Would the NFL really allow a 5-6 win team into the playoffs?

[blue4]

I think there should be no changes. Win your division. Take care of your business. In 10 years we may be 8-8 or 7-9 and get in. Maybe a team loses a QB but catches fire in the second half of the season. We're 6-7 and better than most of the teams heading to the playoffs. There's no way to make everything equal and fair all the time. There will always be a team who feels like they were robbed.

 

[jjab360]

I don't understand the thread title, it's not like they have a choice in the matter..

 

[Alan]

Legatron4 looking at only part of the story:
I'm sort of at a loss myself. I think they should keep divisions but get rid I winners. Best records are in.

So Atlanta, from the NFC South, who gets to play 6 games against teams like Tampa Bay, N.O. and Carolina with a 10-6 record would make the playoffs but a team like the Rams, from the NFC West, who have to play 6 games against teams like the Seahags, Cards and Whiners, with 9-7 record wouldn't make it even if we took our division?

Atlanta division record 6-0. Non-division record 4-6. Total: 10-6. Only Atlanta has a winning record in their division.
Rams division record 3-3. Non-division record 6-4. Total: 9-7. All teams in this division have a winning record (and all 4 teams beat the Falcons during the season) but the Rams win the division via tie breaker.

Who deserves to go to the playoffs? You'd have 4 teams who are all probably better than Atlanta not make the playoffs while a team like Atlanta, who can't win outside their division, does.

If you're going to have divisions and the division you're in determines in large part who you play, then you have to let the division winner go to the playoffs IMO. The whole concept of wild cards deals with the teams who, despite the fact they didn't win their division, deserve to be in the playoffs because of the strength of their division. Sometimes bad teams make the playoffs but c'est la vie.

 

[jrry32]

It's cyclical. We almost made it at 8-8 in 2010. Seattle ended up making it at 7-9 while the 10-6 Giants and the 10-6 Buccaneers missed the playoffs.

Now it's flipped, the NFCS sucks and some good NFCW team will miss the playoffs.

 

[dieterbrock]

What's the biggie? Seattle made the playoffs with a losing record and won a playoff game in the process in 2010.

We could of been a division champ at 8-8 if we took care of business.

No system is perfect. That being said with 4 team divisions this will continue to happen every so often.

Seattle beat the defending Super Bowl champ when they were 7-9 division winner
I agree. Why change it? Because if it happens this year it will be only the 2nd time in like 40 years.
Winning the division is always the goal in most sports
And ironically, the Saints who got the raw end of it in 2010 can be the beneficiary of the same thing

 

[tklongball]

Best an NFC South division winner could do this year is 8-8, and the worst would be 6-10, barring an Atlanta/NO tie, which in a specific game is Very unlikely. With the current schedule setup, you could have a team go 4-12 and make the playoffs (without any ties). It is highly unlikely, but could happen. All teams in the division go 3-3 within the division and only 1 team wins a non-division game.

 

[Faceplant]

Seattle beat the defending Super Bowl champ when they were 7-9 division winner
I agree. Why change it? Because if it happens this year it will be only the 2nd time in like 40 years.
Winning the division is always the goal in most sports
And ironically, the Saints who got the raw end of it in 2010 can be the beneficiary of the same thing

Yeah, the system isn't broken. Win your division and you're in. I am ok with that. Not sure I agree that a losing team as Division winner deserves a HOME game though. I would argue that the Saints only lost that game because it was in Sleazattle, but it is what it is.

 

[Legatron4]

So Atlanta, from the NFC South, who gets to play 6 games against teams like Tampa Bay, N.O. and Carolina with a 10-6 record would make the playoffs but a team like the Rams, from the NFC West, who have to play 6 games against teams like the Seahags, Cards and Whiners, with 9-7 record wouldn't make it even if we took our division?

Atlanta division record 6-0. Non-division record 4-6. Total: 10-6. Only Atlanta has a winning record in their division.
Rams division record 3-3. Non-division record 6-4. Total: 9-7. All teams in this division have a winning record (and all 4 teams beat the Falcons during the season) but the Rams win the division via tie breaker.

Who deserves to go to the playoffs? You'd have 4 teams who are all probably better than Atlanta not make the playoffs while a team like Atlanta, who can't win outside their division, does.

If you're going to have divisions and the division you're in determines in large part who you play, then you have to let the division winner go to the playoffs IMO. The whole concept of wild cards deals with the teams who, despite the fact they didn't win their division, deserve to be in the playoffs because of the strength of their division. Sometimes bad teams make the playoffs but c'est la vie.

I guess I should explain myself better. Keep the divisions, but if a division winner has a record of under .500, the next best record gets in. I just don't think it's fair that we accomplished more and had a better record and yet they get in because of the division their in. That's not how sports should work.

 

[dieterbrock]

Yeah, the system isn't broken. Win your division and you're in. I am ok with that. Not sure I agree that a losing team as Division winner deserves a HOME game though. I would argue that the Saints only lost that game because it was in Sleazattle, but it is what it is.

I'm not a fan of changing rules over "exception to the rule" examples. Each year a team wins a division and some divisions are significantly weaker than others. Look at the Patriots, for the last 10 years they get to play the crappy Jets, Bills and Dolphins year in and out.

 

[blue4]

I guess I should explain myself better. Keep the divisions, but if a division winner has a record of under .500, the next best record gets in. I just don't think it's fair that we accomplished more and had a better record and yet they get in because of the division their in. That's not how sports should work.

