The "NFC West" Rule

[Drew_Fl]

The competition committee should look at implementing a rule where if the 3rd place team in one division has a better record than the division champ in another division, that 3rd place team should go to the playoffs and that division should be stripped of the spot. I'm sure the teams and players (at least in that division) wouldn't like it, but the NFL is always about what generates ratings and revenue so that's why i think there is a chance something like this may happen.

I can't believe it's actually possible to get a 7-9 team into the playoffs while a 10 win team may have to stay home. I believe this has happened with a 9-7 team, but it's getting ridiculous.

[pointyfootball]

I think the season/playoffs are perfect the way they are. The NFL is already to reactionary when it comes to implementing rules changes. Look at the change to Playoff overtime format, when it's shown that the change was unneccessary.

If a 7-9 team gets in more than 1-2x within a 5year period I could see changing it, otherwise, keep it the way it is, because NFL playoffs are great.

[Tweedr01]

I'm on the fence on this. I hate the fact that some garbage team will get in with an awful record, while another team who has been playing well is watching from the outside knowing that team took their spot and is gonna lose in the Wild Card game. On the other hand I don't think it's a great idea to change just for the sake of change, you know?

[Drew_Fl]

I think the season/playoffs are perfect the way they are. The NFL is already to reactionary when it comes to implementing rules changes. Look at the change to Playoff overtime format, when it's shown that the change was unneccessary.

If a 7-9 team gets in more than 1-2x within a 5year period I could see changing it, otherwise, keep it the way it is, because NFL playoffs are great.

i agree the nfl playoffs are great, but please explain how having a 7-9 team instead of a 10-6 team in there makes sense on any level? the only thing i can see is that it would de-value a division championship to mean nothing basically. but honestly at 7-9, what should it mean anyways?

[pointyfootball]

i agree the nfl playoffs are great, but please explain how having a 7-9 team instead of a 10-6 team in there makes sense on any level? the only thing i can see is that it would de-value a division championship to mean nothing basically. but honestly at 7-9, what should it mean anyways?

Just because a team is 10-6 doesn't mean they're better than the 7-9 team. Like I said, I think if this happened often, I could see addressing it, but has there ever been a time a team with a losing record has gone to the playoffs?

[Larry Brown #43]

I think there should be a cutoff—say, 8-8 (or 9-9 in an 18-game season). If you win your division but finish worse than .500, then your division forfeits the spot. I’d be fine with that, and I think it’s absurd to put a 7-9 team in the playoffs while keeping a 10-6 or 11-5 team out. But as long as a division winner finishes with at least a .500 record, I’d probably leave it alone.

You could have the opposite problem where there’s a really tough, competitive division, where all the teams beat each other up and they all finish around 8-8 or 9-7.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just because a team is 10-6 doesn't mean they're better than the 7-9 team. Like I said, I think if this happened often, I could see addressing it, but has there ever been a time a team with a losing record has gone to the playoffs?

I agree...though more than likely a division champ with a worse record is a bad team in a bad division, it's possible that it's the best team of a very competitive division. I don't think you can make this rule without figuring out a way to guarantee that a 10-6 second-place team from a horrible division doesn't beat out a 9-7 first-place team from a very tough division. And, you can't do that without some sort of subjectivity which is rightfully not included in the NFL post-season.

[Alcoholic Zebra]

Just saying, every now and then a ****ty NFC West team catches fire...like the Cardinals in '08.

[#98QBKiller]

The competition committee should look at implementing a rule where if the 3rd place team in one division has a better record than the division champ in another division, that 3rd place team should go to the playoffs and that division should be stripped of the spot. I'm sure the teams and players (at least in that division) wouldn't like it, but the NFL is always about what generates ratings and revenue so that's why i think there is a chance something like this may happen.

I can't believe it's actually possible to get a 7-9 team into the playoffs while a 10 win team may have to stay home. I believe this has happened with a 9-7 team, but it's getting ridiculous.

I definitely agree with this. And this would also eliminate a team with a ****ty record who won their division getting homefield advantage over a team with a better record who didn't win their division. That happened a couple of years ago when the Colts finished 12-4 behind the Titans who were 13-3 and they had to go play at San Diego who were 8-8. That was bull****.

[skinsarethebest]

I highly doubt the NFL would even contemplate this. If it did, then what would be the point of even having divisions anyway? If the rule you propose were to take effect, you might as well just award playoff spots (and seeding order, for that matter) to the top six teams in each conference, and just have two conferences.

I'm not at all saying your proposal is a bad one, or even an illogical one. It just completely goes against the current "structure" of the NFL and the very purpose of having intra-conference divisions.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I definitely agree with this. And this would also eliminate a team with a ****ty record who won their division getting homefield advantage over a team with a better record who didn't win their division. That happened a couple of years ago when the Colts finished 12-4 behind the Titans who were 13-3 and they had to go play at San Diego who were 8-8. That was bull****.

See, I'm echoing some of my previous arguments, but I still think you should reward teams for winning their divisions. If not, why have divisions within conferences and have teams play their division opponents twice per season? There has to be some reason for that.

You are basically advocating a 16-team conference where the top 6 teams make the playoffs and seeded strictly by record. I don't like that. I think you still need to give importance to winning your division.

[hail2skins]

I highly doubt the NFL would even contemplate this.

They apparently have contemplated the possibility of having a division winner go on the road to play at a WC team's stadium if the WC has a better record.

[Larry Brown #43]

I highly doubt the NFL would even contemplate this. If it did, then what would be the point of even having divisions anyway? If the rule you propose were to take effect, you might as well just award playoff spots (and seeding order, for that matter) to the top six teams in each conference, and just have two conferences.

I'm not at all saying your proposal is a bad one, or even an illogical one. It just completely goes against the current "structure" of the NFL and the very purpose of having intra-conference divisions.

That's why I propose having a cut-off mark (a .500 record, for example). That way the divisional alignment, etc., remains in tact, but if in the rare event a division winner goes 6-10 or 7-9, the division would essentially be “disqualified” from the playoffs.

So at least 95% of the time everything would remain normal, except in those extremely rare cases where an entire division completely ****s the bed.

[BeachSkin]

The 12-4 '08 Colts have no room to complain...if you go and lose to an 8-8 team in the playoffs that's your own damn fault, whether it's a road game or not. Don't like it? Win your division.

[Califan007]

The competition committee should look at implementing a rule where if the 3rd place team in one division has a better record than the division champ in another division, that 3rd place team should go to the playoffs and that division should be stripped of the spot.

This doesn't make any sense, though...why should the 3rd place team be given that vacated playoff spot? What if there are other teams with better records than the third place team? There could be three 2nd place teams who all have better records than the 3rd place team...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

That's why I propose having a cut-off mark (a .500 record, for example). That way the divisional alignment, etc., remains in tact, but if in the rare event a division winner goes 6-10 or 7-9, the division would essentially be “disqualified” from the playoffs.

