Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So a 7-9 Seahawks team gets to host an 11-5 Saints team because the Seahawks won arguably the worst division in NFL history, while the Saints finished second in the obviously better NFC South. (Three out of the four teams there had ten wins.)
I don't think they should change things.....yes, crazier things have happened (the Pats a couple years ago won 10 or 11 games and missed the playoffs...)
No matter how bad your division is, you should be rewarded somehow for winning it.
Leave it alone, don't change the regular season to 18 games either....
I disagree...I think if no team in a division has a winning record, then the game should default to the next highest wild card team. This only confirmed to me that the NFL is watered down with too many bad teams.
I do agree that 18 games is not a good idea. I guess they will have 2 of the pre-season games change to regular season games, but really is anybody ready for the season to start in August? We have too many injuries as it is with 16 games. Just greed...more games, more money for the owners, TV and NFL.
I don't understand when someone makes the comment the leagues is "watered down"...
When is it not watered down? I think parity is a good thing for the NFL. Like I said, there are 5 out of 6 playoff teams in the NFC that can make a case for going to Dallas. Do you consider that watered down? There will always be an equal amount of bad teams as there are good teams every year so this makes no sense.....
Three years ago, the 12-4 Colts had to travel TO the 8-8 Chargers on Wild Card Weekend. Where was the outrage then? Is it only happening now because the Seahawks actually have a losing record instead of a .500 record?
When you can claim that in your first year as head coach, you get to the postseason AND get home field advantage (via a losing record, though it is only for a game), it just seems ridiculous.
I don't have a big issue with division winners automatically making the playoffs even if other teams with better records get excluded. That's the trade-off for having more teams with a stake later into the season. If playoffs were determined strictly by record, you'd have a lot more teams with nothing left to play for by the 10th week or so, which in turn would diminish fan interest and dilute rivalries. However, I can get on board with having playoff seeding based on record, even if that means a wildcard gets home field advantage over a division winner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
