Division winners vs Playoff spot

[Bigcatfan]

This NFL rule has bothered me for many years. All division winners are given a playoff spot, and your record isn't an issue for that spot. I have a serious issue with how the NFL allows a team with a below average record be awarded a spot in the playoffs just because they win their division. The team with the best record of the 4 teams win that division, ok, that's nice, but to be given a free shot in the playoffs over a team that has a better record than you is just not fair. That means that its really not worth the effort to win the last remaining games. Your not going to win your division, and a losing team that did win that division gets in.
That's how its looking for the NFC EAST. No team has a winning record, but whatever team wins the division goes to the playoffs, And a team with a better record may be knocked out from another division.

[*jason*]

(12-31-2020, 11:30 AM)Bigcatfan Wrote: This NFL rule has bothered me for many years. All division winners are given a playoff spot, and your record isn't an issue for that spot. I have a serious issue with how the NFL allows a team with a below average record be awarded a spot in the playoffs just because they win their division. The team with the best record of the 4 teams win that division, ok, that's nice, but to be given a free shot in the playoffs over a team that has a better record than you is just not fair. That means that its really not worth the effort to win the last remaining games. Your not going to win your division, and a losing team that did win that division gets in.
That's how its looking for the NFC EAST. No team has a winning record, but whatever team wins the division goes to the playoffs, And a team with a better record may be knocked out from another division.

There's not much of a point of having divisions if the winner doesn't make the playoffs. Most years it's not even an issue though. I'd probably have a bigger problem with it if Seattle hadn't beat New Orleans years ago in the playoffs. The Seahawks weren't NFC east bad that year, but New Orleans had the better record, and had to go on the road to Seattle. I wouldn't mind seeing the Cowboys get in, and even pull off an upset with Dalton. There's not much else to root for at this point.

[Nicomo Cosca]

I understand the division winners have to make the playoffs, but getting a home game against a much better WC team is kind of crazy.

[Bigcatfan]

Well I look at it in a totally different aspect. Teams with the better records should be awarded spot in the playoffs. Isn't that the reason to play, to win as many games as possible? Ok, so a team with a below average record wins their division, ok, congratulations, but you still didn't win as many games as other teams and they sit home after winning, AND your teams gets in the playoffs for losing???? Ok , your team gets to display a division winner banner in your stadium, why not put your record on that banner, and display a 6-10 record, yeah that's something to be proud of, and a team with 8 or more wins get bumped out because of your division win.

[*SHRacerX*]

(12-31-2020, 11:30 AM)Bigcatfan Wrote: This NFL rule has bothered me for many years. All division winners are given a playoff spot, and your record isn't an issue for that spot. I have a serious issue with how the NFL allows a team with a below average record be awarded a spot in the playoffs just because they win their division. The team with the best record of the 4 teams win that division, ok, that's nice, but to be given a free shot in the playoffs over a team that has a better record than you is just not fair. That means that its really not worth the effort to win the last remaining games. Your not going to win your division, and a losing team that did win that division gets in.
  That's how its looking for the NFC EAST. No team has a winning record, but whatever  team wins the division goes to the playoffs, And a team with a better record may be knocked out from another division.

One thing it kind of allows for is the team that is hit hard with key injuries but rallies and squeaks out the division.  I think Washington would have had a much better record if Alex Smith played QB all season.  No one, right now, wants to face that defense in the playoffs...especially if Smith is playing.  

Borderline unbelievable about Haskins.  He must have a real attitude problem.  Amazes me that they were able to keep that buried at OSU.  Better coaching?  Better culture?  Regardless, very embarrassing for him to be released after just two years.  They must really not think highly of him at all.  

[Sled21]

(12-31-2020, 12:05 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: One thing it kind of allows for is the team that is hit hard with key injuries but rallies and squeaks out the division.  I think Washington would have had a much better record if Alex Smith played QB all season.  No one, right now, wants to face that defense in the playoffs...especially if Smith is playing.  

Borderline unbelievable about Haskins.  He must have a real attitude problem.  Amazes me that they were able to keep that buried at OSU.  Better coaching?  Better culture?  Regardless, very embarrassing for him to be released after just two years.  They must really not think highly of him at all.  

It's why New England gets in every year.... not that they aren't usually a very good team. but their Division is so weak they were just about guaranteed a Division title each year. 

Yeah, I don't understand Haskins. Reports are that he was not arrogant or disrespectful, but that he just would not show up for meetings on time, and do what it takes for game prep (which is kind of disrespectful in and of itself) I think it probably came easy to him in college and he doesn't have the tools now for what it takes to prepare in the NFL

[fredtoast]

If Division winners don't get playoff spots then you just have to do away with divisions. But having division races mean a lot more teams are playing meaningful games the last couple of weeks of the season.

It usually is not an issue, but the problem is that the NFL has such small divisions (only 4 teams). That increases the chances of a team with a losing record winning a division.

[Sled21]

(12-31-2020, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Division winners don't get playoff spots then you just have to do away with divisions.  But having division races mean a lot more teams are playing meaningful games the last couple of weeks of the season.

It usually is not an issue, but the problem is that the NFL has such small divisions (only 4 teams).  That increases the chances of a team with a losing record winning a division.

I think they need to reshuffle the divisions more often and keep them more equitable.

[fredtoast]

(12-31-2020, 12:15 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I think they need to reshuffle the divisions more often and keep them more equitable.

But that just ruins all the traditional rivalries.  Those are the main reasons we have divisions.  Establishing regular rivals increases interest in games that would otherwise not matter as much.