So at least 95% of the time everything would remain normal, except in those extremely rare cases where an entire division completely ****s the bed.

That caveat makes it a better rule, but I still think it's too subjective. I think there should be a reward for winning your division...period. Why are we arbitrarily saying that 8-8 is an OK record by 7-9 isn't? If you're the best of the 4 teams the NFL puts you up against in your division, you win. If it happens to be a down year, so be it.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I get the idea, but it just seems too screwy.

Have to sit back and see what happens if LA gets a team, then they'd have to probably make some changes in the West Coast divisions.

Seems like momentum is building for someone to get moved out there.

[TheLongshot]

I actually sat down to see what the lowest record that could possibly win that division this year. I came up with the Arizona Cardinals at 6-10 could win the division with everyone else finishing at 5-11. It would require the Cards to sweep their division opponents and not win another game (SF twice, StL), SF to split their division opponents (losing twice to the Rams, but beating Sea and StL) and losing to everyone else, and the Rams beating Seattle and losing the rest of their games. Not likely, but

To get back to the subject, what probably we get to is that being a division winner is no longer special and that we seed by record. That way, most "deserving" teams get in. Some might not like it, because even a division winner with a good record could be seeded lower than a "wild card" from another division.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

To get back to the subject, what probably we get to is that being a division winner is no longer special and that we seed by record. That way, most "deserving" teams get in. Some might not like it, because even a division winner with a good record could be seeded lower than a "wild card" from another division.

And that's why I don't like the proposed rule change...because eventually you're going to punish a team for coming out of a tough division and being seeded lower than a team with an easy schedule. It may not happen as often as a "bad" team getting in due to playing in an easy division, but it will eventually happen. Once it does and people complain, you've opened up a can of worms because then the next step is to somehow determine which divisions are worthy of sending division champs and which ones aren't.

[Califan007]

Another chink in the armor: what if you have TWO crappy division? lol...

What if, say, the NFC West and the NFC North have division winners with a record of 7-9? Are both divisions eliminated from the playoffs?

Here's another scenario: What if there's a division winner with a 6-10 record, and a 3rd place team with a 7-9 record? Does the 7-9 3rd place team now make the playoffs?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Another chink in the armor: what if you have TWO crappy division? lol...

What if, say, the NFC West and the NFC North have division winners with a record of 7-9? Are both divisions eliminated from the playoffs?

Here's another scenario: What if there's a division winner with a 6-10 record, and a 3rd place team with a 7-9 record? Does the 7-9 3rd place team now make the playoffs?

All of those variables are the reason that, if you stick with divisions and weigh division games, you have to reward all 4 division winners with a playoff spot (and, in my opinion, the top 4 seeds).

If you want to give a playoff spot to the best 6 teams, you should eliminate divisions and take the top 6 records. In fact, you could make it so that each team plays all 15 conference opponents once and 1 (3 once they go to 18 games) opponent from the other conference. That way, your regular season is basically a round-robin tournament. I hate that idea, personally, but it's the only fair way to award playoffs spots based strictly on record.

[Larry Brown #43]

TD, you raise good points. I guess my concern is it seems the jokers in the NFC West have almost been lulled into this idea that they don’t have to be competitive because, well, they’re in the NFC West. And a .500 record just might get you in.

It’s probably too soon to call it a trend—after all, the Cardinals were in the Super Bowl the year before last. But I got my eye on ‘em. :)

[TD_washingtonredskins]

TD, you raise good points. I guess my concern is it seems the jokers in the NFC West have almost been lulled into this idea that they don’t have to be competitive because, well, they’re in the NFC West. And a .500 record just might get you in.

It’s probably too soon to call it a trend—after all, the Cardinals were in the Super Bowl the year before last. But I got my eye on ‘em. :)

I suppose the NFL should always keep their eye on competitive balance (I'm picturing you doing the Meet the Parents DeNiro thing with your fingers to your eyes). However, I find it tough to believe that 4 teams are scuffling along purposely in order to just skate by. If you were any one of those teams and you looked around to see how bad the other three were, wouldn't it be MORE incentive to become as good as possible so that you could wrap up home field or something with your naturally weak schedule. The 49ers did that (not that they weren't also a very good team) for years in the 1980s and 1990s.

[Drew_Fl]

This doesn't make any sense, though...why should the 3rd place team be given that vacated playoff spot? What if there are other teams with better records than the third place team? There could be three 2nd place teams who all have better records than the 3rd place team...

By limiting it to the 3rd place team i was trying to keep the significance to the division structure. That way the divisions still mean something unless you're division is so crappy a 3rd place team from another division would win yours. If we just gave the spot to the best record that didn't make the playoffs then the divisions would mean absolutely nothing. I'm not saying it's a foolproof plan, but as a football fan I don't want to see a 7-9 team in the playoffs. I disagree with people when they say a 7-9 team is better than a 10-6 team. Like Coach Shanahan says, you are what your record is.

Also by letting in a 7-9 team, we are de-valuing the significance of each regular season game. It's one thing that makes the NFL great is every game is major. If you can lose 9 games and still get in though that takes away from the regular season product also.

[Bubble Screen]

Just saying, every now and then a ****ty NFC West team catches fire...like the Cardinals in '08.

I was just about to post this. How quickly the forget. Leave, as is.

[skinsarethebest]

TD, you raise good points. I guess my concern is it seems the jokers in the NFC West have almost been lulled into this idea that they don’t have to be competitive because, well, they’re in the NFC West. And a .500 record just might get you in.

It’s probably too soon to call it a trend—after all, the Cardinals were in the Super Bowl the year before last. But I got my eye on ‘em. :)

The truth no one wants to acknowledge is that no one ever said the NFL (or sports for that matter) are a pure "meritocracy" in the first place. The point that gets obscured about divisions is that at least in theory, they ensure some form of geographic/regional representation in the postseason.

In other words, no matter how sucky their teams are, the West Coast, Pacific Time Zone, whatever you want to call it, can always be assured that someone from their "area" will be playing in the playoffs. (Yeah, the actual divisions themselves are screwy: why is Dallas in the NFC East after all, why is St. Louis in the NFC West, etc. etc. But that's a debate for another day.) Anyway, without it, you could have a postseason in which basically nobody on the West Coast even gave a hoot about football after January 1. Interestingly, the OP thought that revenue/making money was an argument in favor of his proposal, but it's exactly the opposite: the NFL doesn't want to lose money, and one clear way to do it is to keep every region of the country interested, to the extent possible.

