Potential changes to playoff seeding

[Mr. Scot]

18 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I Realistically, there's been a pretty solid poo storm every year a losing team hosts a playoff game because it's bullshit.

Bu sometimes that "losing team" quiets the noise by winning their plyoff game.

The NFL has an unfortunate habit of reacting to things that happen once in a while by making changes that affect thngs all the time.

(like adjusting th rules anytime Tom Brady got hurt)

Edited 5 hours ago by Mr. Scot

[LinvilleGorge]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Bu sometimes that "losing team" quiets the noise by winning their plyoff game.

The NFL has an unfortunate habit of reacting to things that happen once in a while by making changes that affect thngs all the time.

(like adjusting th rules anytime Tom Brady got hurt)

No doubt aided by home field advantage and a lesser opponent due to a higher seeding simply because they won a bad division.

Doing rankings sheerly by record instead of giving division winners automatic home field advantage isn't a negative IMO ever. Yeah, teams with losing records winning a bad division is only an occasional issue. But rewarding a team for having a better record is just a good thing IMO. Give the division winners an automatic bid, but do seeding purely by record. It's just the fairest way to set up the bracket while still protecting the integrity of the divisions. Yeah, occasionally a team with a better record will be left out because some worse team won a bad division. Oh well. Now that team is gonna have to go on the road against one of the best teams in the league instead of having an IMO unfair and unearned advantage of a home game and a lesser opponent simply because they were the best bad team in a trash division.

[Navy_football]

27 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Bu sometimes that "losing team" quiets the noise by winning their plyoff game.

The NFL has an unfortunate habit of reacting to things that happen once in a while by making changes that affect thngs all the time.

(like adjusting th rules anytime Tom Brady got hurt)

Or fumbled a game away

[Navy_football]

Didn't the Giants win their last Super Bowl after going 9-7? 

[HaricotVert]

2 hours ago, nogoodbum said:

Please do not forget that everything the NFL does is for the increase in revenue. If a big market team draws more money [ticket sales, betting revenue, TV ratings & etc.] when they play at home versus on the road in the playoffs, you can safely be sure the NFL knows & will act accordingly. Just like the draft lottery proposal, if the NFL can capture TV ratings for it, they will.

no doubt but flip that.

 

The current system insures that there are "regional" games in the early weeks. maximizing the reach of playoff football.  If all of the WC weekend for a conference took place on the west coast they are reducing the "reach" of their hype machine.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 hour ago, Navy_football said:

Didn't the Giants win their last Super Bowl after going 9-7? 

Yeah. As a wild card team. Washington won the division at 10-6.

[LinvilleGorge]

7 minutes ago, HaricotVert said:

no doubt but flip that.

 

The current system insures that there are "regional" games in the early weeks. maximizing the reach of playoff football.  If all of the WC weekend for a conference took place on the west coast they are reducing the "reach" of their hype machine.

Honestly, this makes the most sense as to why the NFL would be resistant to this change.

[Khyber53]

I think they already have it right. A few years back, they added in an additional wild card spot and that opened the landscape quite a bit.

Keep it how it is now, make it so that divisions still matter.

Or come up with a secondary league and start relegations for continually losing franchises.