Jump to content

Does the NFL make a change if the NFCE is won at 6-10?


Slingin' Sammy

Recommended Posts

Absolutely. I feel a division winner with a losing record should be saddled with the lowest seed in their conference, and possibly have to face a real murderer's row in the playoffs just to get to the Super Bowl. I feel a weak division winner going on to win it all would be more believable if they did NOT have a home playoff game along the way.

Take 2010 for example. The Saints, the defending champs, had tied for the second best record in the NFC and even would have won a tie-breaker over Chicago. Yet because of the insistence of division winners getting a home game, the Saints were saddled with the #5 seed, and had to play at 7-9 Seattle. At the point, the Saints had only ever played three road playoff games - all three against NFC North teams, two against Chicago, and none of them victories. It ended up costing the Saints dearly as they lost 41-36. Had seeding priority been removed from division champions, the Falcons and the Saints could had the potential of meeting in the NFC championship game, which would have been the biggest game ever in their storied rivalry (let that sink in).

I am also against seeding priority for division champions because of what my Packers experienced as the defending champions in 2011. The Giants held a 9-7 record, which was the worst among NFC playoff teams. Yet they won their division, and thus would go on to beat Atlanta in the first round, then my Packers the next round, which upset me because the Packers failed to do something their biggest rivals the Bears did in 1985 and win the Super Bowl as a 15-1 team. Adding insult to injury, the Giants won the Super Bowl over the Patriots (repeating what happened in 2007 - Giants win at Lambeau in the postseason, then beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl). Had seeding priority been removed from division winners, the Giants would have been the 6 seed and had to open the playoffs against the Saints at the Superdome, where they have not won since a 1993 MNF game, and were thoroughly beaten there in 2011 by the score of 49-24. The Giants winning the Super Bowl at 9-7 embarrassed the league, it was avoided twice before because the 9-7 NFC champions in each of those games were facing the Steelers, who lost in the wild card round in 2011. The Giants did get their comeuppance though, they missed the playoffs for four years in a row (which was a record following a Super Bowl title until the Broncos, winners of Super Bowl 50, also being led by a Manning brother in defeating a 15-1 team, missed the playoffs for the fifth straight season this year).

Thankfully the NBA has realized the problems of giving seeding priority to division winners. In 2006, the top two teams in the West both came from the Southwest Division, but were seeded 1 and 4 so could only meet in the conference semifinals. Thus, several other Western playoff teams were trying to play their way into the portion of the bracket where they could avoid the Mavericks and Spurs until the conference finals. To prevent future occurrences of this, starting the following year, the NBA allowed the best second place team in each conference to rise as high as the #2 seed depending on their record. Later in 2016, they not only removed the top 4 seed guarantee for a division winner, but also a playoff spot guarantee, but in practice all division winners play well enough to make the playoffs.

Similarly in MLB, during the 2015 season, the top 3 teams in the NL all came from the Central. But because of the seeding system, the Cubs and Pirates had to play each other in the wild card game, and the winner had to play the Cardinals. The other NL division winners, the Dodgers and Mets, got to avoid the NL Central until the NLCS. It worked to the Mets advantage (frustrating me as a Yankees fan; they were shut out by Houston in the AL Wild Card game that year) when they swept the Cubs in the NLCS, the Cubs won the World Series only a year later.

Back in 2012, when the wild card game was introduced, the Tigers had the worst record of all playoff teams that year, but got to skip the Wild Card game because they won the AL Central, which propelled them to the World Series, sweeping my Yankees in the ALCS in the process.

So, division winners don't always deserve seeding priority. They sometimes need to face a murderers row without home-field advantage in any round (whether in the NFL or another league).

So, yeah the NBA should be used as a model for determining playoff seeding in the other major sports leagues, it was for the NHL this year due to the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Slingin' Sammy said:

My man, I dig the passion and enthusiasm, but you have to try to shorten your posts a bit. Not every thread or reply has to be an encyclopedia entry.

i disagree.

You can skim around if you like or ignore the posts completely if you want.

I appreciate detailed entries.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, pf9 said:

So, division winners don't always deserve seeding priority. They sometimes need to face a murderers row without home-field advantage in any round (whether in the NFL or another league).

So, yeah the NBA should be used as a model for determining playoff seeding in the other major sports leagues, it was for the NHL this year due to the pandemic.

If the 7-9 division winner beats the 12-4 or 13-3 2nd seed, then they deserve to progress. Even if it’s a home game. If you’re that superior of a team, then you should win playoff games, whether they’re on the road or not.

You can honorably argue that 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 don’t deserve to host games against 12-4 or 13-3 teams. But if they win that game, then they deserved to win it. It’s not because they played at home, it’s because they were the better team that day. Don’t make excuses for the sorry performances that the Saints, Falcons, or Packets put up - each of them deserved to lose. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seattle beating the Saints is all the reason I'd ever want to keep the playoff seeding exactly the way it is. If you can't go on the road and beat a sorry squad with a losing record, you have no business being in the playoffs in the first place. Stop making excuses for bad teams to fit a crappy narrative.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RuskieTitan said:

Seattle beating the Saints is all the reason I'd ever want to keep the playoff seeding exactly the way it is. If you can't go on the road and beat a sorry squad with a losing record, you have no business being in the playoffs in the first place. Stop making excuses for bad teams to fit a crappy narrative.

Think of how big Saints at Falcons in the NFC title game would have been. It would have been the biggest game in the rivalry's storied history. Media outlets would have covered the rivalry extensively in the week leading up to the game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...