Should the Playoff format change (used to be the Dallas- Bears TNF thread)

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 minute ago, Nabbs4u said:

I'm not the one arguing that a 13-3 type team can't do it, just saying. I'm curious if the roles were reversed would you be screaming from the roof tops for the Packers NOT HAVING a game at Lambaugh with such passion?

If you say Yes, I call BS!🍺

Lambaugh. Gonna use that now. 

[DannyB]

6 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

But not everyone played the same schedule or same opponents. That itself already isn't fair. If you start to make record seeding a stronger element than it already is, then that is a rhetoric that would gain more traction. It's only fair.

No it wouldn't. Nobody complains about a division winner with a better record getting a bye week over a division winner with a worse record.

Hell, the Patriots have made a dynasty out of devouring their weak division and only needing to win two home games.

[DannyB]

3 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

I'm not the one arguing that a 13-3 type team can't do it, just saying. I'm curious if the roles were reversed would you be screaming from the roof tops for the Packers NOT HAVING a game at Lambaugh with such passion?

If you say Yes, I call BS!🍺

But that easily could be the situation my team is facing this year. Packers would have home field against the Niners if things break a certain way, and that's bananas. Niners will probably have the better record, not to mention they PASTED us during the season. Now, I would assume they'd come in and win either way, but they should still be rewarded with the home game.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, DannyB said:

No it wouldn't. Nobody complains about a division winner with a better record getting a bye week over a division winner with a worse record.

Hell, the Patriots have made a dynasty out of devouring their weak division and only needing to win two home games.

That's because instead they're now complaining about seeding by record first for HFA irrespective of winning a division. If you start to make things more "fair" because of white noise, another small contingent is just going find something new to complain because they still don't feel the system is fair enough.

[Nabbs4u]

49 minutes ago, DannyB said:

But that easily could be the situation my team is facing this year. Packers would have home field against the Niners if things break a certain way, and that's bananas. Niners will probably have the better record, not to mention they PASTED us during the season. Now, I would assume they'd come in and win either way, but they should still be rewarded with the home game.

And you'd be fine as say a 12-4 Division winner traveling to the 13-3 49ers if that scenario occured?

Come on now??

[DannyB]

56 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

That's because instead they're now complaining about seeding by record first for HFA irrespective of winning a division. If you start to make things more "fair" because of white noise, another small contingent is just going find something new to complain because they still don't feel the system is fair enough.

That makes zero sense, and goes directly against the principle that those advocating for reseeding are basing that on. Why would I, right now, argue that it should go by record, and then if it changes, then switch to arguing it SHOULDN'T be by record?

Seed. By. Record.

[DannyB]

40 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

And you'd be fine as say a 12-4 Division winner traveling to the 13-3 49ers if that scenario occured?

Come on now??

We lost more games, they won more games. Of course I'd prefer a home game, but I don't want some (semi) arbitrary grouping of teams to make that happen based on a standings technicality rather than on merit. You know, by winning more games.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

31 minutes ago, DannyB said:

That makes zero sense, and goes directly against the principle that those advocating for reseeding are basing that on. Why would I, right now, argue that it should go by record, and then if it changes, then switch to arguing it SHOULDN'T be by record?

Seed. By. Record.

I said another contingent of people. Not the same contingent. 

Edited December 7, 2019 by PapaShogun

[DannyB]

16 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

I said another contingent of people. Not the same contingent. 

So no changes should be made to any sports league because some people might not like it. Cool.

[Dan_Bali]

How ‘bout them cowboys 

 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

11 minutes ago, DannyB said:

So no changes should be made to any sports league because some people might not like it. Cool.

Wrong. My point was that some people will still never be happy regardless of changes you make, and you need to draw the line somewhere. 

Just like I am drawing the line with this argument.

Edited December 7, 2019 by PapaShogun

[N4L]

1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said:

And you'd be fine as say a 12-4 Division winner traveling to the 13-3 49ers if that scenario occured?

Come on now??

That is precisely what he is advocating for, the team with the record getting a home game over teams with a worse record. 

Especially when you consider that the 1 game difference between the two teams is literally a head to head matchup, I can safely say that @DannyB would approve of this scenario.

Divisional games are 37.5% of the games that get played. They are already important enough from that fact alone without determining home/away in the playoffs. Giving teams with bad divisions an additional boost beyond the nearly 40% of their schedule that is easy, is too much of a reward for something completely random. 

Playoff seeding should be determined by merit not by being lucky enough to be grouped with inferior teams. The record of good teams in bad divisions already get boosted above what they would be without the benefit of easy wins inside their division. I think this is the point that a lot of people who are advocating no changes arent taking into consideration. 

No one is saying divisional winners shouldn't make it. Just that seeds should be based on record. If they wanted to make a rule saying if you don't win your division you don't get a bye, that's fine, but it shouldn't automatically relegate you to go on the road against a team with a worse record 

The NFL isnt going to change it because they feel it adds extra drama to divisional games in the regular season. So, fans and teams will just have to deal with it but it sucks as a fan of a team who wins 12+ games to not get rewarded with a home playoff game. I'm a season ticket holder and I've been to hundreds of games but I can count the amount of playoff games I've gone to on one hand. Yet, the fans in Dallas and Philly who are constantly b*tching about their teams right now deserve one? Let's not forget that this is also supposed to be about the fans. 

You are what your record says you are and the teams with better records should get home games  

I'm not even talking about this season either with regards to 12 wins referenced earlier this post, I'm talking about 2013 which was the last year at candlestick and the niners won 12 games and didn't get another home playoff game in that building

[DannyB]

59 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Wrong. My point was that some people will still never be happy regardless of changes you make, and you need to draw the line somewhere. 

Just like I am drawing the line with this argument.

Guess we have different lines. I'm glad mine makes sense though.

[Jakuvious]

10 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

Shouldn't be, well for most.

So since most are obsessed with the NFCE right now and there potential for a sub .500 type Record to win the East. Can someone tell me how many times in the past 30 years with this current format a 7-9 to 8-8 winner has occurred? Honestly curious?

Now tell me how many 9-7+ Division Winners winners would of had to travel to say a 10-6-12-4 type 2nd place WC opponent and tell me that 1-2 game difference is fair? Was there any 11-5 Tie breakers in favor of a 2nd place team over a Division  Winner? 10-6? Or is this only to apply with the rare anomaly of a 8-8/worse type Winner?

You are opening Pandora's Box if you are trying to seed by records and  Division winners be damned.

I posted earlier, 8 times in the last 10 years, a division winner at 9-7 or worse has hosted a wildcard team with a better record. It's common.

If you want the line drawn for a different record or timeframe, you're welcome to check yourself.

[SkippyX]

I broke down the joke that was the 2010 Saints earlier but you should apply strength of victory to all these so-called deserving teams.

• The Saints won 11 games against teams that were 75-101 .426
  • They did not need a special rule. They just needed to beat a bad team on the road.

 

Lets use the Vikings as a possible example this year. SoV 32-64-1 .335

• Do they need a special rule?

How about the 49ers?  SoV 48-70-2  .408

• Change the rules to give that team home game?

Sure it gets closer to unfair for Seattle 54-65-1 .454 but they can beat SF and not have to worry about it.

• Their SoV also gets worse if they lose to SF and then beat up Arizona and Carolina

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by SkippyX