Playoff structure

[Nesjan3]

I used to be a fan of at least one team from each division making the playoffs....but having seen how the NFC is shaping up this season I believe it is very sad situation that a team from the NFC south is going to host a playoff game with a record below 500, where as out of the Lions, Packers, Eagles, Cowboys and Seahawks, one of these teams is going to miss the playoffs all more than likely finishing with 10 plus wins. This really needs to be addressed and changed ASAP!

[jvan1973]

Its not gonna change. A division winner will always get in the playoffs

[amfootball]

I have no issue with a divisional winner making the playoffs. I would like to see them reseed though so a 10+ win team is not on the road vs a below .500 team.

[crazycolt1]

I used to be a fan of at least one team from each division making the playoffs....but having seen how the NFC is shaping up this season I believe it is very sad situation that a team from the NFC south is going to host a playoff game with a record below 500, where as out of the Lions, Packers, Eagles, Cowboys and Seahawks, one of these teams is going to miss the playoffs all more than likely finishing with 10 plus wins. This really needs to be addressed and changed ASAP!

I cant agree with any changes. Take the division rivalry out and fans wouldn't be as interested. Not all divisions have been like the Colts and Patriots with them pretty much dominating their divisions.

[BloodyChamp]

Every team in danger of missing out almost deserves it. Look at what a joke the NFC East was for a long time. Now look at the North fresh off an 8-7-1 division champion.

Anyway I don't think they should change a thing, and I don't see how adding more playoff teams like they keep saying will fix this. If every division winner has a winning record, common sense tells you that that's that many games that their division opponents lost. There is a bigger possibility of having more than 1 additional playoff team with a losing record under the would be mew format than there is of having another division winmer with a losing record under this format first.

[-JJ-]

Ya know-  you're never as bad as your record says and you're never as good as it says.

 

Somebody has to lose in a game and that doesn't mean the loser is bad. So if the rest of your division has losing records tough- you still have to compete to win it - even if it ends up 7-9 or whatever.

 

So all these teams with losing records just aren't as bad as you'd like to think. Out of all the college players only a handful make the NFL.  And all that wealth is spread around via the cap. How you handle that cap is another matter.

[rockywoj]

Copy of a letter I sent to the NFL about NFL Playoff Format Change Proposal:

 

"NFL Playoff Format Changes :

 

For a long time I have felt that the NFL playoff format needs some minor tweaking and now, with what is happening in the NFC, the flaw of the current system is once again brought to light.

 

Unfairly, the 5th seed wild card entry will get a seemingly easier game, playing either Carolina or Atlanta, than the 3rd seed will get.  This is where the NFL ought to change their playoff seeding methodology.  

 

I still agree that a division winner should gain automatic entry into the playoffs, but I believe "seeding" should be only based on record.  Ergo, a division winner ought not automatically get priority seeding with a guaranteed home game in the wildcard round. This year as an example, the winner of the Atlanta (6-9) / Carolina (6-8-1) game should be the last seed with their crappy sub .500 record instead of automatically being the 4th seed, even though they are much worse by record as compared to that of the two wild card teams (Seattle or Arizona and Green Bay or Detroit – all of whom currently sit at 11-4 with the two teams that end up being the wildcards having a record of 11-5). 

 

This is where the NFL needs to revamp their playoff format.

 

If it were up to me, in each conference I’d make it so only the 1st seed gets a bye.  The other three division winners in each conference would automatically make the playoffs, PLUS there would be three (3) wildcard teams in each conference instead of the current 2.  

 

All seeding would be based on record, BUT if there is a tie in record between a division winner and a wildcard team, the division winner would get the higher seeding – Ergo, still rewarded for being a division winner.  

 

Ties in record between division winners and ties in record between wild card entries would be broken using the current tie breaking formulas.

 

I believe that in the interest of fairness, such changes to the seeding system is demanded.  Also, by making it so that only the 1st seed gets a bye and in turn adding a 3rd wild card team in each conference to the playoff mix will do nothing but make the playoffs and the dream of a Super Bowl all the more interesting, extending the drama even more than it is in the current system.

 

I strongly urge the NFL to please take a serious look at these playoff modifications as I have herein proposed.   Thank you.

 

Rocky "

[chad72]

I have no issue with a divisional winner making the playoffs. I would like to see them reseed though so a 10+ win team is not on the road vs a below .500 team.

