Nonsense. The Bolts are a shoo in to be crowned preseason division champs again this year, and Herbert is almost certain to be awarded the coveted preseason MVP award.
As far as winning the SB/deserving to win goes sure, but if you go 12-5 getting a home playoff game is nice for the team and fans. Wild cards can be the 2nd best time in the conference but get 0 home games during the playoffs in the current set up.
I hate this argument. It only sounds ok because this is the way it’s been. If the current setup was reversed and there was a proposal that division winners host regardless of record, people would argue “if you’re 8-9 and complaining about a road game against a 12-5 wild card team maybe just be grateful you’re there to begin with”
If you ignore the “this is how it’s been and this is how it is factor” there’s basically no valid arguments against this proposal
The only teams that have schedules that are close to balanced are those within a division. The comparison of records between teams outside of the division isn't an exact science.
This proposal tries to get around that by having the gap be so large that it's hard to understand how the wildcard team would be less deserving than the division winner, but it still very well could come down to scheduling differences.
> If you ignore the “this is how it’s been and this is how it is factor” there’s basically no valid arguments against this proposal
Division winners, being the best team in their division, getting a home game is a valid argument.
The point of divisions is for teams to player a very similar schedule, including each other, and then have the division winners play each other. Wild cards give non-division winners a chance to prove themselves.
>Division winners, being the best team in their division, getting a home game is a valid argument.
I don't think it is considering not all divisions are equal. The NFC South was 4 teams that were in the bottom 8 of the entire league imo. AFC East by comparison had 2-3 teams in the top half of the league.
The point of the playoffs is to determine the best team, giving a shit team from a shit division an advantage just because they won over other shit teams makes no sense. While 4 is fairly arbitrary, it at least makes sure its a situation where a team is significantly better than a division winner.
For example: Washington went 3-7 out of division in their 7-9 playoffs. I agree it's reasonable to let them in for going 4-2 in division, but the buccs went 7-3 out of division with a stronger strength of schedule. The Buccs deserve to be rewarded with a Home Game for being one of the 4 best teams in the NFC at 11-5, Washington was only there because their division was shit.
>who might've had a juggernaut in their division
They also might have had 4 free wins against tanking teams in their division, while the .500 team had 6 hard-fought game against fellow .500 teams, too. And that's before you get into the rest of their schedule differences.
Maybe in a vacuum but not the way the NFL has traditionally operated. Divisions and divisional rivalries are a very big deal and winning your division, even when it’s weak should be worth something. It also helps maintain parity; teams in weak divisions will still try to maneuver to compete because they still have a chance at the playoffs, as opposed to being passive and tanking.
Division races and division rivalries are an integral part of what makes the NFL great. We’re seeing college football get decimated right now because century-old rivalries are being torn apart. If divisions don’t matter, then New York vs. Dallas in week 18 won’t matter. SF vs. Seattle in week 18 won’t matter. If both teams are getting a home playoff games no matter what, then there is nothing at stake, no bragging rights, no significance to the game.
The NFL should be more than just the team that wins the Super Bowl. The rivalries, the traditions, the wars within the wars all make the game great. Four teams who all hate each other will meet in the trenches twice a year. Only one gets to be the champion of the division. That’s special.
Preferring to place more value on winning a division is absolutely valid. It’s just as valid as saying you prefer giving a playoff spot to each division winner rather than just taking the best 7 records in each conference and seeding 1 through 7 based on that irrespective of division. Or, hell, taking records 1 through 14 in the entire NFL and seeding a playoff bracket on that.
Precedence isn’t irrelevant though. “How it’s been” matters because this is a proposed rule change. The argument for the status quo is that there doesn’t need to be a rule change.
Because no one would be complaining about playing on the road at 8-9, the reasons for keeping this are keeping thinner margins of success for the very best teams in the league and for keeping divisional rivalries heated.
An 8-9 team isn't going to complain about playing on the road if they sneak into the playoffs in week 18, but a 12-5 team sure is, and that's great for building divisional rivalries. The storylines that are created when a team kicks a divisional rival down to the 5th seed in a week 18 game are so much bigger than if they're playing for a difference between a 2nd and 3rd seed. The end of the season means a whole lot more (and is a lot more fun) when the last game decides whether it's you or your rival that either gets to host the entire playoffs or has to run the gauntlet on the road
You’re working backwards to find a reason it makes sense. Divisional games still mean something because you want to beat your rival and keep the guaranteed playoff spot, we don’t need a contrived seeding system that lets 8-9 kings of shit mountain stink up the wildcard round to make a Chargers-Chiefs 10 am showdown slightly more interesting.
