Do You Agree With The Home Field Seeding?

[jackacid]

Winning the division should NOT assure a top-4 seed.

Playoff seeding should be based on regular season records.

[typaige]

We need to seriously reconsider giving home field advantage to teams with the best records. They are simply not taking advantage and those privileges. Top seeded teams are losing! We need to sit down and change the playoff rules!!

[badass316]

No, the current playoff seeding system is retarded. Division winner or not, 8-8 teams should not be hosting 12-4 teams, period.

[Montana_Magic]

you made your point in the other thread. This is overkill.

[Pnkpnther16]

uhhh...delete

[jackacid]

You should be rewarded somehow for winning your division

A division winner should be rewarded by being guaranteed a playoff spot. So yes, San Diego should have gotten in while New England was left to wallow in the mire.

However...

San Diego should have had to travel to Indianapolis, not the other way around. Same with Arizona -- should have had to go to Atlanta.

I think it's pure folly that a 9-7 team somehow gets TWO home playoff games, despite having the worst conference record. Both Atlanta and Philly had better records than the Cards (despite being in more competetive divisions), yet the Cards reap the benefits of an arbitrary 4th seed.

[Pnkpnther16]

You should be rewarded somehow for winning your division

[glassrose106]

A division winner should be rewarded by being guaranteed a playoff spot. So yes, San Diego should have gotten in while New England was left to wallow in the mire.

However...

San Diego should have had to travel to Indianapolis, not the other way around. Same with Arizona -- should have had to go to Atlanta.

I think it's pure folly that a 9-7 team somehow gets TWO home playoff games, despite having the worst conference record. Both Atlanta and Philly had better records than the Cards (despite being in more competetive divisions), yet the Cards reap the benefits of an arbitrary 4th seed.

I agree the lower seeds should travel regardless if they won their divisions.

[jackacid]

And you can also be guaranteed a wildcard spot a few weeks before the season is over. I dont think that a wildcard team and a division winner should have the same reward.

Bottom line -- if having a good regular season record means something for the two top teams, it should mean something for the 3-6 teams too.

As it stands, unless you get a first-round bye, a good regular season record essentially guarantees nothing. Your fate lies with OTHER division winners.

Sorry, but that's just plain weak.

[Pnkpnther16]

A division winner should be rewarded by being guaranteed a playoff spot. So yes, San Diego should have gotten in while New England was left to wallow in the mire.

However...

San Diego should have had to travel to Indianapolis, not the other way around. Same with Arizona -- should have had to go to Atlanta.

I think it's pure folly that a 9-7 team somehow gets TWO home playoff games, despite having the worst conference record. Both Atlanta and Philly had better records than the Cards (despite being in more competetive divisions), yet the Cards reap the benefits of an arbitrary 4th seed.

And you can also be guaranteed a wildcard spot a few weeks before the season is over. I dont think that a wildcard team and a division winner should have the same reward.

[badass316]

And you can also be guaranteed a wildcard spot a few weeks before the season is over. I dont think that a wildcard team and a division winner should have the same reward.

Why not? In some cases (like this year's AFC West division) it's a lot tougher to win a wildcard spot rather than garnering a spot by being a division winner. Take the bolts this year for example. It was either win their division or bust, they had no shot at making it as a wild card team because there were 2 teams that had over 10 wins competing for those spots already. They either had to win their division or they weren't getting in.

[jmichura]

Division winners should be guaranteed a playoff spot but that's it. Records should determine the seeding and winning a division should be the first tie-breaker.

[badass316]

It takes more LUCK to win a wildcard spot than a division. Thats why i believe that the reward should be different

Are you serious? So winning 12 games is luck? :laugh:

[badass316]

Division winners should be guaranteed a playoff spot but that's it. Records should determine the seeding and winning a division should be the first tie-breaker.

That's how it should be. Although in regards to the tie breaker, I think the teams who won the regular season meeting should be the first tie breaker. So in this year's case, the colts would be the 2nd seed since they beat pit earlier in the regular season.

[Pnkpnther16]

Why not? In some cases (like this year's AFC West division) it's a lot tougher to win a wildcard spot rather than garnering a spot by being a division winner. Take the bolts this year for example. It was either win their division or bust, they had no shot at making it as a wild card team because there were 2 teams that had over 10 wins competing for those spots already. They either had to win their division or they weren't getting in.

