not a big projection because we also have a general strength of schedule to go on. We can also compare the division records against each other. What we do know is that the NFC east and NFC north got beaten by the second place teams of the NFC south and west even though they had a significant home field advantage. When a warm weather team has to play a cold weather team in Dec/Jan that is more of an advantage than visa versa. No one wants to play GB in Dec or Jan. A lot of better teams have lost to GB at home. Bottom dwellers are irrelevant what is relevant are the teams in a division that are capable of beating you. All the teams that beat the 49er's are still in the playoffs. How many of the teams that beat the div leaders in the NFC east and north are still in the playoffs?. None! If GB had not have lost Rodgers they would have run away with their division this year. Yet they had Rodgers and still lost at home to SF. That tells you how tough their division was. OH and the Giants and Washingon were not bottom dwellers?.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xXFlyteXx


Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 434
Location: Sacramento Ca.
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't read this whole ordeal so don't blast me if this is mentioned. Green Bay was 8-7-1 and won the Div. i get that the Cardinals were 10-6 in one of the toughest Div if not the toughest Div in the NFL. Now the Seahawks won the same Div with a 7-9 record is there a way they could maybe make some changes that need exceptions for the said changes to be in effect? Say a team goes 6-10 and wins their respective Div. should that team really make it to the playoffs? We can't say that will never happen because it almost did. Nothing is without its problems and the playoff bracket isn't broken and it isn't perfect.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
The Hitch


Joined: 06 Jan 2014
Posts: 217
Location: Londres
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi. First time poster, but lurked before.

While I never was too annoyed with the way things are now, in terms of discussion I agree for the most with what eagles 101 has been saying, though rather than the school analogy I would offer one of an olympic silver medalist who has to swap the medal he received with a bronze one because the person who came first was from the same country.

Until about halfway through this thread, the majority of the posts made in favour of keeping it the way it is were very terse and boiled down to single sentence arguments of the "want a home game, win the division" variety which act as if the assertion justifies itself.

What I don't get is why "want a home game, win the division" is any more powerful an argument than "want a home game, win more games than the other team".

The argument that about halfway started to emerge is that teams have different schedules so finishing position within a division is the best way to measure things.

Which carries with it the massive flaw of ignoring the fact that winning the division is in and of itself a task that varies on difficulty depending on the division.

And that generally a team in a harder division is likely to have at least a partly hard schedule. Kansas City is offered as having had an easier schedule ok but on the flip side, San Fran had to face no less than 5 games against playoff teams and Phoenix 7.

It always comes off patronizing to me to when people say "win the division", passing it off as a task that is equally achievable for all, when for San Fran that meant win 75% of your games and for Green Bay it meant win 50.

There were also some posters who offered curious my way or the highway - "why not scrap the divisions then" comments. What? If divisions don't bring with them a homegame the whole system is pointless?
I don't accept the argument that it would devalue the divisions because teams will still want to go to the playoffs (or do the people offering this up as an argument disagree?) Im pretty sure Eagles and Cowboys would have been fighting just as hard for that win 10 days ago even if home advantage did not come with it. Also the point made earlier about winning a 4 team division not being that impressive an achievement, is a valid one.

What it boils down to is, despite the many "Win your division" comments, which portray the act of winning a division as an fair and simple task, ultimately - in my opinion- "win as many games as you can" is a simpler and more fair task to offer teams. Schedules aren't equal but unlike divisions they can balance themselves out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rygar


Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Posts: 1084
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CriminalMind wrote:
Leave it the way it is.


I agree, but it probably won't be, considering the NFL today is all about fixing what ain't broke.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group