https://x.com/KaplanSportsBiz/status/1875223773563253248
QuoteThe 14-2 Lions will play the 14-2 Vikings on Sunday. The winning team will earn a bye week and home-field advantage throughout the NFC playoffs. The losing team will be 14-3, but will open the playoffs on the road against a division winner with either a 10-7 or 9-8 record. Lions wide receiver Amon-Ra St. Brown has a problem with that.
"It's crazy. I think the rule should be changed," St. Brown said. "Obviously if you win the division, you should obviously make a playoff spot, but having a 14-win team having to go on the road is kind of crazy.
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/amon-ra-st-brown-nfl-should-change-the-rule-so-a-14-win-team-isnt-on-the-road
Nope, win your division, best those other 3 teams, and you get some form of home field game. If a 14 win team can't win on the road to an inferior team, thats their problem
No. Winning the division has to have some value.
I also say No.
However, if they want to change it, they'd have to get rid of divisions and just seed each conference by record.
Then, if they get rid of divisions, they'd have to redo the entire schedule for each team to remove the home and away aspect.
Since only two teams get a first round bye, instead of the current divisional setup, just have the two conferences, AFC & NFC. Winner of the respective conferences get the bye, the following seven teams in each division play in the first round of the playoffs with the best records hosting the games.
Same number of teams make the playoffs and you don't have a 9-8 team hosting a playoff game while a 12 or 13 win team goes on the road.
Quote from: T200 on January 03, 2025, 12:06:19 PMI also say No.
However, if they want to change it, they'd have to get rid of divisions and just seed each conference by record.
Then, if they get rid of divisions, they'd have to redo the entire schedule for each team to remove the home and away aspect.
We were evidently typing at the same time. Same solution if doing away with the divisions.
Hell yes do that! It's insane for a team with 14 wins to go on the road and face a team with potentially 9 or 10. It's not their fault the division they are in is loaded. Don't punish them for being excellent and reward a 9 win team for managing to be in the easiest division to win.
If you're willing to get rid of divisions entirely why wouldn't you just be willing to keep them and seed based on record which is essentially the same thing but makes scheduling a lot easier?
Quote from: Gmo11 on January 03, 2025, 12:42:40 PMHell yes do that! It's insane for a team with 14 wins to go on the road and face a team with potentially 9 or 10. It's not their fault the division they are in is loaded. Don't punish them for being excellent and reward a 9 win team for managing to be in the easiest division to win.
If you're willing to get rid of divisions entirely why wouldn't you just be willing to keep them and seed based on record which is essentially the same thing but makes scheduling a lot easier?
It's their fault for not having the best record in the division, it isn't punishment. Let's face facts, when you are 14-3 or better, you won alot of away games that year.
Let me ask this to everyone
If there is an 8 seed missing the playoffs at 9-8, but a division winner at 8-9, shoudl a division winner not make the playoffs?
Quote from: Gmo11 on January 03, 2025, 12:42:40 PMHell yes do that! It's insane for a team with 14 wins to go on the road and face a team with potentially 9 or 10. It's not their fault the division they are in is loaded. Don't punish them for being excellent and reward a 9 win team for managing to be in the easiest division to win.
If you're willing to get rid of divisions entirely why wouldn't you just be willing to keep them and seed based on record which is essentially the same thing but makes scheduling a lot easier?
Why keep the division schedule (playing the same three teams twice every year)?
Each team plays a conference team once (15 games) and two inter-conference games.
No. Aren't all the rules supposedly designed (and intended) to produce "parity" for the league? Bob
No.
Want a home playoff game. Win your division.
Quote from: MrGap92 on January 03, 2025, 12:52:00 PMLet me ask this to everyone
If there is an 8 seed missing the playoffs at 9-8, but a division winner at 8-9, should a division winner not make the playoffs?
Mr G: If division winners can be aced out of the playoffs, then why bother having divisions?
So, yes, every division winner MUST make the playoffs.
They could easily adapt their system to ensure every division winner gets a home playoff game, but it would either require 16 teams to making the playoffs (ugh!!!) or starting with 12 and giving four byes (costing them money because there would be fewer games...heaven forbid!!!).
Bob
Quote from: T200 on January 03, 2025, 02:04:21 PMWhy keep the division schedule (playing the same three teams twice every year)?
Each team plays a conference team once (15 games) and two inter-conference games.
I could get behind that. I kinda like the home and home with rivals so I don't mind keeping the divisions. But a 14-3 team being forced to go on the road to face a 9 win team seems pretty absurd. The 8-9 vs 9-8 doesn't hurt as much but to not be hypocritical sure let the 9 win team in.
Or how about if the 8-9 team wins the division they get a playoff spot but the home team gets determined by the record not the seed?
Quote from: Gmo11 on January 03, 2025, 03:16:57 PMI could get behind that. I kinda like the home and home with rivals so I don't mind keeping the divisions. But a 14-3 team being forced to go on the road to face a 9 win team seems pretty absurd. The 8-9 vs 9-8 doesn't hurt as much but to not be hypocritical sure let the 9 win team in.
Or how about if the 8-9 team wins the division they get a playoff spot but the home team gets determined by the record not the seed?
I believe that idea was floated a few years ago but got shot down.
The NFL last had a "two division" setup in 1966:
1966 NFL Season (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_NFL_season)
Of course, that was the final season before the talks of the merger with the AFL started impacting the leagues.
If they were to revert back to the 1966 format, they would, of course, have the two Conferences, but instead of four divisions, what are we suggesting here, exactly?
1. A "ladder" setup by Conference where the top "X" on the ladder make the playoffs?
2. Subdivide by Conference to a "Western" and "Eastern" division, as they had in 1966 and prior?
3. Some other makeup?
Granted, the traditional rivalries may suffer but, in the end, new rivalries will develop as the best teams fight each other for supremacy in their respective conferences. You'll see "unofficial rivalries" develop such as the Giants-49ers of the 1980s, or Cowboys-49ers of the 1990s, or Packers-49ers of the 1990s to early 2000s (NOTE: what is it with the 49ers being part of so many rivalries back then?).
In any event, the league may look at it as going backward, rather than going forward, even if it makes too much sense to do so (i.e. 1966 model).
Nonetheless, this is something they seriously need to take a look at the next time the league expands and welcomes new teams into the competition.
Peace!