Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?

To make it more clear, he is pointing out that the rule would actually cut both ways (a good point that I had actually not considered). It is really obvious to point out that the Giants (10-6) had to travel to Tampa (9-7) for the Wildcard Round (a game which the team with the better record still won by the way). But what Daseal is saying is with the new rule it is conceivable that a division winner from the NFC East, who played a more difficult schedule, and finished 10-6 would have to go to (for instance) an NFC West team who failed to win their weak division but still finished 11-5.

As I write this, though, it occurs to me that if two teams in a division finish with 10+ wins (12-4 and 11-5 for example) then maybe the division isn't all that weak. At least two teams are very good (unless the other two teams are just horrible). Still, it seems like the pendulum could swing the other way and then people would be upset that a division winner would fail to get a home game.

I can see the logic for the change, though, and it might even add some spice to the end of the year forcing teams leading weak divisions to continue playing their starters (remember, Tampa pulled Garcia and didn't play him after he went down in the 'Skins game) even though they have the division title (but not a guaranteed home playoff game) wrapped up.

As I read your first paragraph, my mind immediately shifted into the thoughts you expressed in the bolded paragraph.

If you went 11-5, or 9-7 for that matter, and DID NOT win your division, then there's no possible way you could consider the division weak. At worst, it'd be mediocre, and more than likely, strong.

Besides, I don't think anyone is arguing that a division winner MISS the playoffs. If you win your division, you still make the playoffs, no matter what. And hence only two wildcard teams get in from each conference, even if there's a 3rd wildcard contender who goes 10-6 and misses out on a spot to a 9-7 division winner. Playoff qualification is not proposed to change, SEEDING is proposed to change.

If you go 8-8 and win your division, you're in the playoffs. But you shouldn't get a home game on top of that.

I like it because it will make teams that play in a weak division play out the season in order to hold their seed.

If the Tampa Bay Buccaneers had played out the season, they would have finished with more wins than the Giants, probably 11 or so. But because they wrapped up the division in Week 15, they only got 9 wins.

That, in turn, changed our position in the draft. This new rule would at least lend more credence to overall record as a measuring stick of how good a team is because only the top two teams in each conference would be resting their players, and that's the way it should be.

I agree 100%. Reseed to add a little more competive integrity to the game. Every little bit counts.

i don't like it. there has to be some reward for being a division winner. in the nfl, its all about beating the teams you are supposed to beat. im with Matty, its not broken, so leave it be

I doesn't seem fair to me.

11 wins for one team, might be easier than 9 wins for another -- based on their competition. Every team doesn't play the same schedule, so it's not really fair to do it based on record alone. It seems better to do it based on the value of wins (I'm sure there's a term for that, but I don't know it). I think it should factor in strength of schedule somehow.

I was actually hoping they would go to a BCS ranking system all together. It seems as if college football has it all figured out.

Its all about winning. I like the idea.

Its all about winning. I like the idea.

Exactly

I doesn't seem fair to me.

11 wins for one team, might be easier than 9 wins for another -- based on their competition. Every team doesn't play the same schedule, so it's not really fair to do it based on record alone. It seems better to do it based on the value of wins (I'm sure there's a term for that, but I don't know it). I think it should factor in strength of schedule somehow.I think if the only point was to be fair, they probably shouldn't even do it by wins. Wins loosely correlate to how good a team is, but factors like strength of schedule do screw things up so that lesser teams get more wins (thanks, Giants) and throw the whole playoff system off.

IMO, fair is one thing, but the real goal of the league should be doing everything they can to make it more competitive. We all have different definations of what fair would be, as this thread shows, but if a rule change made division winners try harder down the stretch to beat opponents, then we absolutely should make that change.

Personally, I dont like it. I dont think this movement is so much about the playoffs as it is the end of the regular season, when a team like Tampa rested their starters for like 4 weeks...but I agree with everyone who stated that winning the division basically goes out the window and is worthless under this type of a system...I like it how it is, if a team is that much better and going to be a legit contender (ie; Giants vs Buccaneers) they'll win anyways...

I look at it this way. The Browns should have made the Playoffs. The Colts rested their starters against the TItans. The sorry assed Titans made the playoffs instead of the Browns. Had the Colts had a reason to play their starters they would have easily beaten the Titans.

The last couple games of the season would have been more interesting and the Playoff picture would have looked different.

I look at it this way, the Browns didn't deserve to make the playoffs because they had to rely on another team to help them.