NFC East highlights, once again, the flaws in the NFL’s playoff seeding

Getty Images

On paper, the NFL’s current arrangement of teams looks good, symmetrical. Two conferences. Four divisions per conference. Four teams per division.

But there’s a problem with this structure. The NFL guarantees the best of every quartet of predetermined teams a playoff spot and, even worse, a home game.

From time to time, complaints have been raised about the unfair outcome that arises when the fifth seed in the conference has a better record than the fourth seed, but then has to play a wild-card game in the fourth seed’s stadium. It happened most notably in 2010, when the 7-9 Seahawks won the NFC West and faced the 11-5 Saints in Seattle.

When the Seahawks beat the Saints, some said that the outcome proved the Seahawks were the better team. And that’s nonsense. If Seattle had been required to play in New Orleans, the Saints would have won the game, perhaps in a blowout.

The league continues to resist the idea of reseeding, because the league places excessive significance on winning a division. Owners aren’t inclined to change that, in part because they individually and collectively like the idea of having a one-in-four chance, each and every year, to host a playoff game.

This year, someone from the NFC East will host a playoff game, even if none deserve to do so. And with plenty of great teams potentially landing in the No. 5 seed (the Bears or Packers, Bucs or Saints, Seahawks or Rams or 49ers or Cardinals), one of them will have to launch a preseason run by playing on the road against the 2-4 Cowboys, the 1-4-1 Eagles, the 1-5 Giants, or 1-5 Washington.

If the NFL is determined to continue to reward division champions with home playoff games, here’s a possibility: Revert to three divisions per conference. Name them East, Central, and West, as it was before 2002.

Yes, one division per conference would have six teams. But that would leave four divisions with a pre-existing expansion slot for up to four more teams.

And that would be the best long-term arrangement. Six divisions. Six teams per division. Three division champions and four (eventually five) wild cards.

We’ve added a proposed reconfiguration of divisions after the jump. Check it out, and then add a comment explaining why you think the idea is stupid.

AFC East: Patriots, Jets, Dolphins, Bills, Ravens, Jaguars.

AFC Central: Browns, Bengals, Colts, Steelers, Titans.

AFC West: Broncos, Chargers, Raiders, Texans, Chiefs.

NFC East: Washington, Giants, Eagles, Buccaneers, Panthers, Falcons.

NFC Central: Packers, Bears, Lions, Vikings, Saints.

NFC West: Rams, 49ers, Cardinals, Seahawks, Cowboys.

100 responses to “NFC East highlights, once again, the flaws in the NFL’s playoff seeding

  1. The cut-off should be 8 wins… Any team that wins a Division with under a .500 record should be replaced in the Playoffs by the runner up to the last Wild Card spot.

  2. You win your division you host a playoff game, thats fair. Im a whodat and the year after we won the SB we, an 11-5 wild card, had to travel up to Seattle to face the 7-9 Matt Hassleback Seahawks as the NFC West Champ. And we got Beast-Moded. Thats just the system, its fair. Remove the value of div 4 titles and you remove value from the regular season.

  3. Keep the divisions and just give teams with a better record the home playoff game. Owners like the divisions because of rivalries.

  4. Future expansion
    AFC Central –St Louis
    AFC West — Portland
    NFC Central — Oklahoma City
    NFC West — Salt Lake City

    Other Ideas???

  5. It is stupid because when you have a 6-team division, that makes a full 10 of your games against divisional opponents. Year in and year out, those 10 games stay the same. That is way too many. Even with the 17-game season (which we all know will eventually be 18), you should not have 10 division games every year.

    Also, it’s stupid to overhaul a system based on something that happens once very 7 years or so. (You suggestion the League could expand is also a bad one, but that wasn’t the main piont of the article so I ignored that)

  6. “If Seattle had been required to play in New Orleans, the Saints would have won the game, perhaps in a blowout.” Maybe, maybe not. I’ve seen your prognostication record…you shouldn’t be so confident.

  7. It’s not like this is an every year issue. Additionally, you nullify the importance of the division if you do something like this and the regional aspect of the division is one of the things that drives fan interest.