It takes more LUCK to win a wildcard spot than a division. Thats why i believe that the reward should be different

[badass316]

No...counting on other teams to lose, regardless of your record is luck...

And that doesn't apply to winning divisions? :laugh:

[Pnkpnther16]

Are you serious? So winning 12 games is luck? :laugh:

No...counting on other teams to lose, regardless of your record is luck...

[Ace Matherton]

If you want home field advantage win your division, you have no excuses if you dont get it.

All seeding by record does is devalue the need for divisions just look at the NBA. If you go to this format, fine get rid of playing the teams in your division 2 times and play all the teams i the NFC 1 time then you can compare records and make the playoffs tied to them.

You all are trying to compare records which can not be done, hence the original reason for a division. Win your division and you are in, dont and suffer the fate of the unknown and get used to the fact you'll be traveling.

Dont see any problem with that, if ATL and INDY wanted games at home they should have beat their division couterparts when they had the chance.

[Pnkpnther16]

And that doesn't apply to winning divisions? :laugh:

Hey, i said what requires MORE luck. But your and my opinion is set sooo our points wont be seen.


Question though. What would you do with teams with the same records that didnt play in the regular season? Strength of schedule?

[TouchdownBuddha]

If you want home field advantage win your division, you have no excuses if you dont get it.

All seeding by record does is devalue the need for divisions just look at the NBA.

I disagree, winning the NFC West at 9-7 should not have a higher reward than going 12-4 and getting second in the NFC East. The divisions are just not equal.

I agree with everyone else, winning the division guarantees you a playoff spot, but seeding should be determined by record.

[badass316]

Hey, i said what requires MORE luck. But your and my opinion is set sooo our points wont be seen.


Question though. What would you do with teams with the same records that didnt play in the regular season? Strength of schedule?

It requires more luck to win 12 games and make the wild card rather than win 8 and win a division? I see... :thinking:

I'm not understanding your question, which teams are you talking about?

[Pnkpnther16]

It requires more luck to win 12 games and make the wild card rather than win 8 and win a division? I see... :thinking:

I'm not understanding your question, which teams are you talking about?

Im only talking about luck through hoping that other teams lose. i.e the eagles. Im not saying its lucky for a team to have a certain record...i dont see where you are getting that from. But nvm, i dont think you will see my opinion and thats at that is. You have yours, i have mine.

[badass316]

Im only talking about luck through hoping that other teams lose. i.e the eagles. Im not saying its lucky for a team to have a certain record...i dont see where you are getting that from. But nvm, i dont think you will see my opinion and thats at that is. You have yours, i have mine.

And do you not get that this "luck factor" (teams hoping for other teams to lose) also applies to teams in close divisional races, not just the wildcard? Case in point the NFC North this year with the bears and vikings, or better yet the broncos and the bolts?

[Pnkpnther16]

And do you not get that this "luck factor" (teams hoping for other teams to lose) also applies to teams in close divisional races, not just the wildcard? Case in point the NFC North this year with the bears and vikings, or better yet the broncos and the bolts?

Did i ever say that luck wasn't included in a division win? Nope. I simply said a wildcard requires MORE....:pards:

I am aware of luck in a division. We play in the same division as the cardinals :dance:

[badass316]

Did i ever say that luck wasn't included in a division win? Nope. I simply said a wildcard requires MORE....:pards:

I am aware of luck in a division. We play in the same division as the cardinals :dance:

And I already proved that statement wrong with this year's playoff situations... Colts, bolts...

[TouchdownBuddha]

And I already proved that statement wrong with this year's playoff situations... Colts, bolts...

Well to back up his point, Pats 11 wins, Jets 9 wins, San Diego 8 wins

and in the NFC Tampa Bay, Chicago, and the Cowboys had the same record as Arizona, but were in harder divisions.

You guys are arguing different points, so you'll never come to a conclusion.

[SirMyztiq]

As these playoffs have proven, the teams that didn't "deserve" to be there have, well, WON. So, this year proves that records at the end of the road don't mean **** in terms of who is the "better" team.

[Ace Matherton]

If you want home field advantage win your division, you have no excuses if you dont get it.

