Good Morning Football Wants To Restructure Playoffs

[BFritz21]

On Good Morning Football, they were talking about restructuring the playoffs so the team with the better record gets the higher seed and potential to host home playoff games instead of the division winners.

NOT ONE OF THEM mentioned the fact that doing so would punish teams that play in tougher divisions since they have to play each team twice a year!

I was shocked how all of them agreed that they should just give teams with the better record the better seeds.

They're proposing punishing teams that play a tougher schedule or in a tougher conference.

Like I said, all of them agreed with it, but I thought it was one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

I sent out a Tweet to the hosts and the show with my disagreement, but didn't call it stupid or anything.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

If you don't want to be on the road, win your division.

[*Nately120*]

I don't see why a team with a better record should have the lower seed.  The 14-3 Vikings are seeded 5th which is lower than the 14-3 Eagles (ok fair enough, here) the 10-7 Buccaneers, and the 10-7 Rams.  They also have a better record than every AFC playoff team other than the Chiefs.

So are they some outlier or are you saying the 10-7 Rams had a harder time winning 10 games in the NFC west than the Vikings did in the NFC North?  I just think the better records should have better seeds...making it into the playoffs by winning your division should be enough, you shouldn't also be guaranteed a home playoff game and higher seed for that alone.

That's my 2 cents, and I feel like more people around here will agree if the Bengals win 13+ games next year and are seeded below a 9-8 Texans team, or something.

[*Nately120*]

(01-09-2025, 03:01 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If you don't want to be on the road, win your division.

See I'd say if you want to make the playoffs 100%, win your division.  If you want a top seed, win more games than everyone else.

The way it is now just guarantees even crappy divisions get to host at least 1 playoff game...I get that, but it seems like a money over all else sort of model.  I can see why they won't change it, but I would.

[BFritz21]

(01-09-2025, 03:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't see why a team with a better record should have the lower seed.  The 14-3 Vikings are seeded 5th which is lower than the 14-3 Eagles (ok fair enough, here) the 10-7 Buccaneers, and the 10-7 Rams.  They also have a better record than every AFC playoff team other than the Chiefs.

So are they some outlier or are you saying the 10-7 Rams had a harder time winning 10 games in the NFC west than the Vikings did in the NFC North?  I just think the better records should have better seeds...making it into the playoffs by winning your division should be enough, you shouldn't also be guaranteed a home playoff game and higher seed for that alone.

That's my 2 cents, and I feel like more people around here will agree if the Bengals win 13+ games next year and are seeded below a 9-8 Texans team, or something.

(01-09-2025, 03:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: See I'd say if you want to make the playoffs 100%, win your division.  If you want a top seed, win more games than everyone else.

The way it is now just guarantees even crappy divisions get to host at least 1 playoff game...I get that, but it seems like a money over all else sort of model.  I can see why they won't change it, but I would.

We'd essentially be punishing ourselves for playing in a tough division, especially in years past.

If you eliminate playing each divisional team twice, I can maybe see it, but you'd be punishing teams for playing tougher schedules.

[*Nately120*]

(01-09-2025, 03:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We'd essentially be punishing ourselves for playing in a tough division, especially in years past.

If you eliminate playing each divisional team twice, I can maybe see it, but you'd be punishing teams for playing tougher schedules.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but the Vikings won 14 games and play in the NFC North with what people seem to see as a SB favorite in the Lions (also, the Packers made the playoffs despite going 1-5 in the division).  By what I assume your logic is you are saying division winners with fewer wins play in "tougher" divisions.

Are the AFC South, NFC South, and NFC West tough divisions because their winning teams had 10 wins?  

Teams in tough divisions should have the benefit of earning better seeds than teams that win a weak division by default by winning more games.  If the Ravens are 17-0 next year and we are 15-2 I don't see why we should have to be bumped down to the 5th seed and go to Houston to play a 9 win Texans team, for example.  I don't think I can just accept that the "had a harder schedule" than we did.

Also, the more chances and ways you have to improve your seed the fewer times teams would be "locked in" to a seed and rest their starters...something people seem to be pretty upset about these days.

[Whatever]

Both ways have their merits and flaws. I could go with either so long as the Division winners are at least guaranteed a playoff berth.

One benefit the proposed change may have is that it will make playoff seeding more of a factor in Week 18 when teams are deciding whether or not to sit players.

[BFritz21]

(01-09-2025, 03:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not sure what you are saying, but the Vikings won 14 games and play in the NFC North with what people seem to see as a SB favorite in the Lions (also, the Packers made the playoffs despite going 1-5 in the division).  By what I assume your logic is you are saying division winners with fewer wins play in "tougher" divisions.

Are the AFC South, NFC South, and NFC West tough divisions because their winning teams had 10 wins?  