  8. This is definitely the wrong year to bring this up, but the all time great rivalries in the NFC east would be really hurt without Dallas in the division. Logistically, it makes sense but that would still be tough. As a Giants fan I was even sad when the Cardinals left years ago. Losing Dallas in the NFC east would be hard to swallow if you root for one of those teams.

  9. Good luck with your idea.

    Why not a simpler plan?

    No divisions. Each team plays all the teams in its conference once (15 games) and two teams in the opposing conference. one home and one away. That way you would play every team in the same conference home and away every two years. Seed the teams for the playoffs by their records and everything is fair.

  10. If winning the division didn’t mean anything, all four NFCE teams would basically have nothing to play for at this point.

  11. 49fromwi says:
    October 20, 2020 at 1:27 pm
    Future expansion
    AFC Central –St Louis
    AFC West — Portland
    NFC Central — Oklahoma City
    NFC West — Salt Lake City

    Other Ideas???
    —————–\
    No to all. There aren’t enough legit players to go around as it is.

  12. If a team with a vastly superior record can’t go beat a below .500 team, then perhaps that team isn’t worthy of a Super Bowl appearance anyway.

    Not sure how you would configure division games in this realignment. Unless you are adding weeks, you would then have half the year (and then some for the 6 team division) with divisional games. Would seem very dull long term.

  13. I love the re-seeding idea. Looking at the idea expansion – objectively – the current transition of humanity may have a detrimental effect on the socioeconomic conditions of this country. State funded sports arenas may no longer be possible. Billion dollar deals (and bailouts) will be unsustainable unless they are supported by the government. But our government itself may be in trouble if our debts are called by foreign countries. If so, the NFL, like the country, will have to confront its deficit spending. The transformation in the game itself as we’ve already seen in recent years – due to pending massive lawsuits – will also continue. Any expansion – as we project it may look now – may not include new stadiums and expanding salary caps.

  14. If there is a flaw, it is letting a “poor” division winner into the playoffs. If you’re going to let them in, then treat them like a division winner. You can make the same argument for a “second” place team with a better record than a different division winner.

  15. In your proposal, Buffalo should be located in the AFC Central. It is significantly closer to Pittsburgh and Cleveland than any of the AFC East cities.

  16. If you want to play at home, then win your division. If you don’t win your division, then you probably don’t have the world’s greatest home record anyways.

  17. The NFL should just be glad that there’s 6 divisional games, otherwise the NFC East would end up with a 3-4 win team winning

  18. I think that you have to have a winning record to host the playoff game. So an 8-8 or 7-9 or worse Division winner would be on the road in the playoffs, but a 9-7 or above Division winner hosts the playoff game.

    That’s a simple, more straightahead solution

  19. OR, we can just let the season play out and see where we are. There’s an idea. Besides, the NFC East carried the league for several decades, so give em a break. This happens once every so often. Not a big enough problem to change tradition, even though I know Florio is all about changing history.

  20. Yes. Thank you. In addition to the 7-9 Seahawks hosting the 11-5 Saints, the 10-6 Giants missed the playoffs entirely. It also happened in 2014 when the 7-8-1 Panthers got in while the 10-6 Eagles. I will never understand why so many people here think it’s fair to reward the worse of 2 teams and punish the better one. Remember that your team could be the next 2010 Seahawks or 2014 Eagles.

  21. In a year where they’re handing out a participation trophy for the playoffs (7th seed) you want to make them more competitive?

  22. Disagree with the premise of this blog. Imperfections like this are good for the NFL. It’s like keeping Dallas in the NFC East and Baltimore in the NFC North.

    One day, you’re going to see a team from a crappy division catch on fire at the end of the season and win the whole ball of wax. It will be legendary.

  23. The current divisions and seeding procedures are generally favored by most fans.
    Here’s an idea, let’s just accept things the way they are with all the quirks and blemishes that come with it.
    And when things occasionally go astray, we deal with it like adults and move on.

