Football Should the NFL stop giving automatic home games to division winners? - Page 5

Deberg_1990 · 01-09-2012, 12:52 PM

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

mnchiefsguy · 01-09-2012, 07:54 PM

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.

ClevelandBronco · 01-09-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefqueen

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.

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

Deberg_1990 · 01-09-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

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.

It's coming. I guarantee it.

Psyko Tek · 01-09-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

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.

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

**MahiMike** · 01-09-2012, 08:22 PM

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

JD10367 · 01-09-2012, 09:07 PM

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.

**hometeam** · 01-09-2012, 09:08 PM

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

Pasta Little Brioni · 01-09-2012, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefqueen

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.

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

JD10367 · 01-09-2012, 09:16 PM

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...

ClevelandBronco · 01-09-2012, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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.

**Shaid** · 01-09-2012, 09:20 PM

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

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

JD10367 · 01-09-2012, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Oh, hell no.

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.,.

ClevelandBronco · 01-09-2012, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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.

JD10367 · 01-09-2012, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

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.

ThaVirus · 01-09-2012, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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?

01-09-2012, 12:52 PM
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $304454	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
Posts: 68,435

01-09-2012, 07:54 PM	#61
mnchiefsguy MVP Join Date: Dec 2003 Casino cash: $1256206	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.
Posts: 10,336

01-09-2012, 08:22 PM	#65
MahiMike He's Mahomie! Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Jax, FL Casino cash: $10023443	Another annual argument? Winning your division means something. Leave it. __________________ 99.9%
Posts: 17,387

01-09-2012, 09:07 PM	#66
JD10367 Cheaterlover* Join Date: May 2009 Location: RI Casino cash: $10010716	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.
Posts: 12,916

01-09-2012, 09:08 PM	#67
hometeam Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Casino cash: $1611956	Alot of Nos, but I say the seeding should be determined by win/loss, only seems logical.
Posts: 10,764

01-09-2012, 09:16 PM	#69
JD10367 Cheaterlover* Join Date: May 2009 Location: RI Casino cash: $10010716	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... Attached Thumbnails
Posts: 12,916

01-09-2012, 09:20 PM	#71
Shaid Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Casino cash: $1625783	No, winning your division should give you a home playoff game. Period. If you have a problem with it, win your division. __________________
Posts: 5,714