Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

No 'rotation' stuff! In the divisional (1st) round, the true top-seed plays the worst team not in their division as the true #3 plays at the true #2. Then, in the CC, the true higher remaining seed plays host.

1970 - The AFC divisional went as it should have given this hypothetical scenario. However, in the NFC, wildcard Detroit should have played at 10-3-1 (#2-seed) San Fran while (3-seed) 10-4 Dallas should have visited 12-2 top-seed Vikings.

1971 - Of the two 10-3-1 AFC top-dogs, the Chiefs should get top-seed anyway with their 8-2-1 conference record as opposed to Miami's 7-3-1 conference record (neither played each other in the regular season). This would indeed make for a Colts@KC/Browns@Mia divisional. In the NFC, Vikings get homefield anyway as well due to 9-2 conf rec over Dallas's 8-3; neither 11-3s playing in regular season either. This would mean wildcard Washington goes to Minny as 3rd-seed 9-5 Forty Niners go to Big D.

1972 - The AFC went as it should have in the divisionals. As for the AFCC...do Steelers have a 'better' chance winning in the Orange Bowl, lol (Seiple's fake may not be necessary)?? In the NFC divisionals, we see the 2nd-seed 10-4 Pack host the very last team they ever played against in the playoffs at home (Ice Bowl) while SF goes to George Allen's top-seed-anyway Washington.

1973 - Steelers should have gone straight to Miami in a MNF-almost-comeback-rematch from a few weeks back. Raiders have to go to 2nd-seed Bengals instead of hosting their divisonal. Vikings get top-seed over their 12-2 counterpart due to 10-1 conf rec over Rams' 9-2. Same matchups in divisional but with one exception...Dallas plays at LA instead of the other way around.

1974 - OJ's wildcard Bills travel to Oakland 1st Rd instead, as 3rd-seed Steelers go to...ouch...Miami! No, maybe Steelers get by, but Thank God they never actually had to face them. Rather not roll the dice. NFC...okay, division-winners Cards, Vikes, and Rams are all tied at 10-4 (wildcard Redskins 10-4 as well; '74 NFC quite a precursor to 1980 AFC). Cards and Vikes with a conf rec of 8-3 as Rams are at 7-3. But Rams beat Vikes head-to-head as Vikes beat Cards head-to-head.

So had the following year's format been applied here, how does it go? My guess is that Rams get the raw end as the Bills did in ’80, division-winner but still getting lower seeding than SD despite beating them reg-season. Vikes and Cards get top-two seeds because they win that extra conference game, Vikes getting nod due to head-to-head over Cards. This would mean Redskins at Vikings as Coryell gets to actually experience a home playoff game while in StL, hosting Rams. Or am I wrong in that?


Anyways...thoughts? Comments? Some of these pretty intriguing scenarios!

EDIT - Vikings get top-seed in '73 because of head-to-head, 10-1 conf rec over 9-2 just an extra.

I always wondered why the league had this bizarre format in the early 70s rather than seedings. Can anyone chime in on what the rationale was?

I would say that, historically, the NFL just alternated the division hosting the Championship Game each year between Eastern & Western division Champion each year, ala Major League Baseball (AL/NL).

So when the NFL expanded to a 4-team playoff format, they probably thought that it made sense to rotate the hosting divisions to give everyone a fair shot at playoff games, before they arrived true seedings, years later?