Where Will it End? Last week on the radio I heard NFL insider, Jay Glazer, ranting about the possibility of an NFL team with a losing record hosting an NFL playoff game. By his logic, a team with a losing record did not deserve to host a playoff game. He suggested that in the event that the division winner has a losing record, that their wild-card opponent rightfully should be the team to host the playoff game. Well, last night in Seattle that possibility became a reality: the undeserving Seattle Seahawks (7-9) will be hosting the defending World Champion, New Orleans Saints (11-5) next Saturday in the wild-card round of the playoffs. Jay must be beside himself today. On the surface, Jay's idea seems pretty reasonable. However, I think once you make this exception to the existing playoff system, others are bound to follow. Where will it end? If division winners with a losing record are not allowed to host a playoff game, what about division winners with an even record? If division winners with an even record are excluded from hosting a playoff game, why not have the team with the better record host the wild-card games? If another team in the same conference has a better record, why shouldn't they be in the playoffs instead of the division winner? If a team in another conference has a better record than a playoff team in the lesser conference, why aren't they in the playoffs? The fact of the matter is that a team's win-loss record is a key factor in determining which teams get into the NFL playoffs, but that does not mean that they are the most accurate way to determine how good a team is. Yesterday, if the Packers and Giants had lost, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers would have made it into the playoffs with a record of 10-6. What you don't see in that not one of those ten wins came against a team with a winning record. I have a hard time beleiving that the Buccaneers were that much more deserving than the Seahawks! As a Cardinal fan I am glad the system gives preferential treatment to division winners. In 2008 the Cardinals would not have hosted the Wild-Card game, the NFC Championship that same year, or the 2009 Wild-Card game had home field been determined solely by win-loss record. All NFL fans would have been deprived of these great playoff games (and by extension a great SuperBowl XLVIII) if the playoff system were different. The Arizona Cardinals proved three years ago that it's a whole new season once you get in the playoffs. Isn't that the point of the playoffs in the first place?
I think it's a good article. However, there's a statement that is inaccurate. Not one of the Bucs wins came against a team with a winning record? Their 10th and final win was against the 11-5 Saints. Granted, the Saints didn't truly play to win that game, or else I think it'd be a different story. However, I totally see what you're saying. You have to look at it from all sides, none of it will ever be 100% logical. Great article, however.
The playoff system has worked just fine for the entire existence of the league, there's no reason to go tinkering with it after one anomaly of a season. If this became an issue every year moving forward I could see the league having some serious talks about changing it, but just because the NFC West has been terrible in the recent past is no reason to freak out and start making un-needed changes.
The first goal at the start of the season for every team is to win their own division. That guarantees that you make the playoffs and host a game. The Seahawks accomplished that, and the Saints didn't. The system is fine.
A few things: It's not about "if the division winner has a losing record, even record, etc., then..." YES! It's SIMPLE: The higher-seeded team always hosts the playoff game. The way the seeds are determined would be as follows: the 6 playoff teams would remain the same (4 division winners and 2 wild cards). But the seeds would simply be determined by record. So if a 12-4 wild card team would never have to play a 9-7 team on the road. Theoretically, then, the top three seeds could all go to three teams in the same division. Becuase this would completely eliminate the point of, purpose for and need for divisions. This argument does have its merits, however. The Giants and Bucs both blew out the Seahawks and the latter is making the playoffs over them. Ridiculous. There are two conferences represtented in the Super Bowl. It's always been that way. The possibility of anything else happening will never happen. What you think will happen is that there will be 32 teams all scrapped together and the top 12 will make the postseason and play each other until a championship. It's not that slippery a slope. But the Seahawks only beat one team with a winning record! (And as chipper pointed out the same is true of the Bucs.) And the Bucs blew out Seattle in week 16! No one's saying the league should have made this change years ago. Also, I'm sure there still would have been good playoff games. They would have been different, but who can say they'd have been any worse?
You cannot suggest that it is simple to change the rule that the team with the better record host the wild-card game, and then say it's ridiculous that conference lines could not be crossed. My points remain sound despite your dissection. Either all things are sacred, or nothing is sacred.
It may seem 'unfair' to some or a travesty to others that a division winning team with a worse record host a better record team but it's never been as simple as that. The regular season is just about getting in the best possible position for the playoffs which means working thru injuries,getting your players/system in sync, etc. Setting your sights on winning your division is a basic goal. There's nothing wrong with that concept since there's so many variables in a season. If fans want to complain about the Saints having to travel for their 1st game then they should realize the Saints 'earned' the right to travel cuz they didn't win their division. They would have an away game for being a wild card anyway so what's the difference? "Fairness" will come into play if the Saints do what they're supposed to do & smoke 'em. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
I don't care about a better record traveling to a worse record. I care about a losing team. That is a team that lost more games then they won, taking a playoff spot. Playoffs are not for losers and the 2010 Seahawks were regular season losers.
Exactly why I feel the way I do. They are a losing team but any given sunday and they managed a win. They could win the SB and it won't change the fact they didn't deserve to be in the playoffs.
*sigh* & here I thought I had a chance to make you a convert with my deep Zen-like POV, phigles. :icon_smile:
