Blog Entry

Goodell: Re-seeding playoff plans have 'merits'

Posted on: December 16, 2010 10:11 am
Edited on: December 16, 2010 10:13 am
 
Posted by Will Brinson

FORT WORTH, TEXAS -- Every week, it seems, there's some new argument for why [Insert your favorite NFC West team here] shouldn't make the playoffs in 2010, despite winning an utterly terrible division.

It was bound to come up at the owners' meetings as well (anyone else kind of chuckle at the thought of Bob Kraft stewing because Alex Spanos winked at him over that 8-8 season in 2008?) but don't expect anything regarding the way the playoffs are handled to change.

"I'm sure it will be [addressed]," Goodell said. "It's not a new conversation. We've had an awful lot of discussion over that over the past several years and I'm sure it'll come up again for discussion.

"I see the merits of what they're talking about, but I also believe our playoff system has worked quite well."

It has worked well -- even the most nightmarish of situations (the aforementioned 8-8 Chargers) didn't end poorly because San Diego played well in the postseason. But right now, the league is staring at a situation where St. Louis or Seattle get a home game in the playoffs with one of them sliding in at a best-case scenario 9-7.

Which is why Falcons President Rich McKay, co-chair of the competition committee, also believes re-seeding is something to be looked at.

"I think it should be discussed, and I think it would get more support than the last time," McKay said.

That's because right now, the idea of Seattle or St. Louis hosting a home game is pretty reprehensible especially if it means that a strong team like Green Bay or Tampa Bay gets pushed out for a team with a sub-.500 record.

That's not to say the committee should completely boot division-winning teams with bad records from the playoffs. That's a bit extreme, especially when you consider the success the NFC West has had in the past (the Rams, Cardinals and Seahawks have all been to the Super Bowl in the past decade and the Niners are historically legendary or something). But removing the luxury of a home game from a 7-9 division champ seems like a reasonable step to take.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 12, 2012 4:37 pm
 

Goodell: Re-seeding playoff plans have 'merits'

Very cherished this specific create document.Clearly Aaron Rodgers Jersey thankyou! Perfect.



dsfjwerw
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 6, 2012 2:47 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Apr 1, 2010
Posted on: December 17, 2010 11:35 am
 

Goodell: Re-seeding playoff plans have 'merits'

why don't you leave the division winners alone and just add another wild card spot if you are so worried about teams missing out



Since: Dec 21, 2006
Posted on: December 17, 2010 8:44 am
 

Goodell: Re-seeding playoff plans have 'merits'

i say you reseed the playoffs as a whole and not by nfc / afc that way you have the best 2 teams in the superbowl. Keep fingering with the sport, its fine as it is. Your acting like the friggin government.  
if it aint broke ....dont fix it.



Since: Nov 2, 2006
Posted on: December 17, 2010 6:39 am
 

Adding Playoff Teams

It's not talked about enough, but maybe they should just add another team from each conference into the playoffs (7 from each conference, 14 overall). When they added the 6th seed from each conference, they had just three divisions (so three teams were wild cards). Then they added a division, going back to just two wild cards per conference. That's why you now see 10-6 or even 11-5 (a couple years ago) miss the playoffs. It's actually harder to make the playoffs now (unless you are in the NFC Worst that is).

So go to three wild cards. The Steelers proved a 6 seed can win the Super Bowl, maybe a 7 seed can win a game or two. Had there been 7 teams in the AFC the year New England missed, you would have New England traveling to Pittsburgh, who eventually won the Super Bowl. Maybe the Steelers don't win that year (we all know New England usually wins in Pittsburgh in the playoffs).

It also then takes away a huge advantage for the #2 seed over the #3 as they would lose the 1st round bye. I think it's too big of an edge between two teams that may be tied in the standings and some 4th or 5th tiebreaker decides who plays in the conference championship (it is rare that a 3 can make it to the championship in this format). Only the #1 seed would get a 1st round bye. So maybe the 3 seed has a better chance to win the 2-3 game (#2 would have to play the week before) and even better, if the 2 seed loses in the 1st round the 3 could host in the 2nd round.