 

If you are going to have divisions, then you are going to have to make the division winner have a home playoff game. A sub .500 team hosting an above .500 team does not happen enough times for a small sample space to skew the whole basis of playoff seeding. So, not giving the division winner a home playoff game might not fly and probably will not fly with most owners. Schedules, divisions, improvements in teams change from one part of the season to another and from one year to another, so a 10-6 division winner in a tough division should not be seeded behind a 11-5 wild card from an easier division.

 

I know it is to make more money but I feel there should be only 1 No.1 seed in each conference. So, I am in favor of the 7 teams in each conference play it out and the #2 seed not getting a bye week. More wild cards, more upsets, IMO.

[amfootball]

If you are going to have divisions, then you are going to have to make the division winner have a home playoff game. A sub .500 team hosting an above .500 team does not happen enough times for a small sample space to skew the whole basis of playoff seeding.

 

I know it is to make more money but I feel there should be only 1 No.1 seed in each conference. So, I am in favor of the 7 teams in each conference play it out and the #2 seed not getting a bye week. More wild cards, more upsets, IMO.

I don't think you have to give a division winner a home game. Making the playoffs is compensation enough for winning the division especially if you are 7-9. I think re-seeding is more fair as the teams with the better records should get the home field.

 

I think they should get rid of the bye altogether but keep it to 12 teams total. Have 1 play 6, 2 vs 5, 3 vs 4.

[chad72]

I don't think you have to give a division winner a home game. Making the playoffs is compensation enough for winning the division especially if you are 7-9. I think re-seeding is more fair as the teams with the better records should get the home field.

 

I think they should get rid of the bye altogether but keep it to 12 teams total. Have 1 play 6, 2 vs 5, 3 vs 4.

 

You are talking absolutes. Strength of schedule has to be taken into account while comparing a 7-9 vs 11-5 team.

 

For example, the Panthers' strength of schedule is better than that of the Detroit Lions. It does not provide the justification to just compare 7-9 to 11-5 blindly without strength of schedule.

 

 

This one says it is updated as of Dec.22, 2014:

 

http://www.predictionmachine.com/Strength-of-Schedule-Rankings

 

I see 5 teams in the bottom 9 in terms of strength of schedule that are playoff teams, including the Colts. If the team is good enough, they will win on the road as a 11-5 team over a 7-9 team that they are supposed to beat.

[amfootball]

You are talking absolutes. Strength of schedule has to be taken into account while comparing a 7-9 vs 11-5 team.

 

For example, the Panthers' strength of schedule is better than that of the Detroit Lions. It does not provide the justification to just compare 7-9 to 11-5 blindly without strength of schedule.

 

 

This one says it is updated as of Dec.22, 2014:

 

http://www.predictionmachine.com/Strength-of-Schedule-Rankings

 

I see 5 teams in the bottom 9 in terms of strength of schedule that are playoff teams, including the Colts. If the team is good enough, they will win on the road as a 11-5 team over a 7-9 team that they are supposed to beat.

Since when does strength of schedule have anything to do with playoff seeding? They don't seed the divisional or wild card teams that way. They don't look at Pitt and say they played a  tougher schedule than SD so they get the nod over them? It is always win/loss.

 

I think there is something fundamentally wrong when a 7-9 team gets to host an 11 win team which will happen this year in the NFC. I don't care if it is something that is rare or not. It needs to be addressed.

[Superman]

You are talking absolutes. Strength of schedule has to be taken into account while comparing a 7-9 vs 11-5 team.

 

For example, the Panthers' strength of schedule is better than that of the Detroit Lions. It does not provide the justification to just compare 7-9 to 11-5 blindly without strength of schedule.

 

 

This one says it is updated as of Dec.22, 2014:

 

http://www.predictionmachine.com/Strength-of-Schedule-Rankings

 

I see 5 teams in the bottom 9 in terms of strength of schedule that are playoff teams, including the Colts. If the team is good enough, they will win on the road as a 11-5 team over a 7-9 team that they are supposed to beat.

 

You can't control strength of schedule. You play who you play. 

 

I think if a team doesn't have 9 wins, and a wild card team has 3 or 4 wins more, the wild card team shouldn't have to go on the road. That's how I felt about the Colts/Chargers in 2008, how I felt about Saints/Seahawks in 2010, and how I feel about whoever wins the NFC South this year. If you can't do better than .500, and another team has 11 or 12 wins, you shouldn't get a home playoff game.

 

This, of course, will never change. That's millions for the owners every time they play at home. And everyone knows that, one day, they'll get a home playoff game against a team that has a better record than them. That's why I only think it should change if there's a huge discrepancy between the two teams, but again, no one is giving away any money in the NFL...