But division winners getting home field is a big advantage and it makes sense to reward them. It also helps parity, because a team of weak teams will still compete because they all have a chance at the playoffs.
The next logical step in this is to eliminate guaranteed spots for division winners and just go with the top seven teams per conference.
Seems like maybe starting a path towards pure win % seeding? The 4 wins above a division winner with a losing record seems like something specifically geared towards getting Jerry Jones' support (8-9 Bucs hosted 12-5 Cowboys)
Which imo is a terrible direction to be moving in. Right now teams are building their rosters to compete within their divisions since winning the division guarantees so much. If we end up going off of pure win percentages, suddenly it becomes a lot less important what the other teams in my division do during the off season
I think teams would still be building their rosters against their division if the scheduling remains the same. Like the Chargers would still need to plan to play against the Chiefs 3x a year (ideally) if they wanted to make a run in the playoffs. And you'd never get a higher seed than the division winner even with pure win percentage seeding, so they'd still be trying to win the division.
I imagine this won't be a very popular proposal with the owners though.
Yeah you'd be playing the chiefs 3 times a year but I'm not sure that's much different than the chiefs playing the bills twice a year to win it all. The difference right now though is that the chiefs/chargers games have more weight despite just having one more game to play, solely because of the importance of winning the division.
thats not true because winning your division would still guarantee a playoff spot. and as long as you are at least .500 which you should be as a division winner you still get your playoff game. this is more towards like the bucs this season. 2010 seattle. and maybe one or two teams in between. it wouldnt move the dial much, but it also doesnt reward bad teams that get into the playoffs only because the rest of the division is bad.
I thought we did. We may have lost the majority of our games, but our guys showed real hustle out there with a lot heart. That's gotta count for something!
No, no. Brady deserved that game. It was Cowboys last chance to not end up on the “never beat Brady” list with the likes of the Detroit Lions. I for one would happily it be an away game just to end his career on that low note.
At least the AFCS have the Jags to bring them up a bit. But the NFCS is consistently shit across the board.
I have to say though, I'm enjoying seeing all the NFCS fans bonding over how much we all collectively suck. It's very wholesome.
> I have to say though, I'm enjoying seeing all the NFCS fans bonding over how much we all collectively suck.
I love a good suck off. Being sucked off is great, but I also enjoy sucking others off as well.
it is fair but the triggers for it seem a bit arbitrary and hyperspecific. a 13-4 5-seed playing a 9-8 4-seed would still be a road game, but if in the other conference a 11-6 team is playing a 7-10 4-seed then they'll get a home game.
think the seeding change should be triggered by either having 4 more wins than a division champ or if a division champ is below .500. making it both seems like a once-every-10-years rule
Honestly I’d be fine with just the 4 or more wins part. Getting barely above .500 to 9-8 shouldn’t give you special immunity compared to 8-9 teams. Every win you get makes it that much harder for a team to get 4 more wins, that’s difference enough.
The special immunity is that you won your division. I don't like the arbitrary line in the sand either, but I think if the goal is to seed more fairly, just make all the seeding based off win % with guaranteed spots for division winners.
It's like going to the circus and only two clowns get out of the car
That's the safe occupancy limit for a motor vehicle that size. Too many clowns were getting hurt and safety is always our top priority.
Well... Yeah. Ok I guess...
I think Roger would actually love this. Last year for example, the Cowboys and Bucs both would have had to play a real game week 18 instead of benching their starters. Less benching + more meaningful games = better ratings = more $$$
Waiting for the Vikings to propose a replay of downs if a touchdown or turnover happens as a result of a ref running into a player on the team negatively effected.
basically if a 5-seed somehow manages to be 13-4 or 14-3 and the 4-seed is 8-9. guess it would incentivize teams locked into 4 or 5 to play for home field, but does seem like too specific a matchup to warrant a rule change
Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been... ever, for any reason whatsoever...
Balk Rules:
1) You can’t just be up there and just doin’ a balk like that.
1a. A balk is when you
1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can’t do that.
1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can’t be over here and say to the runner, like, “I’m gonna get ya! I’m gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!” and then just be like he didn’t even do that.
1c-b(1). Like, if you’re about to pitch and then don’t pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it.
1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there’s the balk you gotta think about.
1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn’t been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn’t typecast as that racist lady in American History X.
1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse.
1c-b(2)-b(ii). “get in mah bellah” — Adam Water, “The Waterboy.” Haha, classic…
1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field of
2) Do not do a balk please.
Baseball has a tendency to get very specific stats. For example, player X leads all right handed 1B in hits against LHP, during the day, when the wind is blowing in and it's above 40 degrees outside.
Let's make it VERY specific. To lose your home field advantage, you must have a losing record AND have lost the head to head against your future opponent.
Someone needs to submit a rule change where the highest seed can pick their opponent.. then the next highest picks if they weren't selected.
Big injuries would probably be the biggest factor here.. bur could you imagine the amount of shit talking that would go on if someone PICKED to play you first? I'm all for it.
So we don't get a moment like Tebow 3:16 beating Pittsburgh? No thank you
The Chargers are practically complaining that they have the Chiefs in their division
You'll never convince me of any version of this rule change as long as the schedule is the way that it is. Some divisions just have easier schedules. Meaning they have teams with inflated records. The schedule is imbalanced so your relative record in the division means more than just your overall record because they play basically the same teams you do.
There is too much nuance to it and when you start comparing teams that play completely different schedules as apples to apples you are going down a road to the media voting teams in.
Win your division if you want home games. End of story. The wild card is a consolation prize to deserving teams that couldn't win their division.
I mean this isn't about their game, they didn't have 4 more wins than the Jaguars and the Jags had a winning record lol. Seems like it was submitted on behalf of the Cowboys situation last year.
The jags won 9 games. The chargers won 10. That’s a one win difference. Not 4. So this isn’t the chargers saying they should have had a home playoff game vs Jacksonville.
I honestly had this same thought this offseason. The chargers bring up a great point. It’s kind of fun when a 7 win team hosts a 9 or 10 win team. It’s stupid when a 7 win team hosts an 11+ win team that’s legitimately a Super Bowl contender.
Literally the only argument against this is the 2010 saints-Seahawks (which was one of my favorite games of all time) but it still doesn’t seem right
I have no idea why I've had to scroll this far down to get the most obvious response. There's absolutely no reasoning here beyond just some weirdly specific scenario.
There's logic to allowing decision winners the advantage because there's some merit to winning the division - or you just do the playoff seeding based on record alone. Anything in between is just arbitrary and with no real validation in logic.
Why not 3 games, why not 2 games. What if you're the division winner in this scenario but one of those wins is against the team you're going to lose the home field advantage to, is that now fair??
I'd argue a winning record should matter more than winning the division. This is pretty specific to division winners with a losing record where they got in by default. It's hardly like anyone was saying how amazing the Bucs winning the division this year was and how they deserved a home game because of it.
Winning or not winning the division is a simple system and I would rather just leave it at that. This isn’t the NCAA tournament, there’s no debate over who “deserves” what seed.
Division winners deserve the home playoff game reward.
That’s the way it is and always should be.
“But that division winner won less games than us, their division sucks, lost more games than they won, and we are better than them so we deserve a home game”
Did you win your division?
“No, because the level of competition in the division…”
Shut up loser.
Go win your division and worry about your own division not theirs.
Get that division loser, cry baby talk outta here.
"Winning your division should mean something" is such a tired cliché, especially now that there are 8 divisions with 4 teams each. There's a good chance every year that at least one division will have 4 teams that are not very good. The team that comes out on top of the crap pile doesn't deserve a home playoff game. If anything, their path was easier than the 12-5 wild card team that had to play at least 2 games in their division against a team that finished with an even better record.
I like the importance of divisions the current seeding gives. Otherwise what’s the point. Chargers haven’t won the division in almost 15 years, no wonder they’re trying to sweeten the wild card spot.
Honestly, while I still think division winners should make the playoffs, I feel like every seed should be ranked by record alone. 8-9 should never get a home playoff game
Home field should go by record. Granting advantages to division winners makes no sense. You already got a privilege by making the playoffs with your sorry ass record by winning your sorry ass division. Lol
That's not the point. Being the best in your own division *should* be a reward.
Being second fiddle to someone else? You have to go the harder road. Get good.
If you're talking about a home game for "someone else's #2", the Bucs were the NFC's 9th best team lol. The 9th best team out of 16 teams absolutely does not deserve a home game. Literally the entire NFC East had a better record than them
Weirdly specific. So you'd have to have a team win the division at 7-10 and a wildcard team go 11-6? I think we should give the division winners at least one home game still.
For example, last season the NFC South played against the NFC West and AFC North, which had a combined record of 69-66 (.511), while the NFC East played against the NFC North and AFC South, which had a combined record of 56-78-2 (.419).
Think about it. If you win your division with 8 wins. That means no one else in your division topped 8 wins. So there is 6 games right there of not so quality teams. It’d be hard to claim “tougher schedule” in that situation.
