A few years ago I posted a thread arguing that if a division winner finishes 8-8 or worse, it should not necessarily get a home game in the first round and that if the wild card team it plays has a better record, the wild card team should get the home game.
With the very real possibility of the Cowboys or Eagles having an 8-8 record or even a losing record and hosting a 49ers or Seahawks team that could be 4 or 5 games better, the question is again relevant.
The majority response to my question was that I was ridiculous, that division winners should automatically get home games no matter their record, and that's that.
Wondering what the pulse of BBI is today on the issue.
Here are a couple of proposals: (1) if the division winner is 8-8 or worse AND the WC team is 10-6 or better, OR (2) if the WC team is at least three games better than the division winner, no matter their record (say, 12-4 vs 9-7), the division winner loses the home game and has to go on the road.
Thoughts?
Winning your division does mean something - it means you get into the playoffs. It doesn't necessarily mean you deserve a home game.
I agree that the winning the division in the NFL means something.
Quote:
nothing is broken here and nothing needs to be fixed
Winning your division does mean something - it means you get into the playoffs. It doesn't necessarily mean you deserve a home game.
If a team wants a home game, win the division, plain and simple. If they want all home games, then have the best record in the conference.
This is obviously not the case with the NFC East this year. One team will get in, but no one deserves to be in the playoffs.
At .500? Why? Do you say if you win 12 games and are a Wild Card that you get a home game at the expense of another team?
I don't think the system is broken. It rewards teams who beat their division. This is like saying if you reach 11 wins, you automatically get a playoff berth.
On the other hand, when said sub .500 team beats the 11 win team, what does that say for having only 6 teams per conference in the tournament? This makes a justification for having a 16 team (8 per) playoffs then since 'obviously' the difference between a 7 win team and a 10/11 team isn't meaningful...
Just because its the NFC East having it doesn't mean the rules need to be changed.
It's a quirk. The last time it happened was nearly 10 years ago.
Should wild card winners get home games over division winners? If so, then we should have been pounding away at the NFL in 2011 to make sure the Giants played their home playoff game at Atlanta instead of MetLife Stadium.
Oh wait, we didn't do that?
Now, if you want to reseed after the second round, I can work with that. Hypothetically in an NFC Championship Game, should a 13 win WC Seattle team have to be the road team against an 12 win New Orleans team who happened to get a bye? I mean, the Saints would have already have been given their reward with the home game. Should that allow them more home games? That, I can be swayed to change the rules on that.
Also, I like the idea that you can see two .500 teams, who typically otherwise would be out of contention, battling it out because they are in a weak division and still have a chance to right the ship and make a run. Plus the fact the divisional opponents each play each other twice and are more likely to have games scheduled against each other toward the end of the year, it allows for more opportunity for anything to happen, anyone to get hot and suddenly win their division if they run the table, etc. It keeps the regular season as interesting as possible for all 17 weeks.
It also makes the WC games more interesting, because the team with the worse record is home and therefore makes the teams more even. I'm not saying that should always be the case with playoff games (having the best record SHOULD generally be rewarded and give you homefield advantage MOST of the time), but it's cool in this instance I think because it makes you really believe the team that emerges from the shitty division has a decent chance because of the homefield advantage.
So, is it broken? I don't think so. The rules have been this way for years. Every teams knows the rules going in. Therefore they are fair to everybody. I think that is way more fair than the college system that technically leaves it up to a vote on who makes it in. Can there be ways to improve it? Probably but usually once one problem gets fixed it causes another problem. Therefore, I am not up in arms over it. I do think it is weird and I can see it being changed but it doesn't really bother me either.
Overreacting to something that happens seldom is not a good idea.
Wha if a division winner is 9-7 and a wild card is 11-5, should your reasoning apply there as well?
Everyone plays by the same rules, win your division.