[*ochocincos*]

(12-31-2020, 11:53 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I understand the division winners have to make the playoffs, but getting a home game against a much better WC team is kind of crazy.

Agreed. All division winners should make the playoffs, but the seeding for those who make the playoffs should be solely based on record. That way, a wildcard team can get a home game if they play a crappy division winner (looking at you, NFC East).

[fredtoast]

(12-31-2020, 12:22 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Agreed. All division winners should make the playoffs, but the seeding for those who make the playoffs should be solely based on record. That way, a wildcard team can get a home game if they play a crappy division winner (looking at you, NFC East).

I have no problem with playoff seeding being based on overall record instead of division title status, but it is not as clear cut as it seems.  For example it can be tougher to win a wild card in a division where all 4 teams are good than to win a title in a division where 3 of the teams are total crap.  For example a 9-7 record is much more impressive in a division like this

9-7
9-7
9-7
8-8

than this

9-7
4-12
4-12
2-14

[Sled21]

(12-31-2020, 12:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But that just ruins all the traditional rivalries.  Those are the main reasons we have divisions.  Establishing regular rivals increases interest in games that would otherwise not matter as much.

That's true, I don't think there is an easy answer. It just doesn't make sense to me to have one division where 3 teams are fighting for the Championship with 10 wins vs. other divisions where 4 teams are fighting for the Championship with 6 wins. (not literally, but figuratively)

[fredtoast]

(12-31-2020, 12:30 PM)Sled21 Wrote: That's true, I don't think there is an easy answer. It just doesn't make sense to me to have one division where 3 teams are fighting for the Championship with 10 wins vs. other divisions where 4 teams are fighting for the Championship with 6 wins. (not literally, but figuratively)

This.

[jfkbengals]

(12-31-2020, 12:22 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Agreed. All division winners should make the playoffs, but the seeding for those who make the playoffs should be solely based on record. That way, a wildcard team can get a home game if they play a crappy division winner (looking at you, NFC East).

Way back when, the location of the game was rotational.

That wasn't really fair to the division winner with the better record going on the road to the wild card team, which did happen.

The only fair way to fix was to give the home game to the division winners, going to the best record when the game is between two division winners.

There is no reason to change this, as hosting a playoff game is the reward for winning your division.  Even if your division stinks.

Want to host a playoff game?  Win your division.

[*ochocincos*]

(12-31-2020, 12:50 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Way back when, the location of the game was rotational.

That wasn't really fair to the division winner with the better record going on the road to the wild card team, which did happen.

The only fair way to fix was to give the home game to the division winners, going to the best record when the game is between two division winners.

There is no reason to change this, as hosting a playoff game is the reward for winning your division.  Even if your division stinks.

Want to host a playoff game?  Win your division.

I disagree.
I think simply making the playoffs should be reward enough for winning your division.
Having the highest record should determine home games.
Not changing my mind.

[jfkbengals]

(12-31-2020, 01:02 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I disagree.
I think simply making the playoffs should be reward enough for winning your division.
Having the highest record should determine home games.
Not changing my mind.

There was a time when the playoff location was based on rotation, which caused division winners to go on the road to play the wild card team.

It was established at that point that it is not fair for a second place finisher to have a home field advantage over a first place finisher.

That will never change.

[*ochocincos*]

(12-31-2020, 01:07 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: There was a time when the playoff location was based on rotation, which caused division winners to go on the road to play the wild card team.

It was established at that point that it is not fair for a second place finisher to have a home field advantage over a first place finisher.

That will never change.

I understand what you are saying. I simply disagree that it should be that way.

[*SHRacerX*]

(12-31-2020, 12:11 PM)Sled21 Wrote: It's why New England gets in every year.... not that they aren't usually a very good team. but their Division is so weak they were just about guaranteed a Division title each year. 

Yeah, I don't understand Haskins. Reports are that he was not arrogant or disrespectful, but that he just would not show up for meetings on time, and do what it takes for game prep (which is kind of disrespectful in and of itself) I think it probably came easy to him in college and he doesn't have the tools now for what it takes to prepare in the NFL

From what I know about OSU football and their coaching staff, there is nothing easy about playing for that team.  Those coaches are incredibly detail oriented and work their player's asses off.  If you aren't doing the preparation, you won't play there.  Just surprising somehow that he felt he didn't need the same focus in the professional league.  

[Sled21]

(12-31-2020, 04:04 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: From what I know about OSU football and their coaching staff, there is nothing easy about playing for that team.  Those coaches are incredibly detail oriented and work their player's asses off.  If you aren't doing the preparation, you won't play there.  Just surprising somehow that he felt he didn't need the same focus in the professional league.  

Well I don't know, I'm just guessing. High School was very easy for my son, even with AP classes. As such, he didn't develop the study skills he found he needed in college for a couple of years and struggled because of it. Thought maybe it was the same thing... maybe not.

[XenoMorph]

(12-31-2020, 11:30 AM)Bigcatfan Wrote: This NFL rule has bothered me for many years. All division winners are given a playoff spot, and your record isn't an issue for that spot. I have a serious issue with how the NFL allows a team with a below average record be awarded a spot in the playoffs just because they win their division. The team with the best record of the 4 teams win that division, ok, that's nice, but to be given a free shot in the playoffs over a team that has a better record than you is just not fair. That means that its really not worth the effort to win the last remaining games. Your not going to win your division, and a losing team that did win that division gets in.
  That's how its looking for the NFC EAST. No team has a winning record, but whatever  team wins the division goes to the playoffs, And a team with a better record may be knocked out from another division.

each division should be represented.... thats the way it works.