Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pf9

Revamping playoff seeding

Recommended Posts

Being in the playoffs is reward enough for winning your division. The NBA says so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One owner who would probably go for this seeding proposal is Browns owner Jimmy Hasalm.

He owns the team with the longest ever division title drought in NFL history.

And he will approve anything that will shorten the wait for the Browns to finally play a home playoff game at First Energy Stadium, even removal of seeding priority for division winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, the Browns are the only NFL team that have never won a division title in my lifetime.

Their last was in 1989, the year before I was born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pf9 said:

I've proposed that seeding priority for division winners be removed. The team owners may not want it, but I don't think the NFL's TV partners share those views. They probably will force this change (along with college OT rules) upon the NFL in order for the networks to consider renewing their rights.

Lol, this will never happen. 

Half the league doesn’t deserve a shot at the chip. Pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, pf9 said:

Being in the playoffs is reward enough for winning your division. The NBA says so.

Thank goodness the NFL isn't the NBA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of you don't seem to realize that if seeding priority for division winners was removed, it would make teams work harder to earn the right to start the playoffs at home, because they know that just winning their division would not be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playoffs were fine as is. You could rarely argue a wildcard team was better than the 1 or 2 seed enough to complain about the bye. So really occasionally you had one division winner with a slightly worse record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, pf9 said:

Most of you don't seem to realize that if seeding priority for division winners was removed, it would make teams work harder to earn the right to start the playoffs at home, because they know that just winning their division would not be enough.

What you don’t realize is that all teams work hard. This might effect one team in any given year and even that’s rare 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expanding the playoffs to 16 teams has two major benefits:

1. Level playing field

The first-round bye has become too much of a competitive advantage in recent years. It hasn't been since 2012 that a team that played in the wild card round advanced to the Super Bowl. Having every playoff team play on the first weekend gives all teams an equal chance on paper to make it to the Super Bowl.

2. Choosing to watch one game over another in the 1 PM reverse mirror slots

In the first round, 2 games would be played simultaneously in the 1 PM slots on both Saturday and Sunday. CBS and Fox would each carry these games regionally, but in all markets the game not being aired on the local CBS or Fox affiliate would air on the affiliated cable network (Paramount Movie Network for CBS games, Fox Sports 1 for Fox games).

Say, you are a Packers fan and they are playing in the 1 PM slot on Fox's day for their reverse mirror. However, you live in one of the markets that is home to a team playing in the other game on Fox (say Philadelphia). Even though Philly's Fox station, WTXF-TV, isn't airing the Packers game in favor of the Eagles game, you could still turn to Fox Sports 1 to see the Packers game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 12:05 AM, pf9 said:

Most of you don't seem to realize that if seeding priority for division winners was removed, it would make teams work harder to earn the right to start the playoffs at home, because they know that just winning their division would not be enough.

You don't seem to realize alot of the affects from this yourself. So before trying to speak for others...maybe you should try stick speaking for yourself first, in a logical manner. 

1) This would also remove the point of having divisions at all in the first place. You may as well make it all one league (which is ridiculous),  and also erase any traditional sense of the game that has been around since it's beginning and ultimately make their games vs each other irrelevant. (i.e Bears/Packers tradition). Which is insane. 

 

2) Next year, each team plays 17 games.  So conversely, under your proposal, adding (literally) half the league would also make GMs/teams work even LESS harder to earn a playoff spot because they know their team only needs to win 6-8 games a year in order to prop up their resumes' to make the playoffs. Even if their team doesn't really belong there in the first place.

If your  favorite team only won 41% of their games (lets say 7-10) and still made the playoffs.  Would you naturally feel comfortable saying that they truly belong there?  I know I wouldn't.  I would say they were a fraud and easy to beat.  But that's ultimately what you are suggesting here without actually saying it. Or possibly not even really understanding what you are suggesting here and the amount of adverse effects that would come with it. 

 

3) This also doesn't include the idea that the asking price for each player would go up as well.  Because whether we like it or not, contracts are largely based on raw stats and accolades even if they aren't rightfully earned (amount of snaps, playoffs, pro bowls, all pro, SB).