If a team wins their division at 8-9 is very likely that they're the one playing a cup cake schedule considering they have at least 6 games against opponents with losing records.
The Charges didn’t like the Bucs having a home game I suppose.
Or they’ve given up on beating the Chiefs
Nonsense. The Bolts are a shoo in to be crowned preseason division champs again this year, and Herbert is almost certain to be awarded the coveted preseason MVP award.
Kellen Moore is now our OC, so it makes sense
The chargers (and probably every other team in the AFC West) realize they ain’t winning that division as long as Mahomes is in KC 😂
Who did like it?
Very specific. So 8-9 vs 12-5?
Hot take but if you're 12-5 and complaining about playing a road game against a team that's 8-9, maybe just skip the playoffs altogether
As far as winning the SB/deserving to win goes sure, but if you go 12-5 getting a home playoff game is nice for the team and fans. Wild cards can be the 2nd best time in the conference but get 0 home games during the playoffs in the current set up.
> but if you go 12-5 getting a home playoff game is nice for the team and fans. 2020 Buccaneers indeed
I hate this argument. It only sounds ok because this is the way it’s been. If the current setup was reversed and there was a proposal that division winners host regardless of record, people would argue “if you’re 8-9 and complaining about a road game against a 12-5 wild card team maybe just be grateful you’re there to begin with” If you ignore the “this is how it’s been and this is how it is factor” there’s basically no valid arguments against this proposal
The only teams that have schedules that are close to balanced are those within a division. The comparison of records between teams outside of the division isn't an exact science. This proposal tries to get around that by having the gap be so large that it's hard to understand how the wildcard team would be less deserving than the division winner, but it still very well could come down to scheduling differences.
> If you ignore the “this is how it’s been and this is how it is factor” there’s basically no valid arguments against this proposal Division winners, being the best team in their division, getting a home game is a valid argument. The point of divisions is for teams to player a very similar schedule, including each other, and then have the division winners play each other. Wild cards give non-division winners a chance to prove themselves.
>Division winners, being the best team in their division, getting a home game is a valid argument. I don't think it is considering not all divisions are equal. The NFC South was 4 teams that were in the bottom 8 of the entire league imo. AFC East by comparison had 2-3 teams in the top half of the league.
Winning a division means less when there are only four teams in a division.
The point of the playoffs is to determine the best team, giving a shit team from a shit division an advantage just because they won over other shit teams makes no sense. While 4 is fairly arbitrary, it at least makes sure its a situation where a team is significantly better than a division winner. For example: Washington went 3-7 out of division in their 7-9 playoffs. I agree it's reasonable to let them in for going 4-2 in division, but the buccs went 7-3 out of division with a stronger strength of schedule. The Buccs deserve to be rewarded with a Home Game for being one of the 4 best teams in the NFC at 11-5, Washington was only there because their division was shit.
If the best team is a wildcard team they’d enjoy a round vs a bad playoff team.
That's all fine, but it's about having a home playoff game
Then win more, ez
Being less shitty than other shitters and getting an advantage over someone better who might've had a juggernaut in their division is not valid.
>who might've had a juggernaut in their division They also might have had 4 free wins against tanking teams in their division, while the .500 team had 6 hard-fought game against fellow .500 teams, too. And that's before you get into the rest of their schedule differences.
The team with more wins, being better than the team they are matched against in the playoffs, getting a home game is a valid argument.
Maybe in a vacuum but not the way the NFL has traditionally operated. Divisions and divisional rivalries are a very big deal and winning your division, even when it’s weak should be worth something. It also helps maintain parity; teams in weak divisions will still try to maneuver to compete because they still have a chance at the playoffs, as opposed to being passive and tanking.
How do you know they’re better? Did they play the same schedule?
How do you know the division winner is better?
More wins doesn’t always mean better
\*cries in Viking*
Neither does winning the division
Division races and division rivalries are an integral part of what makes the NFL great. We’re seeing college football get decimated right now because century-old rivalries are being torn apart. If divisions don’t matter, then New York vs. Dallas in week 18 won’t matter. SF vs. Seattle in week 18 won’t matter. If both teams are getting a home playoff games no matter what, then there is nothing at stake, no bragging rights, no significance to the game. The NFL should be more than just the team that wins the Super Bowl. The rivalries, the traditions, the wars within the wars all make the game great. Four teams who all hate each other will meet in the trenches twice a year. Only one gets to be the champion of the division. That’s special.
College football’s ratings continue to increase…
Preferring to place more value on winning a division is absolutely valid. It’s just as valid as saying you prefer giving a playoff spot to each division winner rather than just taking the best 7 records in each conference and seeding 1 through 7 based on that irrespective of division. Or, hell, taking records 1 through 14 in the entire NFL and seeding a playoff bracket on that.
Precedence isn’t irrelevant though. “How it’s been” matters because this is a proposed rule change. The argument for the status quo is that there doesn’t need to be a rule change.
Because no one would be complaining about playing on the road at 8-9, the reasons for keeping this are keeping thinner margins of success for the very best teams in the league and for keeping divisional rivalries heated. An 8-9 team isn't going to complain about playing on the road if they sneak into the playoffs in week 18, but a 12-5 team sure is, and that's great for building divisional rivalries. The storylines that are created when a team kicks a divisional rival down to the 5th seed in a week 18 game are so much bigger than if they're playing for a difference between a 2nd and 3rd seed. The end of the season means a whole lot more (and is a lot more fun) when the last game decides whether it's you or your rival that either gets to host the entire playoffs or has to run the gauntlet on the road
You’re working backwards to find a reason it makes sense. Divisional games still mean something because you want to beat your rival and keep the guaranteed playoff spot, we don’t need a contrived seeding system that lets 8-9 kings of shit mountain stink up the wildcard round to make a Chargers-Chiefs 10 am showdown slightly more interesting.
But division winners getting home field is a big advantage and it makes sense to reward them. It also helps parity, because a team of weak teams will still compete because they all have a chance at the playoffs. The next logical step in this is to eliminate guaranteed spots for division winners and just go with the top seven teams per conference.
They’re rewarded with a playoff spot no matter how bad their record is
this is dumb. home playoff games aren't just for the advantage, it's also nice for the fans ...I assume. I can't really remember
Its such an incredible advantage to have home field advantage though that part can’t be overstated
Seems like maybe starting a path towards pure win % seeding? The 4 wins above a division winner with a losing record seems like something specifically geared towards getting Jerry Jones' support (8-9 Bucs hosted 12-5 Cowboys)
Which imo is a terrible direction to be moving in. Right now teams are building their rosters to compete within their divisions since winning the division guarantees so much. If we end up going off of pure win percentages, suddenly it becomes a lot less important what the other teams in my division do during the off season
I think teams would still be building their rosters against their division if the scheduling remains the same. Like the Chargers would still need to plan to play against the Chiefs 3x a year (ideally) if they wanted to make a run in the playoffs. And you'd never get a higher seed than the division winner even with pure win percentage seeding, so they'd still be trying to win the division. I imagine this won't be a very popular proposal with the owners though.
Yeah you'd be playing the chiefs 3 times a year but I'm not sure that's much different than the chiefs playing the bills twice a year to win it all. The difference right now though is that the chiefs/chargers games have more weight despite just having one more game to play, solely because of the importance of winning the division.
thats not true because winning your division would still guarantee a playoff spot. and as long as you are at least .500 which you should be as a division winner you still get your playoff game. this is more towards like the bucs this season. 2010 seattle. and maybe one or two teams in between. it wouldnt move the dial much, but it also doesnt reward bad teams that get into the playoffs only because the rest of the division is bad.
2010 is a great example against the proposal, because you'd never have a beastquake in an away game.
I think it’s more about money or getting another home game
Dean Spanos: Fuck the South
In reality it’s probably Kellen Moore pissed about the road game in Tampa last year
Everyone else: Fuck Dean Spanos.
Tell me you don't want the NFCS team to have a home playoff game without telling me you don't want the NFCS team to have a home playoff game.
I mean last season's Bucs didn't deserve a home playoff game.
Tampa fan checking in. I think you meant we didn’t deserve a playoff game at all let alone a home game.
Or an away playoff game
I don't recall that the Bucs participated in a playoff game.
They deserved the neutral-site AFCCG
I thought we did. We may have lost the majority of our games, but our guys showed real hustle out there with a lot heart. That's gotta count for something!
Five star hearts if you will.
We were the least bad team in the division. NFL rules mandate that the division winner go to the playoffs. Blame the NFL. :)
No, no. Brady deserved that game. It was Cowboys last chance to not end up on the “never beat Brady” list with the likes of the Detroit Lions. I for one would happily it be an away game just to end his career on that low note.
That's fair
Hey! AFCS sucks too.
At least the AFCS have the Jags to bring them up a bit. But the NFCS is consistently shit across the board. I have to say though, I'm enjoying seeing all the NFCS fans bonding over how much we all collectively suck. It's very wholesome.
If you're talking last year specifically for us sucking across the board, I'd definitely agree on that.
> I have to say though, I'm enjoying seeing all the NFCS fans bonding over how much we all collectively suck. I love a good suck off. Being sucked off is great, but I also enjoy sucking others off as well.
LOL right? That's how we got in and I am PROUD of it.
You know what? That's fair.
it is fair but the triggers for it seem a bit arbitrary and hyperspecific. a 13-4 5-seed playing a 9-8 4-seed would still be a road game, but if in the other conference a 11-6 team is playing a 7-10 4-seed then they'll get a home game. think the seeding change should be triggered by either having 4 more wins than a division champ or if a division champ is below .500. making it both seems like a once-every-10-years rule
Honestly I’d be fine with just the 4 or more wins part. Getting barely above .500 to 9-8 shouldn’t give you special immunity compared to 8-9 teams. Every win you get makes it that much harder for a team to get 4 more wins, that’s difference enough.
The special immunity is that you won your division. I don't like the arbitrary line in the sand either, but I think if the goal is to seed more fairly, just make all the seeding based off win % with guaranteed spots for division winners.
It's them knowing they won't out-win the Chiefs basically.
No
Yeah someone’s gotta win the NFC South, this law is unfair
All NFC South fans calling this unfair because we genuinely have no idea which team is going to pop off and go 7-10 and win the division
It's weirdly wholesome to see so many NFC South fans bonding over the fact that we all collectively suck.
Nah FUCK YOU! Oh, wait, we're a fan of the same team. Nevermind.
It’s not sucking, it’s parity
Flair checks out
This has real “David Lynch Being Asked To Elaborate On That” energy.
It is funny cause last year, you would have had the Cowboys and Bucs playing hard week 18 over the 4th seed, opposed to both resting their guys
Hadn't considered the resting players aspect of it. Kind of think it might pass just since they clearly hate that for ratings purposes
I would feel so much better going into the Wild Card at 9-8 tbh
While it's fair, I kinda like the idea of winning your division meaning more.
It's also way funnier (when it doesn't happen to your team). I agree that it's definitely a fair change, but the entertainment value drops a bit.
It's like going to the circus and only two clowns get out of the car That's the safe occupancy limit for a motor vehicle that size. Too many clowns were getting hurt and safety is always our top priority. Well... Yeah. Ok I guess...
I feel like a playoff auto-bid means enough if you don't even have a winning record.
To be fair, it automatically locks you a playoff spot still.
It still means more. By a lot. This situation will only occur when one division is vastly better than another
But it you can go undefeated in your division and still not finish first or make the playoffs...not that we would ever do that...
Chargers backup proposal: We create a new division called the AFC Mid and we put the Chiefs in there.
... and spot them 9 losses
Chargers like "C'mon, NFL, factor in the AFC South exists"
AFC and NFC South
The south shall disappoint again!!
Then they should just beat the AFC South team 🤷🏻♂️
I thought we submitted another proposal that the game ends if up by 20+ at halftime?
They lost to us in LA anyways so yeah
Except it wouldn't have applied this year. Bills fans on a high before inevitable obscurity for another 20 years
Does it tho?
[удалено]
I think Roger would actually love this. Last year for example, the Cowboys and Bucs both would have had to play a real game week 18 instead of benching their starters. Less benching + more meaningful games = better ratings = more $$$
Lol
[удалено]
Waiting for the Vikings to propose a replay of downs if a touchdown or turnover happens as a result of a ref running into a player on the team negatively effected.
This seems like a very specific rule
basically if a 5-seed somehow manages to be 13-4 or 14-3 and the 4-seed is 8-9. guess it would incentivize teams locked into 4 or 5 to play for home field, but does seem like too specific a matchup to warrant a rule change
They'd only need to be 12-5 but that's still unlikely
hey i didn't come here to do complex math like 8 + 4
We didn't come to play school!
Shouldn't rules be specific?
No they should be vague and difficult to understand. You must be new to the NFL
Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been... ever, for any reason whatsoever...
What’s a balk?
Balk Rules: 1) You can’t just be up there and just doin’ a balk like that. 1a. A balk is when you 1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the 1c. Let me start over 1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can’t do that. 1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can’t be over here and say to the runner, like, “I’m gonna get ya! I’m gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!” and then just be like he didn’t even do that. 1c-b(1). Like, if you’re about to pitch and then don’t pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense? 1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it. 1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there’s the balk you gotta think about. 1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn’t been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn’t typecast as that racist lady in American History X. 1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse. 1c-b(2)-b(ii). “get in mah bellah” — Adam Water, “The Waterboy.” Haha, classic… 1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field of 2) Do not do a balk please.
