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

[Art_Vandalay]

On 12/6/2019 at 8:48 PM, Nabbs4u said:

Once again its probably occured 3x in 30 years and I know for a fact Seattle and Carolina beat their opponents. It's the exception, not the norm. Would it be any less absurd if say the NFCE SOS forced a 10-6 type record and for arguements sake say the 13-3 team had a cupcake schedule making their road to that record a whole lot easier to achieve? Is it still absurd?

If SF/Sea is clearly the better team, winning on the road shouldn't be an issues.  Step the ....up, or go back home! Simple as that.

 

It's gonna happen this year.
It happened last year (Seattle beat Dallas h2h)
It happened in 2016 (Miami had a better record than Houston)
It happened in 2015 (Pitt had a better record than Houston, GB had a better record than Was)
It happened in 2014 (Arizona had a better record than Carolina)
It happened in in 2013 (Saints had a better record than the Packers)

I could go on and on. It's definitely the norm. Average teams in bad divisions regularly get rewarded basically because they're lucky.

 

[Slingin' Sammy]

.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Slingin' Sammy

[Shanedorf]

On 12/7/2019 at 12:11 AM, N4L said:

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. 

I understand the complaint, and its certainly a valid one. I'll try to offer some insight on why the NFL owners like it this way from what I've read
Unsurprisingly it has to do with money. Think like an owner and you'll see why they continue to do it

Divisional play is at the heart of this league and some of that stems from the very beginning of the NFL. At that time, college was King and the NFL was a quasi-legit sport hanging on for dear life. So the Pro owners copied the Regionalism from college ( SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 etc) because it creates rivalries that transcend the records of the teams.
Its still true today; a college match-up of Florida vs Georgia is a border war !   Florida vs Oregon ... Who cares ?
Same holds true in the NFL and the owners even moved the divisional games to the end of the season to pimp the ratings and fill the stadium - regardless of current standings.

The other part that is important to the owners ( money again) has to do with how the playoff money is split up. A home playoff game generates immense cash for the local owner who gets to keep most of it. By giving preference to the division winners, it means that playoff money is evenly split across 8 divisions instead of one division having 3 home playoff teams and another division having none. The strength of the divisions has more staying power than the individual teams, so they are guarding against the NFC West or AFC North for example dominating for several years in a row on the revenue side

The regional nature of the divisions also means that you could potentially have 3 of the home playoff games concentrated in one area/time zone of the country. By having the 8 division winners spread across the US, it evens out the TV demographics and ensures the advertisers get a swing at everybody.

And finally, here's one more comment that pertains to all of this discussion about fairness ( or lack thereof)

" Life isn't always fair, but it is equitable"

What that means in this context is that sometimes you'll be a 7-9 division winner hosting a game...
...and sometimes you'll be a 12-4 squad traveling to play a 7-9 team.
(There's a reasonable chance that Seattle will experience both ends of that scenario) 

Taken individually, each scenario is deemed unfair.
But when viewed over time, its equitable because you got an added bonus one year and an added penalty another season.

There will always be some inequity in the NFL and there will always be an aggrieved team -  but if you take the Big Picture view, it tends to even out over time.  The NFL has made billions betting on Regionalism and that's highly unlikely to change in our lifetimes.
( as you noted above)

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Shanedorf

[El Ramster]

[TecmoSuperJoe]

5 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

I understand the complaint, and its certainly a valid one. I'll try to offer some insight on why the NFL owners like it this way from what I've read
Unsurprisingly it has to do with money. Think like an owner and you'll see why they continue to do it

Divisional play is at the heart of this league and some of that stems from the very beginning of the NFL. At that time, college was King and the NFL was a quasi-legit sport hanging on for dear life. So the Pro owners copied the Regionalism from college ( SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 etc) because it creates rivalries that transcend the records of the teams.
Its still true today; a college match-up of Florida vs Georgia is a border war !   Florida vs Oregon ... Who cares ?
Same holds true in the NFL and the owners even moved the divisional games to the end of the season to pimp the ratings and fill the stadium - regardless of current standings.

The other part that is important to the owners ( money again) has to do with how the playoff money is split up. A home playoff game generates immense cash for the local owner who gets to keep most of it. By giving preference to the division winners, it means that playoff money is evenly split across 8 divisions instead of one division having 3 home playoff teams and another division having none. The strength of the divisions has more staying power than the individual teams, so they are guarding against the NFC West or AFC North for example dominating for several years in a row on the revenue side

The regional nature of the divisions also means that you could potentially have 3 of the home playoff games concentrated in one area/time zone of the country. By having the 8 division winners spread across the US, it evens out the TV demographics and ensures the advertisers get a swing at everybody.

And finally, here's one more comment that pertains to all of this discussion about fairness ( or lack thereof)

" Life isn't always fair, but it is equitable"

What that means in this context is that sometimes you'll be a 7-9 division winner hosting a game...
...and sometimes you'll be a 12-4 squad traveling to play a 7-9 team.
(There's a reasonable chance that Seattle will experience both ends of that scenario) 

Taken individually, each scenario is deemed unfair.
But when viewed over time, its equitable because you got an added bonus one year and an added penalty another season.

