NFL considers playoff seeding change

Bill A. · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 34

http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj

The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top 4
seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.

Bill A.

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>ny-giants

Jeff Gersten · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 24

bill@comcast.net (Bill A.)wrote:

>http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj

>The interesting part in this is the Giants would
>have had TB at home this year if they rank
>seeds by record and not 4 division winners get
>the top 4 seeds. I like this change - I hope
>they do it.

Maybe they would have had a home game. Tampa Bay might have played their
last 2 games more seriously if they had affected their seeding,
especially if it determined if they would have a home game. I think this
is why they are considering that rule change.

Question----would the Giants have won a playoff game if it was at home?
Remember they were the "Road Warriors".

Minnesota Fats · Joined: 24 Nov 2007 Posts: 12

On Feb 21, 7:30 pm, "Bill A." wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>
> The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
> year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top 4
> seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>
> Bill A.

Not sure I like the idea because it would have the effect of rewarding
division winners from weak divisions while penalizing division winners
from strong divisions. If they want to make a change, I think
strength of schedule should be factored in to the seeding.

DoctorElefant · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 83

On Feb 22, 9:56 am, Minnesota Fats wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:30 pm, "Bill A." wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>
> > The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
> > year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top 4
> > seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>
> Not sure I like the idea because it would have the effect of rewarding
> division winners from weak divisions while penalizing division winners
> from strong divisions.

Good point.

> If they want to make a change, I think
> strength of schedule should be factored in to the seeding.

Based on wins and losses? That might bring easy vs. strong divisions
back into the equation.

In any event, I think Jeff nailed it above when he said the NFL is
trying to get the teams to take those last games more seriously once
the divisions are decided.

--------------------------------------------------
DocE

"The future ain't what it used to be." -Yogi Berra
--------------------------------------------------

El Guapo · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 39

"Bill A." wrote in message @comcast.com...
> http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>
> The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
> year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top 4
> seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>
> Bill A.

Normally I would be against this - winning a division should be an important
honor and should be rewarded, if possible. However, I'm getting a little
tired of extremely weak teams winning a very weak division and getting a
home game rather than much better wild card teams, so I would like to see
this change. Should a 9-7 team host a playoff game while 11-5, 12-4 teams
go on the road? I don't think so. It used to make sense - the only wild
card team to win a Super Bowl before 1997 was the 1980 Raiders. Since 1997,
four wild card teams have won the Super Bowl, so over 1/3 of the winners
have been wild cards. That proves two things - that having to play on the
road in the playoffs is no longer a nearly insurmountable obstacle, but
also, that the wrong teams are being rewarded with home games in the first
round.

The only downside I see to this is that it will lessen the importance of
division games. On the other hand, the only sure way to make the playoffs
will still be to win your division, so I don't see coaches or fans putting a
lot less emphasis on those games. They'll still be very important.

El Guapo · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 39

"El Guapo" wrote in message $xq2.2277@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> "Bill A." wrote in message
> @comcast.com...
>> http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>>
>> The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
>> year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top
>> 4 seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>>
>> Bill A.
>
> Normally I would be against this - winning a division should be an
> important honor and should be rewarded, if possible. However, I'm getting
> a little tired of extremely weak teams winning a very weak division and
> getting a home game rather than much better wild card teams, so I would
> like to see this change. Should a 9-7 team host a playoff game while
> 11-5, 12-4 teams go on the road? I don't think so. It used to make
> sense - the only wild card team to win a Super Bowl before 1997 was the
> 1980 Raiders. Since 1997, four wild card teams have won the Super Bowl,
> so over 1/3 of the winners have been wild cards. That proves two things -
> that having to play on the road in the playoffs is no longer a nearly
> insurmountable obstacle, but also, that the wrong teams are being rewarded
> with home games in the first round.
>
> The only downside I see to this is that it will lessen the importance of
> division games. On the other hand, the only sure way to make the playoffs
> will still be to win your division, so I don't see coaches or fans putting
> a lot less emphasis on those games. They'll still be very important.

I should note that before the last realignment, the top wild card team did
get to play a game at home, including, I believe, the three wild card Super
Bowl winners before then. This has mostly become a serious issue since
realignment in 2002.

Bill A. · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 34

"Minnesota Fats" wrote in message @u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 21, 7:30 pm, "Bill A." wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>>
>> The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
>> year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top
>> 4
>> seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>>
>> Bill A.
>
>Not sure I like the idea because it would have the effect of rewarding
>division winners from weak divisions while penalizing division winners
>from strong divisions. If they want to make a change, I think
>strength of schedule should be factored in to the seeding.

But which is worse - penalizing a better team (record-wise) with a wildcard
spot or even missing the playoffs, where by record they could clinch earlier
or possibly grab a home game?

I think the good outweighs the bad in this this change.

Of course, I'm quite content with how it worked out for us in 2007-2008. Smile

Bill

Bill A. · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 34

"El Guapo" wrote in message $xq2.2277@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> "Bill A." wrote in message
> @comcast.com...
>> http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>>
>> The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
>> year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top
>> 4 seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>>
>> Bill A.
>
> Normally I would be against this - winning a division should be an
> important honor and should be rewarded, if possible.

I interpret the change to mean the 4 division winners are in, but they could
fall below a non-winner with a better record.

In an odd way, if the rule were in place this past year by record only and
not by division winner, it's possible the NFC S wouldn't have been in. And
if Washington had done a game better the NFC E could have had 4 of the 6
playoff spots. Again though I think it's to change the seeds of the 6
teams, not the qualifications to get in.

> However, I'm getting a little tired of extremely weak teams winning a very
> weak division and getting a home game rather than much better wild card
> teams, so I would like to see this change. Should a 9-7 team host a
> playoff game while 11-5, 12-4 teams go on the road? I don't think so. It
> used to make sense - the only wild card team to win a Super Bowl before
> 1997 was the 1980 Raiders. Since 1997, four wild card teams have won the
> Super Bowl, so over 1/3 of the winners have been wild cards. That proves
> two things - that having to play on the road in the playoffs is no longer
> a nearly insurmountable obstacle, but also, that the wrong teams are being
> rewarded with home games in the first round.

I agree with what you say here.

> The only downside I see to this is that it will lessen the importance of
> division games. On the other hand, the only sure way to make the playoffs
> will still be to win your division, so I don't see coaches or fans putting
> a lot less emphasis on those games. They'll still be very important.

Not if winning the division guarantees a spot, which I believe wasn't
changing in the proposal.

Bill

El Guapo · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 39

"Bill A." wrote in message @comcast.com...
> "El Guapo" wrote in message
> $xq2.2277@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>> "Bill A." wrote in message
>> @comcast.com...
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>>>
>>> The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home
>>> this year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get
>>> the top 4 seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>>>
>>> Bill A.
>>
>> Normally I would be against this - winning a division should be an
>> important honor and should be rewarded, if possible.
>
> I interpret the change to mean the 4 division winners are in, but they
> could fall below a non-winner with a better record.
>
> In an odd way, if the rule were in place this past year by record only and
> not by division winner, it's possible the NFC S wouldn't have been in.
> And if Washington had done a game better the NFC E could have had 4 of the
> 6 playoff spots. Again though I think it's to change the seeds of the 6
> teams, not the qualifications to get in.
>
>> However, I'm getting a little tired of extremely weak teams winning a
>> very weak division and getting a home game rather than much better wild
>> card teams, so I would like to see this change. Should a 9-7 team host a
>> playoff game while 11-5, 12-4 teams go on the road? I don't think so.
>> It used to make sense - the only wild card team to win a Super Bowl
>> before 1997 was the 1980 Raiders. Since 1997, four wild card teams have
>> won the Super Bowl, so over 1/3 of the winners have been wild cards.
>> That proves two things - that having to play on the road in the playoffs
>> is no longer a nearly insurmountable obstacle, but also, that the wrong
>> teams are being rewarded with home games in the first round.
>
> I agree with what you say here.
>
>> The only downside I see to this is that it will lessen the importance of
>> division games. On the other hand, the only sure way to make the
>> playoffs will still be to win your division, so I don't see coaches or
>> fans putting a lot less emphasis on those games. They'll still be very
>> important.
>
> Not if winning the division guarantees a spot, which I believe wasn't
> changing in the proposal.

I was assuming that as well. Sorry if my wording caused confusion.

Fritz · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 17

"DoctorElefant" wrote in message @c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 22, 9:56 am, Minnesota Fats wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:30 pm, "Bill A." wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>
> > The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home
> > this
> > year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top
> > 4
> > seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>
> Not sure I like the idea because it would have the effect of rewarding
> division winners from weak divisions while penalizing division winners
> from strong divisions.

Good point.

> If they want to make a change, I think
> strength of schedule should be factored in to the seeding.

Based on wins and losses? That might bring easy vs. strong divisions
back into the equation.

In any event, I think Jeff nailed it above when he said the NFL is
trying to get the teams to take those last games more seriously once
the divisions are decided.

I don't like it when teams like the Colts sit their regulars in a game that
determines which teams make postseason but I don't know if the NFL should be
messing with this stuff.

Jeff Gersten · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 24

tgifritz@sbcglobal.net (Fritz) wrote:

>I don't like it when teams like the Colts sit their
>regulars in a game that determines which
>teams make postseason but I don't know if the
>NFL should be messing with this stuff.

The Colts actually would not have been affected if this rule was in
place. They were locked into the 2 seed. It would have had an effect on
Tampa Bay and Seattle. Also If I'm not mistaken Pittsburgh would have
been at Jacksonville instead of being the home team in the same matchup.

Doctor Chen · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 42

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:26:03 -0800 (PST), DoctorElefant
wrote:

>On Feb 22, 9:56 am, Minnesota Fats wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 7:30 pm, "Bill A." wrote:
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>>
>> > The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
>> > year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top 4
>> > seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>>
>> Not sure I like the idea because it would have the effect of rewarding
>> division winners from weak divisions while penalizing division winners
>> from strong divisions.
>
>Good point.
>
>> If they want to make a change, I think
>> strength of schedule should be factored in to the seeding.
>
>Based on wins and losses? That might bring easy vs. strong divisions
>back into the equation.
>
>In any event, I think Jeff nailed it above when he said the NFL is
>trying to get the teams to take those last games more seriously once
>the divisions are decided.

Isn't that what the wildcards are for? Look like how a single
wildcard seed totally change MLB. Instead of only a couple of teams
playing meaningful games down the stretch almost half the league's
teams are still in it till the final week.

Part of the problem is NFL only has 16 games and when playoff-berth
are decided by game 13 then taking 3 games off seems like too much.
However, it takes away the novelty of being division champs.

Like what Fats said based purely on win-loss punishes teams in strong
divisions. After a hard-fought 10-6 they might not even get
home-field but given to a 11-5 team in a weak division that didn't
even win their own division.

>--------------------------------------------------
>DocE
>
>
>"The future ain't what it used to be." -Yogi Berra
>--------------------------------------------------

Doctor Chen · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 42

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:10:20 -0500, "Bill A."
wrote:

>"Minnesota Fats" wrote in message
>@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 21, 7:30 pm, "Bill A." wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>>>
>>> The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
>>> year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top
>>> 4
>>> seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>>>
>>> Bill A.
>>
>>Not sure I like the idea because it would have the effect of rewarding
>>division winners from weak divisions while penalizing division winners
>>from strong divisions. If they want to make a change, I think
>>strength of schedule should be factored in to the seeding.
>
>But which is worse - penalizing a better team (record-wise) with a wildcard
>spot or even missing the playoffs, where by record they could clinch earlier
>or possibly grab a home game?

First off better team is very subjective. Just because a team has
better win-loss doesn't mean they're better. A team in AFC East can
easily grab 4 games from Jets and Dolphins, and just play 6-6 against
the rest and still be 10-6 team. That doesn't mean they are better
from another team that had a hard-fought 9-7 onslaught in a division
of 4 playoff-caliber teams (like NFC East.)

Now, if NFL wants to purely based the playoff seeding on win-loss then
they might as well abolish divisions and do random scheduling. Because
you know fans everywhere will bitch about the quality of competition
too in a purely win-loss system (which of course random scheduling
won't solve.)

It's tough and why fix something that fans and teams have accepted?
Division winners are given a break for the novelty of being division
winners.

>I think the good outweighs the bad in this this change.
>
>Of course, I'm quite content with how it worked out for us in 2007-2008. Smile

>
>Bill
>

Doctor Chen · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 42

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:21:13 GMT, "El Guapo"
wrote:

>"Bill A." wrote in message
>@comcast.com...
>> http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>>
>> The interesting part in this is the Giants would have had TB at home this
>> year if they rank seeds by record and not 4 division winners get the top 4
>> seeds. I like this change - I hope they do it.
>>
>> Bill A.
>
>Normally I would be against this - winning a division should be an important
>honor and should be rewarded, if possible. However, I'm getting a little
>tired of extremely weak teams winning a very weak division and getting a
>home game rather than much better wild card teams, so I would like to see
>this change. Should a 9-7 team host a playoff game while 11-5, 12-4 teams
>go on the road? I don't think so.

