Given the number of games won by home teams (see other thread) and for other reasons, I've finally completely warmed to the idea that playoff seeding should be based on overall won-loss record rather than giving preference to division winners.
All 8 division winners should automatically earn a playoff berth regardless of their won-loss records, but the teams should be seeded by won-loss record IMHO. At a minimum, it will be less likely to have "nothing to play for" games in week 16 and 17 for some division winners and wild card teams.
I'll concede that the first tie breaker between a divisional winner and a wildcard team with the same overall record should go to the division winner (i.e. if a division winner is 10-6 and a wildcard team is 10-6, even if the wildcard team beat the division winner head to head, the division winner gets the home game).
The 2017 seeding using the current system was:
AFC
1 - Patriots AFC E(14-2) - 1st round bye & home field throughout
2 - Chief AFC W (12-4) - 1st round bye
3 - Steelers AFC N (11-5) - 1st round home game
4 - Texans AFC S (9-7) - 1st round home game
5 - Raiders WC 1 (12-4) - 1st round road game
6 - Dolphins WC 2 (10-6) - 1st round road game
NFC
1 - Cowboys NFC E(13-3) - 1st round bye & home field throughout
2 - Falcons NFC S (11-5) - 1st round bye
3 - Seahawks NFC W (10-5-1) - 1st round home game
4 - Packers NFC (10-6) - 1st round home game
5 - Giants WC 1 (11-5) - 1st round road game
6 - Lions WC 2 (10-6) - 1st round road game
WC round playoff games were:
#6 Dolphins at #3 Steelers (road team lost)
#5 Raiders at #4 Texans (road team lost)
#6 Lions at #3 Seahawks (road team lost)
#5 Giants at #4 Packers (road team lost)
|
Seeding by best won-loss record would yield:
AFC
1 - Patriots AFC E(14-2) - 1st round bye & home field throughout
2 - Chief AFC W (12-4) - 1st round bye
3 - Raiders WC 1 (12-4) - 1st round home game
4 - Steelers AFC N (11-5) - 1st round home game
5 - Dolphins WC 1 (10-6) - 1st round road game
6 - Texans AFC S (9-7) - 1st round road game
NFC
1 - Cowboys NFC E(13-3) - 1st round bye & home field throughout
2 - Falcons NFC S (11-5) - 1st round bye
3 - Giants WC 1 (11-5) - 1st round home game
4 - Seahawks NFC W (10-5-1) - 1st round home game
5 - Packers NFC N(10-6) - 1st round road game
6 - Lions WC 2 (10-6) - 1st round road game
WC round playoff games would have been:
#6 Texans at #3 Raiders
#5 Dolphins at #4 Steelers
#6 Lions at #3 Giants
#5 Packers at #4 Seahawks
|
The 12-4 Raiders and the 11-5 Giants both end up as #3 seeds with a home game instead of the #5 seed with a road game. The 9-7 Texans and 10-6 Packers still make the playoffs, but are road teams since a wild card team finished with a better record.
Obviously playoff seeding by won-loss in 2017 would have been a huge benefit for the Giants, but I think it also would have made the weeks 16 and 17 more interesting (higher ratings, more TV revenue too for NFL, owners etc. too) and would have led to some better and "more deserving" home teams.
I guess you would reseed after each round as well.
The counterargument has been seeding by won-loss "diminishes the value of winner your division". I believe as long as all division winner automatically qualify for the playoffs regardless of won-loss record, you have preserved a sufficient amount of "division winner value".
Thoughts?
the only way to have the most meaningful games in last two weeks of season
In 2008, the Peyton Manning lead 12-4 Colts (wild card 1 as the Titans won the division at 13-3) had to play at the 8-8 Chargers in San Diego. The Colts lost in overtime.
Actually, my Colts fan friend is the one who has been advocating the "won-loss based seeding" after that 2008 season.
I think I agree with the OP - divisions are meaningless constructs created to try and promote rivalries, the reward like it is in the NBA should only be that you are guaranteed a playoff spot.
Of course, this year was not the year where is made a difference.
The bigger issue to me has always been when a #1 seed has to play a better team in the divisional round than the #2 seed (because the WC1 is often better than the 3rd division winner). WTF?
I agree division winners should make the playoffs, but I can't see any reason why playoff seeding by anything but record makes sense.
If the NFL added more playoff teams, it would be a compelling need to change to this view.
Application for change DENIED!
Application for change DENIED!
correct, so I don't see any changes.
This has happened already a few times.
Winning the division would guarantee of making the playoffs regardless won-loss record, just as it is today; nothing would change. There still is a major advantage in winning a division.
What I'm proposing is winning the division would NOT guarantee a home game. The non home game guarantee would lead to more meaningful football games in week 17 and maybe in weeks 16 and 15.
p.s.-- In 2008, the Patriots went 11-5, but didn't win the division and didn't make the playoffs. How do you think they felt?
Giving the Giants a home game wouldn't make a difference, and I'm that true with most 10-6 or 11-5 teams that this would effect
This year its a #1 vs #2, that proposal wouldn't change anything
p.s.-- In 2008, the Patriots went 11-5, but didn't win the division and didn't make the playoffs. How do you think they felt?
Well Milton you still suck as a poster.
No the goal should be to win as many games as possible. Currently if you win the division with you get a home game and can sit your players the last week of the season (or 2). Thus resulting in meaningless football during the last week, for the most part. If you go by record, there would no way to rest players
p.s.-- In 2008, the Patriots went 11-5, but didn't win the division and didn't make the playoffs. How do you think they felt?
They felt the same way they'd feel if division winners weren't guaranteed home games. Out of the playoffs either way. You failed to make a point here.
Again though, the bigger issue is #1 seeds facing better record teams in round 2 than the 2 seeds because of the opening weekend seeding distortion.
I know the NBA made the change but it's different. They SHOULD get rid of divisions because they are pointless and no one even looks at them anymore. Only thing is you play a guaranteed 4 games a year b teams which are in your division.
I know the NBA made the change but it's different. They SHOULD get rid of divisions because they are pointless and no one even looks at them anymore. Only thing is you play a guaranteed 4 games a year b teams which are in your division.
Given the greater rooting interest / ratings, I'm surprised the NFL hasn't done this.
There should be 1 team that gets a bye for the best record. Then the 3 other division winners should play the 3 wild card teams in the WC round.
If I was an owner I would want to keep it that way