No. These are 2 different aspects.

1- Making the playoffs
then
2- Seeding the teams for playoff scheduling

—

By keeping divisions, it not only aids your chances of making the playoffs because you only have to beat out 3 teams to get a spot, but it also keeps those rivalries going. And obviously keeps more fans of more teams still in the playoff hunt late in the season.

But once playoff teams are earned, 4 division winners plus 2 best records of the rest. Then these teams should be seeded by their performance in the season. Actually right now #1 and #2(the 2 best records) are seeded that way. It only is logical that all 6 playoff teams should be subject to the same(best record) seeding.

This is not the only type of ’seeding’ the NFL should look at. Two years ago(2005) the Giants won their division and with the same record Tampa Bay did 11-5. Tampa Bay was given the #3 seed and the Giants the #4. Obviously, NFL considered Tampa Bay to have finished higher(after tiebreakers) as they were the better team. (Both Giants and Bucs lost their playoff game)

Fast forward to the draft a few months later in 2006, Tampa Bay the ‘better regular season team’ that finished higher than the Giants got to draft in the 1st round BEFORE the Giants. The nerds working for the NFL(and other sports leagues) with their ridiculous strength of scheduling factors, etc. and whatnot are taking straightforward numbers and turning them into unneeded complicated calculations.

(report as inappropriate)

Agreed. Just line the teams up in the conference 1 to 16. The first two get byes. The reseeding would make the divisions a joke and lessen the importance of winning the division.

(report as inappropriate)

Bowlen - not sure either Andy or Aunt Bee
Shanahan - who else but Barney,
Jeff Goodman - as Opie
Jim Goodman - as Otis
Joe Ellis -would have to go with either Gomer or Goober

(report as inappropriate)

Second this would eliminate the need for divisions b/c each team shouldn’t have to play a easy/hard team twice. Thus eliminating rivalries and division championships.

This seems like a knee jerk reaction to a situation that happened this season (something the media has fanned the flames of). A rule change that could affect the NFL for years to come should be in the best interest of the league longterm, not a knee jerk fix it solution that has been brought up by the failed GM Mckay.

Plus the difference between the lowest division winning team and the first WC team is usually 1 game. All of this nonsense for 1 game difference?!?!?!? So you basically punish a division winner b/c a WC team had 1 more win and played crappier opponents. This rule is garbage.

(report as inappropriate)

(report as inappropriate)

On the tough/weak division argument. In an ideal division that is tough top to bottom, you would expect each team to go 3-3 in those games. The lopsided records for a division with two equally strong teams would be:

5-1
5-1
1-5
1-5

Or one really strong team and one not as strong:

6-0
4-2
1-5
1-5

But that’s still only 6 games out of 16. The part of the schedule that has a bigger impact is the rotation on conference games, which is random.

In your example from 2005, the Patriots didn’t have a tough division schedule. They went 5-1 in the division. and 5-5 against the rest of the league.

I don’t think it’s unfair at all. Even Indy, when they won their division with a 3-3 record (12-4 overall) in 2005 got a bye. If you’re a good team, a tough division isn’t going to lower your standing much.

(report as inappropriate)

It is a no brainer - if a team was 12-4 but finished 2nd to a 16-0 team in their division , that team is far, far, far better than any team winning a division at 8-8 which no matter how competitve all 4 division teams might be, those 4 teams sure must have done terrible against the 8 out of division games.

(report as inappropriate)

“So Bowlen’s point is an invalid one. A division winning team can fatten its record up by playing six games against basement-dwellers, securing home-field advantage over a team that had to scratch and claw for a playoff berth in a division had less bottom feeders.”

I love the way the original paragraph totally avoided this point. How about pointing at the NE Patriots, getting 6 victories against the Jets/Dolphins/Bills? Heck, the Chargers last year against the Raiders/Chiefs/Donkeys? Most years its whoever comes out of the NFCN against the assorted group of rejects that comprise the other teams.

(report as inappropriate)

RESEEDING IS AN ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE IDEA!

I completely agree with Bowlen. All that would do is punish teams for playing in tough divisions. A team should be rewarded for winning a division. If a team is really as good as its record, and didn’t fatten up on a weak schedule, then it should be able to win on the road. If you re-seed you lose all the drama of these “bad luck” teams proving their mettle by winning on the road against supposedly “weak” division winners.

I think these benefits outweigh the occasional downside of a team benefitting from a cupcake division. In fact I think it makes the playoffs even more compelling because you always see these types of division winners crash and burn.

(report as inappropriate)

NE, 16-0 (Div. Winner)

IND, 12-4 (Div. Winner)
JAX, 12-4
TEN, 12-4

PIT, 11-5 (Div. Winner)
CLE, 11-5

SD, 8-8 (Div. Winner)

Under the proposed new seeding scenario, does the AFC West go without a playoff representative, or does Cleveland get screwed again?

(report as inappropriate)

(report as inappropriate)