Playoff Seed changes?

The old format, before the merger, was like that: the teams with the best records played each other in the Super Bowl. Personally, I like the current setup. I hope it doesn't change.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by sfout:

Originally posted by cory4903:
The problem with this would be scheduling, no?

How? it would just be 8 games in 1 day. Or as they've mused in the past the higher seeded teams (coming off a bye week)could play on Saturday and get an extra day of rest for the next round. The lower seeded teams would be at an immediate disadvantage of 1 less day to prepare, especially if you take into account the idea of expanding the field to 16 teams with the bottom 4 playing for the right to face the 1 and 2 seed.

Stupid..makes divisions worthless

which is why I said they will eventually dissolve the divisions especially if they plan on relocating 1 or more franchises internationally or creating more teams via expansion.

Unless they create 4 entirely new teams there is no way they can keep divisions and have 9. Unless they create 3 and make 11 divisions out of 35 teams.

Not to intentionally make the football to football comparison but we will eventually become a British Premier League. 1 league with no divisions that fights for the best regular season records but because America is a nation that loves tournaments and playoffs we'd still have a post season made up of the best teams.

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

it should be like that but i doubt anything changes. its more incentive to win your division

getting a spot through Division win is absolutely sufficient imo. you dont need to reward it with a home game on top of that.
next week the bears could clinch their division with a 9-7 and host the niners who could be at 12-4 then, with a 5-1 in the hardest division of the nfl.

Originally posted by communist:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
it should be like that but i doubt anything changes. its more incentive to win your division

getting a spot through Division win is absolutely sufficient imo. you dont need to reward it with a home game on top of that.
next week the bears could clinch their division with a 9-7 and host the niners who could be at 12-4 then, with a 5-1 in the hardest division of the nfl.

Exactly the point I was trying to make yea the divisional winner makes the playoffs but don't award and 9-7, 8-8, 7-9 team with a home game when you have 12-4 teams as a wild card makes NO sense imo

I think the bigger question is what is the NFL more likely to do, expand the playoffs or re-seed the teams based on record?

I'd personally like both, but if I had to chose, adding 1 team per conference would be great. Only the #1 seed gets a bye and Wild Card weekend would have games at 12:30, 4:15, and 8:30 (eastern time) on both days!

Originally posted by sfout:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by sfout:

Originally posted by cory4903:

The problem with this would be scheduling, no?

How? it would just be 8 games in 1 day. Or as they've mused in the past the higher seeded teams (coming off a bye week)could play on Saturday and get an extra day of rest for the next round. The lower seeded teams would be at an immediate disadvantage of 1 less day to prepare, especially if you take into account the idea of expanding the field to 16 teams with the bottom 4 playing for the right to face the 1 and 2 seed.

Stupid..makes divisions worthless

which is why I said they will eventually dissolve the divisions especially if they plan on relocating 1 or more franchises internationally or creating more teams via expansion.

Unless they create 4 entirely new teams there is no way they can keep divisions and have 9. Unless they create 3 and make 11 divisions out of 35 teams.

Not to intentionally make the football to football comparison but we will eventually become a British Premier League. 1 league with no divisions that fights for the best regular season records but because America is a nation that loves tournaments and playoffs we'd still have a post season made up of the best teams.

Sorry bro..not a good idea

i like the current format. I remember in 2001, we had to go on the road in Lambeau when we had a 12-4 record.

Originally posted by pdizo916:
i like the current format. I remember in 2001, we had to go on the road in Lambeau when we had a 12-4 record.

Might be the same scenario this year, although someplace other than Lambeau.

The NBA is always ahead of the curve. Here's an article.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1882483-nba-commish-in-waiting-says-divisions-could-be-disbanded

Originally posted by RishikeshA:
The NBA is always ahead of the curve. Here's an article.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1882483-nba-commish-in-waiting-says-divisions-could-be-disbanded

Not a bad idea imo as a competitive issue it would be great to see if it will transition in the NFL

there's nothing wrong with the current format. The NFC is loaded this year and that means that a good team might not make the playoffs. Oh well. Not everyone can make the playoffs. And, sure, expanding the playoffs might allow in a good AZ team, but it would also allow in a very mediocre BAL/PIT/MIA team in the AFC; do we need more s**tty teams in the playoffs? Most years, there's gonna be a few duds that make it; more teams in the playoffs = more duds.

And does no one find the competition between SEA and SF for the division title and all that it entails fascinating? If you take away the meaning of the division title by re-seeding the playoffs, division races will lose 100% of their meaning.

Let the division winners in the tourney. Base seeding off of record alone. The better the record the better the seed.

what is the point of re-seeding based on records when every team in the playoffs begins the playoffs with a record of 0-0?

yeahs its dumb a team with more wins has to travel to a team who gets to host just for winning their weak division

We are 12 - 4 and traveling to Green Bay with their weak record....