This post has pretty much nothing to do with the Cowboys in particular. It's about the NFL playoffs as a whole.
Right now the co-leaders of the NFC West (Seattle and St. Louis) are 5-6. The two teams playing right now (in the century's WORST EVER prime-time NFL game), San Francisco and Arizona, are both 3-7, and as ESPN's website puts it, the winner of this game is "very much alive" in the division's race. It's entirely conceivable that the winner of the NFC West could end the regular season with losing record (7-9), or (at best?) .500 (8-8).
If you didn't know, the NFL takes 6 playoff teams from each conference: The winner of each of the four divisions, plus two wildcards. That means that if St. Louis wins the West with a 7-9 record, they would make the playoffs -- possibly over a 10- or even 11-win team.
Furthermore, the NFL's seeding rules automatically make the four division winners the top four seeds (regardless of record). Division winners, therefore, automatically get at least their first playoff game at home.
Every couple of years an 8-8 team will make the playoffs and people start to wonder whether the NFL's playoff rules make the most sense. Some say that the top 6 teams in a conference should make the playoffs, even if that means not every division is represented. I don't think I would have a problem with such a rule, because I hate to see 11-5 teams miss the playoffs. Perhaps before this measure is taken, however, the NFL should just try to alter how they set playoff seeds. I see no reason why a division winner should automatically get to host a playoff game. Let's say the Saints win out (not an unbelievable notion), and the Falcons lose only to the Saints in Week 16. Both those teams finish 13-3. One wins the division (based on tiebreakers) and the NFC's #1 seed (which means a playoff bye, and home field throughout). The other 13-3 team has to play AT St. Louis, who is 5 or 6 games WORSE! Does that at all seem right?
In other words, you could be the fourth-worst team in the league and still get to host a playoff game. You could also be the second-best team in the league and still have to play a road playoff game as a wildcard. I guess in my opinion, if you want the regular season to really mean something, you should be rewarding teams who perform better during the regular season. It also seems like this would all but ensure that the best teams remain in the playoffs longer, which should be the goal of any sport's post-season (it's why the #1 seed plays the #16 seed in round 1 of March Madness).
Anybody object? Or have a better solution? Do you favor the "change the seeding" idea, or would you go for the "top 6 teams regardless of division" idea instead?
2 comments:
I don't know...who cares who hosts the home game really. If a 8-8 team is hosting a 13-3 team, do you really think home field advantage is going to play such a part that it will matter? I mean, if we want to make the regular season count, lets just instate a BCS for the NFL? Wait, that doesn't work? What? Oh, I see, the NFL cares about having an undisputed champion? I'll keep the system the way it is.
What worries me more, and I think it would do MUCH more damage to the regular season in the NFL is if they add games to the regular season schedule. NOT a smart move in my opinion. We already see an insane amount of injury week to week.
I want a post about your thoughts on the new fines on leading with your head and what not.
Are you really trying to convince me that home field advantage doesn't mean anything? I mean, surely in a "8-8 NFC West team vs. 13-3 Saints team" it probably wouldn't decide the winner, but even if the teams are only 1 or 2 games apart, shouldn't the team who performed better in the regular season get the home game? It's also not purely about whether the "advantage" will impact the game's outcome. It's also about revenue for the host city/stadium.
In the current system, you could theoretically be the 28th-best team in the 32-team league and host a playoff game, while the 2nd-best team in the league has to go on the road, all based on which division you were arbitrarily placed in. That's simply absurd.
I don't understand the BCS connection. In the BCS, a team can go undefeated and still not play for a national championship. How does this relate?
I thought it went without saying that regular season performance should determine post-season seeds in any sport that has a post-season tournament.
Anywho... I agree that more regular season games is stupid. From what I read, it's pretty much a done-deal, though (unfortunately). This issue does play into the new stricter rules on helmet-to-helmet hits and big fines and stuff, so I'll see if I can post something on that for you soon.
Post a Comment