Idiocy. Pure Idiocy.

[el capitan]

I have absolutely no problem with a division winner with a losing record making the playoffs over a 10 or 11 win team but the playoff seeding should be based on record. The reward for winning your division is being in the playoffs, the reward for having won more games should be you get to play at home.
I think having the "winner" of the NFC South in the divisional round would devalue the playoffs, unless of course they'd earned their place there by beating a team with a better record on the road.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

As for taking away home games from division winners, I'm sure they'll "talk about it" at the owners meetings and then they'll vote it down AGAIN because it rarely happens. I do think they'll increase the number of playoff teams to 7 per conference because they are greedy and want to extract as much money out of their product as they possibly can. Doing so will get one more deserving team into the playoffs, but will still put an emphasis on winning the division. It will also make being the one seed a little more enticing which means the top teams will fight harder even if they have their division in hand.

I believe you're correct on both accounts though I am against adding more teams to the playoffs. I am also against changing the format as it exists with division winners getting home games.

 

[endzorn]

If you want a home game then win your division and don't worry about how other teams won theirs.

 

[Sarlacc83]

There are 16 teams in each conference. If you want there to be a seeded tournament, then you have a 15 game season with each team playing every other one.

 

[Sterling Archer]

I think the current system is perfect with division winners getting a home game and seeding within that system by W-L records. It seems inevitable at this point that they will be adding another WC team to each conference, so I'm pretty much resigned to that at this point. I think it will be fine if they leave everything else as is and only the #1 seed gets a bye.

I really hate the idea of purely seeding by record and ignoring division champs. People point to the 7-9 Seahawks or the 11-5 Patriots missing the playoffs but the reality was that if the Saints were so good they should have won (injuries decimated their season and they weren't a good team at that point) and the Patriots played an extremely weak schedule to get to 11 wins that year. W-L record alone will not give you the automatic "best" teams unless you want to start looking at SOS or some other statistics, otherwise it's disingenuous to think that gives you the best matchups. It would also greatly devalue the 6 division games each season and at that point you might as well just get rid of divisions altogether.

 

[kearly]

The NFL has by far the best and most meaningful regular season in sports. Every game is 1/16th of a season, about 10 times as meaningful as a regular season MLB game. The postseason system may have flaws, but those flaws are a necessary evil to maintain a great regular season system.

If the NFL changed to a system were the 12 best teams always got in and were seeded regardless of division standing, then division races would become almost completely meaningless. There would be no showdown games, a Hawks-49ers game would have little more impact than a Hawks-Bears game. And though the NFC South is a mess, it's kept three different fanbases in the hunt for meaningful football games in December. That's a good thing.

There are 256 regular season games compared to just 11 postseason games. If anything, the system should be weighed towards making the 256 games as good a product as possible. Which I think the current system does a spectacular job of.

Playoff expansion is another solution, but I personally think the current system is best, because it makes a bye week feel relatively attainable.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I have absolutely no problem with a division winner with a losing record making the playoffs over a 10 or 11 win team but the playoff seeding should be based on record. The reward for winning your division is being in the playoffs, the reward for having won more games should be you get to play at home.
I think having the "winner" of the NFC South in the divisional round would devalue the playoffs, unless of course they'd earned their place there by beating a team with a better record on the road.

This!

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I have absolutely no problem with a division winner with a losing record making the playoffs over a 10 or 11 win team but the playoff seeding should be based on record. The reward for winning your division is being in the playoffs, the reward for having won more games should be you get to play at home.
I think having the "winner" of the NFC South in the divisional round would devalue the playoffs, unless of course they'd earned their place there by beating a team with a better record on the road.

That is what they are going to do in addition to adding a seventh team to the mix. So it's the best of both worlds in my opinion.

 

[HawkGA]

I What is really stupid though, is that in his discussion of a crappy team from the NFC South getting in the playoffs, he talks about how it happens at the expense of the Kansas City Chiefs or San Diego Chargers.

Okay, apparently people missed the main reason I put up this post. It's this part. The NFC South team wouldn't be getting in at the expense of Kansas City or San Diego since they aren't in the same conference.

 

[RunTheBall]

I have absolutely no problem with a division winner with a losing record making the playoffs over a 10 or 11 win team but the playoff seeding should be based on record. The reward for winning your division is being in the playoffs, the reward for having won more games should be you get to play at home.
I think having the "winner" of the NFC South in the divisional round would devalue the playoffs, unless of course they'd earned their place there by beating a team with a better record on the road.

That is what they are going to do in addition to adding a seventh team to the mix. So it's the best of both worlds in my opinion.

