NFC west hosting a playoff game

[kevinkris]

Ok, I am tired of all these columns on tsn, nfl.com and announcers complaining about how a team from the NFC west will host a playoff game.

 

In an article written by Chris Schultz he;

 

"If you win your division and don't have a winning record, the team with the next best winning record should get the playoff opportunity. Nine wins and seven losses is a success. Eight wins and eight losses is not."

 

In the 2008 season, the Patriots missed the playoffs at 11-5, with the Chargers winning the divison at 8-8. Also in the NFC that year there were 3 teams with worse records making the playoffs.

 

I might of missed something, but I never heard this much controversay surrounding the issue in the 2008 season. Why is all of a sudden this such a huge deal that a team with an 8-8 record hosts a game, when it happend just two years ago.

 

I understand that a team with a 7-9 record might win the division, but until that happens why all the fuss?

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

if the division winner doesn't go to the playoffs -- for whatever reason -- then they need to disband the divisions.

 

 

now that's an Idea I would be for

[BeachBum]

if the division winner doesn't go to the playoffs -- for whatever reason -- then they need to disband the divisions.

 

I think the argument is about HOSTING a playoff game, not making the playoffs.

 

It would possibly make the later weeks more interesting if those teams who had clinched a wild card, or were competing for one, could be playing for a home game too.

[half_hennessy]

Seriously they need to just get over it if the team with the 7-9 or 8-8 record is so inferior HFA will not make a lick of difference. The league is setup so that the 4 division winners all get to host atleast one playoff game as a reward for winning their division I really can't see what all the fuss is about to be honest.

[Jackass]

they should be allowed in the playoffs but only if they first can beat Auburn.

[Whiskey Pimp]

I think the argument is about HOSTING a playoff game, not making the playoffs.

 

It would possibly make the later weeks more interesting if those teams who had clinched a wild card, or were competing for one, could be playing for a home game too.

 

Yeah, all division winners should make the playoffs but I think the discussion might be to re-seed teams 3-6 for hosting games.

[wiegie]

The perfect thing to happen would be for the Rams to win the Superbowl. Then everybody can freak out like they did when the Stl. Cardinals won the World Series in 2006 about how this was the worst team to ever win the championship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(A boy can dream... can't he?)

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

The perfect thing to happen would be for the Rams to win the Superbowl. Then everybody can freak out like they did when the Stl. Cardinals won the World Series in 2006 about how this was the worst team to ever win the championship.

 

(A boy can dream... can't he?)

 

 

Let them 1st resign KW then you can dream

[kevinkris]

Seriously they need to just get over it if the team with the 7-9 or 8-8 record is so inferior HFA will not make a lick of difference. The league is setup so that the 4 division winners all get to host atleast one playoff game as a reward for winning their division I really can't see what all the fuss is about to be honest.

 

This is excatly what I am trying to say. Just stop complaining about it. What is the point of four divisions if you are going to make one divison leader not make it anyways?

[Whiskey Pimp]

But what happens if the team who is 2nd in the conference didn't win the division? Should they get a bye?

 

They discussed this last night on NFLN and they said the 1 and 2 would automatically be the top 2 division winners but 3 through 6 would be seeded by records. All 4 division winners would make the playoffs but they wouldn't be guaranteed to host a game. They said they had 18 votes for it last year but need 24 to get it changed. The purpose would be to have more meaningful games at the end of the season because a team could win their division early but still needs to fight for seeding.

[Turf Smurf]

I think the argument is about HOSTING a playoff game, not making the playoffs.

 

It would possibly make the later weeks more interesting if those teams who had clinched a wild card, or were competing for one, could be playing for a home game too.

Just follow the money...

[tazinib1]

they should be allowed in the playoffs but only if they first can beat Oregon.

 

fixed

[Bronco Billy]

Divisional play needs to mean something. Rewarding each divisional winner with a home playoff game is appropriate. Promoting regional rivalries is great in sports, and that's exactly what divisional play does. Every team in the NFL had a chance to win its division. For those teams that didn't, it's on them and no one else. That 2 of them make the playoffs at all as wild cards should result in those 2 teams that couldn't win the division but still made the playoffs considreing themselves extremely fortunate to even have the opportunity.

 

As to records - well, if we've seen anything in the NFL, it has been that they are superb at creating parity. That being the case, the pendulum will swing and weak divisions will become strong divisions and vice versa over time.

 

Now, if people don't like that, well, they are certainly free to start their own league and create whatever rules they want....

[wolfer]

I think the central point towards changing the 3-6 seeds is the evolution of divisional play. 30 years ago you had 8 divisional games in a 14 game schedule. Now you have only 6 divisional games in a 16 game schedule. Fans deserve to have their division champ got an automatic spot in the playoffs, no doubt about that. So what if the division champ is 7-9? But since you have 10 games outside the division, I can understand the argument to re-seed based on record.

 

In the end you need 24 votes to change a rule? I don't see it happening.

[osu1322]

I like Divisional play and think it's great for the sport.

 

I don't think however that teams who win their division should just automatically get to host a playoff game.

 

This year for instance (all of this is speculated)

 

STL currently leading their division at 6-8 let say they win out and go 8-8

 

NO get the Wild card at 12-4 (I'm also say th ATL wins the division with 13 wins...)

 

12-4 is a record that would win most divisions but they play at STL cause STL is in a weaker division? how does that make sense???

 

The team with the best record should get home field advantage even if they are a Wild Card. It rewards the team (with ticket sells) for winning. Otherwise they are going to rest their starters and not play cause it doesn't affect their playoofs picture.

Edited December 24, 2010 by osu1322

[Bronco Billy]

12-4 is a record that would win most divisions but they play at STL cause STL is in a weaker division? how does that make sense???

 

 

Well, then NO will have no problem kicking STL's ass. And then if they still don't like it, they can beat ATL or whomever else for the division title next season. Every team has its fate in its own hands. Win and you don't have to worry about having things like this turn out unfavorably for you.

 

How about taking a look at another "unfair" scenario. A team could play in a division with 3 other very weak teams and manages to luck into a weak non-division/non-conference schedule - missing the teams from the following division, and finishes 12-4. Another team plays in a division that is extremely competitive, with all 4 teams having a final record over .500 and two of the teams making the playoffs as wild cards, as well as catching the toughest division in the other conference and finshes 11-5.

 

So the team with the cream puff schedule wins only one more game, but gets a bye in the first round of the playoffs and a home game in the second - much more beneficial than just playing at home in the first round - while the other team not only plays in the first round but plays a divisional opponent who has seen them twice in the regular season already, and then if they manage to win play a road game in the second round.

 

Well, why can't we just whine about that and just give the 11-5 team the bye and the home game in the second round, since they are much more deserving than the 12-4 team that coasted to its record? After all, that's only "fair".

 

Geez - this is the NFL. These are the rules set up by men with a hell of a lot more vision than all of us, and with a much higher financial stake. Stop being such nancies and let's let them play the freakin' games without acting like a bunch of affronted 11 year old girls.