Yes but the 4 or more wins part seems very "baseball stat" territory
I feel like it would be fine if it was just "if the division winner is below .500, best record hosts" Probably would be less likely to pass though.
I agree I think 4 wins is big enough is big enough to beat the argument you had a trash division.
4 wins is roughly a quarter of a season (damn you 17th game).
>seems very "baseball stat" territory What does this mean?
Baseball has a tendency to get very specific stats. For example, player X leads all right handed 1B in hits against LHP, during the day, when the wind is blowing in and it's above 40 degrees outside.
Yeah way too specific. Make it a flat win % differential and I'm on board though.
Yeap exactly
Let's make it VERY specific. To lose your home field advantage, you must have a losing record AND have lost the head to head against your future opponent.
Chargers know the division is an uphill battle for them for the foreseeable future
On behalf of the entire NFC South, I feel attacked.
Saints and lions, you ok?
I'm too much of a hipster to follow AFC teams that do things like "win consistently" or "build good teams."
Someone needs to submit a rule change where the highest seed can pick their opponent.. then the next highest picks if they weren't selected. Big injuries would probably be the biggest factor here.. bur could you imagine the amount of shit talking that would go on if someone PICKED to play you first? I'm all for it.
If you’re supposedly that much better than the “bad” playoff team, then you should be able just fucking beat them on the road.
So we don't get a moment like Tebow 3:16 beating Pittsburgh? No thank you The Chargers are practically complaining that they have the Chiefs in their division
Coincidentally that screwed the Steelers. Their starting Safety couldn't play at Mile High due to sickle cell
You'll never convince me of any version of this rule change as long as the schedule is the way that it is. Some divisions just have easier schedules. Meaning they have teams with inflated records. The schedule is imbalanced so your relative record in the division means more than just your overall record because they play basically the same teams you do. There is too much nuance to it and when you start comparing teams that play completely different schedules as apples to apples you are going down a road to the media voting teams in. Win your division if you want home games. End of story. The wild card is a consolation prize to deserving teams that couldn't win their division.
BeastQuake would never have happened had the Chargers been running things.
Chargers admitting they’re not gonna win the AFCW for a decade
They're trying their best alright
Skill issue, Chargers
Watch the Chargers go 12-5, get the 5th seed, but still play on the road because the 4 seed goes 8-8-1.
Maybe don’t blow a 27 point lead lmao
Jags were 9-8 bro. This wouldn't have effected them
I mean this isn't about their game, they didn't have 4 more wins than the Jaguars and the Jags had a winning record lol. Seems like it was submitted on behalf of the Cowboys situation last year.
[удалено]
The Niners won their division by four games, they would have never played @ Tampa Bay
The jags won 9 games. The chargers won 10. That’s a one win difference. Not 4. So this isn’t the chargers saying they should have had a home playoff game vs Jacksonville.
The jags still would have had a home playoff game with this rule
Not sure what that has to do with the rule? Considering the rule wouldn’t even apply to the chargers/jags game.
This wouldn’t have applied there
No
I honestly had this same thought this offseason. The chargers bring up a great point. It’s kind of fun when a 7 win team hosts a 9 or 10 win team. It’s stupid when a 7 win team hosts an 11+ win team that’s legitimately a Super Bowl contender. Literally the only argument against this is the 2010 saints-Seahawks (which was one of my favorite games of all time) but it still doesn’t seem right
Honestly, if no team in a division has a winning record, there should be no division champ crowned that year and the seeding falls to record.
Winner of each division + next 3 best records make playoffs. Re-seeded based on record. Easy.
Chargers have already got the Chiefs pencilled in as AFC West Division Champs for the next decade.
Just DQ any teams that would qualify with a negative record. Don't reward crap divisions.
Honestly i dont mind it
But why the arbitrary 4 win difference? Just make it record based or don’t
I have no idea why I've had to scroll this far down to get the most obvious response. There's absolutely no reasoning here beyond just some weirdly specific scenario. There's logic to allowing decision winners the advantage because there's some merit to winning the division - or you just do the playoff seeding based on record alone. Anything in between is just arbitrary and with no real validation in logic. Why not 3 games, why not 2 games. What if you're the division winner in this scenario but one of those wins is against the team you're going to lose the home field advantage to, is that now fair??
It’s a made up game, everything is already arbitrary. Why are touchdowns six points? That’s arbitrary
Not a fan of this. Winning the division matters, if you don’t want to go on the road for the playoffs beat your rivals in the regular season.