When has what you said every happened? At best in memory I remembered
9-7 team hosting 10-6, but usually their records are the same or only
one-game apart. Which if anything is proof that the current system
works.

If you change, and you claim change is for "better teams" to be better
seeded, then I can see media and fans go wild about the fairness of
scheduling which is ironically still based on division, which is a
controvery NFL can't afford to have at this moment.

> It used to make sense - the only wild
>card team to win a Super Bowl before 1997 was the 1980 Raiders. Since 1997,
>four wild card teams have won the Super Bowl, so over 1/3 of the winners
>have been wild cards. That proves two things - that having to play on the
>road in the playoffs is no longer a nearly insurmountable obstacle, but
>also, that the wrong teams are being rewarded with home games in the first
>round.

Or simply that NFL is a very parity league like many of us recognize.
There are no clear dominate teams in NFL (maybe the Pats, heh heh)
like NBA, MLB, and NHL that will just dominate and eat up teams for
lunch. Also the nature of football itself: it's such a team sport
that good schemes can take away individual talent. If anything this
proves that NFL is a great team sport and "any given sunday" is true
to its last syllable. The issue is not playoff seeding.

>The only downside I see to this is that it will lessen the importance of
>division games. On the other hand, the only sure way to make the playoffs
>will still be to win your division, so I don't see coaches or fans putting a
>lot less emphasis on those games. They'll still be very important.

But your argument (and others) are based on the assumption that
"better teams" gets shaffed. But that assumption has one major flaw:
You defined "better" as in win-loss record, which is still at the
moment heavily depended on divisional opponents. You are just
removing the bottleneck of division champs. The argument will simply
shift to "strength of opponents" if this change is implemented.

Doctor Chen · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 42

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:11:27 -0500, JeffGersten@webtv.net (Jeff
Gersten) wrote:

>bill@comcast.net (Bill A.)wrote:
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/2kd7uj
>
>>The interesting part in this is the Giants would
>>have had TB at home this year if they rank
>>seeds by record and not 4 division winners get
>>the top 4 seeds. I like this change - I hope
>>they do it.
>
>Maybe they would have had a home game. Tampa Bay might have played their
>last 2 games more seriously if they had affected their seeding,
>especially if it determined if they would have a home game. I think this
>is why they are considering that rule change.
>
>Question----would the Giants have won a playoff game if it was at home?
>Remember they were the "Road Warriors".

So far I have seem 2 threads of argument in favor of this now:

1) Teams care more down the stretch and not bench their starters. Not
by week 12-14 anyways.

- This a fair point because NFL has so few games that fans would love
to enjoy everyone of them being hard-fought. But the reality is
coaches worry about injuries, and I really don't know how this will
effect coaching decisions. Like someone says home-advantage is less
and less important in football unless you have a dramatically favored
factor (like weather, Packers, heh heh.)

2) "Better teams" get higher seeding and more chance to win.

- As if wildcard teams winning SB at a high rate is something of a
problem rather than a novelty. The issue is football itself - "any
given sunday" is so true in NFL that isn't true in MLB, NBA, and NHL.
Football you can't get away with it with individual talents alone, but
it's more about group scheme. Look how the Giants pretty much took
away Brady (best QB?) and Moss (best WR?) combo with a decent-talented
group.

I really don't think the change will bring the desired results.

Belichick may need to change February 6, 2008 Coughlin's change of heart offers escape for Belichick by Selena Roberts SI.com In the coming days, Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, intends to question NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell concerning th

Dollars but no change Dollars but no change Brady earns spoils, doesn't get spoiled By Jackie MacMullan, Globe Columnist | May 29, 2005 The money can change everything if you are not careful. It heightens expectations that have already reached Herculean proportions. It engen

homertime needs a nick change Whining over an Ernest Graham-Lee Evans trade? You should change your name to whinertime. First time I've ever seen someone thrown a tantrum because someone DIDN'T quit on their team mid-season.

"Small Change" Quote Looks like Gerrard Warren is fine with his zero tackle performance. ``As far as my coaches are concerned, until they tell me I need to change something or I need to sit down, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing,'' he said. I guess the coaches are hap

Salary Cap rehashing .... pro Pats (for a change!) more Patriot salary cap talk, but at least they're not bashing the Pats over the heads like our local mediots. Patriots Next Challenge: Contracts By Jon Scott, Patriots Insider some excerpts: The Patriots are no dif