NFL should remove seeding priority from division winners

[pf9]

8 hours ago, MWil23 said:

The Browns went 4-0 against the AFC South, which sucks.

Having to go on the road with a better record and head to head wins because of “your division” is stupid.

The same holds true for the NFC South hosting a playoff game instead of Dallas. It’s a dumpster division, and I despise the Cowboys.

 

3 hours ago, INbengalfan said:

My dude, you are opening up Pandora's Box for pf9's next annual topic... division realignment.  Let's not timewarp to mid to late January

 

4 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

Realignment is completely different argument then winning the division. Apples and Oranges.

I've never understood why Dallas was in the NFCE of all Divisions, but the NFL makes way to much money off that rivalry every year to relocate say Dallas to the NFCS moving say Carolina to the East.

Just admit you hate being in a Division that for the first time in a long time has 3-4 good teams or at minimum 2 Dominate teams at a time? That wasn't always the case.  Steelers yes, Ravens yes, Bengals recently,  Browns, well Browns till this year.

For most of the past 2 decades 2000's - 2010's the NFCE was the same way with Eagles, Cowboys, Giants. Beating the hell out of each other, 2 of the 3, sometime all 3 getting in. Redskins popping in every once and awhile .It is what it is.

I do find it funny though that because the Browns were able to go 4-0 vs the AFCS instead of playing a tougher schedule vs say the AFCE, which obviously helped getting that 11-5 record, they should come to us, that Division sucks, It's only fair?

I get it. It's been a very very long time since there's been a Home playoff game in Cleveland. That's more telling of the Browns Organization over the past 40 years, then the injustice of a Division Winner getting home games. Sorry!

 

I think the NFL should put the Steelers in the AFC East, the Chiefs and Colts in the AFC North, the Dolphins and Panthers in the AFC South, the Texans in the AFC West, the Ravens in the NFC East, and the Cowboys in the NFC South.

Right now, if the Cowboys were in the NFC South instead of Carolina, they'd be in first place by two games with a chance to clinch the division this weekend.

[Football_Bachelor08]

I agree wholeheartedly. The current format rewards teams who played mediocre football as long as they ended up being the least mediocre in their group. Meanwhile it punishes 11 or 12 win teams for the crime of playing in a tougher division 

[hornbybrown]

48 minutes ago, Football_Bachelor08 said:

I agree wholeheartedly. The current format rewards teams who played mediocre football as long as they ended up being the least mediocre in their group. Meanwhile it punishes 11 or 12 win teams for the crime of playing in a tougher division 

Yep, a potential 12 win Browns will likely play a 9-7 AFC south team having beaten all four of them already this year. 
 

Not just saying this because my browns are going to be hurt by it. I have always thought it’s a flawed system 

[Nabbs4u]

2 minutes ago, hornbybrown said:

Yep, a potential 12 win Browns will likely play a 9-7 AFC south team having beaten all four of them already this year. 
 

Not just saying this because my browns are going to be hurt by it. I have always thought it’s a flawed system 

Yep. If the Supposed better Browns team can't beat the teams they went against in the AFCS 4-0,  they don't deserved to move on. Simple as that. Stop bitchin!

[hornbybrown]

2 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

Yep. If the Supposed better Browns team can't beat the teams they went against in the AFCS 4-0,  they don't deserved to move on. Simple as that. Stop bitchin!

They will beat them that’s not the point. 

[Nabbs4u]

8 hours ago, hornbybrown said:

They will beat them that’s not the point. 

I hope so or this entire discussion was a  waste of time. 

Honestly rooting for you because I want to see Joe vs Ravens.  🥃

[pf9]

There is also precedent for my proposal.

In 1982, a season shortened by a players' strike the NFL did a 16-team playoff bracket and did away with divisions entirely, which had the effect of removing seeding priority from division winners that year.

It worked, the top two seeds in the NFC, Washington and Dallas, were from the East and met in the conference title game.

That's something the NFL should have realized by now that they did it that one time and there is no reason not to do it again as the norm.

[CasperX22]

24 minutes ago, pf9 said:

There is also precedent for my proposal.

In 1982, a season shortened by a players' strike the NFL did a 16-team playoff bracket and did away with divisions entirely, which had the effect of removing seeding priority from division winners that year.

It worked, the top two seeds in the NFC, Washington and Dallas, were from the East and met in the conference title game.

That's something the NFL should have realized by now that they did it that one time and there is no reason not to do it again as the norm.

You're having a completely different argument at this point.  Winning your division matters.  Teams are playing 82% of the same teams that their peers are playing.  Win your division, get a seat at the table and a home game.  Teams shouldn't be rewarded for finishing 2nd or 3rd amongst your peers. 

Now, if you want to make the argument that divisions and conferences should just be completely done away with, by all means come up with a schedule that fairly puts the top 8, 12, 14, or 16 teams in the playoffs.  I look forward to your response.