Teams in tough divisions should have the benefit of earning better seeds than teams that win a weak division by default by winning more games.  If the Ravens are 17-0 next year and we are 15-2 I don't see why we should have to be bumped down to the 5th seed and go to Houston to play a 9 win Texans team, for example.  I don't think I can just accept that the "had a harder schedule" than we did.

Also, the more chances and ways you have to improve your seed the fewer times teams would be "locked in" to a seed and rest their starters...something people seem to be pretty upset about these days.

That's an extreme and unlikely scenario, and, even if it were to happen, that's just how it is.

The league needs structure and this is how it is. 

I was saying tougher divisions, but I meant more balanced, which, a lot of times, are the tougher divisions.

You can use some examples like you listed, but, in divisions like the AFCN, where we have three Super Bowl contenders a lot of years, you'd be punishing us for playing good teams twice.

[*Nately120*]

(01-09-2025, 03:55 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You can use some examples like you listed, but, in divisions like the AFCN, where we have three Super Bowl contenders a lot of years, you'd be punishing us for playing good teams twice.

I feel like you're looking at this from a Bengals fan perspective and not a league-wide fairness sort of thing.  Plus, Jackson is ass in the playoffs and the Steelers haven't won a playoff game since 2016 so we're the only super bowl contender in the AFC North as far as people are concerned and damn if we didn't just miss the playoffs again.

Anyways, if the Bengals come in second in their division with 12+ wins and have to go into KC because they won their division with 9 wins and Bengals fans say "This is totally fair and makes a lot of sense" then I'll believe they really like things the way they are for the sake of fairness.

Simply put, I don't see why a team with fewer wins should have a better seed than a team with more wins.  Particularly as you look at this year and see the Texans and Buccaneers with home playoff games because they had to grapple with the Jaguars, Colts, Titans, Falcons, Panthers, and Saints.  Event though we play in a tougher division than the Texans and Buccaneers we are a few bounces away from having more wins than they are yet still having to travel to play them because they won their division and we didn't win ours.  That punishes us for having a harder division than they do, in my mind.

[BFritz21]

(01-09-2025, 04:19 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I feel like you're looking at this from a Bengals fan perspective and not a league-wide fairness sort of thing.  Plus, Jackson is ass in the playoffs and the Steelers haven't won a playoff game since 2016 so we're the only super bowl contender in the AFC North as far as people are concerned and damn if we didn't just miss the playoffs again.

Anyways, if the Bengals come in second in their division with 12+ wins and have to go into KC because they won their division with 9 wins and Bengals fans say "This is totally fair and makes a lot of sense" then I'll believe they really like things the way they are for the sake of fairness.

Simply put, I don't see why a team with fewer wins should have a better seed than a team with more wins.  Particularly as you look at this year and see the Texans and Buccaneers with home playoff games because they had to grapple with the Jaguars, Colts, Titans, Falcons, Panthers, and Saints.  Event though we play in a tougher division than the Texans and Buccaneers we are a few bounces away from having more wins than they are yet still having to travel to play them because they won their division and we didn't win ours.  That punishes us for having a harder division than they do, in my mind.

Actually I just watched it again and two of the analysts agreed with me.

If you're going to do it that way, then you'd need to eliminate playing each team in the division twice if those games don't mean more.

[*Nately120*]

(01-09-2025, 05:28 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Actually I just watched it again and two of the analysts agreed with me.

If you're going to do it that way, then you'd need to eliminate playing each team in the division twice if those games don't mean more.

Divison games are important because if you win your divison you make the playoffs.  I still don't see why that means you're automatically given a home playoff game and top 4 seed, though.

[Stewy]

My ONLY issue with the current format is divisional opponents playing each other in the first round. That should NEVER happen. No one wants to see Ravens/Squeelers again. Bleh.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-09-2025, 08:55 PM)Stewy Wrote: My ONLY issue with the current format is divisional opponents playing each other in the first round. That should NEVER happen.  No one wants to see Ravens/Squeelers again.  Bleh.

I don't mind divisional foes facing off in the wild card round. All that typically means is that the teams were pretty close in the regular season and the division could have went either way. Might as well have round 3 right off the bat and get it settled.

[Millhouse]

I still am against going to 17 game schedule and 14 playoff teams simply for more $$$, so I am naturally against this line of thinking for a new playoff ranking system.

Now the College playoffs going forward, that's whole different debate to me, as I am way more in favor of that being about final rankings than conference winners.

[reuben.ahmed]

14 playoff teams is crazy, almost half the league makes it. Everything is about money, hence why Denver has zero chance today.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-12-2025, 10:49 AM)Millhouse Wrote: 14 playoff teams simply for more $$$

(01-12-2025, 10:54 AM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: 14 playoff teams is crazy, almost half the league makes it. Everything is about money, hence why Denver has zero chance today.

Yeah, 7 seeds are dumb. The playoffs were much better with 12 teams and the top-2 seeds getting byes.

It's not even like they're particularly good results either. The 7 seeds are 1-10 in the postseason and 7 of those 10 losses are 2+ score losses.