  24. There is no good reason to take the home game away from a division winner. The NFC East winner will not be 4-12, despite everything the sports talking heads would like us to believe. This whole concept of seeding and re-seeding is stupid. You’re the best in your conference? You get a week off in January. Win your division? You’re hosting a playoff game – period. Giving a home game to a team that couldn’t win its own division rewards failure.

  25. Get rid of the divisions and conferences. Let every team play every other team every other year, alternating home and away.

  26. Leave the playoffs alone. If you are a wild card team who has a better record then go on the road and win the game. If NFC is so bad then it should be a easy game. Each year the goal is super bowl, but the first step toward the goal is win your division.

  27. “If Seattle had been required to play in New Orleans, the Saints would have won the game, perhaps in a blowout.”

    And we would have lost perhaps the best TD run ever seen in the history of the league. Marshawn Lynch’s famous Beastquake run happened in that game. 65,000 fans made nearby Richter scales register a small earthquake during that run. This year 1500 fans won’t help any losing record home team like that.

  28. Keep the divisions for scheduling purposes but do away with division titles. Just give playoff spots to the top seven teams in the conference

  29. Actually, if the set up was similar to the EFL (promotion and relegation) it would really be cool….8 AFC and NFC teams Division 1 and 8 AFC and 8 NFC teams Division 2, with bottom three relegated from Div 1 to Div 2 and top three promoted from Div 2 to Div 1. Not an EFL fan, but their system seems to work more fairly. What with the salary cap as well, you’re not going to see the same 6 teams dominate like in the Premier League every year…you know the 6 I mean. The Premier League really needs a salary cap….

  30. You’re forgetting one thing – banners. Teams love to be able to say “division winner.” Fewer divisions would mean fewer “participation” banners. They won’t do it.

  31. “I like the system the way it is. It’s fair and they should host a playoff game.” – every NFC East fan.

  32. How does this plan align with the NFL obvious intent to expand internationally? Instead, how about each conference adding a 4 team division based geographically: so 1 a Euro division (1-2 UK, 1-2 Germany, 1-2 elsewhere, perhaps Italy, or France) , and 1 an expanded Americas division (1-2 Canada, 1 Mexico, 1 elsewhere, perhaps Brazil)

    Otherwise, I don’t see a problem with rewarding a division champ with some benefit. They did actually win the division afterall, even if that doesn’t mean so much in some unusual years.

  33. Saying the Saints would have won (you’re not saying there was great odds they could have won, your outright saying the would have won as if it’s fact) is a joke.

    And if the Chiefs are gonna play in the West, their home games should be at 4:00pm ET.

  34. javagold says:
    October 20, 2020 at 1:32 pm

    Good luck with your idea.

    Why not a simpler plan?

    No divisions. Each team plays all the teams in its conference once (15 games) and two teams in the opposing conference. one home and one away. That way you would play every team in the same conference home and away every two years. Seed the teams for the playoffs by their records and everything is fair.
    /////////////////
    This is the answer

  35. STUPID argument. Where was all the crying in 2010 when Seattle Seahawks 7-9 went in? Also where were all the other teams when the NFC East was winning Super Bowls and all other Divisions were trash.

  36. Considering you can be 11-5 and miss the playoffs while another team can be 7-8-1 and host a playoff game, I think Division Championships should not guarantee a playoff spot.

    Take the 7 best records in the Conference and seed them based on record.

  37. All of the “keep things the way they are” and “it’s tradition” arguments seem really lazy. Don’t you realize that football and the NFL have ALWAYS been changing?

    Am I the only person who remembers when there was only one wildcard team from each conference (plus the 3 division winners) and a 14-game schedule? Then it changed to two WC teams and a 16 game schedule.

    Then a 3rd WC team. Then 4 divisions and back to two WCs.

    If there’s been one constant in the NFL’s 100 years it’s been this: change. And that’s a good thing, else there would be no forward passes and teams barnstorming for a schedule.

    Give new ideas a chance! Personally, I like the one listed above that said the division winners all get in, but to host a playoff game, you need to have a winning record (9 wins).

  38. I am a NFC East supporter (Eagles). I’m ok with leaving divisions as is. If you want to give the home playoff game to wild card with best record, fine. But still leave divisions. Still have division crown. Move on.

    No expansion of teams. Don’t need more. Further waters down teams. StL had its chance. OK City won’t happen because that’s Cowboys supporters. SLC isn’t really a football place other than the Fightin’ Mormons. Portland nah. Not really football hot bed. Leave teams alone.

  39. I’m opposed to suggesting the NFL Restructure just To “fix” the perceived problem. I’m in favor of requiring a “winning record” to host in first round. Thus, the Div winner with losing record (below .500) forfeits hosting the game to the highest ranked wildcard team.

  40. artic19 says:
    October 20, 2020 at 2:29 pm
    javagold says:
    October 20, 2020 at 1:32 pm

    Good luck with your idea.

    Why not a simpler plan?

    No divisions. Each team plays all the teams in its conference once (15 games) and two teams in the opposing conference. one home and one away. That way you would play every team in the same conference home and away every two years. Seed the teams for the playoffs by their records and everything is fair.
    /////////////////
    This is the answer
    ////////////////

    Disagree. You are not fostering rivalry. Rivalry is what makes crowds pumped up. I always want rivalry.

    Also the write of this article just said because the 7-9 seahawks beat the 11-5 saints in seattle its flawed?? you are thinking that homefield advantage has a 4 game swing? Give me a break. I think its good the way it is.

  41. “If Seattle had been required to play in New Orleans, the Saints would have won the game, perhaps in a blowout.”

    This is a ridiculous statement. You have no idea what would have happened if this game was played in New Orleans or on the moon.

  42. I’m all for seeding 1-14 w/o taking division and conference into account. If the Steelers and Chiefs are the two best teams in the league let ’em duke it out in the super bowl

  43. I knew this conversation would come soon enough. First, this really is not a “problem” because we see this once every five years or so.

    I hate to say it but sometimes, we have to get past the whole thing of “it’s not fair.” I don’t really know what to say. There are a lot of things in sports… in life that is not fair. No, it’s not fair that a 6 win team can very well get in the playoffs. But with the new expanded playoff system, that 10 win team will probably get the 3rd wildcard.

    If a 10 win team cannot beat a 6 win team, even if it is on the road, then I’m sorry. That’s on you.

  44. But if Seattle had played at New Orleans we never would’ve seen one of the great runs/highlights the NFL has ever seen – BEASTQUAKE!

  45. The schedule now is perfect, with the interconference and intraconference rotation.

    Just swap Baltimore & Buffalo in the AFC north & east, and Dallas & Carolina(or T Bay) in the NFC east & south, like it should be.

  46. They should get rid of divisions. Each team plays the other 15 teams in their conference once each and keep one rivalry game to make 16. The best teams from the conference go to the playoffs.

  47. I’ve seen comments saying that divisions should be only for rivalries/scheduling. I think that’s nonsense. There needs to be reward for winning your division. I like the reseeding idea better than changing divisions or not giving division winners a playoff spot.

    Make winning your division guarantee your playoff spot, but not necessarily a home game. Home games and seeding should be awarded solely on record. For instance, say the NFC as it stands would see the Seahawks as the 1, Bears 2, Packers 3, Cardinals 4, Rams 5, Bucs 6, Cowboys 7. AFC would be Titans 1, Steelers 2, Chiefs 3, Ravens 4, Bills 5, Colts/Browns as 6/7 depending on tie breakers.

    It allows the better teams to have the home game, but still rewards the division champs with a playoff berth.

  48. A true conservative perspective — realign back to three divisions and 12 teams per conference, and only 4 teams from each conference make it into the playoffs. Dump the teams that are perennial losers: “what’s in it for them?”

    Since this is all about the playoffs, that means keeping ONLY the 12 most competitive teams per original league [conference for expansion teams], based on ratio if playoff appearances to regular season games played — and DUMPING the teams with the worst playoff appearance percentages:
    NFL — Cardinals, Lions, Saints, Bears, Falcons
    AFL — Bucs, Bengals, Jets

    Or, the four most losing teams in each conference get suspended from all games the next season, and the divisions are realigned every year. Who needs rivalries, when you can make every team an arch enemy with enough slanderous demonization?

    In reality, competition is a bitch! You have to try really really hard to win. And some owners simply don’t have the cajones and the sesos. SOLUTION — make every team a publicly held corporation like the Packers. If a team underperforms, then it ultimately falls on the owner-fans. They ought to learn a little bit about how real capitalism works, anyway.

    The last three weeks of the season should be flex schedule for dividion quasi-playoff round robin, so that the last week of the season has the most “win and in, lose and out” games.

  49. deborahlagarde says:
    October 20, 2020 at 2:12 pm
    Actually, if the set up was similar to the EFL (promotion and relegation) it would really be cool….8 AFC and NFC teams Division 1 and 8 AFC and 8 NFC teams Division 2, with bottom three relegated from Div 1 to Div 2 and top three promoted from Div 2 to Div 1. Not an EFL fan, but their system seems to work more fairly. What with the salary cap as well, you’re not going to see the same 6 teams dominate like in the Premier League every year…you know the 6 I mean. The Premier League really needs a salary cap….
    ______________________________________

    I’m not sure what the EFL is, but it sure sounds like soccer. Lets not copy anything from soccer.

  50. There is not a problem with the structure. Its perfect. Teams should have to win their division and that should give them the home game.

  51. Amazing how much emotion this subject brings out amongst us fans. Love or hate it, it’s a good topic for a Tuesday.

  52. One should not presume to know how the NFC East will shake out after only 5 or 6 games. One of these teams will get straightened out and win the division and probably have a winning record.
    The few teams that have made the playoffs with a record of 8-8 or worse have become notable stories over the years- the Jets beating the Patriots, Seahawks over the Saints…These upsets are good for the game, it keeps people watching, because on any given Sunday, in a one-and-done playoff format, anything can happen. Also the wild card teams have not always lost because they had to play on the road- plenty of wild card teams have gone to the Super Bowl, and some have won. This “Problem” adds compelling interest to the game. it should be left as it is.

  53. My solution is no more playoff byes. Homefield advantage is all the bonus you need to reward the best teams with. Top 2 teams in each division make the playoffs. Round one the best record in the division hosts the second best record in the division. Actual playoff seeding is done after this round of the playoffs with the four surviving teams based on regular season record.

  54. The big thing is that if we really cared about being “fair” then it would be a strict playoff seeding. Winning the division wouldn’t matter, just having the best record and I’m sure no one wants that.

  55. I’ll endorse Gallops’ proposal. It’s simple, keeps the reward for winning the division, and is fair.

  56. Playoffs are the final chapter in an individual season’s story; division rivalries are the long-running stories that give character to the league. No one cares or remembers how teams were seeded 5 years ago, but we remember the rivalries that come from competing within divisions year after year.

    Without division-based seeding, that goes away. It provides a lot of drama to the league, so I don’t think we should be in any hurry to throw that out.

  57. The lawyer in Florio can’t help taking up this Pro-bono project every year. It’s time to find a new case. How about the abomination that the NFL is heading toward of having nearly half the league make the playoffs?? Talk about diluting the value of the regular season….. If my team isn’t good enough to win their division or have one of the other 2 best records in the Conference, I don’t want them in the playoffs. I want them home, preparing for the draft, and figuring out how to be better next year.

  58. All these points are valid and defensible, I get it. But if you root for a team are are a season ticket holder, your team won the division, period. You deserve a home game.

  59. This is a fine lesson in geography but it doesn’t consider markets, rivalries, etc. that sell tickets and drive impressions. For example why move Dallas? The NFC East is a joke this year but with 4 of the largest markets in the country and a 4-way round robin blood feud that division is ratings gold.

  60. Ok so it most notably happened 10 years ago and possibly will happen this season, so yea let’s switch everything up for something that happens once a decade. Heres a scenario; what if there is one decent team in a division that is trash and the decent team gets an easy 6 wins because of that horrible division. And then you have a strong division that beats up on each other and so now their record might not look as good as some other teams in the wildcard hunt? Is that a good thing to punish the division winner because they had to go through a gauntlet to win their division? I know thats not the case with the nfc east this year, but its bound to happen and I’m sure when it does, there will be pointless calls for change. I believe the nfl has the best playoff set up vs any other sport. Baseball has too few teams in the playoffs and the NBA has over half of their league in the playoffs and that waters it down. No need for change.

  61. You win your division you host a playoff game, thats fair. Im a whodat and the year after we won the SB we, an 11-5 wild card, had to travel up to Seattle to face the 7-9 Matt Hassleback Seahawks as the NFC West Champ. And we got Beast-Moded. Thats just the system, its fair. Remove the value of div 4 titles and you remove value from the regular season.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    But what’s your definition of winning the division? The division record is simply a tiebreaker. Theoretically you can win your division and not win a single game within it, so where does this whole you win your division you get to host a playoff game if you couldn’t even beat a team in your division. I mean you’re saying changing things would mean the regular season wouldn’t matter. I already doesn’t matter..

    I know something like this example doesn’t happen but there have been division winners where 2nd and even 3rd place had better division records then 1st place did. But if you’re gonna go with the rule that if you can win your division without necessarily having the best record vs your division when you won it BUT you won it because you did better vs the rest of the league than your rivals did than you should fit in the playoffs where your record is, not what you did in the division.

    I mean way things are you can have two teams at 11-4 in different conferences meeting each other final game of the season, team one has the division wrapped up, team 2 is 2 games back of their division leader and have basically secured their playoff spot and aren’t moving anywhere playoff seeding wise yet you can end up with a boring game as both sides decide to rest starters. Is that what we want as fans? Or do you want them to have to go all out with that matchup affecting playoff seeding? The difference between a home and an away game the following week?

    Instead what do we get, a possible Sunday Night game featuring two 7-8 teams in a bad division going at it. So instead of seeing the best of the best all the time we give the little guy a shot and a huge one up vs the big boys with a home game because the regular season doesn’t matter in our current format.. We could punish a 14-2 in the current format and they could never play a home game in the postseason because they couldn’t beat their 15-1 or 16-0 rival but reward a 7-9 or 8-8 team because they had enough wins vs their crappy division.

  62. Divisions are not good for football, period. Rivalry games should always be added to schedules. However, that was the number one complaint each time the Patriots won the super bowl. Everyone said that their division is too weak year after year. Imagine if the AFC West collapses, while the Chiefs reign supreme for the next five to ten years. It’s going to make the NFL look really bad. Regardless, playoff seedings should be based solely on regular season records. If you have a record below .500, you don’t belong in the playoffs. That’s the bottom line.

  63. It’s a good point that does make sense…However…when this does happen…doesn’t seem like the lessor division winner always beats the better wild card team…?

    8-8 Seahawks over the Saints
    7-8-1 Panthers over the Cardinals

  64. I don’t really have a problem with the seeding the way it is now. Winning the division should still be rewarded. However, I would be in favor of making the home team the one with the better winning record.

  65. I love this idea, and I agree with your suggestions for the teams in each division.

    If the NFL followed this format, I’d be much more likely to watch again. For now, it’s clear the NFL will do anything it can to help Dallas get a playoff game, and I’m sick of it.

  66. All-American Voltron says:
    October 20, 2020 at 2:40 pm
    Considering you can be 11-5 and miss the playoffs while another team can be 7-8-1 and host a playoff game, I think Division Championships should not guarantee a playoff spot.

    Take the 7 best records in the Conference and seed them based on record.
    —————————————————————————————-
    The problem with that approach is that nobody plays the same schedule. So whichever team in the NFC and the AFC get to play the NFC East all get the benefit of 4 easy games. And when you have a difficult division, there will be one division from each conference that has to deal with having four difficult teams. So the divisionless seeding system is going to still have unfairness Built into it.

  67. PFT’s plan does not really change anything. In it, the Bucs and the Panthers would each get highly inflated win totals by playing the three worst teams in the NFC East along with the 1-5 Falcons, That is potentially 8 wins without even trying. The only fair way it is what they do in Europe. Each team plays every other team, home and away, and the team that finishes with the most post wins the league. NFL has too many teams to do that, so we have to break things down into divisions and accept that there will be some inequity. Life is not fair, tough, deal with it.

    Regarding the 11-5 Saints losing to the 7-9 Seahawks, I cheered for the Saints and was disappointed with the loss, however how unfair was that really? A team that was deserving to win the Super Bowl would have gone into 7-9 Seattle and won. That the Saints lost showed that they were not deserving of a Super Bowl win, so being eliminated in the playoffs is not an unjust result.

  68. garrisjs says:
    October 20, 2020 at 4:59 pm
    I love this idea, and I agree with your suggestions for the teams in each division.

    If the NFL followed this format, I’d be much more likely to watch again. For now, it’s clear the NFL will do anything it can to help Dallas get a playoff game, and I’m sick of it
    ——–

    So you don’t watch football but read websites about it and are still up to date on the league? Why not watch, then? Kinda has a peeping-tom vibe to it. You don’t openly watch, but you’ll lurk in the shadows to get your nfl fix lol.

  69. progressiveshatethetruth2 says:
    October 20, 2020 at 4:26 pm
    Divisions are not good for football, period. Rivalry games should always be added to schedules. However, that was the number one complaint each time the Patriots won the super bowl. Everyone said that their division is too weak year after year.
    —————————————————————————————————-
    The flaw in that argument against the Patriots is 9 trips to the Super Bowl with 6 wins from only 17 playoff trips. That is better than one Super Bowl appearance for every three playoff trips and one Super Bowl win for every two playoff trips. Their record in those playoff appearances is 30-11 for a 0.731 win percentage which is only fractionally worse than their 0.779 regular season winning percentage during their playoff seasons. If the Patriots were a weak team getting to the playoffs by being in a weaker division, they would not have had the staggering playoff success that they have had.

  70. progressiveshatethetruth2 says:
    October 20, 2020 at 4:26 pm
    Imagine if the AFC West collapses, while the Chiefs reign supreme for the next five to ten years. It’s going to make the NFL look really bad.
    ——————————————————————————
    Did the NFL look really bad in the 1970s when a decent, but hardly great Rams team won a poor NFC West seven times in a row from 1973 through 1979? I do not think so. The Rams got into the playoffs and were eliminated relatively quickly and nobody was too upset. If a team wins a bunch of Super Bowls, it is because they are a good team, not because of an easy ticket to the playoffs. The Rams were not that good and managed a single Super Bowl appearance in those seven playoff trips, but nobody was really upset about it.

  71. Winning a division gets a home playoff game (and its associated monetary and non-monetary benefits) this year, and a first place schedule the following season; a division winner thus gets a benefit this year offset by a first place schedule the following season.

    I am not sure I understand why a team that does not win its division gets the benefit of a home playoff game this year, and then the additional benefit of a second or third place schedule the following season; the non-division winner might have a better overall situation than the team that won their division.

    The talk of disallowing home games for division winners omits any recommendations for scheduling for the following year; if a division winner gets a first place schedule the following year, then the division winner should also get a home playoff game.

  72. Sorry AndyB but the Rams were not a weak team during the 70s, they just never had a great QB to get them over the hump …

    They lost to Tarkenton, Staubach, and Bradshaw in the postseason … All HOF QBs.

  73. They aren’t going to reconfigure. Besides the fact that you are throwing some of the best rivalries in sports in the trash.

    Everything is nice and neat now. Schedules are pre-determined. All they have to decide is which team is home, and which games are prime-time. You wouldn’t even be able to adjust the length of the season to fix it, because lopsided divisions make it impossible.

    Just an example of someone trying to solve a problem that doesn’t need to be solved

  74. nflhistorybuff68 says:
    October 20, 2020 at 7:16 pm
    Sorry AndyB but the Rams were not a weak team during the 70s, they just never had a great QB to get them over the hump …

    They lost to Tarkenton, Staubach, and Bradshaw in the postseason … All HOF QBs.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Didn’t say they were weak. I said decent, but hardly great. Fair comment about lack of a QB, but a QB is part of a team. The Ravens won a pair of Super Bowls with a less than HOF QB, particularly Dilfer. I don’t know that anybody is campaigning for Brad Johnson to be in the HOF and yet he won a Super Bowl with the Bucs. So winning does not require an HOF QB if the rest of the team is good enough. Again, the 70s Rams were not a bad team, but there lack off playoff success shows that the benefitted from playing in a weak division.

