Should the NFL stop giving automatic home games to division winners?
 

For the record, ive always hated this since they went to from 3 divisions in each conference to 4.






The Broncos' win means for a second consecutive first round of the playoffs, a division champ with four fewer regular-season wins than its wild-card visitor has pulled a shocking upset. It's sure to re-ignite the debate of whether the NFL should grant an automatic home game to any team winning its division, even if its record is far worse than a wild-card team.

Last year, the 11-5 wild-card qualifying Saints were the No. 5 seed in the NFC, making them play at No. 4 NFC West champion Seattle (7-9) in the first round. The Seahawks won 41-36, despite being a 10-point home underdog.

This year it was Pittsburgh's turn to be heavily favored and yet on the short end of the homefield advantage issue. The Steelers went 12-4 in the regular season, but finished as the AFC's No. 5 seed because Baltimore (12-4) won the AFC North via its two-game series sweep of Pittsburgh. Denver went 8-8, lost its final three games in the regular season and still won the AFC West via tiebreakers over Oakland and San Diego (each went 8-8). Thus, the Broncos got the home game in the first round, and the Steelers hit the road.



Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1izLHMQMn

No.

No. Steelers lost because they played like shit. Don't make excuses for them. Same for the Saints last year.

seems like the current system works

The team with the better record should get home field IMO. Don't know that it made a difference in the game. I believe the Chiefs finally would have won a playoff game had we beat the Raiders. They were just too banged up.

No. Winning your division is important no matter how bad said division is.

Homefield is obviously a huge benefit. But if we're looking for an eventual Champion then that's part of the road to the SuperBowl and if you're the undisputed king then you should be able to win on the road. That said, I don't think the Broncos win that game at Heinz yesterday despite how poorly the Steelers played or how banged up they were. So it's worth discussion at league meetings, clearly.

oh, we also had one of those weird quirks again this year where a team with a better record failed to get in over a division winner with a worse record. The Titans were 9-7, Broncos 8-8.

Not trying to put the Broncos down, just trying to point out flaws in the system i think the NFL needs to change.

Exactly. If you don't win your division you should be happy the league allows a couple of second place teams to play in the tourney to begin with.

No, winning your division should entitle you to a home playoff game.

Absolutely not.

It creates upsets!

Win the division, get a home game.

Remove this and winning the division becomes completely pointless. Why even have divisions?

No

Stupid idea.

I would prefer a straight seeded tournament. That said, there's no overwhelming unfairness in the current system. You can see a situation where, for example, a team is in 2nd in its division with a 12-4 record unfairly gets homefield over a division winner with an 11-5 record.

Why? Because the team with the 11-5 record was in a divison with two other 11-5 teams and an 8-8 team. The 12-4 team had one team that won its division at 13-3, and two teams that were 5-11. It also faced a crappy division in the other conference, so it's schedule was much weaker, blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, not going to get excited about this either way.

I would like to see a rule where 8-8 division winners go on the road if there is a wildcard team with 10 or more wins. Also a 7-9 division winner gets sent to the golf course if there is a 9-7 or better team that would miss the playoffs.

I don't think any team should get a bye in the playoffs.

Another no

that

Remember in baseball when you either won your division or you got the **** out?

The point of wildcard teams is to give some teams a second chance when they failed to win their division during the regular season. It's proven to be a good model when a team like Green Bay last year just needed some time to get their shit together what with all the injuries and rape they sustained during the regular season.

That does NOT mean the wild card team in entitled to the benefits of a division winner. Don't want to play on the road? Then win your division. Had a bunch of injuries and couldn't make up the games? Then suck it up and beat the so-called "shitty" team on the road.

I guess so an 8-8 team can go to the playoffs at all.

Im fine with it how it is.

Denver won their division and Pitt did not.

Teams with losing records(Seattle)should not qualify for post-season.

Also, 8-8 teams in the playoffs are a whopping 5-9.

That's not great at all, but it's a pretty damn good record for teams that supposedly have no chance.

**** no.

There.

I think we should settle this question BCS style. Random teams will play for championships and big payouts. Seems to work for College football.

And no things should not change. Win your division for home field. Don't make the rules different from year to year depending on who is in. Last year we had a home game because we won our division, even though we hosted a team with a better record.

I'm fine with the home field thing. However, I think there should be a rule that division winners get into the playoffs only if there's no team staying home with 2 more wins.

So if you win the division at 8-8 and some other team is 10-6 and misses a playoff spot, they're in as a third wild card and you're out. Same if you're 9-7 and another team is 11-5, and so on.

I like this idea.

I don't like this idea at all. / Carl & Clark

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

Jesus, I had to turn around to make sure you weren't standing there.

Say a really good division fights it out to the death and the winner ends up 8-8. That doesn't necessarily mean the division sucks. Plus there are plenty of crappy teams that make the playoffs at 10-6 (2010 Chiefs).

Also I don't see much reason for having divisions in your scenario. Just AFC/NFC conferences would do.

No. It's perfectly fine the way it is...so they'll probably change it.

There's been some talking of adding a couple more playoff teams to the mix. It will probably happen eventually.

IMO the team with a better record than a playoff team that either is missing the playoffs (Titans) or has to go on the road should have a choice of staying put and retaining their draft picks or giving the playoff team some of their draft picks and assume their spot.

For example, let's Tenn could assume Denver's spot if they gave Denver their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks this year (maybe not that much but a significant COST needs to be involved) OR

In the Pittsburgh scenerio give the Steelers the option of sacrificing the first 2 draft picks to DEN for the right to host the game.