All seeding by record does is devalue the need for divisions just look at the NBA. If you go to this format, fine get rid of playing the teams in your division 2 times and play all the teams i the NFC 1 time then you can compare records and make the playoffs tied to them.

You all are trying to compare records which can not be done, hence the original reason for a division. Win your division and you are in, dont and suffer the fate of the unknown and get used to the fact you'll be traveling.

Dont see any problem with that, if ATL and INDY wanted games at home they should have beat their division couterparts when they had the chance.

I disagree, winning the NFC West at 9-7 should not have a higher reward than going 12-4 and getting second in the NFC East. The divisions are just not equal.

I agree with everyone else, winning the division guarantees you a playoff spot, but seeding should be determined by record.


Ahh so its not OK to do playoffs the way it currently is because the divisions are not equal but seeding the playoffs via record somehow makes the schedules equal? No matter how you slice it one way is unfair to someone, dont penalize the team who wins its division like it is supposed to because the team that does not do its job had a better record against possibly inferior opposition. Until all the teams in question play the same opponents stop trying to compare the records in the first place.

Please enlighten me on how that isnt a hypocritical thought process.

[krowleey]

A division winner should be rewarded by being guaranteed a playoff spot. So yes, San Diego should have gotten in while New England was left to wallow in the mire.

However...

San Diego should have had to travel to Indianapolis, not the other way around. Same with Arizona -- should have had to go to Atlanta.

I think it's pure folly that a 9-7 team somehow gets TWO home playoff games, despite having the worst conference record. Both Atlanta and Philly had better records than the Cards (despite being in more competetive divisions), yet the Cards reap the benefits of an arbitrary 4th seed.


agreed

[JASON]

The team with the best record in the NFC & AFC deserve home field because they are the 2 best teams in the NFL in the reg. season. Then it's up to them in the playoffs.

[jammer]

As these playoffs have proven, the teams that didn't "deserve" to be there have, well, WON. So, this year proves that records at the end of the road don't mean **** in terms of who is the "better" team.

Oh, obviously. One year that this happens totally, 100% proves it.

Please enlighten me on how that isnt a hypocritical thought process.

Now that's quite ironic. You argue non-division winning teams with better records may have inferior competition, but you fail to consider it works both ways (i.e. division winners may win their division with a worse record and a lesser schedule). You also fail to consider maybe the non-division winning team had an even better team (record-wise at the least) ahead of it as division winner. There is too much context to consider to automatically award division winners with better spots than teams with better records.

Point is, it works both ways, and it is possible to award division winners with spots, and teams who made the playoffs with better records as higher seeds.

[Sivraj]

I figured that philly defeated the home field advantage giants I thought the eagles were willing to get the rest of home field. But I forgot that Philly is the lowest seed in the conference so I can understand that.

[Eng74]

Just get rid of the wild cards. You have to win the division to get in and then that is it. The wild card is a reward for doing just good engough for not winning the division. To me if you start re-seeding the playofs it will be just like the BCS then. Tjis team may have won more games but the teams they played were not as good as this other team played. Keep it the way it is.

[MENGO49er]

No, the current playoff seeding system is retarded. Division winner or not, 8-8 teams should not be hosting 12-4 teams, period.

That's EXACTLY what I think. Division winners must have a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.Period. The homefield advantage/seeding should be decided by the overall record,that's what I'd change in the current system.

[_Jerden]

3rd no home field advantage. The championship game is too important to give either team the edge.

[Pnkpnther16]

And I already proved that statement wrong with this year's playoff situations... Colts, bolts...

wait...what.....no


i dont think you get it

[UtterlyHopeless]

You win your division, weak or not, you earned yourself at least 1 home game.

[jackacid]

You win your division, weak or not, you earned yourself at least 1 home game.

So winning 11, 12 games should earn you nothing? Because that's exactly what happened to Indy, Atlanta and now Philly.

I say Philly not because they had double digit wins, but are now going on the road to play an team with a weaker record.

What is more defining of a good team at the end of the year -- their record, or a division title?

[Big Cat Lover]

No, the current playoff seeding system is retarded. Division winner or not, 8-8 teams should not be hosting 12-4 teams, period.

So funny really!! NFL needs to be more like College games and College
needs a playoff system to get the BCS right!:banghead::banghead::slap: