I brought this up in my weekly power rankings thread. It is looking like at least 3 non-playoff teams could end up with a better record than 2 playoff teams.

The Dolphins could once again go 10-6 and miss the playoffs. And the Denver Broncos could go 9-7 or worse and make the playoffs despite a worse record and a head-to-head loss to the Dolphins. Also missing the the playoffs would be New England at 10-6, who also beat Denver in a head-to-head matchup. And over in the NFC, it is looking likely that Chicago could win the NFC North at 9-7 or worse and knock out a 10-6 Washington team.

If this happens, should the NFL make a rules change for the 2009 season regarding playoff seeding?

 

While I absolutely like the idea that a division champ gets a playoff spot. Why should a team be rewarded for winning a soft division while another gets punished for having a better record in a tougher division? The best 6 teams from each conference should make the playoffs. In a league with eight four-team divisions the NFL is bound to reward a 7-9 division champ with a playoff spot at some point in the future. What's the point of that?

 

This isn't about a selfish, Dolphins aren't going to make the playoffs thing. So I don't see how Houston is relevant. Especially considering the fact that Denver was handed an extra win against San Diego in Week 1.

There could be a handful of 10-6 teams or better missing the playoffs while the winner of the AFC West and NFC North could make the playoffs at 9-7 or worse.

It was one thing when the NFL was made up of almost six 5-team divisions. Each team would play half their games within their own division, there was an extra wild card spot, and it was less likely that out of 5 teams none of them would finish better than 9-7 or 8-8. Winning the division is less important when you play 6 games within it and 10 games outside of it.

It is only a matter of time before a losing team makes the playoffs. I think the NFL needs to do something even if this just comes close to being a reality this year. The NFL is very good about correcting mistakes. Though they seem very bad at preventing them in the first place.

 

I'd say there isn't necessarily a big deal if a losing team makes the playoffs, so long as they were one of the top 6 teams in their conference. Unless that big if happens and a 7-9 team suddenly gets hot in the playoffs, the NFL is saddled with what will likely be a playoff blowout at home by a team that no one thinks deserves to be there. And if there is a 10-6 team sitting at home because of the random grouping of 4 teams, the NFL is going to have a backlash. They should prevent this.

Yes, it is statistically likely that it could have happened with 5 team divisions. But the loss of that third wild card spot, and the rewarding of a team that just happened to be better than 3 other teams is much more likely in a 4 team division. What would happen if somehow Detroit was in the NFC West instead of Arizona this year? You'd have St. Louis getting a home playoff spot at 4-12. While 12 teams in the NFC would have a better record.

 

Divisions are the result of early fractured sports leagues where three or four different leagues would band together, and they'd retain their original league identites by creating divisions. It's evolved.

One of the major reasons for having divisions nowadays is simply to retain regional and historic rivalries. In the NFL, each team gets 1 home and 1 away game vs. every team in their division. I wouldn't want to do away with that just for the sake of making playoff seeding fair. But do you really think divisions exists just to insure that one of those 4 teams always makes the playoffs?

 

I point out that this could happen to the Dolphins this year, but I've always thought it was a problem since they realigned. And the Dolphins wouldn't be the only victims this year. So this isn't me crying over the Dolphins.

Though it isn't the negative point I'm making, if a 7-9 team gets into the playoffs, the NFL would face the issue of a possible local playoff blackout while a 10-6 team or better with angry fans in another city would have given them a sellout and a better playoff game. I guarantee that if this scenario would happen the NFL would promptly make a rules change the next year.

I don't see the problem with telling a team that couldn't produce a better record than 6 other teams that they don't get to make the playoffs. I don't see how that undermines the spirit of competition the way that ensuring the best 6 teams make it would.

 

Prior to the first Super Bowl was it the case that one team from two different conferences made the Championship game every year? I'm asking, I honestly don't know.

I think it makes the playoffs more interesting to keep it divided by conferences with teams that only play each other once every 4 years. I don't see how letting a 7-9 team into that playoff race while an 11-5 team sits home makes things more interesting.

I'm not arguing for a complete realignment. Who wins an equal record tie-breaker, or who gets the home playoff game should go to the division winner. There really isn't any major injustice in those cases. But I just don't see the great injustice in telling a 9-7 team with the 8th best record in their conference that they don't get rewarded with a playoff game, a home playoff game for that matter, because there were teams with clearly better records than them. The AFC West doesn't produce a playoff team for one year because none of them were good enough. I don't see the big deal there.

 

Hell yes. You didn't earn much by winning a division at 9-7, you simply got lucky that you played in a division with three teams worse than 9-7.

Coming in 2nd in a division at 11-5 is much more impressive than coming in first at 9-7. How could it not be? And how is that a greater injustice than telling the team that came in 6th in the conference that they have to give up their spot to a team that finished 7th or 10th?

 

How is it an argument of fairness that a team that got to play 6 games against a weak division deserves more than a team with a better record who came out of a tougher division?

How is the counter argument to having the best 6 teams in the playoffs fairness?

The Arizona Cardinals are perennial losers, but they are having a great year under Kurt Warner. Look at the NFC West, if the Cardinals were playing like their usual selves, that division would produce a division winner at 6-10 or worse this year. There will most likely be 11 teams better than 6-10 this year in the NFC. How can anyone reasonably argue that it would be unfair to deny a 6-10 team, who got most of their wins against 6 teams in their division who are worse than 6-10, a playoff spot?

And it's not moot. You don't have to get rid of divisions to get rid of the seeding that rewards a team simply for being better than just 3 other teams in their conference. Winning a division in that way is not proof that you are a playoff team.

 

You should read the thread. This isn't a selfish argument so that the Dolphins make the playoffs. The Dolphins, Patriots, and Redskins and more teams could be affected by this this year.

Winning a division shouldn't absolutely trump having a good or winning record. It should count for something, but not for everything.

The way the system is currently set up, a team could be as bad 3-13 and get a home playoff game simply because the other 3 teams in their division all went 3-13 and the only games they won, they split amongst themselves, and one team would end up winning the tiebreaker. They'd likely be the 4th worst team in their conference, yet they would get a home playoff game while teams that won 3 times as many games would go home.

That is the highly improbable worst case scenario. But if the argument is that winning the division must count for getting a playoff game, then you are also arguing that a 3-13 team should make the playoffs because the division must count for something.

 

You still incorrectly argue that the SINGLE reason for divisions is to guarantee that within each once random group of four teams, one makes the playoffs regardless of record each season.

As I explained, divisions evolved from earlier leagues and realignments that attempted to keep regional teams playing each other on a regular basis for many reasons including to reduce travel expenses.

Sports leagues rely on rivalries. Keeping divisions intact with the same teams playing each other year after year develops these rivalries. And these rivalries generate money each year because division games are the most reliable ticket sellers. This is the main reason why the NFL has divisions. It is why the Dallas Cowboys remain in the NFC East despite 8 NFC teams being closer to the east coast than Dallas.

Divisions are about a whole lot more than guaranteeing a playoff spot. And even if they weren't, it would be the weakest of arguments to justify sending home an 11-5 team while a team as bad as 3-13 would get a playoff spot simply because "that is what divisions are for."

The NFL does a good job of reacting to problems of this type of injustice. They've been fortunate that they haven't had a sub .500 team make the playoffs yet. But after losing to the Raiders, would anyone be absolutely surprised if the Broncos finished out the season 1-4 and still made the playoffs at 7-9? Meanwhile the Dolphins and Patriots could still both finish 11-5 and miss the playoffs. The outcry from everywhere but Denver would be enough to get the NFL to fix this problem.

 

I see no reason that denying an unworthy team a playoff spot would mean that divisions would have to be abandoned. The Broncos or the Bears this year could still claim victory over their divisions. But that division simply wouldn't be guaranteed a playoff spot. They'd simply have to cede it to a more worthy team that would otherwise be punished for being in the wrong division.

 

And what if they go 8-8 and the Pats or Phins go 11-5? Do you still say the same thing considering Denver got handily beaten by both teams?

 

I'm not arguing for "fair." In fact "fair" is what everyone who argues that a division winner should get in regardless of their record cites. I'm simply arguing against stupid. And I think it is stupid to continue a rule that would put a 3-13 division champ in over a 13-3 "wild card" team.

You should also teach your son that "nothing's fair" is a cop out for adults who are too passive to actually improve their world in the name of justice. :wink2: