NFL (2020-2024)

[webny99]

I agree and have said this in here in prior years - For a team to make the playoffs, they should have won more games than they have lost.  If no team in a division has done so, another wild card should go and the seeding adjusted accordingly.  Otherwise the playoffs are fine as they are now.

Mike

That's an interesting idea but it would be almost impossible to implement in practice. You'd have to wait until all four teams in a division clinched a losing record before replacing them with a fourth wild card which realistically isn't happening until Week 15 or 16 at the earliest. And then there's the challenge of what to do if there is no fourth wild card team that has a better record than the leader of the bad division, and how the tiebreakers would work and who gets the home game(s) in that scenario.

[SEWIGuy]

I agree and have said this in here in prior years - For a team to make the playoffs, they should have won more games than they have lost.  If no team in a division has done so, another wild card should go and the seeding adjusted accordingly.  Otherwise the playoffs are fine as they are now.

Mike

That's an interesting idea but it would be almost impossible to implement in practice. You'd have to wait until all four teams in a division clinched a losing record before replacing them with a fourth wild card which realistically isn't happening until Week 15 or 16 at the earliest. And then there's the challenge of what to do if there is no fourth wild card team that has a better record than the leader of the bad division, and how the tiebreakers would work and who gets the home game(s) in that scenario.

It wouldn't be that hard to implement. The top wild card gets the home game. And if no fourth wild card has a winning record, then the division winner qualifies.

[hotdogPi]

How about no divisions, top seven get in?

[NWI_Irish96]

How about no divisions, top seven get in?

Too many rivalries to give up divisions. Could give up conferences though. Seed the playoffs 1-14.

[SEWIGuy]

How about no divisions, top seven get in?

Because games like the Packers and Bears should be played twice a season. I also like the way the division set up set 90% of the teams on a schedule well in advance.

I think no divisions would work for MLB and NBA though, where there are enough games so that any rivalry is played often.

[webny99]

I agree and have said this in here in prior years - For a team to make the playoffs, they should have won more games than they have lost.  If no team in a division has done so, another wild card should go and the seeding adjusted accordingly.  Otherwise the playoffs are fine as they are now.

Mike

That's an interesting idea but it would be almost impossible to implement in practice. You'd have to wait until all four teams in a division clinched a losing record before replacing them with a fourth wild card which realistically isn't happening until Week 15 or 16 at the earliest. And then there's the challenge of what to do if there is no fourth wild card team that has a better record than the leader of the bad division, and how the tiebreakers would work and who gets the home game(s) in that scenario.

It wouldn't be that hard to implement. The top wild card gets the home game. And if no fourth wild card has a winning record, then the division winner qualifies.

There's still going to be tiebreaker issues. And if the division leader is 8-8 entering Week 18, leaving it unclear if they will finish with a winning record, that creates a conference-wide mess for seeding, scheduling, teams deciding whether to play starters, etc. etc. Does being 8-8 make their Week 18 game a defacto playoff game? What if there's a tie in the division, or what if they're also in a tie for the wild card race if they lose the division? And does 9-8 still get them in as the 4 seed over a 10-7 or 11-6 wild card team or do they get bumped down to the 7 seed? All of that makes it even more confusing and arbitrary than what we have now.

[SEWIGuy]

I agree and have said this in here in prior years - For a team to make the playoffs, they should have won more games than they have lost.  If no team in a division has done so, another wild card should go and the seeding adjusted accordingly.  Otherwise the playoffs are fine as they are now.

Mike

That's an interesting idea but it would be almost impossible to implement in practice. You'd have to wait until all four teams in a division clinched a losing record before replacing them with a fourth wild card which realistically isn't happening until Week 15 or 16 at the earliest. And then there's the challenge of what to do if there is no fourth wild card team that has a better record than the leader of the bad division, and how the tiebreakers would work and who gets the home game(s) in that scenario.

It wouldn't be that hard to implement. The top wild card gets the home game. And if no fourth wild card has a winning record, then the division winner qualifies.

There's still going to be tiebreaker issues. And if the division leader is 8-8 entering Week 18, leaving it unclear if they will finish with a winning record, that creates a conference-wide mess for seeding, scheduling, teams deciding whether to play starters, etc. etc. Does being 8-8 make their Week 18 game a defacto playoff game? What if there's a tie in the division, or what if they're also in a tie for the wild card race if they lose the division? And does 9-8 still get them in as the 4 seed over a 10-7 or 11-6 wild card team or do they get bumped down to the 7 seed? All of that makes it even more confusing and arbitrary than what we have now.

Sounds more exciting than confusing. Nobody needs to know their final seeding until Sunday evening anyway.

[jeffandnicole]

I agree and have said this in here in prior years - For a team to make the playoffs, they should have won more games than they have lost.  If no team in a division has done so, another wild card should go and the seeding adjusted accordingly.  Otherwise the playoffs are fine as they are now.

Mike

That's an interesting idea but it would be almost impossible to implement in practice. You'd have to wait until all four teams in a division clinched a losing record before replacing them with a fourth wild card which realistically isn't happening until Week 15 or 16 at the earliest. And then there's the challenge of what to do if there is no fourth wild card team that has a better record than the leader of the bad division, and how the tiebreakers would work and who gets the home game(s) in that scenario.

It wouldn't be that hard to implement. The top wild card gets the home game. And if no fourth wild card has a winning record, then the division winner qualifies.

There's still going to be tiebreaker issues. And if the division leader is 8-8 entering Week 18, leaving it unclear if they will finish with a winning record, that creates a conference-wide mess for seeding, scheduling, teams deciding whether to play starters, etc. etc. Does being 8-8 make their Week 18 game a defacto playoff game? What if there's a tie in the division, or what if they're also in a tie for the wild card race if they lose the division? And does 9-8 still get them in as the 4 seed over a 10-7 or 11-6 wild card team or do they get bumped down to the 7 seed? All of that makes it even more confusing and arbitrary than what we have now.

How is that different than now in terms of tiebreakers and figuring out who's playing in the playoffs? Both the NFC North and South's Division winner hasn't been decided yet.

Tiebreaker rules will be developed, which are kinda arbitrary now. Teams won't know till the final game if they're in the playoffs and if they're hosting a game, which occurs now.  Teams and the NFL have this all figured out in terms of how they will sell tickets and have employees at the game.

Playoffs scenarios would be developed, and every team would be aware of what occurs based on teg wins, losses and ties that occur.

[mgk920]

How about no divisions, top seven get in?

Because games like the Packers and Bears should be played twice a season. I also like the way the division set up set 90% of the teams on a schedule well in advance.

I think no divisions would work for MLB and NBA though, where there are enough games so that any rivalry is played often.

That is how the NBA does their playoff pairings now.  But the NFL plays far fewer games in a season and that would thus not work.  also, the NFL's divisions make the late season games soooooo very interesting to follow.

Mike

[mgk920]

I agree and have said this in here in prior years - For a team to make the playoffs, they should have won more games than they have lost.  If no team in a division has done so, another wild card should go and the seeding adjusted accordingly.  Otherwise the playoffs are fine as they are now.

Mike

That's an interesting idea but it would be almost impossible to implement in practice. You'd have to wait until all four teams in a division clinched a losing record before replacing them with a fourth wild card which realistically isn't happening until Week 15 or 16 at the earliest. And then there's the challenge of what to do if there is no fourth wild card team that has a better record than the leader of the bad division, and how the tiebreakers would work and who gets the home game(s) in that scenario.

It wouldn't be that hard to implement. The top wild card gets the home game. And if no fourth wild card has a winning record, then the division winner qualifies.

There's still going to be tiebreaker issues. And if the division leader is 8-8 entering Week 18, leaving it unclear if they will finish with a winning record, that creates a conference-wide mess for seeding, scheduling, teams deciding whether to play starters, etc. etc. Does being 8-8 make their Week 18 game a defacto playoff game? What if there's a tie in the division, or what if they're also in a tie for the wild card race if they lose the division? And does 9-8 still get them in as the 4 seed over a 10-7 or 11-6 wild card team or do they get bumped down to the 7 seed? All of that makes it even more confusing and arbitrary than what we have now.

Again, 'win more games than they lose' means that a team that is 8-8-1 would NOT make the playoffs, because they did not win more games than they lost.

Mike

[webny99]

There's still going to be tiebreaker issues. And if the division leader is 8-8 entering Week 18, leaving it unclear if they will finish with a winning record, that creates a conference-wide mess for seeding, scheduling, teams deciding whether to play starters, etc. etc. Does being 8-8 make their Week 18 game a defacto playoff game? What if there's a tie in the division, or what if they're also in a tie for the wild card race if they lose the division? And does 9-8 still get them in as the 4 seed over a 10-7 or 11-6 wild card team or do they get bumped down to the 7 seed? All of that makes it even more confusing and arbitrary than what we have now.

How is that different than now in terms of tiebreakers and figuring out who's playing in the playoffs? Both the NFC North and South's Division winner hasn't been decided yet.

Tiebreaker rules will be developed, which are kinda arbitrary now. Teams won't know till the final game if they're in the playoffs and if they're hosting a game, which occurs now.  Teams and the NFL have this all figured out in terms of how they will sell tickets and have employees at the game.

Playoffs scenarios would be developed, and every team would be aware of what occurs based on teg wins, losses and ties that occur.

That's all well and fine (again in theory), but changing the playoff structure is going nowhere without developing those scenarios and getting everyone to agree on them. That seems very unlikely and I don't think there'd be much support among players, teams, fans, or media for making things more complex than they already are.

[1995hoo]

When did Dallas start wearing blue at home, or is this just a sporadic thing?