No it's not the best, it dilutes the playoffs even more. 12 teams making it is the perfect number. The NBA is a complete joke because like 60% of the teams make it. The regular season is meaningless.

 

[pehawk]

I don't understand the notion more teams equals worse playoffs. More football is always more "gooder". The dilution talk is just people bringing phony noise, fronting as NFL aficionado's.

Having the Chargers and Eagles in the playoffs wouldn't ruin a thing.

 

[Scottemojo]

I don't understand the notion more teams equals worse playoffs. More football is always more "gooder". The dilution talk is just people bringing phony noise, fronting as NFL aficionado's.

Having the Chargers and Eagles in the playoffs wouldn't ruin a thing.

Seattle knocking off the saints was good ball. And essentially no different than a 7th team being in the playoffs.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I have absolutely no problem with a division winner with a losing record making the playoffs over a 10 or 11 win team but the playoff seeding should be based on record. The reward for winning your division is being in the playoffs, the reward for having won more games should be you get to play at home.
I think having the "winner" of the NFC South in the divisional round would devalue the playoffs, unless of course they'd earned their place there by beating a team with a better record on the road.

That is what they are going to do in addition to adding a seventh team to the mix. So it's the best of both worlds in my opinion.

No it's not the best, it dilutes the playoffs even more. 12 teams making it is the perfect number. The NBA is a complete joke because like 60% of the teams make it. The regular season is meaningless.

No the NBA is meaningless because the product sucks which has exactly nothing to do with either the number of teams in the playoffs or it's format. It's boring because they don't officiate the game correctly.

 

[RunTheBall]

I have absolutely no problem with a division winner with a losing record making the playoffs over a 10 or 11 win team but the playoff seeding should be based on record. The reward for winning your division is being in the playoffs, the reward for having won more games should be you get to play at home.
I think having the "winner" of the NFC South in the divisional round would devalue the playoffs, unless of course they'd earned their place there by beating a team with a better record on the road.

That is what they are going to do in addition to adding a seventh team to the mix. So it's the best of both worlds in my opinion.

No it's not the best, it dilutes the playoffs even more. 12 teams making it is the perfect number. The NBA is a complete joke because like 60% of the teams make it. The regular season is meaningless.

No the NBA is meaningless because the product sucks which has exactly nothing to do with either the number of teams in the playoffs or it's format. It's boring because they don't officiate the game correctly.

What is the purpose of having 16 teams in the NBA playoffs when seeds 5-8 don't have a chance at winning the NBA Title?

 

[pehawk]

The NBA sucks? Lemme guess; "selfish players acting all thug"? NBA can have 16 teams because it's a different sport.

The 2nd best sports events of the year, is March Madness. Why is that? Because every team controls it's own destiny. That's what's cool about the NFL division crowns.

All of this phony rhetoric to make it appear one's taste and eye for football is more refined than others.

 

[RunTheBall]

Since the NFL Switched to a 12-team playoff format in 1990 only three #5 or #6 seeds have won the Super Bowl (2005 Steelers*, 2007 Giants, 2010 Packers), so a 1/8 chance (3 of 24 years). I guess that's way better odds than the NBA, but still it makes no sense to dilute the playoffs with additional 8-8 or 7-9 teams with a dumb expansion to 14 or 16 teams. The system is fine as it is.

 

[RunTheBall]

The NBA sucks? Lemme guess; "selfish players acting all thug"? NBA can have 16 teams because it's a different sport.

The 2nd best sports events of the year, is March Madness. Why is that? Because every team controls it's own destiny. That's what's cool about the NFL division crowns.

All of this phony rhetoric to make it appear one's taste and eye for football is more refined than others.

NBA can do anything they want, it doesn't change the fact that it is far less popular than it was in the 90s when there was less flopping and better players. NBA Playoffs really should have 6 or 8 teams in it at the most, there is no need to waste time with terrible teams making it in.

 

[pehawk]

Lief, an 8 seed Knicks team made finals one year, IIRC.

XOXO

Allan Houston

 

[RunTheBall]

Lief, an 8 seed Knicks team made finals one year, IIRC.

XOXO

Allan Houston

They didn't win anything though did they?

67 of the 69 NBA Champions have been either a #1, #2 or #3 seed. NBA has no parity, AT ALL.

 

[Scottemojo]

Lief, an 8 seed Knicks team made finals one year, IIRC.

XOXO

Allan Houston

They didn't win anything though did they?

67 of the 69 NBA Champions have been either a #1, #2 or #3 seed. NBA has no parity, AT ALL.

By design. The NBA isn't won by top seeds because of how many teams make the playoffs, it is won by top seeds because of long playoff series.

Change that to one and done like March Madness, and results would be wild.