I think it's fine the way it is.

You should be the NFL commish for that idea.

Didn't Carl try to get a rule passed that any team 10-6 or better is automatically entered into the playoffs? Came after 2005 when we went 10-6 and missed the playoffs, iirc.

:hmmm: I thought he was lobbying for an extra wildcard per conference.

...but I can't exactly remember.

either way, it definitely sounds like something Carl would do.

I think the only way to realistically do that would be to do away with divisions ala the setup the NHL currently uses for playoff seeding.

Don't really think it's that big of a deal however.

No. Officials have taken too much shit from the game as it is.

I agree 100%.

Um, no.

I wouldn't have a problem with this.

I still think it's stupid that a league record is used to determine two conference playoffs with preference assigned to division winners, at least according to my logic.

Using the rules as they are today, the playoff field should be the top twelve teams of the league seeded according to standing regardless of conference or division. Because as we saw last year KC "won" the division by virtue of a 10-6 league record with a losing record against the division. Don't care if I get flamed for this as I did earlier this season; shit should be consistent. If you want to assign playoff berths by division for the sake of legacy, fine. But at least stipulate you have a winning league record with a non-losing division record if you want to keep the current system in effect.

But honestly I think it should be a true conference playoff to determine who goes to the Superbowl. In this system you reward teams for actually beating conference opponents and negate the effect of a team or teams from smacking around a weak-ass non-conference division to inflate their record... Kind of like what KC did last year.
Addendum: To back up my thoughts on conference record determining playoffs: If the NFL used the system I've proscribed, KC goes to the playoffs in 2010 as the 6th seed, doesn't go in 2006, but is in 2005 over the Patriots for winning two more conference games.

Wild cards are just that, so I would leave it like it is.

Leave it alone. I hate that people bring this up every year. The NFL has the best system in sports and people want to make it the NBA. Division rivalries matter. There were division games across the board that mattered the last couple weeks because playoff spots were on the line. Otherwise you should do away with divisions and at the last week of the year 75% of the games wont even matter because there's only one final wild card spot on the line.
Posted via Mobile Device

I don't have any issues with the setup now... never have, to be honest with you. They tinker around so much with things now, it's crazy.

In the end... things wash out just about how they're supposed to in the playoffs. If a 12 win team (that played in the SB a year ago) can't beat an 8 win team (after losing their last 3 games) on the road... then, them's the breaks I guess.

Were the Steelers winning @ NE ... I doubt it, and the Broncos very likely will not either. So, in the end, it all holds up.

(Intense angry stare.)

It was brought to light that year. Chiefs have pushed for it for years. Lamar wanted 7 teams in each conference making the playoffs. His reasoning was:
A) Made being #1 seed more important, since they would be the only one getting a bye in each conference
B) Gives the fans 2 extra games on wildcard weekend
C) More revenue through tv and ticket sales