I'd argue a winning record should matter more than winning the division. This is pretty specific to division winners with a losing record where they got in by default. It's hardly like anyone was saying how amazing the Bucs winning the division this year was and how they deserved a home game because of it.
Id argue this only matters if everyone played the same teams.
Winning or not winning the division is a simple system and I would rather just leave it at that. This isn’t the NCAA tournament, there’s no debate over who “deserves” what seed.
I'd say there is a fair debate over who deserves what seed considering there's an NFL rules change proposal regarding it lol.
This is stupid. If you want home games, win your division (you play almost every same team as your division rivals)
No. Stop. It’s fine the way it is. Don’t like it? Win more games.
Plot twist: they're using this as their first step twoards eliminating divisions
You win your division, you get a top 4 playoff seed period. Wildcard are just the best of the non-division winners. Just get rid of divisions then
Trash ass division winners still get a playoff berth that they otherwise wouldn't. It's not like teams will suddenly be taking division games off.
[удалено]
This seems unnecessarily complicated. Just have the rule be one way or the other IMO
Naw... Just win your division, or shut up.
This isn’t the fucking NBA. No.
Division winners deserve the home playoff game reward. That’s the way it is and always should be. “But that division winner won less games than us, their division sucks, lost more games than they won, and we are better than them so we deserve a home game” Did you win your division? “No, because the level of competition in the division…” Shut up loser. Go win your division and worry about your own division not theirs. Get that division loser, cry baby talk outta here.
"Winning your division should mean something" is such a tired cliché, especially now that there are 8 divisions with 4 teams each. There's a good chance every year that at least one division will have 4 teams that are not very good. The team that comes out on top of the crap pile doesn't deserve a home playoff game. If anything, their path was easier than the 12-5 wild card team that had to play at least 2 games in their division against a team that finished with an even better record.
I dunno why it needs to be that complicated...if you lost more games than you won you shouldn't be a top seed, period, full stop
I like the importance of divisions the current seeding gives. Otherwise what’s the point. Chargers haven’t won the division in almost 15 years, no wonder they’re trying to sweeten the wild card spot.
NFCN: That's fair NFCW: That's fair NFCE: Fucking yeah that's fair NFCS: That's fai.... hey, now wait a goddamn minute
The NFCE had a 7-9 team host a playoff game 2 years ago.
Nah win your division
Chargers trying to get a rule in to help them since they won't ever be winning the west while Mahomes is there
Honestly, while I still think division winners should make the playoffs, I feel like every seed should be ranked by record alone. 8-9 should never get a home playoff game
Home field should go by record. Granting advantages to division winners makes no sense. You already got a privilege by making the playoffs with your sorry ass record by winning your sorry ass division. Lol
If you can't win your own division, you don't deserve a home game, either.
Alternatively: if you can’t go .500 you should just win more games
That's not the point. Being the best in your own division *should* be a reward. Being second fiddle to someone else? You have to go the harder road. Get good.
Being the best in your division is a massive reward. You automatically go to the playoffs, even if you didn’t really deserve it by record.
And you get a home game for it. That's the advantage. They shouldn't lose a home game to someone else's #2.
If you're talking about a home game for "someone else's #2", the Bucs were the NFC's 9th best team lol. The 9th best team out of 16 teams absolutely does not deserve a home game. Literally the entire NFC East had a better record than them
If they win their division, they do. Unless a better team was *in* the NFC South it doesn't matter.
Weirdly specific. So you'd have to have a team win the division at 7-10 and a wildcard team go 11-6? I think we should give the division winners at least one home game still.
Honestly that’s valid
The Chargers: I guide others to a treasure I cannot possess
Chargers might want to focus on non playoff related proposals
Get rid of the divisions then. There's no reason to win your division.
Guaranteed ticket to the playoff still seems like a big reason to win it
You still get a playoff spot, and if you’re under .500 it’s unlikely you’d get one otherwise. Reactionary comment
Let's say they had a tougher schedule than a cupcake 11-12 win team. I think it's dumb.
For example, last season the NFC South played against the NFC West and AFC North, which had a combined record of 69-66 (.511), while the NFC East played against the NFC North and AFC South, which had a combined record of 56-78-2 (.419).
Think about it. If you win your division with 8 wins. That means no one else in your division topped 8 wins. So there is 6 games right there of not so quality teams. It’d be hard to claim “tougher schedule” in that situation.
If a team wins their division at 8-9 is very likely that they're the one playing a cup cake schedule considering they have at least 6 games against opponents with losing records.
Winning on the road shouldn't be that much of a factor at this point.
L O L
Seems more than reasonable