There will always be some inequity in the NFL and there will always be an aggrieved team -  but if you take the Big Picture view, it tends to even out over time.  The NFL has made billions betting on Regionalism and that's highly unlikely to change in our lifetimes.
( as you noted above)

 

[Calvert28]

1 hour ago, ITS_RAMMY_PLAYBOI said:

Haha, I dont even see the Rams in there. 

[Malfatron]

Vic Fangio came up with a damn good idea

If we get rid of divisions (which i dont agree with), but if we do....i like this idea.

Since the league went to 32 teams, which was when the Texans came in in 2002, my ideal suggestion -- which has never been put forth in front of anybody important -- I don't think there should be divisions,'' Fangio said Wednesday, via 9News Denver. "I think you've got 16 in each conference. Everybody should play each other once. That's 15 games. Then if you want a 16th game, you play a natural rival from the other conference-Jets and Giants play every year. Eagles-Steelers, Texans-Cowboys, etcetera, play every year. Then keep it at 16 games, but you'll avoid the problem that's going to happen this year where probably an 8-8 team is hosting a 12-4 team.''

[BStanRamFan]

Winning your division should get you a playoff bid (saying this as a Rams fan who's going to sit at 10 wins at home this postseason). But playoffs should reseed. NFC East doesn't deserve a home playoff game. Hopefully how poor it's been this year causes the turn around. 

[VigilantZombie]

No /thread.

[Uncle Buck]

I don't have a huge problem with the current playoff format.  This year, my team (the Vikings) could end up going 12-4 and have to go on the road for a wildcard game.  If we end up seeing an NFC East division winner with only 7 or 8 wins, it doesn't bother me that much.  Sometimes that's just the way things play out.  What it all comes down to is that if you want a home game and/or a bye, you just have to take care of business.  That's the way the cookie crumbles.  We still have a shot at a division win and going from the #6 to the #2 seed - just need the Bears to beat the Packers (and then win our own games), which is certainly possible the way both teams have been playing over the last month.  Ultimately, there is no need to be whining when your team is in the playoffs.  There are 20 other fan bases who don't get that satisfaction and enjoyment every year.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Uncle Buck

[Uncle Buck]

1 hour ago, Malfatron said:

Vic Fangio came up with a damn good idea

If we get rid of divisions (which i dont agree with), but if we do....i like this idea.

Since the league went to 32 teams, which was when the Texans came in in 2002, my ideal suggestion -- which has never been put forth in front of anybody important -- I don't think there should be divisions,'' Fangio said Wednesday, via 9News Denver. "I think you've got 16 in each conference. Everybody should play each other once. That's 15 games. Then if you want a 16th game, you play a natural rival from the other conference-Jets and Giants play every year. Eagles-Steelers, Texans-Cowboys, etcetera, play every year. Then keep it at 16 games, but you'll avoid the problem that's going to happen this year where probably an 8-8 team is hosting a 12-4 team.''

Wow, I really like that idea!  It would give everyone the chance to see every team in the conference every year, and it would prevent situations like we've seen for the last 20 years where the Patriots have had the benefit of feasting on a weak division and getting almost a free pass to the playoffs every single season.  Great idea, Malf.

[El Ramster]

2 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Wow, I really like that idea!  It would give everyone the chance to see every team in the conference every year, and it would prevent situations like we've seen for the last 20 years where the Patriots have had the benefit of feasting on a weak division and getting almost a free pass to the playoffs every single season.  Great idea, Malf.

That’s how the NBA does it 

[BACK2MACKSACK]

The way it shakes out with 32 teams, it is pretty much optimally set up with 8 total divisions. I see no problem with a division winner getting a playoff spot because each division has common schedules. However, I do think that winning your division shouldn't guarantee a top 4 seed. I believe that even if you don't win your division, if your record is good enough you could get as high as the second seed if your record is good enough similar to how it is in the NBA as of late.

I'm also surprised with how successful NFL has been in recent history, there hasn't been more talks of the NFL expansion. With the globalization in the 21st century and the NFL playing games in other countries, I'm sure there are some domestic and international markets that could be captured.

[Soggust]

4 hours ago, Malfatron said:

Vic Fangio came up with a damn good idea

If we get rid of divisions (which i dont agree with), but if we do....i like this idea.

Since the league went to 32 teams, which was when the Texans came in in 2002, my ideal suggestion -- which has never been put forth in front of anybody important -- I don't think there should be divisions,'' Fangio said Wednesday, via 9News Denver. "I think you've got 16 in each conference. Everybody should play each other once. That's 15 games. Then if you want a 16th game, you play a natural rival from the other conference-Jets and Giants play every year. Eagles-Steelers, Texans-Cowboys, etcetera, play every year. Then keep it at 16 games, but you'll avoid the problem that's going to happen this year where probably an 8-8 team is hosting a 12-4 team.''

I like this idea the most. Reseeding the second most. And keeping the same the least.