1970 - 4 hypothetical

[racepug]

It would be interesting to find out if in 1974 the Steelers would have survived a gauntlet of Miami and Oakland on the road in consecutive weeks. My thought is if Pittsburgh manages to get by Miami in the first round, they will been worn down enough that the AFC Championship in Oakland would have produced different results, particularly in light of the fact the Raiders would have had a much easier time of it against the Bills.

So perhaps we first see an Oakland vs. Minnesota Super Bowl in 1974 as opposed to 1976.

That's the kind of feedback I was looking for! Dolphins H.o.F. guard Larry Little, for his part, said (in "The Super '70s" by Tom Danyluk) that "up to that point Pittsburgh hadn't beaten us" and that a possible match-up between the two teams (that season) "would've been a helluva game."

[Brian wolf]

A 74 Dolphins-Steelers matchup would have been a great game, especially considering the Dolphins were hard to beat at home but Swann and Stallworth would have made the difference I believe. No easy chore with Scott-Anderson as safeties ...

[Apbaball]

That other thread ("How playoff home field was determined pre-1966") inspired this one. My understanding is that the playoff rotation from 1970 - 4 was pre-determined. I'm not sure why the N.F.L. decided to do things in that way in those years, but it did. It wasn't until 1975 that "home field advantage" based on best record took effect.
[/b]

Why you ask? For the same reason they didn't give HFA in the World Series. They played completely different schedules. HFA was not created for "fairness" but to keep fan interest in the last few weeks of the season after teams had clinched their division. It wasn't a problem before 1966 since with a 6-7 teams in a conference, team didn't usually clinch as early as they did in the late 60s early 1970s when teams were played in 4-5 team divsions..

Someone has to be the home team but I wouldn't call the team with the best record as more deserving. Think of the NCAA tournament... why is Iowa with a 20-8 record seeded higher than Drake at 25-4? Ohio State at 20-9 ahead of Winthrop at 23-1? West Virgina 18-9 higher than Loyola-Chicago 24-4? Even in the NFL all divisions are not created equal. The HFA is a marketing gimmick not a fairness issue. Rotating locations so that the fans in different locations have a chance to see a playoff game was not a bad way to decide who was the home team.

[Jay Z]

A 74 Dolphins-Steelers matchup would have been a great game, especially considering the Dolphins were hard to beat at home but Swann and Stallworth would have made the difference I believe. No easy chore with Scott-Anderson as safeties ...

The Dolphins had a couple of DB injuries against the Raiders. A reason why the Raiders were able to throw late in the game against them.

I think the Steelers were still the best team that year, regardless of them getting an undeserved break by playing the Bills. Raiders couldn't stop the run, Dolphins couldn't stop the pass. I suppose either of them might have been able to beat the 1974 Vikings.

[Jay Z]

Why you ask? For the same reason they didn't give HFA in the World Series. They played completely different schedules. HFA was not created for "fairness" but to keep fan interest in the last few weeks of the season after teams had clinched their division. It wasn't a problem before 1966 since with a 6-7 teams in a conference, team didn't usually clinch as early as they did in the late 60s early 1970s when teams were played in 4-5 team divsions..

Once they started the wild cards, the door was open for further seeding. Even if the WC had a better record than division champion, the WC team went on the road. So who do they play, other than the team from their division.

Plus the rotation with three divisions and the WC limitations made that whole format well nigh unintelligible anyway, which didn't help its credibility. With two divisions, or the four from 1967-69, over a two year period you were guaranteed that the home games were going to even out. With the wild cards, that wasn't necessarily going to be the case.

[racepug]

That other thread ("How playoff home field was determined pre-1966") inspired this one. My understanding is that the playoff rotation from 1970 - 4 was pre-determined. I'm not sure why the N.F.L. decided to do things in that way in those years, but it did. It wasn't until 1975 that "home field advantage" based on best record took effect.
[/b]

Why you ask? For the same reason they didn't give HFA in the World Series. They played completely different schedules. HFA was not created for "fairness" but to keep fan interest in the last few weeks of the season after teams had clinched their division. It wasn't a problem before 1966 since with a 6-7 teams in a conference, team didn't usually clinch as early as they did in the late 60s early 1970s when teams were played in 4-5 team divsions..

Someone has to be the home team but I wouldn't call the team with the best record as more deserving. Think of the NCAA tournament... why is Iowa with a 20-8 record seeded higher than Drake at 25-4? Ohio State at 20-9 ahead of Winthrop at 23-1? West Virgina 18-9 higher than Loyola-Chicago 24-4? Even in the NFL all divisions are not created equal. The HFA is a marketing gimmick not a fairness issue. Rotating locations so that the fans in different locations have a chance to see a playoff game was not a bad way to decide who was the home team.

Granted. All of it. Still - pitting, for example, the top two teams from the A.F.C. against one another in the first round back in 1971 was really stupid, in my opinion. In other words: do away with HFA if you must, but then when you put playoff schedules together, at least be sensible about it. Sheesh!