  75. 11-5 Saints: We had to play a road playoff game at 7-9 Seattle (2010)

    11-5 Patriots: Hold my beer…We missed the playoffs and no one said a word.

    Seattle beat Philadelphia on the road last year as a wildcard. The system is fine.

  76. I think winning your division should guarantee you a playoff spot. It should even be the first tie-breaker (over head-to-head) when seeding (a 10-6 division winner will always get the higher seed than a 10-6 wild card team, regardless of head-to-head or anything else). But if the division winner has the sixth best record outright of the teams qualifying for the playoffs, they get the sixth seed and go on the road.

    Winning your division should get you into the playoffs and nothing else, unless your record dictates it.

  77. As-is has been tried and true. It puts value into your division, it creates local rivalries. It sucks seeing a team possibly go 3-13 and get to the play-offs and host a home game. It also makes other teams fight harder in their divisions to top the others for that chance. Once the post-season starts all regular season stats, accomplishments etc mean 0… Its a fresh start for those still standing and thats how it needs to remain.

  78. The fallacy of the seeding will be proven when a 4-12 Dallas team hosts a home playoff game in Jerry’s World.

  79. Add extra Wild Card round so some of these teams that have 11 or more wins has a better shot at winning it all but as soon as a division winner has 4-5 wins at the end of the season and everyone goes crazy. Don’t worry Roger will fix it all.

  80. You didn’t even mention the best argument for realigning the divisions: letting more of each team’s schedule be determined by prior year’s results.

    At the moment, every team plays 6 divisional games, all 4 teams from a certain in-conference division, and all 4 teams from an out-of-conference division. That’s 14 of 16 games that have nothing to do with whether you ended last year as a good or bad team. Since the league is all about parity, having only 2 of 16 games adapt (making it harder on the good teams, easier on the bad teams) is a pretty small factor.

    A realignment with most teams in 5-team divisions means 8 divisional games per year. That still leaves you with 8 other games to play with. Not sure how you address the two 6-team divisions (either 10 divisional games, or stay at 8 but not everyone goes home-and-road) but I’m sure that can be determined somehow. They had to have done it before when there were only 28 teams and each conference had 3 divisions with a 5-5-4 breakdown.

  81. One problem about expanding the number of teams in a division is that as a fan we don’t get to see the variety of competitions. The teams get to play the same opponents over and over again. The 4 teams per division allow more variety against interdivisional and interconference games. Otherwise you would never get to see a (Pats era) Brady vs Rodgers or Wilson vs Mahomes game at all.

  82. “So winning does not require an HOF QB if the rest of the team is good enough.”

    It does when you’re going up against Tarkenton and Staubach every year, which, by the way, the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs did not.

    1970s Rams won with suffocating defense, ground it out run game, multiple Hall of Fame players and if they had the QB they lacked, would’ve played in multiple Super Bowls the way the Steelers, Cowboys, Vikings and Raiders did.

  83. Home advantage exists in every sport that has divisions.

    Based on pure seeding, division winners in the NFL have one of the top six records in the conference almost every time, anyway.

  84. I’d echo the sentiments of others. The playoff seeding is not flawed. As a division winner a team is entitled to host a WC game. Yeah, maybe this team didn’t go 12 – 4. But they played better than the other 3 teams, in their division.
    What I do have issue with is the regular season schedule. I realize there is a formula that they follow, six games vs division opponents, four conference opponents, four games against the opposing conference, and two games between in conference opponents w/similar records, from the previous season.
    For at least the last three seasons Minnesota has had to go into Seattle (one of the toughest places to play, in the league) OK I get it, you have to play the same opponent multiple consecutive seasons….but WHY do the Vikings ALWAYS seem to have to play in Seattle/ Do the schedule makers not realize that there is a brand new stadium in Minneapolis?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.