That still negates the importance of division games, and if that were the case now half of the teams in the NFL would have quit playing hard and started brushing up their golf game. The entire NFC south would be eating hot dogs during games. I don't see why we have to keep changing the NFL. First it's the grandma treatment of QBs. Then the kick off change. Then the extra point experiment. Now the constant penalties. And now we want to decide week 17 if the division winners are special enough. I'm also against expanding the playoffs. Reminds me of the youth soccer participation trophies. "And you get a playoff spot, and you get a playoff spot! Everyone gets a playoff spot!"

 

[DaveFan'51]

Rules are Rules they have to put the Division Chump in!

Would we have to add a * if said 5/6 win division winning team went on to win the Lombardi?

Not sure about this, Teams have gone in as Low ranking Wild card Teams and done well. (ie. Rams/Steelers) It's always been True, once your in the Play-Offs, throw the Season Record Book out. It's "Do or Die Time!"

 

[Boffo97]

First, there's absolutely no way the NFL is going to change the rules midseason, no matter how sucky the NFC South winner is.

Second, the easiest fix for future seasons, scrap the idea that division winners automatically get a home game. They'd still get automatic entry to the playoffs, but playoff seeding of the 4 division winners and 2 wild cards per conference is done by record, even if that conceivably means a wild card team with an awesome record could get the #2 seed.

A weak division winner would thus be a lot more likely to get eliminated anyway instead of squeaking out a win because of home field advantage, like Seattle did to New Orleans in 2010. Yes, you'll still have deserving teams miss the playoffs, but that happens anyway.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

It would be cool to see SJAX get into the playoffs for the first time with a losing record

 

[T-REX]

What's the biggie? Seattle made the playoffs with a losing record and won a playoff game in the process in 2010.

We could of been a division champ at 8-8 if we took care of business.

No system is perfect. That being said with 4 team divisions this will continue to happen every so often.

I agree. What about combining the North and East divisions and the South and West divisions? Top two teams from each division get in and the remaining two best records get the WC. There would be 14 inter division games, 1 outer division game, and 1 outer conference game. That should increase the odds of a losing record getting in significantly.

EDIT: side note, you are going down Boston Ram in FF this week

 

[LesBaker]

If it's the Saints that get in the other team will be nervous because that team is still capable of hanging 40 on you. Because the O can erupt at any time they would be dangerous especially with the negative press that would come with a 5-6 win team being in the playoffs. I think they would be the team nobody wants.

 

[dieterbrock]

It would be cool to see SJAX get into the playoffs for the first time with a losing record

I think it would be a kick in the balls to see SJax get in the playoffs with a 7-9 record while the Rams are sitting at home at 9-7

 

[Alan]

Legatron4 with a clarification:
I guess I should explain myself better. Keep the divisions, but if a division winner has a record of under .500, the next best record gets in. I just don't think it's fair that we accomplished more and had a better record and yet they get in because of the division their in. That's not how sports should work.

What's the point in having divisions then?

That's kind of an amorphous figure isn't it? What's .500? What is their strength of schedule? All .500 records aren't the same are they? Are you trying to get the best teams into the playoffs or the teams with the best records? Should Marshall with their 12-1 record in Conference USA be in the college football playoffs?

I know that having a team with a bad record in the playoffs doesn't seem fair but you're never going to get a system that's perfect and like jrry said, it's cyclical and rarely ever happens. Doesn't seem like a broken system to me.

On the other hand, to be bowl eligible in college you have to have at least a .500 record so it's not something that's breaking new ground. Of course that's not a playoff system though so while the NFL and College football are both fruits it's still kind of apples and oranges.

It does leave a bad taste in your mouth though doesn't it?

 

[Boston Ram]

I agree. What about combining the North and East divisions and the South and West divisions? Top two teams from each division get in and the remaining two best records get the WC. There would be 14 inter division games, 1 outer division game, and 1 outer conference game. That should increase the odds of a losing record getting in significantly.

EDIT: side note, you are going down Boston Ram in FF this week

If losing team continue then they will make the adjustment and your scenario makes sense.

Should be a good week for FF, 200 points this week will be hard to duplicate again lol.

 

[Legatron4]

What's the point in having divisions then?

That's kind of an amorphous figure isn't it? What's .500? What is their strength of schedule? All .500 records aren't the same are they? Are you trying to get the best teams into the playoffs or the teams with the best records? Should Marshall with their 12-1 record in Conference USA be in the college football playoffs?

I know that having a team with a bad record in the playoffs doesn't seem fair but you're never going to get a system that's perfect and like jrry said, it's cyclical and rarely ever happens. Doesn't seem like a broken system to me.

On the other hand, to be bowl eligible in college you have to have at least a .500 record so it's not something that's breaking new ground. Of course that's not a playoff system though so while the NFL and College football are both fruits it's still kind of apples and oranges.

It does leave a bad taste in your mouth though doesn't it?

I understand it's not perfect, but I can't think of another way of making sure the best teams get in the playoffs. That's really all I want.

 

[Alan]

Legatron4 wanting the best:
I understand it's not perfect, but I can't think of another way of making sure the best teams get in the playoffs. That's really all I want.

As we close this discussion down, I just thought I'd add something that occurred to me when reading this:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page...s-2015-super-bowl-tuesday-morning-quarterback
"In other playoff news, it is now impossible for the NFC South victor to have a winning record. Yet the NFL's postseason format, which rewards mediocrity while penalizing merit, will grant that victor a home playoff date. If the postseason began today, 5-8 Atlanta would host a playoff game while 9-4 Dallas, 8-5 Baltimore and six 7-6 clubs would be denied a postseason invitation."

Getting a home game should definitely be based on best record. No way should the winner of the NFC South get home field advantage.