Are you open to the NFL changing the playoff seeding format?

[Ness]

This seems to get brought up every other year in fan community circles. Especially if a certain fanbase's team has a quality record, but not good enough to win it's own division. For example there was a contingent of 49ers fans last season that complained about the NFL needing to change seeding by record essentially reducing the importance of divisions since the 49ers had won 12 games, but it was only good enough for third in the NFC West. Meanwhile the Panthers won the NFC South with an 8-9 record. Now I'm a traditionalist, and I want the divisions to have meaning, and division rivalries to actually feel like they have legitimate stakes. I'm in the camp, that a team/team's fanbase should only care about the business within their division, first, and foremost. One recent variation I've heard is a team that wins it's division will still get a home game, but if their final record is below .500 (which has to be now since there are 17 games) they sacrifice their home game which then goes to the highest WC qualifier. I'm a bit more open to that, but still I'm not the biggest fan since at first blush that doesn't seem to take into account SOS information, just pure record.

What say you people? For format change? Against it? Don't care???

[CSKreager]

If you win your division below .500, you should not host a playoff game.

9-8 is one thing. But anything under .500 should be punished.

[RichardBak]

Let's go really old school and go back to coin flips in the commissioner's office.

[ChrisBabcock]

To answer the question... No I am not. Because then why have divisions?

However these are the changes I would make.
- 7 playoff teams is way too many. Go back to 6.
- If you win your division at .500 or lower*, you miss the playoffs and a third wild card team gets in and all the seeds move up. (* yes, 8-8-1)
- If we MUST have 7 playoff teams, no last place teams in their division are allowed to get in and are replaced with the next best team. Yes, I'm looking at you NFC North.

[Bob Gill]

To answer the question... No I am not. Because then why have divisions?

However these are the changes I would make.
- 7 playoff teams is way too many. Go back to 6.

I agree that seven playoff teams are way too much, but cutting back to six just removes "way" from the equation.

I realize there's no chance of this happening, but if they put me in charge I'd go back to the system they had from 1970-77: three divisions, with the first-place teams and one wild card from each conference. You'd still have a chance that a 9-8 team would win a weak division, but with at least five teams in each group that would be less likely than in the current four-team brackets.

Of course, in the real world we're more likely to see an eighth playoff team added than any reduction at all.

[Ten Minute Ticker]

From a percentage of teams making it in, 7 from 16 per conference is a negligible change from 6 from 14 in the early 90s.

I’d keep the same format to determine playoff participants, but then seed them regardless of whether they’re division champs or not. Similar to what the NBA did before it went to the play-in. It would prevent under .500 division winners from getting an unearned home game.

[Reaser]

No. Keep it as is. Since they're not going to decrease the amount of teams that make the playoffs.

Which, if we were going the "what I would do" route, I mostly view it how Bob does, though the Wild Card game that followed that era I was fine with since I viewed it as not winning your division meant having to play an extra game to get to the 'real' playoffs. A pseudo precursor to the play-in games that exist now in various leagues, notably the NBA. Which I'm not a fan of but the de-facto NFL version worked for what it was.

Though, overall I'm a stickler for teams that win division/conference should be the only ones in the playoffs, since that's what playoffs are. But they all turned more into tournaments. Plus, naturally, NFL divisions are too small which is where the league format/structure problem here begins.

These things also bug more much more at the two-levels below. Can't stand what HSFB state playoffs turned into in my lifetime. Used to be district/league/conference/division winners qualified, with occasional 2nd place teams out of larger 'conferences'. Now have states where literally every school in a classification "makes the playoffs" and others where it's gone from 15% to 25% to 50% or more. Last week I watched a playoff game between a 9-0 team against an 0-9 team, for example.

And of course you have college football, expanding to 24 teams. Asinine. I'll always miss the days where one loss could derail a season. Even this season, had the week where top ranked teams lost and everyone acted like it was a crazy shakeup and I was sitting there thinking, they're all (or at least a majority) going to "make the playoffs" anyway. Next year and going forward it will be a practical guarantee in any similar scenario.

[readjack]

If you win your division below .500, you should not host a playoff game.

9-8 is one thing. But anything under .500 should be punished.

agreed. automatic playoff berth but no home game, and you move down to the seed by record. current NFC playoffs:

Bye: 49ERS
7. Packers at 2. BEARS
6. Vikings at 3. GIANTS
5. Lions at 4. PANTHERS

Revised because division-leading Panthers are under .500:

Bye: 49ERS
7. PANTHERS at 2. BEARS
6. Packers at 3. GIANTS
5. Vikings at 4. Lions

Lions have the good fortune of a home playoff game without winning the division. So be it!

[JWL]

As a Jets fan, I have now lost the will or care to have an opinion on the NFL playoff structure.

[RichardBak]

As a Jets fan, I have now lost the will or care to have an opinion on the NFL playoff structure.

Well, maybe the league will expand the playoff field to 32 teams. They're about halfway there now.