[chad72]

You can't control strength of schedule. You play who you play. 

 

I think if a team doesn't have 9 wins, and a wild card team has 3 or 4 wins more, the wild card team shouldn't have to go on the road. That's how I felt about the Colts/Chargers in 2008, how I felt about Saints/Seahawks in 2010, and how I feel about whoever wins the NFC South this year. If you can't do better than .500, and another team has 11 or 12 wins, you shouldn't get a home playoff game.

 

This, of course, will never change. That's millions for the owners every time they play at home. And everyone knows that, one day, they'll get a home playoff game against a team that has a better record than them. That's why I only think it should change if there's a huge discrepancy between the two teams, but again, no one is giving away any money in the NFL...

 

If the basis of a 12 win team being better than an 8 win team is true, then the 12 win team should be able to win on the road. They obviously won enough on the road to win 12 games in the first place.

 

Unless we bring in head-to-head into the picture, in which case the Colts won vs the Chargers in 2008 in the regular season, that would be the only case where I would agree to do the flipping of home field.

[Valpo2004]

If the basis of a 12 win team being better than an 8 win team is true, then the 12 win team should be able to win on the road. They obviously won enough on the road to win 12 games in the first place.

 

Unless we bring in head-to-head into the picture, in which case the Colts won vs the Chargers in 2008 in the regular season, that would be the only case where I would agree to do the flipping of home field.

 

The idea is to reward better teams with better seeding.  That way it keeps regular season games interesting as you don't get locked into a spot.  

 

Doing playoff seeding based on record alone would make more week 17 games interesting.  For example the Colts likely wouldn't be locked into the #4 seed and would have something to play for against the Titans.

 

Besides saying that the 12 win team should be able to win anyways would be the same as saying the Patriots should be able to win anyways so lets strip them of all the advantages that they built up.  Heck why don't we give the first round bye to the lowest seeded team.  The point is to win as many games as possible not only to make the playoffs but to give yourself the best possible advantage to getting to the championship game.

 

I agree with the re-seeding arrangement.  I'm neutral on adding a 3rd wildcard team.  

[MJD42]

If the basis of a 12 win team being better than an 8 win team is true, then the 12 win team should be able to win on the road. They obviously won enough on the road to win 12 games in the first place.

 

Unless we bring in head-to-head into the picture, in which case the Colts won vs the Chargers in 2008 in the regular season, that would be the only case where I would agree to do the flipping of home field.

The issue isn't about what a team should be able to do but how a team should be rewarded for its performance in the regular season. Home field is a huge advantage in the NFL given it is a one game scenario. Lose and you are out. For a team that has not even won 8 games to get home field over an 11 win team is terrible in terms of a competitive environment. Reseeding is the easiest way to solve it.

[Superman]

If the basis of a 12 win team being better than an 8 win team is true, then the 12 win team should be able to win on the road. They obviously won enough on the road to win 12 games in the first place.

 

Unless we bring in head-to-head into the picture, in which case the Colts won vs the Chargers in 2008 in the regular season, that would be the only case where I would agree to do the flipping of home field.

 

As has been mentioned, the bolded is beside the point. If you can't finish about .500, you don't really deserve a home playoff game, especially when the team coming to play you is 3 or 4 games better than you. And I agree, if there was a head to head, it's even more ridiculous. If you said the team with the worse record gets the home game if they beat the other team in a head to head, then I could live with that.

[oldunclemark]

I cant.

If you cannot win your division you do not deserve to be at home in the quarterfinals.

Leave it the way it is..

As long as teams play division rivals twice they should be rewarded for winning the division.

Keep in mind...if you give runner up teams home game against division winners, it takes away one incentive to try to win the division.

You might see 3rd place teams teams putting out less than 100% effort in the final week because they're going to be at home against a .500 division champ anyway

[-JJ-]

"Oh leave it alone Fritz"

 

 

SW- from what movie?

[amfootball]

I cant.

If you cannot win your division you do not deserve to be at home in the quarterfinals.

Leave it the way it is..

As long as teams play division rivals twice they should be rewarded for winning the division.

Keep in mind...if you give runner up teams home game against division winners, it takes away one incentive to try to win the division.

You might see 3rd place teams teams putting out less than 100% effort in the final week because they're going to be at home against a .500 division champ anyway

The idea is the division winner still gets in the playoffs but does not get the home field over a WC team if the record is worse. So it would not make teams play less hard for the division because a playoff berth would still be at stake.