[Seabee1973]

The year they implement this rule the redskins will win the nfc east with a 7-9 record

[pointyfootball]

Is this all "what if"? Has a division ever been won with a losing record? How many times has an 8-8 team won the division?

This is knee-jerk and the hammer hasn't even hit the knee yet, I think. :)

[ZRagone]

Everyone always has issues with one division being "weak". However, if you impliment a rule like this you make winning your division rather worthless.

I think there's a far superior solution to both make winning a division important but rewarding those who have a good record.

Don't garauntee home games for division winners, just garauntee playoff spots.

This way, if the Rams go 8-8 and win the West, they would automatically be one of the 6 teams from the NFC in the playoffs. However, if the higher of the two Wild Card teams is 11-5 then that 11-5 team would play the Ram's at their home stadium rather than in St. Louis.

So you want to win your division to garauntee you a spot, but you want to get the best record to potentially have home field.

[Drew_Fl]

The truth no one wants to acknowledge is that no one ever said the NFL (or sports for that matter) are a pure "meritocracy" in the first place. The point that gets obscured about divisions is that at least in theory, they ensure some form of geographic/regional representation in the postseason.

In other words, no matter how sucky their teams are, the West Coast, Pacific Time Zone, whatever you want to call it, can always be assured that someone from their "area" will be playing in the playoffs. (Yeah, the actual divisions themselves are screwy: why is Dallas in the NFC East after all, why is St. Louis in the NFC West, etc. etc. But that's a debate for another day.) Anyway, without it, you could have a postseason in which basically nobody on the West Coast even gave a hoot about football after January 1. Interestingly, the OP thought that revenue/making money was an argument in favor of his proposal, but it's exactly the opposite: the NFL doesn't want to lose money, and one clear way to do it is to keep every region of the country interested, to the extent possible.

that's also a good point but it could work the other way also. let's say under original rules, Jacksonville would make the playoffs. However, under slightly different rules, the New York Jets would get in. Which market do you think the NFL would rather have in the playoffs? Or the steelers? You have a good argument but there are several teams who's market/following is bigger some of the west coast states combined.

[pjfootballer]

I think each division should have a playoff participant, but seed the teams based on record and not just being division winners.

[Larry Brown #43]

I think each division should have a playoff participant, but seed the teams based on record and not just being division winners.

I could go along with this. Of course it wouldn’t help us much, since we seem to be perennially gunning for that elusive final wild card spot. :)

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think each division should have a playoff participant, but seed the teams based on record and not just being division winners.

It's still the same principle/problem, just less dramatic consequences. If we're conceding that a better team could have a worse record, then why are we going to change the way we seed teams?

Same example. Let's say that next year all 4 NFC East teams are great and beat each other up all season. The Redskins win the best division in football with a 10-6 record. Should they play on the road in the wild card round because the Rams beat up on the Cardinals and 49ers to grab second place in a weak NFC West with an 11-5 record (my example assumes that the Seahawks win the division...just hypothetical, of course)?

I think that can happen just as often as a horrible team wins a bad division by default.

[No_Pressure]

I wouldn't be opposed to a rule where if the 3rd place team's record is 3 wins more than the other division winner, otherwise I say if you win your division, even at 8-8, you should go to the playoffs.

[pjfootballer]

It's still the same principle/problem, just less dramatic consequences. If we're conceding that a better team could have a worse record, then why are we going to change the way we seed teams?

Same example. Let's say that next year all 4 NFC East teams are great and beat each other up all season. The Redskins win the best division in football with a 10-6 record. Should they play on the road in the wild card round because the Rams beat up on the Cardinals and 49ers to grab second place in a weak NFC West with an 11-5 record (my example assumes that the Seahawks win the division...just hypothetical, of course)?

I think that can happen just as often as a horrible team wins a bad division by default.

Thing is, in the old days, you played 8 divisional games which was more than 50% of your schedule. You play 6 games of 16. I'm not sure you'd find alot of instances where a team goes 6-0 in their division and 4-6 the rest of the schedule. Not to say it couldn't happen, but if a team is good, then they will win the other games.

[HailGreen28]

You want to make the playoffs? Win your division or beat enough of the other wildcard teams' records. Or shaddup.

[Rodriggo]

There should be a "winning record" stipulation that at least opens the door to another team if a division champion is under .500.

I think that would be fair.

[Drew_Fl]

Just because a team is 10-6 doesn't mean they're better than the 7-9 team. Like I said, I think if this happened often, I could see addressing it, but has there ever been a time a team with a losing record has gone to the playoffs?



so this year an 11-5 team has to go on the road to face a 7-9 team. and if you think the seahawks are better than the saints, i'd like to have what you're having.

i hope this is only a one-time occurrence, but i believe the NFL should do something besides hoping this isn't a normal thing to have such a terrible team in the playoffs while you have two 10-6 teams at home AND an 11-5 team has to go on the road to face them.

At least take away the home game and seed by record.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

this is the first time ever for this to happen, but a division title is a division title.

everyone will always remember that the seahawks are a pretty poor football team, and the saints should crush them next weekend.

[Stophovr6]

As someone that lives in seattle and has to deal with these twit fans, ive officially lost faith in this league.

[Tenjikuronin]

Rules are rules. Seahawks won their division as required of them. Not their fault that the Bucs and Giants aren't in the playoffs. Both those teams had opportunities to get in....

[Bubble Screen]

so this year an 11-5 team has to go on the road to face a 7-9 team. and if you think the seahawks are better than the saints, i'd like to have what you're having.

i hope this is only a one-time occurrence, but i believe the NFL should do something besides hoping this isn't a normal thing to have such a terrible team in the playoffs while you have two 10-6 teams at home AND an 11-5 team has to go on the road to face them.

At least take away the home game and seed by record.

Dude, I'm pretty sure the Saints aren't complaining about having to face Seattle, no matter where its played.

Personally, after giving this some more thought, I don't think the NFL should do anything. I mean, this is the first time its ever happened. I think they should focus on more important things, such as a rookie salary cap. No way in hell a guy should get a 60 million contract without ever having played a snap in the league.

[Drew_Fl]

Dude, I'm pretty sure the Saints aren't complaining about having to face Seattle, no matter where its played.

Personally, after giving this some more thought, I don't think the NFL should do anything. I mean, this is the first time its ever happened. I think they should focus on more important things, such as a rookie salary cap. No way in hell a guy should get a 60 million contract without ever having played a snap in the league.

i completely agree about the rookie pay scale problem needing addressed also, but i don't see why addressing that would stop them from addressing this. Happening once is one too many times in my opinion. How many times does it have to happen for it to be fixed? It's not like you mess with the integrity of the playoffs by stripping the home field at least.

[Hitman21ST]

What if the unthinkable happens and the Seahawks make the Super Bowl?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think a 7-9 team making the playoffs is awesome. It would be very much in character for the NFL to utterly over-react to this. But, I would not change a thing.

I hope the Seahawks make the Super Bowl.

[Boss_Hogg]

it's like rewarding bad behavior.

I have an issue with it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

it's like rewarding bad behavior.

I have an issue with it.

Rewarding bad behavior is awesome.

It's how we get things like "Animal House" and "Appetite for Destruction."

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think a 7-9 team making the playoffs is awesome. It would be very much in character for the NFL to utterly over-react to this. But, I would not change a thing.

I hope the Seahawks make the Super Bowl.

The bold part of your post is the one I agree with the most. I fully expect the NFL to overreact to it...something that has happened one time. This year, you have 3 of 4 wild card weekend games where the home team has a worse record than the road team. I think that's OK and to me there is no difference between a 7-9 or 10-6 record if you're the best team in your division. If you want a home game, win your division. If you don't want to reward division winners with home games, than disband the divisions. I think it's a horrible solution to do so, but you can't have it both ways.

[Califan007]

. I think that's OK and to me there is no difference between a 7-9 or 10-6 record if you're the best team in your division.
The problem is, the NFC West is not really a "division" lol :ols:...nobody wins the NFC West, they just are deemed to be the team that stunk the least.

[Bang]

They should leave it alone.
The NFL has become nothing but a knee-jerk collection of ninnies trying to correct every perceived unfairness with new rules.
And the NFL sucks as a result of the burden of idiotic rules that insure that games are never officiated the same way twice.
Because of a stupid play in a playoff game between the Rams and Bucs we now have no idea what constitutes a catch.. it's all up to the convoluted and completely inconsistent "interpretation" of the part timers they have reffing games.
Because the Patriots beat the Colts invthe playoffs, now there's more rules than ever making sure that just touching a receiver is a five yard penalty and an automatic first down, no matter if the ball came that way or not. And nevermind that they touch and grab anyway, and it's just up the subjective reasoning of the inconsistent part timers they have reffing the game as to when they want to throw the flag.

Last year Brett Favre didnt get the ball in overtime, and now we have ****ing COLLEGE OVERTIME in the PLAYOFFS. BULL****!!!!!!
This year there were 19 games that went to OT. TWO were decided in the first possession. TWO out of 19. And they change the rules because they listen to the CRYING of a LOSER. Football has never been about throwing a loser a lifeline,, until now.

Do not change the rule because Seattle got in. Do not change the rule because the NFC west is weak.
Do not change the rule because this has happened exactly one time in the near 50 seasons since the Super Bowl began.

Do not change the rule because football is supposed to be a rough sport for tough men, not a bunch of whining bitches who want rules to bail them out of how it's been since the beginnings of the league.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Vulva-handsign-Yoni-mudra.svg/497px-Vulva-handsign-Yoni-mudra.svg.png

Grow a pair, NFL.

Do not change the rule, because every time you do you destroy football just a little bit more.

~Bang

[SWFLSkins]

The problem is, the NFC West is not really a "division" lol :ols:...nobody wins the NFC West, they just are deemed to be the team that stunk the least.

It would be hard to argue but could'nt you just say all the teams were so good that they just beat up on each other and the best team won? , uh nah.

[hail2skins]

Last year Brett Favre didnt get the ball in overtime, and now we have ****ing COLLEGE OVERTIME in the PLAYOFFS. BULL****!!!!!!
This year there were 19 games that went to OT. TWO were decided in the first possession. TWO out of 19. And they change the rules because they listen to the CRYING of a LOSER. Football has never been about throwing a loser a lifeline,, until now.

Agree with much of your post, Bang....however, I'm not as bothered with the new OT rules. It really isn't college OT, which really would suck. As for only 2/19 games being decided on the first posession of OT this year......last year it was 5/13. Historically, its been about 30 percent.

[skinfan2k]

keep it the way it is. otherwise there is no damn incentive to win your division

[Hitman21ST]

There should be a little more weight put on the division record, a little more incentive to do well in division other than tiebreakers, a little bit of the way the college conferences do it: best in-conference records go to the championship game. I know you just can't do that solely, but when a team goes 6-0 in division (like the Raiders this year) there should be some reward.

[Duckus]

No.

However, I would support a rule change that gave the teams with the best record home field advantage rather than division winners.

Its one thing for Seattle to go to the playoffs (which I have absolutely no problem with), it is another to give them a home playoff game. Just my two cents.

[Hitman21ST]

No.

However, I would support a rule change that gave the teams with the best record home field advantage rather than division winners.

Its one thing for Seattle to go to the playoffs, it is another to allow them to host a home playoff game.

Home field should always be given to the better team.

So, theoretically, a 6 seed could host a 2 seed. I'm not too sure I like that.

[Bang]

Historically, its been about 30 percent.

Oh no! Change the rule!

~Bang

[Hitman21ST]

Bang, I couldn't agree more with you. You generally have good posts, this was one of the best.

[Drew_Fl]

Bang, I couldn't agree more with you. You generally have good posts, this was one of the best.

This is one of Bangs post I can't agree with all the way. For overtime, I wouldn't care if they changed it, but be consistent for regular season AND playoffs. This current way just seems stupid.

But explain to me how a rule stating if you're a sub-.500 division champ, you make the playoffs but lose your home game be a knee-jerk and complete overreaction? I don't believe they should even have a playoff spot, however for the sanctity of division titles, that has to mean something so i guess we shouldn't take that away. Taking away the home game just seems logical and encourages competitive fairness and balance. Kind of like Foxnews ;)

I don't care if this happens once every 100 years. That's too much and it can be somewhat fixed while not breaking the rest of it. I see where you guys are coming from on this and don't want to change things, but this just seems blatantly unfair.


...I should've made this thread when the Redskins were one of the 10-6 teams sitting at home, but that would require them getting 10 wins :ols:

[Bang]

This is one of Bangs post I can't agree with all the way. For overtime, I wouldn't care if they changed it, but be consistent for regular season AND playoffs. This current way just seems stupid.

But explain to me how a rule stating if you're a sub-.500 division champ, you make the playoffs but lose your home game be a knee-jerk and complete overreaction? I don't believe they should even have a playoff spot, however for the sanctity of division titles, that has to mean something so i guess we shouldn't take that away. Taking away the home game just seems logical and encourages competitive fairness and balance. Kind of like Foxnews ;)

Because it's only happened once. If it happens 6 times in the next ten years, change the rule.
But one time in 80+ years? Leave it be.


I don't care if this happens once every 100 years. That's too much and it can be somewhat fixed while not breaking the rest of it. I see where you guys are coming from on this and don't want to change things, but this just seems blatantly unfair.
...I should've made this thread when the Redskins were one of the 10-6 teams sitting at home, but that would require them getting 10 wins :ols:
It's an anomaly. Nothing more.

We missed the playoffs in a 10 win season once. Back in about 86 or so.

~Bang

[ibarramedia]

I think the division winners deserve to go to the playoffs. What is the incentive or reward for winning the division if you can't get in the 'tournament'?
What happened with the Seahawks is an anomaly that won't be happening on a yearly basis. If the Seahawks somehow win their first playoff game, there could be a resurgence of instant Cinderella Bandwagon supporters. Especially if they make it all the way to the superbowl and win it all. It would be the football story of the year, possibly the decade. From 7-9 to 11-9 and World Champion.

Before realignment, we had 3 division winners and 3 wildcard teams. Now we have 4 division winners and 2 wildcards. They should add 2 more teams to the playoff picture to offset this. We had realignment because we added new teams, the latest being the Houston Texans. From the mid 90's to the present we have seen 4 new franchises enter the league in the Carolina Panthers, Jacksonville Jaguars, The New and resurrected Cleveland Browns and the Houston Texans. So it makes sense to add playoff teams tot he tournament. 8 for each conference instead of 6. A sweet 16, if you will.

Just for the sake of lol'ing, it is mathematically possible to have a 6-10 or even 5-11 Division Champion. ;) Though a 5-11 division winner is pushing it too much. Seriously what are the odds that this would happen before? It was mathematically possible before and reality now.

[Texasaurus]

If the league decides that next season there is a 18 game season instead of 17, then I believe that the entire format for the post season has
to all so get shuffled around. to where a 3rd place 9 or 10 win team. can't miss the post season,.with the event of two teams with the same
record. Needing to dealt with in a one game winner gets the last playoff spot game

[Drew_Fl]

If the league decides that next season there is a 18 game season instead of 17, then I believe that the entire format for the post season has
to all so get shuffled around. to where a 3rd place 9 or 10 win team. can't miss the post season,.with the event of two teams with the same
record. Needing to dealt with in a one game winner gets the last playoff spot game

true i forgot about that. this discussion is pretty much useless if that happens b/c it's a whole new ball game and there's no telling what could happen.

[Big Blue Joe]

It looks like the playoff seeding rules are fine as is.

[ConnSKINS26]

It looks like the playoff seeding rules are fine as is.

Yup. Any given Sunday, guys.

[terrifNick21]

It looks like the playoff seeding rules are fine as is.

Bet you wouldn't have said that had the Seahawks lost knowing your team has 3 more wins and are at home. :silly:

[Bubble Screen]

Bet you wouldn't have said that had the Seahawks lost knowing your team has 3 more wins and are at home. :silly:

Doesn't matter. They won their divison. And today they silenced the critics.

[DCSaints_fan]

I think they should have gotten in, but no home field.

The think there should be a "2-win" rule - if the WC team has more than 2 wins over the division winner, the WC gets to host.

[terrifNick21]

Doesn't matter. They won their divison. And today they silenced the critics.

I know. I was being frivolous.

[SkinsFTW]

We missed the playoffs in a 10 win season once. Back in about 86 or so.

~Bang

Hell, that happened 3 times. We had bad luck and a very good division. San Fran would have missed the playoffs altogether in several of their big years if they'd been in our division. They went 10-6 in 88 and won the SB and wouldn't even have qualified for the playoffs in the east. We'd be the dynasty over them in the 80's if we'd have swapped divisions.

I still like it the way it is. Seattle beating the 11-5 Saints today was classic. I guess GW didn't take Hasslebeck being on fire into consideration when making that defensive game plan.

---------- Post added January-9th-2011 at 05:54 PM ----------




everyone will always remember that the seahawks are a pretty poor football team, and the saints should crush them next weekend.

So much for that idea, lol.

[Hubbs]

[Chris Berman]And that's why they play the game![/Chris Berman]

(I wish The Blitz was on tonight. I love Berman, he'd be staining his pants with excitement over these games.)

[Seabee1973]

Hell, that happened 3 times. We had bad luck and a very good division. San Fran would have missed the playoffs altogether in several of their big years if they'd been in our division. They went 10-6 in 88 and won the SB and wouldn't even have qualified for the playoffs in the east. We'd be the dynasty over them in the 80's if we'd have swapped divisions.

I still like it the way it is. Seattle beating the 11-5 Saints today was classic. I guess GW didn't take Hasslebeck being on fire into consideration when making that defensive game plan.

---------- Post added January-9th-2011 at 05:54 PM ----------



So much for that idea, lol.

The American people are counting on you to keep your promises, Mr. Speaker. Tea Party Patriots are watching and we will be eternally vigilant

[TotalRecall]

I would rather see 4 wild card teams anyways instead of an 18-game season. I still like the division winners going even if they have a 7-9 record.

[ArmchairRedskin]

I think it's fine that division winners get a playoff berth. I think you can make a good argument for re-seeding by record, though.

[thebluefood]

All of you moaning and whining about the playoff seeding (something even I was kinda doing at one time) can shut up. Any given day.

[Drew_Fl]

I started this thread and I still believe that AT LEAST, the playoffs should be re-seeded, and heres why:

Any team in the NFL is good enough to beat another any given Sunday. We all know this and have seen many examples. However, IMO, the playoffs aren't the place to prove you should be in the playoffs. That should be the regular season. 7-9 does not prove you belong, but since you win the division you get in. You put the 0-16 lions in the playoffs and they could've won a game also, does that mean they were supposed to be in the playoffs also? I think the current seeding de-values the regular season a lot (by 4 games exactly) when this is possible.

Thoughts? Anyone's opinion change or get re-inforced over yesterday's game?

[Box76]

Let the 2 best records be the #1 and #2 seeds
The other 2 division winners will automatically be in the playoffs but not guaranteed the #3-4 slots...instead re-seed according to record 4-6. This would have put Seattle in New Orleans.

[Darth Tater]

Thing is that more and more, HFA means nothing. You think the Redskins problems at home are unusual? The norm is for teams to do better on the road than at home. Now certain teams, like Green Bay and Seattle have a very strong HFA but they are the exceptions. In most cases, the advantage is getting the bye.

[Phixius]

I started this thread and I still believe that AT LEAST, the playoffs should be re-seeded, and heres why:

Any team in the NFL is good enough to beat another any given Sunday. We all know this and have seen many examples. However, IMO, the playoffs aren't the place to prove you should be in the playoffs. That should be the regular season. 7-9 does not prove you belong, but since you win the division you get in. You put the 0-16 lions in the playoffs and they could've won a game also, does that mean they were supposed to be in the playoffs also? I think the current seeding de-values the regular season a lot (by 4 games exactly) when this is possible.

Thoughts? Anyone's opinion change or get re-inforced over yesterday's game?Being 12-4 and defending Superbowl Champions doesn't prove anything either. A #6 seed team has won the Superbowl in the past and the #1 seed has won the Superbowl. Why shouldn't the teams that qualify for the playoffs be allowed to compete for a championship?

[I_Bleed_B&G]

why is the Wild Card thread closed???

[SkinsFTW]

why is the Wild Card thread closed???

I was asking the same thing. Start another one. I think Jumbo accidentally closed it, or somebody else did.

[ABSTRACT]

why is the Wild Card thread closed???

yeah Im confused too

[SkinsFTW]

WTF, both new threads closed now. Is some one DRUNK????

[I_Bleed_B&G]

Is someone playing a joke on us. New game threads closed now???

[ABSTRACT]

WTF, both new threads closed now. Is some one DRUNK????

smh this is crazy. We should just talk about the game in here lol. But I'd probably be expelled from the Site. Feel like I'm in Communist China

[Drew_Fl]

Being 12-4 and defending Superbowl Champions doesn't prove anything either. A #6 seed team has won the Superbowl in the past and the #1 seed has won the Superbowl. Why shouldn't the teams that qualify for the playoffs be allowed to compete for a championship?

I don't think you understood my post the way I meant for you to. I agree with what you said but I never said anything about the #6 seed not every winning anything.

[Phixius]

I don't think you understood my post the way I meant for you to. I agree with what you said but I never said anything about the #6 seed not every winning anything.I know you didn't said anything about it. I used it to back up my claim. The records, stats, seedings, none of that matters. Any team in the playoffs capable to advancing and possibly winning the Superbowl. You mention that playoff isn't the place for a team to prove they belong there. I say that what happened in the regular season is irrelevant. 7 wins was good enough to win the NFC West. There's nothing that could of been done about that. Winning a division rewards that team a home playoff game. If the Saints wanted a home playoff game, then they should have won their division like the Seahawks, Eagles, and the Bears did or else they're the wildcard and must travel on the road. If the Saints are the better team based on their record, then playing at Seattle shouldn't of been a problem for them.

The Ravens had no problem with heading out on the road and taking out the Chiefs. Currently the Packers are on the road and up 14-0 against the Eagles. There's nothing wrong the playoff seeding. It makes winning the division more important, therefore not devaluing the regular season at all. At the same time, winning a division does not guarantee a free ride to the Superbowl.

[Drew_Fl]

I know you didn't said anything about it. I used it to back up my claim. The records, stats, seedings, none of that matters. Any team in the playoffs capable to advancing and possibly winning the Superbowl. You mention that playoff isn't the place for a team to prove they belong there. I say that what happened in the regular season is irrelevant. 7 wins was good enough to win the NFC West. There's nothing that could of been done about that. Winning a division rewards that team a home playoff game. If the Saints wanted a home playoff game, then they should have won their division like the Seahawks, Eagles, and the Bears did or else they're the wildcard and must travel on the road. If the Saints are the better team based on their record, then playing at Seattle shouldn't of been a problem for them.

The Ravens had no problem with heading out on the road and taking out the Chiefs. Currently the Packers are on the road and up 14-0 against the Eagles. There's nothing wrong the playoff seeding. It makes winning the division more important, therefore not devaluing the regular season at all. At the same time, winning a division does not guarantee a free ride to the Superbowl.

The argument that if a team is better then beating this other team shouldn't be a problem is bogus. We've seen crappy teams (based on record) beat great teams in the regular season also, but that doesn't mean the great teams are ****ty just b/c they lost that one game.

I said the playoffs aren't where you prove you belong in the playoffs b/c we shouldn't be using a playoff victory to justify a team being seeded where they are. We should be using the regular season record b/c if they don't then why do they play so many out of division games? How can you claim seeding a 7 win team over an 11 win team isn't de-valuing the regular season? That's exactly what it is. What else would you call it?

[CowboysSaintsFan]

The playoff seedings are more than fair-bottom line, everyone is 0-0 to start the playoffs. The Hawks beat the Saints fair and square. If they advance to the NFC title game(and host it), they've deserved it fair and square.

[Phixius]

The argument that if a team is better then beating this other team shouldn't be a problem is bogus. We've seen crappy teams (based on record) beat great teams in the regular season also, but that doesn't mean the great teams are ****ty just b/c they lost that one game.

I said the playoffs aren't where you prove you belong in the playoffs b/c we shouldn't be using a playoff victory to justify a team being seeded where they are. We should be using the regular season record b/c if they don't then why do they play so many out of division games? How can you claim seeding a 7 win team over an 11 win team isn't de-valuing the regular season? That's exactly what it is. What else would you call it?


There's nothing wrong the playoff seeding. It makes winning the division more important, therefore not devaluing the regular season at all

[Drew_Fl]

I believe this is a topic that truly can't be settled b/c either way they put it there will be a lot of room for discussion. I've made my points, and I've read and understood all of your points. That second line you quoted is right except it is devalued for the several other wildcard contenders (who's 3 or 4 extra wins have been rendered meaningless, hence de-valued), not the division winner though. Is that fair? IMO no, but i've already stated why, but I've also read all the arguments stating why it is fair and I definitely see how it's valid so i'm not trying to say anyone is wrong b/c I don't have a perfect solution. All we have is what it is. And that's still the best playoff system in sports.

[SkinsFTW]

I'm down with the other suggestion from earlier. Instead of 18 game season just add a couple more wild card teams and make the paloffs longer. A lot more people watch those games anyway.

Only thing is then the NFL playoffs would be kinda like the NBA playoffs where teams with below .500 records make it. But that happened this year anyway. At least then the 10-6 teams who are in stronger divisions would get a shot.

[Hitman21ST]

I'm down with the other suggestion from earlier. Instead of 18 game season just add a couple more wild card teams and make the paloffs longer. A lot more people watch those games anyway.

Only thing is then the NFL playoffs would be kinda like the NBA playoffs where teams with below .500 records make it. But that happened this year anyway. At least then the 10-6 teams who are in stronger divisions would get a shot.

That lessens the value of the 1 and 2 seeds. If you don't have the best record in the Conference, you might as well just rest starters, because you're not getting that bye.

[SkinsFTW]

That lessens the value of the 1 and 2 seeds. If you don't have the best record in the Conference, you might as well just rest starters, because you're not getting that bye.

Fine then add 3 more playoff teams. 9 total. 6 play wildcard weekend. 3 teams get a bye.

[Tom [Giants fan]]

I kind of want to see a 7-9 team host an NFC Championship game. Green Bay @ Seattle for the NFC??? We will see.

[Hitman21ST]

Fine then add 3 more playoff teams. 9 total. 6 play wildcard weekend. 3 teams get a bye.

More wild cards than Division winners?

