Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

playoffs dilemma

Sigma

Sigma

Veteran
lately (actually it's been a while, but protesters have abeen lways kept quiet untill now) there's a lot of talk about changing the playoffs structure

see this, this, this and this.

To be honest I don't like the idea of an expansio, I would much rather having a couple more regular season games than a couple of playoffs games.

And this is because getting to the playoffs should be an achievement, something you have to deserve.

I also don't like the idea of removing divisions from the mix. I like the idea of winning the division to get a playoff berth.

this said, it's obvious some change have to occur. I would like to hear some opinions on the matter.

What I would do is keep the current structure
4 division leaders + 2 wildcard (for each conference)

but seeding it differently:

you order all the teams by the win %, in case of tie division leaders get the lower seed

if the season ended today this would be the playoffs with this method:

AFC said:
  1. NE....9-2
  2. DEN..8-3
  3. CIN..7-3-1
  4. IND..7-4
  5. KC....7-4
  6. SD....7-7
Click to expand...

NFC said:
  1. ARI..9-2
  2. PHI..9-3
  3. GB...8-3
  4. SEA..8-4
  5. DET..8-4
  6. ATL..4-7
Click to expand...

division leaders in bold

A rule could be added to only let teams with a winning record into the postseason, if a division leader finishes 8-8 or less the spot would be given at a third wildcard team (if there is at least one team with a better record)
 
I like the seeding idea. Im not ok with eliminating a division winner. but a mediocre team shouldn't be given home field advantage over a good team.
 
Lucky said:
I like the seeding idea. Im not ok with eliminating a division winner. but a mediocre team shouldn't be given home field advantage over a good team.
Click to expand...

Agree. I think winning your division should give you an automatic berth. You just get to go on the road if you're facing a wild card with a better record.
 
Lucky said:
I like the seeding idea. Im not ok with eliminating a division winner. but a mediocre team shouldn't be given home field advantage over a good team.
Click to expand...

I added the last phrase just because a lot of people are making it a big deal to have a team with 10+ losses in the playoffs and a team with 10+ wins out of the playoffs.

I don't like the idea of removing a division leader either, but you have to consider that in order to do that the whole division would have to end the season 8-8 or less (or 7-9 or less if you allow 8-8 division leaders into the playoffs) that's a pretty bad division, I could see a bad division getting 0 playoffs spots.

What I would not consider is removing a division leader with a positive winning percentage

e.g.:

3 division leaders 13-3
3 teams from those divisions 12-4
remaining division leader 9-7

I wouldn't remove the 4th division leader in order to allow one more 10+ team into the playoffs
 
bah007 said:
Agree. I think winning your division should give you an automatic berth. You just get to go on the road if you're facing a wild card with a better record.
Click to expand...

this brings up another issue,

would you let a wildcard team get a bye?

and.... would you let the first playoff game be between 2 division leaders?

In my previous example, with the seeding I proposed the first 2 NFC games would be

ATL(6)@GB(3) and DET(5)@SEA(4)


or would you rather have this:

DET(6)@GB(3) and ATL(4)@SEA(5)
 
I really don't understand people freaking out about the one time in history that a 7-9 team got into the playoffs (and they beat a wild card in the first round). If it happens this year it would be two. Ever.

We've had a 16-0 team lose the Super Bowl and we've had 9-7 teams win it. The difference between a 7 win team and a 9 win team is a lot smaller than the difference between 9 and undefeated.

You want into the playoffs? Win your division. That's how I feel about it.
 
Sigma said:
this brings up another issue,

would you let a wildcard team get a bye?

and.... would you let the first playoff game be between 2 division leaders?

In my previous example, with the seeding I proposed the first 2 NFC games would be

ATL(6)@GB(3) and DET(5)@SEA(4)


or would you rather have this:

DET(6)@GB(3) and ATL(4)@SEA(5)
Click to expand...

I've always felt that the playoff seeding should be by record. In case of a tie by record, a division winner would get the seed.

So yes, I would have no problem with a wild card team getting a bye. Winning your division should guarantee you a spot in the playoffs. It shouldn't guarantee you a home game.
 
bah007 said:
I've always felt that the playoff seeding should be by record. In case of a tie by record, a division winner would get the seed.

So yes, I would have no problem with a wild card team getting a bye. Winning your division should guarantee you a spot in the playoffs. It shouldn't guarantee you a home game.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I can understand those who make the point that winning the division with a 6-10 record it's not that great achievement and shouldn't be rewarded with a playoff spot.
 
My idea is to get rid of conferences.

Keep the 8 divisions. Winning your division gets you into the playoffs, but does not necessarily guarantee you a home game.

