RealGM

Will anyone care? Will any changes be made?

Acknowledge it as a fluke and move on.

I wouldn't be opposed to a rule where division winners must finish at least 9-7 or they lose their playoff spot to the next best team that didn't win their division. But really, it happens so infrequently it's probably not worth going crazy about.

That's a ridiculous way to look at it. Let's do nothing about a system that allows it to happen for such a bad team to make the playoffs, and a far greater team to get screwed, just because it doesn't happen often.

Also, there's a pretty big difference between 6 wins and 9 wins. 7-9 teams have made it a few times before so it's not that infrequent. 6-10 would be a record though.

Edit: Only one 7-9 team before, Seattle in 2010. Still something to think about though.

Dont care about getting into playoffs, i do have a gripe towards them hosting a playoff game though

sixerswillrule wrote:That's a ridiculous way to look at it. Let's do nothing about a system that allows it to happen for such a bad team to make the playoffs, and a far greater team to get screwed, just because it doesn't happen often.

I'm not concerned about any team that's unable to win their division or a wildcard spot. The problem is in letting the crappy division winner host a playoff game.

High 5 wrote:

sixerswillrule wrote:That's a ridiculous way to look at it. Let's do nothing about a system that allows it to happen for such a bad team to make the playoffs, and a far greater team to get screwed, just because it doesn't happen often.

I'm not concerned about any team that's unable to win their division or a wildcard spot. The problem is in letting the crappy division winner host a playoff game.

Providing any significance at all (e.g. a playoff berth) for the team that is the best among a tiny sample size (e.g. 4 teams) is the problem.

Hosting a playoff game is just terrible imo but making the playoffs well it is what it is.

sixerswillrule wrote:

High 5 wrote:I'm not concerned about any team that's unable to win their division or a wildcard spot. The problem is in letting the crappy division winner host a playoff game.

Providing any significance at all (e.g. a playoff berth) for the team that is the best among a tiny sample size (e.g. 4 teams) is the problem.

I'm not sure very many people would support removing divisions to help teams that weren't quite good enough to take any of the three playoff spots available to them. Divisions add too much entertainment and intensity to the game.

High 5 wrote:

sixerswillrule wrote:

High 5 wrote:I'm not concerned about any team that's unable to win their division or a wildcard spot. The problem is in letting the crappy division winner host a playoff game.

Providing any significance at all (e.g. a playoff berth) for the team that is the best among a tiny sample size (e.g. 4 teams) is the problem.

I'm not sure very many people would support removing divisions to help teams that weren't quite good enough to take any of the three playoff spots available to them. Divisions add too much entertainment and intensity to the game.

Well when the requirement for taking one of those three available spots is 11+ wins, while thanks to being in a terrible division, another team takes a spot with 2 or 3 less wins, it's pretty crappy.

I'd be very interested to see the reaction if a 6-10 Falcons/Saints make the playoffs and a 10-6 49ers/Seahawks miss it. I'm sure we'll at least see some discussion about that major flaw.

sixerswillrule wrote:I'd be very interested to see the reaction if a 6-10 Falcons/Saints make the playoffs and a 10-6 49ers/Seahawks miss it. I'm sure we'll at least see some discussion about that major flaw.

Justice for 4 years ago?

NyKnicks1714 wrote:

sixerswillrule wrote:I'd be very interested to see the reaction if a 6-10 Falcons/Saints make the playoffs and a 10-6 49ers/Seahawks miss it. I'm sure we'll at least see some discussion about that major flaw.

Justice for 4 years ago?

Haha yeah. Though it was the Bucs and Giants who got screwed that year in missing the playoffs.

So 10-6 49ers missing it while a 6-10 team makes it, let's see that.

Why don't they keep it just the way it is now regarding the divisions. Then like hockey, reseed based on record. That way a crappy team like Atlanta for instance can still win their division, but not host a home playoff game and most likely getting the #8 seed.

bluejerseyjinx wrote:Why don't they keep it just the way it is now regarding the divisions. Then like hockey, reseed based on record. That way a crappy team like Atlanta for instance can still win their division, but not host a home playoff game and most likely getting the #8 seed.

You mean the #6 seed, right.

But to answer your question:

bluejerseyjinx wrote:Why don't they keep it just the way it is now regarding the divisions.

bluejerseyjinx wrote:That way a crappy team like Atlanta for instance can still win their division.

That's why.

I hope Carolina just goes for a good draft pick tbh, it is the best long term move for us.

It has happened before when bad teams get in over teams who deserve to be there. I was sure upset in 08 when the Chargers got in at 8-8 and the 11-5 Pats missed it. My main issue is still those teams being able to host in the wild card round.

TheKingofSting wrote:I hope Carolina just goes for a good draft pick tbh, it is the best long term move for us.

I hope that means Cam getting shut down for the year. He looks hurt and that Oline is letting him get killed

A quick easy fix would definitely be that the better record hosts the playoff game. Sure they still get in, but at least don't host. Anything else kind of goes against the whole point of divisions.

Perhaps the most likely fix is the NFL eventually expands to 34 teams and gets rid of the 4 division format and goes back to 3 divisions for each conference. I don't think you weak teams as common under the old format with 3 divisions.

sixerswillrule wrote:

bluejerseyjinx wrote:Why don't they keep it just the way it is now regarding the divisions. Then like hockey, reseed based on record. That way a crappy team like Atlanta for instance can still win their division, but not host a home playoff game and most likely getting the #8 seed.

You mean the #6 seed, right.

But to answer your question:

bluejerseyjinx wrote:Why don't they keep it just the way it is now regarding the divisions.

bluejerseyjinx wrote:That way a crappy team like Atlanta for instance can still win their division.

That's why.

Yes, sorry, I mean't to say #6 seed. I was jumping the gun a bit because there proposing adding more playoff teams. The point I was trying to make is, as a rule we always reward division winners no matter the record. What I don't agree with is rewarding them with a home playoff game to start out with. Like hockey, reseed according to record after all divisions are decided.

bluejerseyjinx wrote:

sixerswillrule wrote:

bluejerseyjinx wrote:Why don't they keep it just the way it is now regarding the divisions. Then like hockey, reseed based on record. That way a crappy team like Atlanta for instance can still win their division, but not host a home playoff game and most likely getting the #8 seed.

You mean the #6 seed, right.

But to answer your question:

bluejerseyjinx wrote:Why don't they keep it just the way it is now regarding the divisions.

bluejerseyjinx wrote:That way a crappy team like Atlanta for instance can still win their division.

That's why.

Yes, sorry, I mean't to say #6 seed. I was jumping the gun a bit because there proposing adding more playoff teams. The point I was trying to make is, as a rule we always reward division winners no matter the record. What I don't agree with is rewarding them with a home playoff game to start out with. Like hockey, reseed according to record after all divisions are decided.

Yeah, I'm well aware of that rule, and I got what you were saying. The point I was trying to make is that any rule that allows a crappy team to even make the playoffs in the first place is an extremely flawed rule.

Matt Ryan will lose another home playoff game.