 

[pf9]

6 minutes ago, CasperX22 said:

You're having a completely different argument at this point.  Winning your division matters.  Teams are playing 82% of the same teams that their peers are playing.  Win your division, get a seat at the table and a home game.  Teams shouldn't be rewarded for finishing 2nd or 3rd amongst your peers. 

Now, if you want to make the argument that divisions and conferences should just be completely done away with, by all means come up with a schedule that fairly puts the top 8, 12, 14, or 16 teams in the playoffs.  I look forward to your response.

 

Again, being in the playoffs is reward enough for winning your division. The NBA says so.

[CasperX22]

6 minutes ago, pf9 said:

Again, being in the playoffs is reward enough for winning your division. The NBA says so.

Hint, nobody in the NFL gives a **** about the NBA.  The NBA is completely wrong.  There is zero point of divisions if winning it isn't meaningful.  Now again, answer the question or just admit that you don't know what you're actually talking about and we can all move on with our lives.

[Jeezla]

Get rid of divisions.
Expand the season to 32 games.
Games end at what would normally be halftime, unless tied (keeps 32 game stats similar to 16 game stats from yesteryear and keeps injuries down)
Every team plays each other 1 time. Home/Away team rotates after each season. League adds 1 more expansion team. Boise? 
Playoff committee votes on top 4 teams to compete in playoffs for championship at the end of the season.

It's the only way to make it fair to everyone.

[pf9]

17 minutes ago, CasperX22 said:

Hint, nobody in the NFL gives a **** about the NBA.  The NBA is completely wrong.  There is zero point of divisions if winning it isn't meaningful.  Now again, answer the question or just admit that you don't know what you're actually talking about and we can all move on with our lives.

But winning it is meaningful in that you get to be in the playoffs.

Divisions and conferences can stay, the only reason they were done away with in 1982 was because so many games were canceled. My stance that division winners should not have seeding priority remains. Think about it. If you win a division that was so weak you only get the 7 seed yet you go on to win the Super Bowl without ever having a home playoff game isn't that a great Cinderella story?

[CasperX22]

52 minutes ago, pf9 said:

But winning it is meaningful in that you get to be in the playoffs.

Divisions and conferences can stay, the only reason they were done away with in 1982 was because so many games were canceled. My stance that division winners should not have seeding priority remains. Think about it. If you win a division that was so weak you only get the 7 seed yet you go on to win the Super Bowl without ever having a home playoff game isn't that a great Cinderella story?

Sorry but youre stance is absolutely incorrect.  Taking seeding priority away from division winners defeats the purpose of divisions and shows a lack of understanding why playoffs exist in the 1st place.  In the beginning there were only conferences and conference winners would play each other for the championship.  Expansion happened and divisions were created.  And so on and so forth.  You don't reward teams for not being able to be better than their own peers.  Their reward by winning as many games as they did despite losing their division is a playoff birth.  They should not then also get a home game as they've already been rewarded.

Now again, if you want to make the argument teams should be seeded based on their record, you can do away with division and conferences for that matter altogether, but you need to create a schedule that is fair and gives you the best 8, 12, 14, or 16 teams to be in the tournament.  If you want to argue that, go nuts, but if you want to argue that I want to hear how you're determining the schedule.  Thanks.

[pf9]

39 minutes ago, CasperX22 said:

Sorry but youre stance is absolutely incorrect.  Taking seeding priority away from division winners defeats the purpose of divisions and shows a lack of understanding why playoffs exist in the 1st place.  In the beginning there were only conferences and conference winners would play each other for the championship.  Expansion happened and divisions were created.  And so on and so forth.  You don't reward teams for not being able to be better than their own peers.  Their reward by winning as many games as they did despite losing their division is a playoff birth.  They should not then also get a home game as they've already been rewarded.

Now again, if you want to make the argument teams should be seeded based on their record, you can do away with division and conferences for that matter altogether, but you need to create a schedule that is fair and gives you the best 8, 12, 14, or 16 teams to be in the tournament.  If you want to argue that, go nuts, but if you want to argue that I want to hear how you're determining the schedule.  Thanks.

To quote a famous song from World War II..."we did it before and we can do it again and we will do it again"

[pf9]

41 minutes ago, CasperX22 said:

Sorry but youre stance is absolutely incorrect.  Taking seeding priority away from division winners defeats the purpose of divisions and shows a lack of understanding why playoffs exist in the 1st place.  In the beginning there were only conferences and conference winners would play each other for the championship.  Expansion happened and divisions were created.  And so on and so forth.  You don't reward teams for not being able to be better than their own peers.  Their reward by winning as many games as they did despite losing their division is a playoff birth.  They should not then also get a home game as they've already been rewarded.

Now again, if you want to make the argument teams should be seeded based on their record, you can do away with division and conferences for that matter altogether, but you need to create a schedule that is fair and gives you the best 8, 12, 14, or 16 teams to be in the tournament.  If you want to argue that, go nuts, but if you want to argue that I want to hear how you're determining the schedule.  Thanks.

Besides, people were fine with wild card teams opening the playoffs at home (and division winners on the road) when there were just six divisions. We will be fine with that now.