[chad72]

The idea is to reward better teams with better seeding.  That way it keeps regular season games interesting as you don't get locked into a spot.  

 

Doing playoff seeding based on record alone would make more week 17 games interesting.  For example the Colts likely wouldn't be locked into the #4 seed and would have something to play for against the Titans.

 

Besides saying that the 12 win team should be able to win anyways would be the same as saying the Patriots should be able to win anyways so lets strip them of all the advantages that they built up.  Heck why don't we give the first round bye to the lowest seeded team.  The point is to win as many games as possible not only to make the playoffs but to give yourself the best possible advantage to getting to the championship game.

 

I agree with the re-seeding arrangement.  I'm neutral on adding a 3rd wildcard team.  

 

We are only talking about resolving home vs away for division winners with less than .500 record vs non-division winners.

[Valpo2004]

We are only talking about resolving home vs away for division winners with less than .500 record vs non-division winners.

 

Still I would prefer to give the team with the better record the home game even if they didn't win their division.  They deserve it more.

[oldunclemark]

The idea is the division winner still gets in the playoffs but does not get the home field over a WC team if the record is worse. So it would not make teams play less hard for the division because a playoff berth would still be at stake.

No. No. No. No (and again) No.

That takes away the incentive to win the division...

Lets say I was Detroit this week and I was locked into the 3rd seed if I beat GB? (I know that is not the case. It could have been. Its not)...and I was going to get home field against Atlanta or Carolina..even if I was the WC.

..why then do I need to play everybody against GB this Sunday? I'm not getting a bye anyway. I need to rest 10 starters. I have a game nbext Sunday. Why push to be the '3' seed and host Arizona; if the '5'; seed gets home field over the '4' and I'd rather

play Atlanta or Carolina anyway.

You open that door by jacking around with the playoffs. See what I mean?

Resist knee jerk change. You play division rivals twice. Win the division or hit the road.

[oldunclemark]

We are only talking about resolving home vs away for division winners with less than .500 record vs non-division winners.

This Sunday's Carolina-Atlanta winner will be just the 2nd team in history to win a division with a less than .500 record.

You open the door for major competitive issues by giving a non division winner home field over a division winner. You make a division

winnwer the defacto 5th seed and that's not fair to a team that won big gamesover its main rivals..the ones they meet twice

Why do I need to push to win my division in the final week if 2nd place can get me a home game anyway.?

This would be a change that we would regret in future seasons.

[amfootball]

No. No. No. No (and again) No.

That takes away the incentive to win the division...

Lets say I was Detroit this week and I was locked into the 3rd seed if I beat GB? (I know that is not the case. It could have been. Its not)...and I was going to get home field against Atlanta or Carolina..even if I was the WC.

..why then do I need to play everybody against GB this Sunday? I'm not getting a bye anyway. I need to rest 10 starters. I have a game nbext Sunday. Why push to be the '3' seed and host Arizona; if the '5'; seed gets home field over the '4' and I'd rather

play Atlanta or Carolina anyway.

You open that door by jacking around with the playoffs. See what I mean?

Resist knee jerk change. You play division rivals twice. Win the division or hit the road.

This scenario already exists. The Colts put forth a less than stellar effort vs Dallas Sunday. Why? They are locked into the 4th seed. You will see the same them from the Pats this Sunday as they are locked into the 1. It still does not change the fact that an 11 win team should not have to play on the road vs a 7 win team. Winning the division should not mean automatic home field. Playoff spot yes. But not home game. If teams decide  they want to mess around with the system there is not much you can do. Indy decided to take the last two games off in 2009 and Cincy took off the last game which allowed the Jets into the playoffs. It  will always be imperfect and teams will always manipulate the system but you can't let a 7 win team host an 11 win team IMO.

[MJD42]

Reseeding is the best way to go. Having a better record than another team should count for something.

[oldunclemark]

This scenario already exists. The Colts put forth a less than stellar effort vs Dallas Sunday. Why? They are locked into the 4th seed. You will see the same them from the Pats this Sunday as they are locked into the 1. It still does not change the fact that an 11 win team should not have to play on the road vs a 7 win team. Winning the division should not mean automatic home field. Playoff spot yes. But not home game. If teams decide  they want to mess around with the system there is not much you can do. Indy decided to take the last two games off in 2009 and Cincy took off the last game which allowed the Jets into the playoffs. It  will always be imperfect and teams will always manipulate the system but you can't let a 7 win team host an 11 win team IMO.

