Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

Hey Guys,

The competition committee is talking about seeding the playoffs based on record rather than division title. How do you feel about this?

Personally, I don't like it. Sure, folks that win a crappy division get a home playoff game -- but someone who plays in an NFC East / AFC South division is rewarded with a home playoff game even though they took bumps and bruises along the way and their record may not necessarily show it.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

I do like it. There's no reason that a wildcard team that went 11-5 should be seeded lower than a division winner who went 9-7.

Bumps and bruises? What the hell are you talking about, Daseal? Are you trying not to make sense on purpose?

Who cares what the competition is within the division. The bottom line is the team that won more games should get the better seed.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

It's stupid. To the victor go the spoils. Let's watch riggo run one more time: [url=http://www.ontherac.com]On the RAC: Redskins Appreciation Club, the Humurous Redskins' Fan Site.[/url].

HAIL Riggo!

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

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.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

So long as all division winners are automatically entered, I am okay with it. Of course, it penalizes teams that play in tough divisions.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

Schneed -- what I'm saying is that a division that's 4 deep will often accumulate more losses due to a tougher schedule then a good team in the NFC South for instance. Winning the division means something right now, if this goes into effect it's definitely diminished.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

I don't see the need for this at all. Why fix what isn't broken?

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

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.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;435359]I don't see the need for this at all. Why fix what isn't broken?[/QUOTE]

couldn't have said it better!

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=Daseal;435354]Schneed -- what I'm saying is that a division that's 4 deep will often accumulate more losses due to a tougher schedule then a good team in the NFC South for instance. Winning the division means something right now, if this goes into effect it's definitely diminished.[/quote]

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.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;435375]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.

[B]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.[/B]

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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;435346]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.[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

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

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

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.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

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.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

Its all about winning. I like the idea.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=chrisl4064;435497]Its all about winning. I like the idea.[/QUOTE]

Exactly

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=GhettoDogAllStars;435495]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.[/QUOTE]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 [B]competitive[/B]. 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.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

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...

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=angryssg;435365]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;435350]So long as all division winners are automatically entered, I am okay with it. Of course, it penalizes teams that play in tough divisions.[/QUOTE]

Off the top, I am against the change, but if you favor this change, why then would winning your division matter? If the point is to reward the best records, then do it all the way or don’t do it at all. Is there any need for divisions at all? Don’t say for proximity regards to scheduling or Dallas wouldn’t be in the NFC East.

As for the Tampa/NY argument regarding resting players, each team has to make that decision and live with the results. Based on 2007, do you think teams in the future will “coast” in the final week like Tampa did and lose in their first game or play hard like the Giants did and carry the momentum all the way. I personally don’t believe you can prove either of the above scenarios really happened, but that certainly was the perception.

This is a copycat/knee-jerk league and the hysteria over this will die as long as they allow it to.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=chrisl4064;435496]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.[/QUOTE]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Sorry, but that's the worst thing the NFL could ever do. Heck, it doesn't even work in college.

I think people are ignoring what Schneed said a few posts ago. Winning your division would still mean something. Even if you won your division at 8-8 (must really be a sucky division) you're in the playoffs. That's quite an accomplishment. The only thing that would change is seeding position and I think it makes sense that a team with the better record should have the home game. Regardless the strength of schedule, you still have to go out there and play every one of those 16 games during the regular season. I like the idea of forcing teams to play their starters throughout the end of the season. It just makes for better football.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=chrisl4064;435496]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.[/quote]

LOL good one

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=skinsguy;435538]NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Sorry, but that's the worst thing the NFL could ever do. Heck, it doesn't even work in college.

I think people are ignoring what Schneed said a few posts ago. Winning your division would still mean something. Even if you won your division at 8-8 (must really be a sucky division) you're in the playoffs. That's quite an accomplishment. The only thing that would change is seeding position and I think it makes sense that a team with the better record should have the home game. Regardless the strength of schedule, you still have to go out there and play every one of those 16 games during the regular season. I like the idea of forcing teams to play their starters throughout the end of the season. It just makes for better football.[/quote]Even though a few teams have bucked the trend in recent history ('05 Steelers, '07 Giants), the main idea here is to prevent a very good wild card team, perhaps a team that is the second best in its conference, from having to play three straight road games to get to the Super Bowl. A majority of the wild card winners would still be seeded 6th and 5th, but this change benefits teams in strong divisions. Think Jacksonville. They play great football every year and haven't hosted a playoff game since the Coughlin-era. This would allow the Jaguars, if they go 12-4 but the Colts go 13-3, to be the third seed and host the Sixth seed.

Which is a lot more fair than being the 5th seed and having to go to Pittsburgh.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=lwiedy;435533]Off the top, I am against the change, but if you favor this change, why then would winning your division matter? If the point is to reward the best records, then do it all the way or don’t do it at all. Is there any need for divisions at all? Don’t say for proximity regards to scheduling or Dallas wouldn’t be in the NFC East.

As for the Tampa/NY argument regarding resting players, each team has to make that decision and live with the results. Based on 2007, do you think teams in the future will “coast” in the final week like Tampa did and lose in their first game or play hard like the Giants did and carry the momentum all the way. I personally don’t believe you can prove either of the above scenarios really happened, but that certainly was the perception.