[SEWIGuy]

There's still going to be tiebreaker issues. And if the division leader is 8-8 entering Week 18, leaving it unclear if they will finish with a winning record, that creates a conference-wide mess for seeding, scheduling, teams deciding whether to play starters, etc. etc. Does being 8-8 make their Week 18 game a defacto playoff game? What if there's a tie in the division, or what if they're also in a tie for the wild card race if they lose the division? And does 9-8 still get them in as the 4 seed over a 10-7 or 11-6 wild card team or do they get bumped down to the 7 seed? All of that makes it even more confusing and arbitrary than what we have now.

How is that different than now in terms of tiebreakers and figuring out who's playing in the playoffs? Both the NFC North and South's Division winner hasn't been decided yet.

Tiebreaker rules will be developed, which are kinda arbitrary now. Teams won't know till the final game if they're in the playoffs and if they're hosting a game, which occurs now.  Teams and the NFL have this all figured out in terms of how they will sell tickets and have employees at the game.

Playoffs scenarios would be developed, and every team would be aware of what occurs based on teg wins, losses and ties that occur.

That's all well and fine (again in theory), but changing the playoff structure is going nowhere without developing those scenarios and getting everyone to agree on them. That seems very unlikely and I don't think there'd be much support among players, teams, fans, or media for making things more complex than they already are.

You're right it's not going to happen, but it won't be because it's too complex. None of this is very hard.

For instance if the NFC South winner this year was under .500, the Vikings/Lions loser would move up to the four seed and the Seahawks would qualify as seventh.

[Big John]

When did Dallas start wearing blue at home, or is this just a sporadic thing?

sporadic

[webny99]

The Bucs trying to gift the NFC South to the Falcons and stumbling into the title anyways because the Falcons lose to the Panthers is about the most NFC South thing possible.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Wow.....the Patriots beat the Bills B (or) C team to improve to 4-13, losing the #1 pick.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Packers - 7th seed and on the road to Philly (Lost to the Bears 24-22)
Commanders - 6th seed and on the road to Buccaneers or Rams (Win against the Cowboys 23-19)

[Great Lakes Roads]

AFC
East- Buffalo Bills (CLINCHED PLAYOFF SPOT)
North- Baltimore Ravens (CLINCHED PLAYOFF SPOT)
South- Houston Texans (CLINCHED PLAYOFF SPOT)
West- Kansas City Chiefs (CLINCHED PLAYOFF SPOT)

NFC
East- Philadelphia Eagles (CLINCHED PLAYOFF SPOT)
North- Detroit Lions (CLINCHED PLAYOFF SPOT)
South- Tampa Buccaneers (CLINCHED PLAYOFF SPOT)
West- Los Angeles Rams (CLINCHED PLAYOFF SPOT)

AFC Wildcards- Pittsburgh Steelers, Los Angeles Chargers, Denver Broncos
NFC Wildcards- Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, Washington Commanders

Forked from my perspective...

AFC: NYJ, NE, CLE, CIN, TEN, JAC, LV, IND, MIA
NFC: NYG, DAL, CAR, NO, CHI, SEA, SF, ARI, ATL

Week 18 update...

[Ted$8roadFan]

And the Patriots wasted no time in firing first-year coach Jerod Mayo, not even waiting until Black Monday.

[Big John]

Who is currently on the clock for first pick in the draft?

Mike

Jaguars hold the tiebreaker at 2-10.

Jaguars won today, so the Raiders are now in line for the first pick.

Raiders won. So it is now the Giants.

Giants won, so now four 3-win teams, Patriots now on track for the first pick.

Pats won, but still fired their coach.
Titans officially have the first pick, final pending any trades.

[webny99]

The Bucs trying to gift the NFC South to the Falcons and stumbling into the title anyways because the Falcons lose to the Panthers is about the most NFC South thing possible.

Instead, the Bucs dismiss the Saints to easily earn a fourth straight division title, good for the third-longest active streak in the league behind the Chiefs and Bills.

The Bucs were a wild card team during their 2020 Super Bowl run, but have won the division every year since. The Bills have also not lost the AFC East since Brady left the Patriots to join the Bucs.

[JayhawkCO]

And the Patriots wasted no time in firing first-year coach Jerod Mayo, not even waiting until Black Monday.

I wonder if they asked him to lose and he chose not to...

[SEWIGuy]

And the Patriots wasted no time in firing first-year coach Jerod Mayo, not even waiting until Black Monday.

I wonder if they asked him to lose and he chose not to...

I think this decision was made before kickoff.

[thspfc]

And the Patriots wasted no time in firing first-year coach Jerod Mayo, not even waiting until Black Monday.

I wonder if they asked him to lose and he chose not to...

I think this decision was made before kickoff.

There were rumors that the decision was made in October.

The Seahawks become the first 10-win team to miss the playoffs in the 17 game era. Somewhat surprising that it took 4 seasons, considering that in theory it's more likely to happen with more games.

It again illustrates that the NFC is in fact very good. I remember saying as early as week 4 that there would be at least 8 legit playoff-caliber teams in the NFC.

[webny99]

The Broncos beat the Chiefs' backups in a laugher, clinching the final AFC wild card slot, eliminating the Bengals and Dolphins, and ending the second-longest active playoff drought in the NFL. Sorry Jets.