Then you seed all 12 playoff teams - 8 division winners and 4 wildcard teams. And since there is no conferences in this scenario, you would not have a 10-6 team missing the playoffs from one conference while the other conference might put up a 9-7 wildcard team.

And the seeding order determines who has home games, so even teams that wrap up their divisions early still continue to compete until the end of the season so they can get homefield throughout.

And I'd have no problem with adding 2 wildcard slots and taking away a bye-week for two teams. That way the elite teams continue to battle for wins late in the season for that bye week.
 
Double Barrel said:
My idea is to get rid of conferences.

Keep the 8 divisions. Winning your division gets you into the playoffs, but does not necessarily guarantee you a home game.

Then you seed all 12 playoff teams - 8 division winners and 4 wildcard teams. And since there is no conferences in this scenario, you would not have a 10-6 team missing the playoffs from one conference while the other conference might put up a 9-7 wildcard team.

And the seeding order determines who has home games, so even teams that wrap up their divisions early still continue to compete until the end of the season so they can get homefield throughout.

And I'd have no problem with adding 2 wildcard slots and taking away a bye-week for two teams. That way the elite teams continue to battle for wins late in the season for that bye week.
Click to expand...

you know what this implies?

we could have division superbowls

O.O
 
I think we should just leave it the way it is. So what a 7-9 team wins their division. It doesn't mean that a 10-6 team from another division would have won more games if it were in that division..... say the NFC South.

The first goal is to win their division. Doesn't really matter if that means 12-4 or 7-9.

We're 5-6 right now, does anyone want to go play the Saints (4-7)? Think we'd be favorites?

& if it screws the Cowboys out of a play-off spot, so be it.
 
Double Barrel said:
l
And I'd have no problem with adding 2 wildcard slots and taking away a bye-week for two teams. That way the elite teams continue to battle for wins late in the season for that bye week.
Click to expand...

This is my favorite idea for the playoffs. I think it makes the end of the season more interesting as well as the playoffs.
 
The four wildcard teams should also get the first four picks in the draft.... eliminate the suck for xxxxx tendencies.
 
I think the playoff structure is perfect the way they have it. All division winners get home games, the top 2 getting a bye, and a couple of teams playing good football that can't quite catch a juggernaut in their division has a shot with the wild card. It's good, it works, everyone is fighting for position until the end....usually.

Even winning your division at .500 or worse should get you that playoff berth AND home game, otherwise what's the point of winning your division? For those who say so and so team has a better record and misses the playoffs while a .500 team wins a division and gets in, don't forget that the schedules are unbalanced.

The NFC North, where every team is below .500, is playing the AFC North this year where every team is above .500. The Chiefs and Chargers, who are fighting for WC spots with Cincy, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Cleveland, don't have that luxury. They get the tough NFC West. Not to mention the fact that a team like Cleveland is playing a 4th place schedule this season with Oakland and Buffalo on their schedule, where Cincy plays a 1st place schedule with New England and Denver.

If all teams played the same teams then I could see simply going to a seeding deal like the NBA and NHL do. But they don't, so saying this 10-6 team who misses the playoffs is better than the 8-8 division winner, may not be the case at all. One may have had an easier schedule than the other.

And if you expand the playoffs because every so often that 10, 11 win team misses out, then you'd better get used to 9-7, 8-8 teams, or worse, making it on a regular basis, because that's exactly what's going to happen.
 
I wanna see the NFC south team get in at like 5-11 LOL and Knock a 11 win team out of the WC LOL just for the Laughs
 
Sigma said:
9-11 :trophy:
Click to expand...

I realize it's a different sport, and different circumstances, but I'm sure there's a few here who remember a 40-42 Houston Rockets team that played the Boston Celtics in the 1981 NBA finals. Couldn't quite take home the trophy, but they were in it and played for it.

As to the NFL, I would actually like to see seeding by record as opposed to all division winners getting a home game and being seeded ahead of the wild cards, but that doesn't mean I want the method of selecting playoff teams changed. I actually kind of like the division set up , and have no problem with a sub .500 team making the playoffs. Everything's cyclical, and keep in mind that the division that gave you that 7-9 Wild Card game winner following the 2010 season also had a 10-6 team that failed to make the playoffs just last season. I understand those who want simply the 6 best records in each conference, or the 12 best records in the entire league, but as rarely as it happens (a sub-.500 team getting in), I actually think it adds a dynamic to the playoffs that you don't always get with a 9-7 Wildcard vs. a 11-5 division winner (or a 9-7 division winner vs. a 11-5 Wildcard). If it happened more than it does, then I'd be all in favor of changing it, but as it is, I actually kind of like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top