Sub-.500 division winner getting a home playoff game?

Seattle beat the shit out them. I think that was the game with the insane Marshawn Lynch TD run.

.

nothing is broken here and nothing needs to be fixed

In comment 14714885 GiantsFan84 said:

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.

won the division at 7-8-1 and hosted the 11-5 Cardinals and beat the crap out of them

I agree and I’d take it one step further. Seedings should be based on regular season record only. It would lead to more interesting and meaningful games for week 17 and maybe week 16 if a wild card team could gain a better seed from having a better record than a division winner.

The home team ended up getting rolled, but that hasn't been the case. Like the posters said above with the Seahawks and Panthers, they went on to win a playoff game.

I agree that the winning the division in the NFL means something.

if they expand the playoff field. Dallas will most likely get the division and host a team who will beat them.. If Philly gets in the game will be an absolute blowout.

In comment 14714888 lawguy9801 said:

Quote:

In comment 14714885 GiantsFan84 said: 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.

I could see them doing a little bit of a shake up in the format.

Is in this kind of a case where the division didn’t have a winner over .500

But you play 6 games against your division and could wind up with a worse record by playing in a competitive one, which is why they still get the by.

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.

you draw the line??

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 one hand, if your entire division is terrible, why do you deserve any of them in a limited playoffs?

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...

it happens.

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.

Sure, that's a bad record, but is an 8-8 or 9-7 division deserving of hosting a wildcard team with a better record, while a 7-9 div winner is not?. The NFC West runner-up will have had a more impressive regular season than the NFC East winner, regardless of whether that division winner is below, at, or above .500. I don't feel strongly about the seeding system one way or the other, but I don't think .500 should be some disqualifier for a division winner as a host. Either seed by record or don't.

It makes the in-division games/rivalries more pivotal and intriguing. I like the idea that you are rewarded for winning your division. Divisional opponents are more difficult because they know you so well and the hate you, hence why no matter how much a difference there is between two divisional opponents' overall record, the games are always closer because of the what I just mentioned about familiarity and hatred. Winning your division is a challenge unto itself no matter how good or bad your record is.

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.

Not a fan of teams in weak divisions getting in over those with better records in stronger divisions. I prefer models like the pre-2013 NHL and NBA, where conference ranking is more important than division ranking.

if you can't muster at least a .500 record you shouldn't get an automatic playoff birth for winning your division.

and nothing will.

in the big dance but not necessarily give you a home game. Look at the Pats. They benefit for like a decade or more of having such shitty opponents in their division. Does winning 11 games while beating up 3 shitty teams and getting you 6 wins in your division make you a better team than a team that really had to fight it out in their division to win? I am sure you can find arguments for both sides there.

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.

A home play off game.

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.