That's just how it plays out between each teams cap advisor and the players agent.  It's similar to a defense attorney, agents use those accolades to make the defendant look better than they really are (playoff appearances included) so that they have a better chance at winning the case and in this analogy, getting a better deal means making more money.

What's gonna happen to your favorite team when a sub-par player on a 7-10 win team asks to be paid top-dollar just because the team they played on made the playoffs X amount of times, despite playing on a losing team?  Paying the wrong player(s) more money than they deserve while also releasing cap casualties is what's gonna happen. 

At the rate that you're suggesting, each team would be paying backup players WAYYYY over the mean while also completely negating the rookie contract deal introduced in 2011 to HELP minimize the cost/ expected performance idea. 

 

4)  I can't speak for the current 14 team yet format, but teams still worked VERY hard to make strategic decisions in order earn a #1 spot under the previous format, which also made it interesting in the late weeks of the season. 

What you are suggesting would erase all of this and actually make it worse instead of making it better. Because instead of seeing, say, Brady vs Rodgers or Mahomes vs Wilson in weeks 16-17 ....we're gonna see a bunch of back up players in weeks 13-14 if the #1 team is already locked up by that time.  It would become more like week 1 preseason football game.  Which would also defeat the entire point of replacing preseason games in the first place --which so many have also suggested. 

9 hours ago, lancerman said:

Playoffs were fine as is.

Keyword here, "were".

The former 12 team playoff format was fine. Both logically and mathematically. Adding 2 additional teams was stupid as hell and was only a money grab move by the owners. 

The previous format made sense:

32 teams divided by 2 = 16 teams for 2 conferences.

16 teams divided by 2 = 8 teams for 2 divisions.

8 teams divided by 2 = 4 total divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pf9 said:

Expanding the playoffs to 16 teams has two major benefits:

1. Level playing field

The first-round bye has become too much of a competitive advantage in recent years. It hasn't been since 2012 that a team that played in the wild card round advanced to the Super Bowl. Having every playoff team play on the first weekend gives all teams an equal chance on paper to make it to the Super Bowl.

I hate to be Captain Obvious here - but we’re all well aware that the 1st or 2nd seed are supposed to be superior to the 5th or 6th seed, yeah? They won more games, enough to earn them the bye, so wouldn’t it make sense that they fair better once the playoffs begin too? If half the league gets an equal chance to make it to the SB, then you’re not going to see teams more motivated - they’ll be less.

You want to compare the NFL to the NBA - when was the last time a bottom seed went to the finals? 

3 hours ago, pf9 said:

2. Choosing to watch one game over another in the 1 PM reverse mirror slots

In the first round, 2 games would be played simultaneously in the 1 PM slots on both Saturday and Sunday. CBS and Fox would each carry these games regionally, but in all markets the game not being aired on the local CBS or Fox affiliate would air on the affiliated cable network (Paramount Movie Network for CBS games, Fox Sports 1 for Fox games).

Say, you are a Packers fan and they are playing in the 1 PM slot on Fox's day for their reverse mirror. However, you live in one of the markets that is home to a team playing in the other game on Fox (say Philadelphia). Even though Philly's Fox station, WTXF-TV, isn't airing the Packers game in favor of the Eagles game, you could still turn to Fox Sports 1 to see the Packers game.

...or everyone and their mother could watch whichever games they want to without missing any playoff action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2020 at 11:16 PM, pf9 said:

Being in the playoffs is reward enough for winning your division. The NBA says so.

Ummmmm..... The top 3 seeds in the NBA are division winners.  Many times the 4-5 seeds have better records than the 3 seed.

 

Or are you suggesting that the NFL should go to a best of 7 format each round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NBA has removed seeding priority for division winners. They thus have recognized that division winners don't always deserve a higher seed.

And the reverse mirror proposal eliminates any need for playing playoff games on weeknights, which in turn eliminates concerns about rest advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore if higher seeds won titles all the time it would get boring.

It would be a real feelgood story if an 8th seed or 7th seed won the Super Bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is another cautionary tale about giving higher seeds at least one round off.

Several years ago, the Mid-American Conference adopted a format for their men's basketball tournament in which the top 2 seeds got a bye to the semifinals.

However, the #1 seeds won every year in which this format was used, and, realizing they made a mistake, the MAC went back to the previous format which gave only one bye to each of the top 4 seeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...