Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Potential changes to playoff seeding


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

I like it. Winning your division should get you an automatic bid but not an automatic home playoff game. That's just too much IMO. You shouldn't be rewarded that much for being the best team in a bad division nor punished for being the second (or even third) best team in a better division.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave things alone. This is like the OT rule change to make it "fair" but all it did was make it unfair because the team that gets the ball 2nd can just go for all 4th downs if need be.

Change for change will always have consequences that may not have been thought of.

Winning ur Div should mean something. You are a champion so u should get a home game.

 

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NCBlu said:

Booo ..... what is the point of a Div If they don't mean anything 

Win your div then u don't have anything to worry about

It still means something. You're still in the playoffs. But having teams with losing records host playoff games is dumb and it's happened three times since 2010. We were one of them. Automatic bid? Sure. Automatic home playoff game? Ridiculous.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It still means something. You're still in the playoffs. But having teams with losing records host playoff games is dumb and it's happened three times since 2010. We were one of them. Automatic bid? Sure. Automatic home playoff game? Ridiculous.

It's been like that forever and no one has cared.  There's nothing wrong qith the playoff system, no need to change things

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I see how re-seeding after the first round is necessary, but I'm all for doing seedings based purely off record.

Of course, that does very little to address the issue of strength of schedule. Plenty of teams end up with more wins than they otherwise would because they don't play as many good teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

It's been like that forever and no one has cared.  There's nothing wrong qith the playoff system, no need to change things

I guess with this type of mindset we'd still have slavery. LOL 

Realistically, there's been a pretty solid poo storm every year a losing team hosts a playoff game because it's bullshit. Give 'em an automatic bid, but yeah reward the actual better teams.

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny how people get triggered by literally any change. I guess y'all wanna watch football played in leather helmets where the forward pass is illegal and the goalposts is in the middle of the end zone clotheslining players. 

Not all change is necessarily good but crying about the best bad team in a trash division not automatically hosting a playoff game is a pretty hilarious thing to raise hell about.

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against it.  I get that some teams have an advantage because they are in a bad division but some teams have an advantage because they end up with a really weak strength of schedule (or end up facing teams w/ injured players or resting players for the playoffs).  Let's face it, NFL teams fluctuate a lot from year to year and we won't know the strength of the schedule played until the end of the season. Why should second place in the NFC East trump first place in the NFC South if the East team had an overall easier schedule?

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I guess with this type of mindset we'd still have slavery. LOL 

Slavery was WRONG on so many levels, how that comparison works who knows

Weather ur team that is still in the playoffs gets a home game is no where near that lvl

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.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Then Dan Morgan should be on the hot seat. Wasting a first and second rounder in a pivotal year is unforgivable.
    • They addressed D in free agency in a big way (Edge, ILB) and they signed a starting OT and a player they think could be a swing OT in reserve.  They have claimed to be adding "Weapons" to the offense.  I think that will be their focus.  I agree 100% that we need a T, but a reserve, developmental OT in a weak (at the top) draft does little to address that weakness in 2026.  If they are telling the truth, a reserve developmental OT is not a weapon.  The will draft a WR if that statement and their actions in free agency are accurate.  That does not mean we ignore OT--I just dont see where he takes a T if he is filling holes. As a coach, I am concerned about OT, but when I look at the roster, I see bigger immediate problems. S: We are OK if you want Scott for another season. Not ideal.  There is also talk of Smith-Wade being moved to S.  If so, we need a CBN. DT: Who took Robinson's job?  He played a lot.  All DTs (NT-DE) were average to below average, (except Derrick Brown) including 280 lb wharton.  We need a DT (my preference for the first pick, to be honest)  I am guessing a DT will be our third rounder? ILB:  Unless we want Wallace out there in coverage, we need a compliment to Lloyd.  I think Lloyd's starting mate is the second rounder. (speculating)  This pick is likely to occur in the second round because it is for a starting position. WR:  Some are fine with what we have.  sIn 2025, Coker had 3  TDs on 394 yards.  Legette had 3 TDs and 363 yards--and only 1 drop.  I love Coker, but neither should make us feel secure about WR with those numbers.  A lot depends on both stepping up in 2026, but Canales has been screaming weapons.  Could he mean Tight end?  That depends on how good they feel about Coker and XL. Center:  You can get a player ready to start relatively early in the middle rounds.  Very similar to the OT situation but I think C may be more of a priority right now than OT.   Tight End:  They seem to like Delp from Georgia who projects round 4. CB:  There was some talk of moving Smith-Wade to S (to learn for a season with Scott, maybe?) and that might require adding CB depth inside. Tackle?:  I agree that we need one, but this draft is simply not strong at the top at T.  The ONLY way to get a quality OT that is still developmental is to take one in round 1.  Canales has all but said we are not doing that.  But after the first 40 picks or so, they pretty much level out for a good while.  The fifth rounders and the third rounders are about the same.  For that Reason, I am guessing (It is all guesses) that they take someone like the OT from Boston College or Memphis.  Work with the OL coach (OT specialist) for a season.  I dunno
×
×
  • Create New...