Playoff reseeding proposal

So if approved winning the division wouldn’t mean anything

 

Not a fan...might as well just make it one big conference without divisions if they go that route.

 

It was the vikings who was 14-3 without a home game....The lions finish in the first seed at 15-2

 

You are sure to make the playoffs and have a home playoffs game if you win the division,so it would still matter

 

This only has an effect starting in the second round, so that the first seed plays the team with the worst record of the remaining teams.....As in 2024, the Lions would have played the Rams and it would have been the Commanders vs. Eagles in the divisional round... The AFC would have remained the same.

The biggest difference would been in 2010 in the NFC when the Falcons (the number 1 seed) would have faced the Seahawks (7-9) instead of the Packers, who would have played the Bears in the divisionnal round.

The goal in all this is for the number 1 seed to play the team with the worst record in the divisional round... It's not that big of a change.

 

It does kind of suck if:
You go 15-2
But a team in your division goes 16-1
And you have to travel to play a division winner that went 9-8

I dunno... either way works

 

The Tim Tebow OT loss happened because the 12-4 Steelers had to go to Denver who won their division at 9-8. Under the new proposal the Steelers would have been playing at home and with Ryan Clark. I like the new rule there will be no more 14-3 wild card teams playing on the road at a 8-9 division winner.

 

Well no. Let’s say the Steelers go 10-7 and win the division, but another team makes it as a wildcard at 11-6. That wildcard team would have a higher seeding in the proposed scenario

 

It's possible....That's not how I understood it....I only thought it was from the divisional round but it's very possible you are right on that

 

Because it's broken.
We , or nobody should travel to a place like Denver that has a clear home field advantage , when we are 13-3, and they are 8-8. It's stupid. You say it makes winning the division irrelevant, but it doesn't change anything. Only one team gets a bye, and win the division would still give you home field over anyone else in your division. It would see a end to teams that have 12, 13, and 14 wins having to got to 8-9 record teams.
I mean if you have to do that, and Yiur not winning your division....You mine as well not win those other game then.

 

No sir, I don't like it.

 

It would be hard to win Your division, and not get a home game even if they go to this. I definitely think it's better than going 13-4, and having to go to a 8-9 teams house just because their division sucks, and that's the only reason they won their division.

 

A team shouldn't get home field just because their division sucks.

 

The Pats did pretty well out of playing in a division that sucked….

So it can cut both ways. Unless every team plays every team, the seeding is always going to be unfair in one respect or another.

 

JUST NO LOOSE

 

Means you're in the postseason. And if you're in a shyte division and finish 9-8, you shouldn't be hosting a 13-4 team that played better all season. Just my opinion.

 

They should make it to where divisonal winners with at least 11 wins get a home game. If a division winner gets 9-10 wins and there's a runner up in another division with a better record, then that team gets the home game. Problem solved. I'm a genius.

 

The NFL attempting to overcorrect what isn't broken?!?


SHOCKING!!

 

I am a traditionalist and therefore required to hate this change.

I can see both sides of the argument. I still think that winning your division should be rewarded by having a home playoff game. If one of the division winners is trash, then beating them on the road shouldn't matter.