I'd rather have two extra playoff games than two extra weeks of regular season football. Especially if someone like Peyton Manning is out and would've been the 7 seed.

As for the seeding (7 or 6 teams), I would say let the four division champs be the top 4 seeds but let the better record host (so top wild card could have home field over weakest divisional champ).




Since: Nov 7, 2009
Posted on: December 17, 2010 1:48 am
 

Goodell: Re-seeding playoff plans have 'merits'

I don't feel they should reseed the playoff teams. What i think they should do is tweak it a little bit. Make it a rule that a team can't make the playoffs if the team wins their division and is not at least 8-8. If you win your division with a 7-9 record or worse, you don't qualify for the playoffs. In this situation i feel they should take the 3rd best wildcard team to replace the 7-9 division winner. The 3rd wildcard team would become the 6th seed and play at the 3rd division winner/ 3rd seed. The wildcard team with the best record would become the 4th seed and would host a home game against the 5th seed. There would be 3 division winners and 3 wildcard teams. Since a team doesn't win a division with a 7-9 record all that much, there should be no problem with this.  I don't understand why you would reward a division winner of a 7-9 record a home playoff game against a team like the saints who will likely finish around 12-4.


playoffs the way they are:       
;     &nbs
p;     &nb
sp;     &n
bsp;     &
nbsp;     
   
1 seed= division winner with best record     
;     &nbs
p;     &nb
sp;  
2 seed= division winner with 2nd best record 
3 seed= division winner with 3rd best record     
;     &nbs
p;   
4 seed= division winner with 4th best record     
;     &nbs
p;  
5 seed= wildcard team with best record     
;     &nbs
p;     &nb
sp;   
6 seed= wildcard team with 2nd best record 


playoffs with a division winner that has a 7-9 record or worse:
1 seed= division winner with best record
2 seed= division winner with 2nd best record
3 seed= division winner with 3rd best record
4 seed= wildcard team with best record
5 seed=wildcard team with 2nd best record
6 seed= wildcard team with 3rd best record



Since: Dec 15, 2009
Posted on: December 16, 2010 10:10 pm
 

Goodell: Re-seeding playoff plans have 'merits'

People keep saying this is just a fluke year.  The NFC West just happens to be having a bad year.  But the thing is, it's NOT A FLUKE.  In the last 8 seasons (since the realignment from 3 to 4 divisions per conference) there have been 9 playoff games hosted by a team with a worse record than their opponent.  It's not a fluke when it happens, on average, more than once a year!!  Oh, and don't forget about the AFC either.  If the season ended today, BOTH afc wildcard games would be hosted by division winners with worse records than their wildcard opponents.  That, plus the NFC west, would be a total of 12 times in 9 seasons.




Since: Apr 3, 2009
Posted on: December 16, 2010 7:44 pm
 

Goodell: Re-seeding playoff plans have 'merits'

Winning the division means playing within your division and playing a very similiar schedule to the other teams in your division.  If the AFC west got stuck playing the NFC East this year, that would likely be at least 3 losses for every team in the AFC west.  Split the division games, and that gives a 4-6 record, sub .500.  Now take the first place team last year in the AFC west, and put them against the first place team in the two interconference games, that gives the potential of an 8-8 season at best.  Some divisions have tougher schedules than others.  But to come out on top of that division with a tough schedule deserves some reward.  If a better team plays a significantly worse team on the road, it should win anyway.  I think the seeding system is fine the way it is.  Flukes like this year keep things interesting.  If you wanted a home game, should've done better that your division rivals.



Since: Dec 6, 2007
Posted on: December 16, 2010 7:10 pm
 

Goodell: Re-seeding playoff plans have 'merits'

Great concept.....I agree



Since: Dec 6, 2007
Posted on: December 16, 2010 7:08 pm
 

Goodell: Re-seeding playoff plans have 'merits'

Why not adopt the NHL playoff system, or at least qualify all teams who finish 9-7 regardless of the number.  Shoot, they are talking about going to an 18 game season, so what difference does it make the number of teams who finish 9 -7 or above???  a 7-9 or 8-8 division winner does not deserve to be in the playoffs when another team finishes 9-7 or 10-6.....


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com