This is a copycat/knee-jerk league and the hysteria over this will die as long as they allow it to.[/quote]Because the teams that win strong divisions (think Indianapolis) get to beat up on non-division opponents enough to win 13 games every year anyway. They still get first round byes.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=skinsguy;435538]NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Sorry, but that's the worst thing the NFL could ever do. Heck, it doesn't even work in college.

I think people are ignoring what Schneed said a few posts ago. Winning your division would still mean something. Even if you won your division at 8-8 (must really be a sucky division) you're in the playoffs. That's quite an accomplishment. The only thing that would change is seeding position and I think it makes sense that a team with the better record should have the home game. Regardless the strength of schedule, you still have to go out there and play every one of those 16 games during the regular season. I like the idea of forcing teams to play their starters throughout the end of the season. It just makes for better football.[/quote]

yeah ummm... this was (at least imo) an absolute joke.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=lwiedy;435532]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.[/quote]
The Titans didn't exactly earn it either, hero.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=angryssg;435580]The Titans didn't exactly earn it either, hero.[/quote]

Yea, I'll go with the if it ain't broke leave it alone.

On to the Titans, yes that was one boring you know what game! They didn't quite earn it, it was more along the lines of a free pass. At no fault of the Colts I don't blame them for resting some of there guys and when Peyton came out they just looked like dog crap.

As this showed up real quick when the Titans had to play SD and got there butt kicked! What was it like 27-6...? Or something like that, One and done!

We heard the same crap about the cowgirls not playing there starters in week 17 and that couldn't have been any further from the truth, as I was there.......and so where there starters until the middle of the 3rd quarter until they finally realized they had ZERO chance to do anything, I think MB had like 1 rushing yard all game. WE completely kicked the snot outta those cowgirls, it would not have mattered who was on the field for the opposing team that wet and cold day. We where on a mission. We earned our way in the old fashion way.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=chrisl4064;435544]yeah ummm... this was (at least imo) an absolute joke.[/QUOTE]

Yeah um...hard to tell with simple text. Maybe an emoticon next time.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;435541]Even though a few teams have bucked the trend in recent history ('05 Steelers, '07 Giants), the main idea here is to prevent a very good wild card team, perhaps a team that is the second best in its conference, from having to play three straight road games to get to the Super Bowl. A majority of the wild card winners would still be seeded 6th and 5th, but this change benefits teams in strong divisions. Think Jacksonville. They play great football every year and haven't hosted a playoff game since the Coughlin-era. This would allow the Jaguars, if they go 12-4 but the Colts go 13-3, to be the third seed and host the Sixth seed.

Which is a lot more fair than being the 5th seed and having to go to Pittsburgh.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! Which is why I'd support the change.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

Leave it as is.. If you aren't going to give the divisional winners homefield then just go to a conference system and give the top 2 teams a bye and leave it at that. Otherwise what's the point of divisions/division winners?

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

Two questions:

1. Do playoff-clinching teams detract from the quality – even the integrity – of the competition by easing up and/or resting their starters?

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is corrective action in order (that is, a disincentive for slacking, or an incentive to play to win)?

I'd answer yes to the first but no to the second. Here's why....

When the Giants decided to play all out against the Patriots at the end of the season (and I'll admit that the Giants were probably given stern warnings from the league that they'd better "show up to play" in primetime on the NFL Network) it propelled them into a hot streak that carried them through to their Super Bowl win.

Common sense should dictate that with only 16 regular season games, you have to play each one like single elimination. Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom is clinch, then rest up and stay (or get) healthy.

Obviously, I don't agree with the "mail it in" mentality. Arguably, it cost Tampa, Dallas and Indianapolis this year. So ... let the chips fall where they may.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=Schneed10;435344]I do like it. There's no reason that a wildcard team that went 11-5 should be seeded lower than a division winner who went 9-7.

Bumps and bruises? What the hell are you talking about, Daseal? Are you trying not to make sense on purpose?

Who cares what the competition is within the division. The bottom line is the team that won more games should get the better seed.[/quote]


Exactly what I was thinking it makes no sense that a team who wins 11 games has to travel to a place where a team only won 8 or 9.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=sbaughone;435345]It's stupid. To the victor go the spoils. Let's watch riggo run one more time: [

HAIL Riggo![/QUOTE]


It's already in your sig..

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

I dont know why this is taking so long. It would be one thing if they were changing the number of teams alowed or the system being enforced to make it to the playoffs, but this is just simple; a team with a better record should play at home. A team in the NFC east that goes 10-6 would be 12-4 in the NFC south anyway.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

this is cool. every team will have equal risk going into the playoffs putting in starters till the end. Its almost unfair how last year we had to have our battered and bruised crew out there giving it all we had untill the last second of the regular season while the guys who already had clinched a spot could put their starters out of harms way on the bench. Just think of that 11-5 team going into the playoffs without one of the players that got them there. If they lose the system could be considered flawed, but if they win, it will be that much better. This new system will raise risk and make teams work more as a team and not worry so much about that "star" player who could go down in the last few games.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

True dat^, especially if it takes out TO, Romo, and the rest of Dallas this year!

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

This has been tabled according to Adam Shefter. Expect the same system for at least this year.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=dmek25;435408]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[/quote]

Amen,leave it alone.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=Daseal;436827]This has been tabled according to Adam Shefter. Expect the same system for at least this year.[/QUOTE]

Found a link.[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80789b13&template=with-video&confirm=true]Proposal to reseed playoff teams withdrawn by owners[/url]