[dockeryfan]

I like the system the way it is.
It places a higher value on division games, which is just the way I like it.

[Hitman21ST]

I like the system the way it is.
It places a higher value on division games, which is just the way I like it.

I know it's not going to happen, but if they could weight the division games to be 1.5 games on the record, that would make those game figuratively (and literally) more important than other games. It would also mean that the Raiders would have been in the race (if not won their division)

It would weight the 6 division games out to 9 games on the record (meaning the final record adds up to 19 games played). You wouldn't have .500 records any more, and those "important" division games would actually be more important.

[dockeryfan]

and those "important" division games would actually be more important.

only if you want to confuse me.

j/k Honestly, I don't want any tinkering.

[Hitman21ST]

only if you want to confuse me.

j/k Honestly, I don't want any tinkering.

I tend to agree with you, I just couldn't think of anything else that would give division games the significance of being more important other than "they're our rivals"

[SkinsFTW]

I tend to agree with you, I just couldn't think of anything else that would give division games the significance of being more important other than "they're our rivals"

They already play 2 games each within the division so they are more significant. 6 games are within the division. I think they should have left it at 3 divisions and if they had we'd be much less likely to see a 7-9 team in the playoffs anyway.

The only time in history 8-8 or 7-9 teams have been in the playoffs is in the 4 team divisions. I remember in the 80's the Browns/Bengals/Steelers made it with 9-7 or 8-8 at least once each because that division sucked, then San Diego got in at 8-8 a few years ago. I think they should have 5 team divisions but to do that they will have to add a few more teams. 2 divisions would be better than 4 though. At least that way the good teams would get in.

[Seabee1973]

They already play 2 games each within the division so they are more significant. 6 games are within the division. I think they should have left it at 3 divisions and if they had we'd be much less likely to see a 7-9 team in the playoffs anyway.

The only time in history 8-8 or 7-9 teams have been in the playoffs is in the 4 team divisions. I remember in the 80's the Browns/Bengals/Steelers made it with 9-7 or 8-8 at least once each because that division sucked, then San Diego got in at 8-8 a few years ago. I think they should have 5 team divisions but to do that they will have to add a few more teams. 2 divisions would be better than 4 though. At least that way the good teams would get in.

If my count is correct it happened 5 times prior to the realignment.

Since teh realignment all the 8-8 and 7-9 teams that have made the playoffs have won there first game

[scyber]

If my count is correct it happened 5 times prior to the realignment.

Since teh realignment all the 8-8 and 7-9 teams that have made the playoffs have won there first game

Not sure if you were talking about division winners only, but Giants were a 8-8 Wildcard in '06 and lost their first playoff game (vs. Philly).

[Phixius]

I believe this is a topic that truly can't be settled b/c either way they put it there will be a lot of room for discussion. I've made my points, and I've read and understood all of your points. That second line you quoted is right except it is devalued for the several other wildcard contenders (who's 3 or 4 extra wins have been rendered meaningless, hence de-valued), not the division winner though. Is that fair? IMO no, but i've already stated why, but I've also read all the arguments stating why it is fair and I definitely see how it's valid so i'm not trying to say anyone is wrong b/c I don't have a perfect solution. All we have is what it is. And that's still the best playoff system in sports.Those 3 or 4 wins aren't meaningless because most likely they were contention of a division title as well i.e. Saints and Ravens. A slip up from the Falcons and Steelers would of made them winners of their respective division. Wild Card are teams that didn't qualify for meeting the regular requirements(winning the division). It's not supposed to be fair, that's the point.

[pjfootballer]

Why does everyone want a 7-9 team to host the NFC title game or go to the SB? They sucked during the regular season, why would I want to watch them in a big game? I really wanted New Orleans to tear them a new ass, but they were over motivated. Hell, the Redskins would split 5-5 with them at this point in a 10 game series and we suck. I don't get it. I don't want them beating Chicago. It's really not funny seeing them win. It's bad for the league.

[Phixius]

Why does everyone want a 7-9 team to host the NFC title game or go to the SB? They sucked during the regular season, why would I want to watch them in a big game? I really wanted New Orleans to tear them a new ass, but they were over motivated. Hell, the Redskins would split 5-5 with them at this point in a 10 game series and we suck. I don't get it. I don't want them beating Chicago. It's really not funny seeing them win. It's bad for the league.Redskins beat both the Packers and Bears, why would you want to watch them in the big game?

[No_Pressure]

As I posted previously, if the 3rd place team in another division in the same conference is 3 games better than the 1st place team in another division I think the division winner should be excluded from the playoffs. This means in the unlikely scenario that the division winner is 7-9 while another division has a 3rd place 10-6 team, or the division winner is 8-8 and the 3rd place team is 11-5, the 10-6 or 11-5 team would go instead of the 7-9, 8-8 team. I don't think it is that unfair, everyone says how important division games are, well consider this: The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were 10-6 this year and are sitting at home. The Seattle Seahawks were 7-9 and are in the playoffs. Sure the Bucs didn't beat out the Saints who eventually lost to the Seahawks, but a 7-9 team playing a home playoff game in an emotional atmosphere can beat an 11-5 team. Hell the Redskins beat the Bears, Packers and Eagles this year and all those teams made the playoffs.

[Phixius]

As I posted previously, if the 3rd place team in another division in the same conference is 3 games better than the 1st place team in another division I think the division winner should be excluded from the playoffs. This means in the unlikely scenario that the division winner is 7-9 while another division has a 3rd place 10-6 team, or the division winner is 8-8 and the 3rd place team is 11-5, the 10-6 or 11-5 team would go instead of the 7-9, 8-8 team. I don't think it is that unfair, everyone says how important division games are, well consider this: The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were 10-6 this year and are sitting at home. The Seattle Seahawks were 7-9 and are in the playoffs. Sure the Bucs didn't beat out the Saints who eventually lost to the Seahawks, but a 7-9 team playing a home playoff game in an emotional atmosphere can beat an 11-5 team. Hell the Redskins beat the Bears, Packers and Eagles this year and all those teams made the playoffs.and the Giants are sitting at home with a 10-6 as well and had plenty of chances to win the NFC East.

[pjfootballer]

Redskins beat both the Packers and Bears, why would you want to watch them in the big game?

Better than a 7-9 team. Packers were 10-6 and had a TON of injuries. Bears have a great defense. Seattle was a survivor, plain and simple.

And you didn't answer my question.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Rock, my issue with potential rules like that is that we seem to be making this way too complicated and arbitrary. To me, though I hate the idea, the only fair way to remove division champions from hosting a playoff game would be to eliminate divisions. Otherwise, why have teams play a division-weighted schedule at all? Picking any set of factors to decide why a wild card team should make it over a division team doesn't make sense.

So, either keep it exactly as it is or divide the NFL into the NFC and AFC and let everyone play essentially the same schedule...you'd have each NFC team play everyone else in the conference (15 games) and then you'd have some sort of way to play 3 games against the AFC (assuming an 18-game schedule). That way, tie-breakers can all be head-to-head and no one can argue that they played in a tough division or lost out to a team in an easy division.

Personally, like I said, I hate that idea. But, the only way to fairly have divisions is to reward division champions. Otherwise, what's the point?

[pointyfootball]

Don't be like the NFL and overreact. Leave it the way it is. If NO had whipped Seattle, I could MAYBE see looking at it, or even if this happens every 3rd year or so. But I like it the way it is. All four games were exciting and if Seattle is as bad as people say they are, they'll get trounced against a team that's had 2 weeks to rest/prepare AND is at home.

[Phixius]

Better than a 7-9 team. Packers were 10-6 and had a TON of injuries. Bears have a great defense. Seattle was a survivor, plain and simple.

And you didn't answer my question.You already know the answer to your own question.

[Popeman38]

The NFL needs to go back to a 3 division format:

NFC
East:
Dallas
New York Giants
Philly
Washington
Carolina

Central:
Chicago
Detroit
Green Bay
Minnesota
Tampa Bay
Atlanta

West:
Arizona
St Louis
San Francisco
Seattle
New Orleans

AFC
East:
Buffalo
Miami
New York Jets
New England
Indianapolis

Central:
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Tennessee
Jacksonville

West:
Denver
Kansas City
Oakland
San Diego
Houston

Top 2 division winners get the bye. 3 wild card teams from each conference. Of course, optimally there would be 2 teams contracted (Jacksonville & Carolina). Gee, who coulda seen those two teams having issues?

[pjfootballer]

You already know the answer to your own question.

I guess I shouldn't have used survivor. They were the last piece of **** left standing in the NFC West.

[SkinsFTW]

The NFL needs to go back to a 3 division format:



That's what I've been saying too. I don't know why they changed it in the first place. The year they added Houston and moved Seattle to the NFC is when they ****ed it up. 2002.

[Phixius]

I guess I shouldn't have used survivor. They were the last piece of **** left standing in the NFC West.You should go to the Seattle 12th man thread and watch the video at the 1:43 mark.

[Larry Brown #43]

Seattle has a crazy home field advantage in that stadium. If that game is played in the Superdome, the Saints probably win by three touchdowns.

[paloosa]

The NFC West is a joke. Everyone of the teams were in the running for a playoff spot because they can't beat anyone outside their division. That is pitiful for an NFL team to get into the playoffs with a losing record. For God's sake, Seattle only won one or two games more than the Redskins and they are in the playoffs and hosted the Saints at with 4 or 5 more wins. The playoffs need to have the best teams in there going for a Super Bowl championship and not a token NFC West team that won their division as a default entry.

[pjfootballer]

You should go to the Seattle 12th man thread and watch the video at the 1:43 mark.

And crowd noise has what to do with a 7-9 crappy team in the playoffs?

[BlueTalon]

As a rule, any time you try to fix something that isn't broken, you usually end up making it worse. I understand that people didn't want to see a team with a losing record make the playoffs, but most of the proposed "solutions" to the "problem" are extreme -- kinda like changing a browser setting on your computer by reloading your whole operating system, or wanting surgery for a mild case of gas. Suggestions include eliminating divisions, changing the divisions to 8 teams, changing the divisions to 5 or 6 teams, changing the seeding of current playoff contenders, changing the value of division games to 150% of the value of non-division games, establishing a max differential of 2 or 3 games between division & wildcard teams, simply taking away a division's playoff representation, and perhaps other I may have missed. The common denominator among them is that they are all far more complex and convoluted than the system that exists now. And for what? To keep something from happening that has only happened one time? Bang is absolutely right, any attempt to "fix" the situation represents a huge overreaction until the problem is really a problem.

Currently, every team in the league starts out with the same goal every year -- first, win your division. If you do this, you get a home playoff game. Period. For incentive to do more than just win your division, the league rewards the conference teams with the best records with a bye, and the top team gets HFA throughout the playoff. Part of the problem is that the people making these suggestions are looking at things the wrong way. People are upset that the Saints had to travel to Seattle, but the system worked exactly as designed. The Saints were the top Wildcard team, so as a reward, they got to play the division winner with the worst record.

Here's the problem with arbitrarily reseeding playoff teams or disallowing one division winner. When your team wins the division, the reward is not just that you get the home field playoff game, but also that none of your division rivals get one. If you take away a division's playoff spot and give it to another team, or if you reseed for whatever reason, suddenly your division rival is being rewarded with a home game even though they didn't win their division. If that's the case, as others have pointed out, what the hell is the point of having divisions?

Some have objected to the whole idea of a wildcard team with a better record traveling to a division winner with a poorer record. I find that bizarre. That happened in three Wildcard games this year, it wasn't just the Saints and Seattle. It's not uncommon. It happened twice in the 2008 playoffs, twice in 2007, once in 2005, once in 2003, once in 2002, and then I got tired of looking. (The realignment was sometime around then anyway.)

For what it's worth, my opinion would be exactly the same if the Rams had beaten the Seahawks in week 17. As a Seahawk fan, I'm happy that we won that game and beat the Saints in the Wildcard game, but that's not what drives my opinion.

Also, for what it's worth, one year my 12-4 Seahawks played in a Wildcard game while the 9-7 Steelers got a bye. That wasn't what you might call "fair" today, but nobody even thought of complaining about it. Another year, the 10-6 Seahawks watched the playoffs on TV. I was upset that they didn't make the playoffs, but it was their own damn fault they didn't get in.

The league may eventually go to three divisions per conference, but that's only going to happen in an expansion year.

[HailGreen28]

You want to be champ? Quit your ******** and win your division. Otherwise accept the help if it comes, and stop whining if you don't get help.

Divisions are there to allow for a good group of teams, that might beat each other up, to send a team at 9-7, to playoffs even if there's other teams in a different group with cupcake schedules that go 11-5. Sure there may be a weak team that makes it by the same mechanism, but at least they beat out at least three other teams that played a comparable schedule, so they're not that weak.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Good post Blue Talon...I don't understand why you'd have to change anything.

[pjfootballer]

You should go to the Seattle 12th man thread and watch the video at the 1:43 mark.

So you want me to watch fans scream in a stadium designed to make 60,0000+ fans sound like 90,000 and this is related to their s***** 7-9 record how?

[Phixius]

So you want me to watch fans scream in a stadium designed to make 60,0000+ fans sound like 90,000 and this is related to their s***** 7-9 record how?Go watch the video and find out. This has nothing to do with the stadium noise.