Finally someone nationally is saying what I have been for yrs

[papasmurfbell]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/31/nfl-playoffs-should-be-seeded-without-regard-to-division-championships/

 

Three years ago, the 7-9 Seahawks hosted the 11-5 Saints in the wild-card round of the playoffs. After the Seahawks won, some actually argued that the victory validated the notion that the Seahawks were the better team.

In reality, Seattle parlayed its automatic home-field advantage at the stadium with one of the best home-field advantages into a berth the divisional round. If the game had been played in New Orleans, the Saints would have been favored to win by 10 or more points — and the Saints likely would have covered the spread.

The Saints traveled to Seattle because the Saints finished second to the top-seeded Falcons, while the 6-9 Seahawks beat the 7-8 Rams on the final day of the regular season to win what at the time was the worst division by far in football.

Today, the NFC West has a trio of 10-win teams; the fourth-place Rams have the same record as the Seahawks did when they won the division in 2010.

But winning the division, no matter how bad a division may be, continues to carry a playoff berth and a home game. While it would be unfair and impractical strip a division winner from a berth in the postseason, why does the best of four bad teams deserve a home playoff game?

This year, a seeding of the teams without regard to division championships would have turned wild-card weekend on its head in the NFC. The top two seeds (Seattle and Carolina) would have remained the same, since the 12-4 Panthers beat the 12-4 49er. But San Francisco’s 12-4 record would have given it the No. 3 seed. At No. 4 would have been the 11-5 Saints. The 10-6 Eagles would have been No. 5 and the Packers would have secured the sixth seed at 8-7-1.

More importantly, the Saints would be hosting the Eagles instead of traveling to Philly, and the Niners would be playing one more game at Candlestick Park, instead of traveling to the tundra, which by definition is frozen.

In the AFC, the Broncos and Patriots would have remained the top two seed. But the inclusion of Kansas City in the tiebreaker between the Colts and Bengals at 11-5 would have given Indy the No. 3 seed, via superior conference record. The Bengals would have gotten the No. 4 seed based on conference record, the Chiefs would have stayed at No. 5, and the Chargers would have qualified for the No. 6 seed.

The flip-flopping of No. 3 and No. 4 would have sent San Diego to Indy and Kansas City to Cincinnati.

The league has shown no inclination to take the automatic home game away from the division winner, but there’s no reason to continue to reward the best of four bad teams with a home playoff game. Home-field advantage in the postseason should be earned not via six divisional games but by all 16.

 

 

[papasmurfbell]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/03/nfl-considering-sort-of-seeding-based-on-records/

 

 

NFL considering, sort of, playoff seeding based on records

Yes, it’s unfair that a team like the 12-4 49ers must venture to Green Bay for Ice Bowl II when the Packers cobbled together a measly 8-7-1 record en route to the NFC North crown.

It’s as unfair as it is for the 11-5 Saints to have to travel to play the 10-6 Eagles on Saturday night. And it’s as unfair as it was when the 2010 Saints, also 11-5, had to travel to Seattle to play the 7-9 Seahawks. And it’s as unfair as when the 2011 Steelers, at 12-4, had to leave safety Ryan Clark home (due to a medical inability to play at altitude) for a playoffs game at Denver against the 8-8 Broncos.

The league previously has shown no inclination to strip the automatic home game that goes with winning a division, no matter how bad the four teams in that division may be. But the league apparently has at least considered it.

We think.

In a statement provided to the website the NFL owns, the league acknowledged that the issue has been discussed. Along with every other issue that may or may not ever be addressed.

“Every scenario has been discussed, ranging from reseeding to one extra game, expanding from 12 to 14 teams,” league spokesman Brian McCarthy said. “Think of a scenario, it’s been discussed and remains in play.”

That’s hardly evidence of a groundswell toward change, like the one that currently exists to centralize the replay review function. It’s merely a “scenario” that the league considers from time to time, along with anything and everything else that comes up when the powers-that-be are talking about possible improvements to the game.

A greater sense of urgency is warranted. Not that it would help the 49ers or the Saints. In fact, by the time change is made, it could be the 49ers and the Saints who lose home games after winning divisions with records worse than the wild-card teams.