1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Very likely: 10-6 Dolphins go home. 9-7 Denver gets a playoff spot.

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by His'nBeatYour'n, Nov 25, 2008.

Should the NFL change the playoff seeding rules?

Poll closed Dec 30, 2008.
  1. Yes.

    42.3%
  2. No.

    56.3%
  3. Other. Please explain.

    1.4%
  1. Muck

    Muck Throwback Uniform Crusader Retired Administrator

    14,523
    22,246
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    I'm a big proponent of divisional play. But I don't like it when better teams sit at home. A team with a losing record is going to win a division someday. Even if it's an 8-8 or 9-7 and multiple 9-7's or 10-6's stay at home, they'll end up addressing it.

    One solution might be for the Top 6 teams in each conference get in regardless of record. And then you use the division winners for homefield advantage. I don't know that I necessarily like it, since it lessens the importance of divisional play. But it doesn't negate it completely, and there's some more justice added.

    Just throwing it out there.
     
    His'nBeatYour'n likes this.
  2. dolfan06

    dolfan06 New Member

    631
    462
    0
    May 19, 2008
    Arkansas
    i had an argument on another board because this dude thought this season was a failure if the dolphins lost their bid for the playoffs. i had to remind him that the phins were 1-15 last year and they are 6 times better than that this year and the season is not over. at the beginning of the year i picked the fins to go 8-8 and i don't see how this season is a failure when they have almost reached that goal, especially in lieu of last year.
     
    cnc66 likes this.
  3. FinsAreLife

    FinsAreLife Well-Known Member

    2,824
    762
    113
    Dec 7, 2007
    To be honest, the NFL needs to add two teams to the playoff feild in each conference. There are just too many good teams being left out. If 8 teams made the playoffs i feel it would be more exciting.
     
  4. mullingan

    mullingan New Grandbaby Pic!!!

    4,744
    733
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Gainesboro, TN
    Wow nice arguments for and against the current system. I, personnaly, would like the best 6 to get in regardless of Division Play. I also think increasing the field to 8 is a novel, although unlikely, idea. The bottom line, I can live with what we have since that is how its been, and would probably accept the changes if there were any, to ensure the best teams get in.
     
  5. FinsAreLife

    FinsAreLife Well-Known Member

    2,824
    762
    113
    Dec 7, 2007

    While i understand where you're coming from on this point, theres no way the best team in that division would only win 4 games. They would probably end up being like a 6-7 win team. Which is still embarassing though. Kinda a scary thought.
     
  6. opfinistic

    opfinistic Braaaaains!

    30,659
    14,683
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    Peeking in Nabo's Basement
    Then 50% of the teams would be in the Playoffs, I think that would be a bad idea, it takes away the importance of each individual game if you have a 1 in 2 chance of going to the Postseason. I don't think anything needs to be changed, yes, it sucks that a lesser team can make the POs while a superior team that fails to win the division stays home, but I think each division should be represented in the Postseason, even the AFCW. :shifty: The thing I love about football is that each and every game is important, you are given 16 chances to win a game, unlike other sports where there are many more games played. If you are good enough to defeat your divisional rivals (however you do it) then you should have a shot at the Postseason and winning the title.

    But then again I'm four years old, what do I know?
     
    shula_guy and cnc66 like this.
  7. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Thats only true for those who see the glass as half empty, which he doesn't.:wink2::up:

    Besides at 3-13 you can't win a division so your arguement against stupid is a bit off, wouldn't you say? :tongue2::yes:
     
  8. pennphinfan

    pennphinfan Stelin Canez Arcade Scorz

    5,820
    2,511
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Los Angeles
    see, it seems like the top 6 would seem ideal. but then you have to figure out divisional stuff. because if it stays like it is, if there are horrible divisions and great divisions, it will skew the records. like this year, the afc east are playing the 2 arguably worst divisions in the NFL in the AFC and NFC West's. I know it probably won't work out this year that we, the pats and jets all have 'top 6' records- but if we did you could argue against us all getting in. From say, the Ravens' fans objective, who had to play the NFC east and AFC South, which have much better records than the wests.

    What i'm saying, if you did this top 6 thing, you'd really have to factor in Strength of Schedule. But then you start getting into the whole BCS rankings fiasco...

    so i don't know. personally, i don't think its a huge deal. it is rare you see a team with a worse record, let alone multiple games worse, make the playoffs and shaft another team. we're all just assuming one day it will happen (which it will). but that doesn't mean we have to tear apart the rankings system now.
     
  9. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    :lol: Haha, touche my friend.

    However unlikely, all 4 teams in a division could go 3-13 by only winning games against each other and splitting them. One of them would win a strength of schedule tie-breaker or a coin toss and win the division. Though this scenario is a longshot, the NFL playoff seeding rules would do nothing to prevent it. And everyone who argues that winning the division is more important than overall record have to defend a 3-13 team in the playoffs.
     
    Colorado Dolfan likes this.
  10. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    And for those arguing that Denver deserves a playoff spot because the East has an easier schedule. You're wrong.

    Strength of schedule as of now.

    New England .472
    Miami .460
    Denver .455
    Buffalo .443
    Jets .440

    Not only do the Broncos have a weaker schedule, weaker division, but they also were given a free win by the refs in week 2 against the Chargers. I don't care who takes their spot, I just don't see how the Broncos would be deserving of a playoff spot.
     
  11. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Wild card teams give teams a chance that don't win their division, but have good records, a chance of getting in.

    it's a compromise, and it's fair. Plain and simple. You can't win your division, you don't deserve to go. You've been paired up with other teams, you play them each twice. You need to get the better of that matchup before you can even begin to worry about anything else.

    Now, to throw a bone, the NFL introduced Wild card teams. This allows two loser teams that did not beat out all teams in their division to get in. Now some want to expand it so that the best teams in the conference gets in, and ignore divisions.

    Every single argument you make against Divisions can be made against Conferences. Get rid of the NFC and the AFC, and just have the 16 best teams get in regardless. If you argue against the division, those same arguments apply to conferences.
     
    Coral Reefer likes this.
  12. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    So a 14-2 team is being thrown a bone by the NFL when another team in their division happens to go undefeated?

    This isn't about punishing the the 24 teams who don't win their division. It is about rewarding 8 teams each year regardless of whether they've earned it.

    Divisions are not the same as conferences. In the NFL teams only play 25% of their games against the other conference. Very often NFL fans can observe a stark difference in the quality of teams in each conference. A 14-2 team in the AFC isn't always better than the 12-4 team from the NFC.

    What is a division? It is 3 extra games a year against the same teams. Why should that trump overall record?

    This "just win the division" rhetoric sounds good, but it really has no logical basis for rewarding the best teams with a playoff berth. It's just mindless tradition.
    And saying divisions are the same as conferences is another thing that sounds good but has no basis in logic. The arguments don't apply to both just because you want them to.
     
  13. Coral Reefer

    Coral Reefer Premium Member

    10,281
    5,232
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Back in Miami
    Show me a 14-2 team that dosen't get in with the wild card. :rolleyes:

    Everyone stating contrary arguments to changing the playoff format pretty much sum up my feelings on this issue as well.

    Divisions are for developing rivalries and as a fair tool of elimnation. Do you think those rivalries develop simply because the teams are geographically near each other? Do you really think that? Do you think the players that hop from team to team give a crap about any of that? Rivalries stay hot because teams know that division games are the biggest key to making the playoffs period. That's why those games are so much more important and it creates added drama during seasons.

    You really believe as you argue that eliminating Division winners from the playoffs wouldn't negate the whole reason for Divisions? Of course it would. The Phins V. NY Jets would be no more important than Miami playing the Saints in that scenario. You win your division and prove you're the best team in that division, you deserve to represent the division in the Conference playoffs.

    Lets take the best record should negate division winners argument on at another angle. Is there a guarantee that a team with a better record really is a better team overall? There have been countless instances where a team in a crap division racks up a lets say an 11-5 record while another team goes lets say 10-6 in a good division with intense competition. Should that 10-6 Division winner who fought through a tough division be penalized because a team that had a weak schedule won 1 more game than them?
    That scenrio would be unfair as well would it not? So do we go by record along with strength of schedule to really be fair? How far do you want to take it? A BCS ranking of NFL teams?

    Lets go even further.

    Lets say the NFC's champion had an 11-5 regular season record.
    At the same time the AFC runner up had a 12-4 regular season record.

    Should we negate the Conference Champions too and have the 2 teams with the best records playing in the Super Bowl? It's only fair right?

    You can take this argument so far that it goes right into absurdity.
    There's a system in place that accounts for competitiveness, rivalries and wild cards for teams with good records to slip in if they didn't win their division. It may not be perfect but it works out MUCH better than any situation that's been presented to the contrary.
     
  14. Coral Reefer

    Coral Reefer Premium Member

    10,281
    5,232
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Back in Miami
    Lastly, I don't know that it's "very likely" that we'll win 10 games either so getting riled up about this at this point isn't even worth the effort.
     
  15. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    Didn't say they wouldn't make the playoffs, I was just making the point that they aren't being "thrown a bone." :yes:

    I've made many points about how the rivalries are important. Players do care about beating the teams they face twice a year. Which is why the Raiders loved beating the Broncos this past Sunday. Raiders have no playoff hopes. It is why any division games matter whether it is Week 1 or Week 17. Playoffs matter, but those games are taken more seriously because rivalries matter to competitive people. You think the Week 17 game won't matter to the Dolphins if they are eliminated from the playoffs beforehand?

    Why should a piss poor division like the NFC North or the AFC West this year be guaranteed a playoff spot? They are representing mediocrity. It's not as if each division has it's own special rules and styles of play.

    One fair counter argument is that it is so rare to have a division winner at 8-8 or worse that this doesn't matter. Therefore the exception that a team can't go to the playoffs if another team finished with a better record in their conference would only apply in rare occasions and would therefore not undermine the importance of divisions in most years. It would simply be there to prevent what is not prevented now, a sub .500 team getting a home playoff game while better teams stay home. A 7-9 team makes the playoffs and there will be more than 2 or 3 teams who are better.

    But when you get a special year where a single division doesn't produce a playoff worthy team and there are numerous better teams. Why should the 3 extra games played against teams that couldn't even win a crappy division be more important than actually finishing with a winning record.

    You can take the argument to absurd levels, but it is a slippery slope argument. Not a logical counter point to saying that any rule that would conceivably reward a 3-13 team while leaving a 12-4 team out of the playoffs is absurd.
     
  16. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    This isn't about the Dolphins. No rule change would help them this year. But they are an example this year, and this is a Dolphins forum.
     
  17. Colorado Dolfan

    Colorado Dolfan ...dirty drownin' man?

    I'm gonna say that 8-8 tops wins the AFC West this year... Maybe even 7-9.

    Then we'll see what happens League-wide...
     
  18. TheMageGandalf

    TheMageGandalf Senior Member

    2,409
    688
    0
    Nov 25, 2007
    FLORIDA
    I'd actually be all for that.

    If not, then squeeze'em back up like we had them before.
     
  19. dolphans1

    dolphans1 New Member

    523
    58
    0
    Oct 15, 2008
    A couple of weeks ago I had written a post that the AFC East was the toughest division and I was corrected by others who said the NFC east was.....?

    What gives here...?

    The Dolphins or any other team for the matter should easily be able to make the playoffs because everyone has a 25% chance of making it.


    If we win every game from here on out, we will make the playoffs, if we don't, we won't...

    d-1





     
  20. TokyoFishFan

    TokyoFishFan New Member

    1,294
    578
    0
    Dec 11, 2007
    Tokyo!
    OK. Haven't read the entire thread, but my feeling is that we just have too many divisions. Here's a couple of options:

    - Merge East and North and South and Central in each league so there's only 2 divisions and only two division champs. Then pick the remaining playoff teams using the best record formula.

    The downside of the above is that there aren't enough games on the schedule to accomodate the 1 and 1 format with the "division" requiring some teams to not play other teams inside the division, or having teams play their traditional rivals twice and their remaining division rivals once.

    Example:

    Cincy
    Cleve
    Pitt
    Bal
    NE
    BUF
    NYJ
    MIA

    14 games would occur if it were a complete division home and home fight. Too many division games and not enough non-division games in a 16-game season.

    If you kept the current pairings, 6 home and home games, then added the 4 remaining division opponents alternating years home and home you've got 10 of your 16 games. The remaining games would be worked out by SOS from the previous year with the exception that you would not face another division opponent in that mix up.

    The downside is that now your team faces every other team in the league at least once every X number of years where this new thing wouldn't work for that.

    Now, a better suggestion might be to EXPAND the league by 4 teams and shift to 3 6- team divisions. 10 division games each year and then rotate throughy 3 teams from AFC and three from the NFC each year for the remaining 6. Of course, increasing the schedule to 19 games would allow for a division to division match-up with 3 other games added in.

    Total number of playoff teams would remain the same. 3 division champs and 5 WCs with no limit on how many WCs come from a division.
     
    Colorado Dolfan likes this.
  21. TokyoFishFan

    TokyoFishFan New Member

    1,294
    578
    0
    Dec 11, 2007
    Tokyo!
    LOL. 3-13 is possible to win a division--mathematically.

    Of course, if that happened, we should be demoting that division to semi-pro status the next year.
     
  22. dont fumble

    dont fumble Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    2,340
    1,765
    113
    Dec 4, 2007
    Germany
    I like quality and less can be more, but in case of the NFL, the league of parity, it can't hurt to send more teams to the playoffs. There should be as many Wild Card teams as there are Devision winners imo. Just look at this year. All we would get is more football and no one can tell me, that an 7th or 8th seed can't win it all:
    NFC: Washington @ Tampa, Dallas @ New York
    AFC: New England @ Pittsburgh, Miami @ Tennessee

    Any football fan out there who wouldn't like to see these games just because it involves the 7th and 8th seeds? Honestly, I think only one game would be an easy win... Ten over Mia.

    The NFL has a problem with the strength of schedule. That's impossible to avoid, but that's why I think it would be fair to give above average teams one more shot to win the Superbowl. Plus, the two best teams would have to play as many games as the other teams and I wouldn't mind that. If the Jets finish second in the AFC this year, they do it for the same reason why we could finish 10-6: a very weak schedule.

    The NFL has a lot of quality because it features only 16 regular season games per team, give us some quantity by having 4 more playoff games.
     
  23. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,150
    1,287
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    I never said the single reason was to guarantee a playoff spot. But there really would be no other point for the divisions if it weren't the top perk of winning the division. Hell, I could start my own NFL division and win it and not make the playoffs. I understand the history of how these divisions and conferences came together, you don't have to explain it..

    C'mon.. a 3 and 13 team would be virtually impossible to get into the playoffs, you're stretching really far. Schedules have a lot to do with the way teams of lesser records get into the playoffs. If you want it to be that way, there has to be no divisions at all and just 2 conferences where the teams are seeded by overall record first. It's not going to happen. The rivalries mean way too much. The excitement of playing for a division win and guaranteed home game in the playoffs for your city is not something that should be given up.

    Injustice? Please... There's plenty of reasons that have already been stated to show that it just doesn't make sense to win your division and not get a playoff spot. I can't remember the last time I saw a team get left out of the playoffs that I thought "Wow, this team would have had an amazing chance at the Super Bowl."
     
  24. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Yes. If a team went 14-2 and the other team went 16-0, that means the former team lost to the undefeated team twice. They weren't the best. They should have beat that other time at least once if not tice.

    Why stop at 8? Why not eliminate conferences and go 16.

    You argue a weaker division shouldn't automatically get bids into the playoffs, yet are ok with the weaker conference getting to the superbowl. it's an Inconsistent argument in my opinion.

    Because you play the cards that are dealt.

    Nobody said divisions are the same as conferences. I never said that. I said to apply your arguments against division seeding, and NOT applying them to the conferences, is inconsistent.
     
  25. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    Forgive me, but you lose credibility when you defend rules that would reward a 3-13 team in theory or a 7-9 team in realistic inevitability. Then turnaround and suggest that a 14-2 is lucky to have a bone thrown their way if they couldn't beat a team that no one else in the league could either.

    I think you misunderstood my point. Unless you are suggesting 16 2-team divisions.

    Please point precisely to the inconsistency. You seem to be talking around a point here without making it.

    Who is being given something they didn't earn because of conferences?

    More empty rhetoric.

    It is only inconsistent if divisions and conferences are the same. But since you are NOT saying that, it is absolutely inconsistent for you to pretend I have to apply the argument to both.

    I think we can all agree that a 10-6 team deserves to go to the playoffs more than a 7-9 team.

    And I think we can all agree that the goal of the NFL is to put the best teams in the playoffs.

    The issue seems to boil down to those who think a division is meaningless if it doesn't guarantee the winner of it a playoff spot. I think there are a number of good reasons to have divisions without guaranteeing bad teams can still make the playoffs.

    I'll never concede to any argument that says a 7-9 team deserves to go to the playoffs when there is a 10-6 team in the same conference that goes home.

    But please take a look at the remaining schedules of these teams, I think it is very possible that we enter week 17 with the Dolphins, Patriots, Ravens, and Colts fighting for 2 wild card spots.

    They could all arguably finish 11-5. And the Steelers, Bills, and Jets are all 1 or 2 games away from being in that mix or swapping places with those teams.

    Meanwhile out in San Diego there could be a battle of two 6-9 teams for the AFC West and a guaranteed playoff spot while there will be 3 or 4 AFC teams in the AFC with better records who are sent home in January.

    I hope the NFL doesn't have to answer to this. And we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. But I see no defense of that. Divisions Smivisions. :lol:
     
  26. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    It's a semantics argument. But don't you see the absolute contradiction there?

    I agree that a 3-13 team winning the division is 1,000,000 to 1. But we agree that 7-9 is inevitable. The Broncos are 6-5 with only one "gimmee" game left against the Chiefs. And considering how they looked against the Raiders, nothing is a "gimmee" for the Broncos. Going 7-9 is certainly possible with their remaining 5 games against NYJ, KC, CAR, BUF, and SD.

    The point isn't that a 3-13 division champ is likely. But if you are going to argue that a division winner must always be guaranteed a playoff spot, then you have to be willing to argue that they should be guaranteed a playoff spot even in that unlikely scenario. There are only 4 wins separating a 3-13 team and a 7-9 team.

    I can't remember the last time a team had a chance to win their division below .500, but it's happening.

    The Super Bowl Champions were 10-6 in the regular season last year.

    There could be up two 11-5 teams in the AFC this year that don't make the playoffs while the Broncos could end up as bad as 7-9 and still make it. That's 4 games difference. That makes more sense to you than saying record matters more than division?
     
  27. 2socks

    2socks Rebuilding Since 1973

    8,141
    2,103
    113
    Nov 27, 2008
    Atlanta
    Should be top 6 according to record. There could actually be a scenario with a very weak division say 7-9 and division leader would get in -- leaving teams much better out in the cold. Personally I want to see the best play
     
  28. I dont really draw issue with how the seeding works. I do have issue with how the scheduling is done though. How is it the AFC's team with the best record and the AFC's team with the worst recod play 10 of the same games. If the leauge is truely trying to create parody as they claim then why did they change from scheduling games according to a teams record rather then their divison.
     
  29. TiP54

    TiP54 Bad Reputation

    10,688
    4,955
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Live from the Internet.
    Denver lost to Oakland and KC...and will still go to the playoffs.
     
  30. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,150
    1,287
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Obviously you're not going to give up your opinion, and that's fine. I'm done arguing my point.. I think everything has been said. It's not going to happen. It's fair the way it is. Every team controls their own destiny at the start of the season. You win the games you need to win, you're in. Simple yet beautiful.
     
  31. PhinsRock

    PhinsRock Premium Member Luxury Box

    I said no, but I feel if a division winner has a worse record than a wild card team, then the Wild card team should get the home game. If a 9-7 Denver gets in and is scheduled to play a 10-6 wild card team, the 10-6 wild card team ought to get home field advantage.

    But if a team wins their division, they should get in to the playoffs, even if a team with a better record does not get in.
     
  32. FinsAreLife

    FinsAreLife Well-Known Member

    2,824
    762
    113
    Dec 7, 2007


    While i completely understand your arguement i still dont think it would take away from the importance of each game. It also leaves possibilities of bigger upsets in the playoffs and levels the playing feild as far as the amount of games played in order to reach the super bowl. (No more byes)

    Also, i know its not the BEST thing to base it off but leagues like the NBA and the NHL have 16 teams make the playoffs and each league has less teams to start with than the NFL. While those leagues in my opinion are not as successful as the NFL i still think they have a very nice working playoff system as far as the amount of teams who make it.
     

Share This Page