That's not the same thing...a.m,.

I'm not referencing being 'locked in'..that's always going to happen.

Its not about sitting players to rest. Its about sitting players so you will lose...tanking...

Let me try again. You are tied for 1st place going into the final week.

A win get you the '3' seed and a home game against an 11-5 6th seed.......

A loss drops you to the '5' seed..a wild card....but you play a weak division champ..an 8-8..

...why win and host an 11-5 if you can be the '5' seed and play an 8-8 division champ and still get the home game? See?

The only reason to go all out to win would be if a loss put you n the road.

That's almost the case Sunday in Detroit (11-4) at GB (11-4)...

If Detroit could lose, be the '5' and host Atlanta (6-9)...why would they want to win, be the '3' and host Arizona (11-4)??

They'll be on the road the next week in either case.

Right now, you cannot intentionally lose in the final week against the 1st place team in your division and get a first round home game.

.......against a .500 team..as a reward .

Do you really want to create a scenario where you can?

[amfootball]

That's not the same thing...a.m,.

I'm not referencing being 'locked in'..that's always going to happen.

Its not about sitting players to rest. Its about sitting players so you will lose...tanking...

Let me try again. You are tied for 1st place going into the final week.

A win get you the '3' seed and a home game against an 11-5 6th seed.......

A loss drops you to the '5' seed..a wild card....but you play a weak division champ..an 8-8..

...why win and host an 11-5 if you can be the '5' seed and play an 8-8 division champ and still get the home game? See?

The only reason to go all out to win would be if a loss put you n the road.

That's almost the case Sunday in Detroit (11-4) at GB (11-4)...

If Detroit could lose, be the '5' and host Atlanta (6-9)...why would they want to win, be the '3' and host Arizona (11-4)??

They'll be on the road the next week in either case.

Right now, you cannot intentionally lose in the final week against the 1st place team in your division and get a first round home game.

.......against a .500 team..as a reward .

Do you really want to create a scenario where you can?

I see what you are saying but these scenarios happen now anyways with teams losing to play a favorable match up. The Pats did it one year in the last game and lost so they would not have to face Pitt in the WC round. They got Jax instead and won. I think manipulation of the system is not something that can be fixed no matter what you do. Teams will take advantage of what they think is their best match up even it means losing intentionally. That is what the Bengals did in 2009. They wanted the Jets in the WC round which is why they lost to them the final game of the season.

 

I still think the point stands. The team with the better record should get the home game. To reward a 7-9 team with a home game vs a WC team with 11 wins just isn't right.

[oldunclemark]

No, you still don't see the door you're opening.

In the scenrauio you recall..did losing get the Patriots a HOME GAME..?

You cant lose a last week showdown for the division title and get rewarded with a home game (the key) against a lesser team.

That scenario simply does not exist now.

I don't think its any big deal for an 11-5 team that cannot win its division to go on the road against a 7-9.

If 11-5 loses to 7-9....I can live with that.

...But we cant allow a scenario where a team can throw a game in a first place final week showdown to duck an 11-5 team so they can

host a 7-9 team...

.....that's just all the way wrong

[BullsColtsFan1]

I have no issue with a divisional winner making the playoffs. I would like to see them reseed though so a 10+ win team is not on the road vs a below .500 team.

Isn't that how the NBA does it or use to do it?  For example divisional leader would get the 4 seed but if the 5 seed had a better record the 5 got homecourt?  I believe that's how it use to be.  Why not let the Falcons/Panthers be the 4 seed but have them travel to who ever is the 5 if the 5 has a better record?

[amfootball]

Isn't that how the NBA does it or use to do it?  For example divisional leader would get the 4 seed but if the 5 seed had a better record the 5 got homecourt?  I believe that's how it use to be.  Why not let the Falcons/Panthers be the 4 seed but have them travel to who ever is the 5 if the 5 has a better record?

Yes, I believe the NBA does reseed. I am all for it in the NFL.

[chad72]

The main positive about the Falcons Panthers game is that the loser, whilst missing the playoffs, gains a huge bump in draft position

[oldunclemark]

Yes, I believe the NBA does reseed. I am all for it in the NFL.

True but the NBA also plays multiple game series so home court doesnt mean as much as home field does in the NFL.

All playoff teams in the NBA get multiple home games

I don't want NFL teams intentionally losing big showdown week 17 matchups and

getting home games and lesser opponents for throwing that last game.

It would be ugly and bad for the sport