Possible rules under this systems

The option SOLELY rests with the team having the better record getting screwed (for example Denver could not give up its playoff spor to get the picks)

Decisions must be made prior to week 17 games.

what if the division a team plays in is especially tough and because of that they have a less than sparkling record

meh, they should have thought of this when they added two divisions. the second they change it to prevent a 8-8 division winner from playing at home they'll wind up having a 8-8 wildcard playing at home (against a 7-9 division winner prolly) and we'll have to have the discussion All Over Again.

it is what is.

My definition of a tough division is where 2+ teams have 10+ wins and the 3rd place team usually has a pretty good record also (think AFC North). A division that sees its top 3 teams finish 8-8 is not a tough division.

Ooooh. Served.

better than top 3 teams finishing 7-9 or worse like the NFC West last year.

Not disagreeing our division sucked ball This Year though.

What??????????????????

No.

Why should you change it? The Ravens won the Super Bowl playing three on the road...The Chiefs won the Super Bowl playing two on the road. Good teams that play well can win on the road...home teams the under perform lose at home. That's why you play the game...

Yeah I'm wondering if anyone else here has ever gotten the "Intense angry stare" from Rain Man.

No...

It is fair this way...its a practically perfect system...dont **** with it unless you NEED to.

This. It's called winning the division. Did the Steelers win theirs?

It is fine the way it is. I am surprised we still have the bye weeks to be honest, figured the NFL would expand the playoffs to 8 teams per conference and get that extra revenue.

Let me guess. You work for the IRS, right?

It's coming. I guarantee it.

THIS
it's the N ****ing L
no best of series win or go home
no pussy series
1 and done bring it BIG or GTFO

Another annual argument? Winning your division means something. Leave it.

Tennessee probably doesn't feel too great, either. They won one more game than Denver yet didn't even make the playoffs while Denver got to host a home game.

I think a compromise could be reached. Yes, the division has to mean something. On the other hand, with four-team divisions and some perennial powerhouses, it's not fair to some teams. The Patriots, Steelers, and Ravens have been strong AFC teams for a decade; thus, teams like the Bills and Browns are put at a disadvantage. I mean, shit, Cleveland has to play Pittsburgh twice and Baltimore twice; no wonder they suck all the time.

I would suggest they combine to four 8-team divisions instead of 8 4-team divisions. Two for the AFC (north and east, perhaps, vs. south and west) and two for the NFC. Each 8-team division-winner gets a bye (the usual #1 and #2 seed). After those two, seed four wildcards by record, thus meaning, for example, the "AFC Northeast" could send five teams to the playoffs if the four non-division-winners all have the best records. Seed those four as #3 through #6 with the two highest hosting playoff games as the division winners do now.

If they went by that format, just using this year's records, we'd have seen:

AFC "NE"
New England (13-3) (1st seed)
Baltimore (12-4) (3nd seed)
Pittsburgh (12-4) (4th seed)
Cincinnatti (9-7) (5th seed)
New York Jets (8-8)
Miami Dolphins (6-10)
Buffalo Bills (6-10)
Cleveland (4-12)

AFC "SW"
Houston (10-6) (2nd seed)
Tennessee (9-7) (6th seed)
Denver (8-8)
San Diego (8-8)
Oakland (8-8)
Kansas City (7-9)
Jacksonville (5-11)
Indianapolis (2-14)

Now, granted, there's still room for the injustice of weird statistics; in this case, the 10-6 Titans would actually have been the #2 seed and Baltimore, with a better record, would've gotten screwed out of a bye week. But it would've put Tennesee into the playoffs instead of Denver, and given Pitt a deserved home game. It would've set up Tennessee @ Baltimore and Cincinnati @ Pittsburgh.

Likewise, in the NFC, the Lions and Falcons (with a better record) would've seeded higher than the Giants (who got to host a home game against a team with a better record). It would've been:

NFC "NE":
Packers (1)
Lions (4)
Giants (6)

NFC "SW":
Niners (2)
Saints (3)
Falcons (5)

First week would've been Giants @ Saints and Falcons @ Lions.

Alot of Nos, but I say the seeding should be determined by win/loss, only seems logical.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...............NO!!!

And while we're at it, when they re-seed to four 8-team divisions, I say they also shake the whole damn thing up and put the teams more geographical. You might break up the odd long-standing rivalry or two but many of them could be kept and a few new good ones could be created. It's ridiculous that some cities are within driving distance and don't have a two-game yearly rivalry. I'd suggest something along these lines...

Oh, hell no.

No, winning your division should give you a home playoff game. Period.

If you have a problem with it, win your division.

Why not? Just because 78 years ago Dallas used to play Washington because there were only a handful of NFL teams? Even though they're thousands of miles apart? It's stupid. It makes absolutely no sense, for example, that Miami is in the same division as three teams at the other end of the east coast. And they move teams already (they booted Indy out of the AFC East, for example).

Just going off that map I drew up, the big rivalries that would end are Dallas with the NFC East, Miami with the AFC East, Cleveland with the AFC North... but it would create new ones with the Niners and Raiders, Jets and Giants, Bucs and Dolphins, Chiefs and Rams, Steelers and Eagles, Ravens and Redskins, Texans and Cowboys, etc.,.

I bolded the part I object to. I'll worry about your plan when the NFL hires you.

And I responded to the part you bolded, and you responded with stupidity. If you have an argument, back it up, or shut the **** up.

*checks watch*

Oh, shit! Are they serving smackdowns early tonight?

I don't have an argument. Let me know when your plan is about to be adopted. That's when I'll need one.

Nope. If a team doesn't win their division they have no business hosting a first round game.

Oh yeah, KC and StL are within driving distance of their foes on that chart. LMAO

What if a division plays two other shitty divisions that help boost their record?


The system if fine how it is. Eventually the better teams weed out the shit teams.

Personally, I liked the 6 division format much more. Much more likely that these shitty 8-8 teams didn't make it in at all.