Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

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.