Division Winners hosting playoff games

[Gainzo]

The team that wins the NFC West will probably end up with 7 or 8 wins. Is it fair that they get to host a playoff game in the 1st round against a team that will have 10+ wins?

I’m all for Division winners getting automatic playoff berths but hosting a playoff game against a team with a better record is BS. I believe the NBA and NHL changed their playoff rules over the last 5-10 years to seed teams based on their records.

I’m aware that the 10-6 Pats hosted the 12-4 Jags in 2005 and that the 9-7 Jets hosted the 10-6 Colts in 2002. The home team in those games won easily but would the results have been different if the games were played in Jacksonville and Indy?

Look at this season. The Pats & Jets are both going to win 12+ games but one of them is going to have to hit the road in week 1 of the playoffs.

Thoughts?

[Baldie]

Its Fair. Nuff said. We will be on the benefit of that one year

[redman81]

Is it fair? No. Is it going to change anytime soon? No again. Much like the BCS crap in college I don't see this changing in the near future. I def. don't see the reason a team could win 10 or more games and have to possibly go face an 8-8 or maybe even worse team bc they won their weak division.

[Gainzo]

Is it fair? No. Is it going to change anytime soon? No again. Much like the BCS crap in college I don't see this changing in the near future. I def. don't see the reason a team could win 10 or more games and have to possibly go face an 8-8 or maybe even worse team bc they won their weak division.

It may change. The NFL changed the way the draft order was determined after the 2008 Chargers (8-8) made the playoffs and the Pats (11-5) didn't.

The Chargers made the playoffs and had a high draft pick because they sucked in the regular season but won their sh*tty division.

[JerryK]

On the surface it seems unfair, but I think it's 'mostly' ok.

The AFCE has been tight for a long time. Winning the division 10-6 might get you to the SB.

Meanwhile, a 12-win wildcard might come out of a division with 2 stinkers. (like the,NFC North most years other than this one)

While good teams do get the shaft, wins alone might not alway tell the whole story either.

[Blackout]

NBA has it right

KEEP the seeding but give the homefield away to the better record / tie breaking team

[Lupz27]

NBA has it right

KEEP the seeding but give the homefield away to the better record / tie breaking team

The NBA has nothing right its the worst league alive in the world! Lets penalize a team cause they play in a division were every team made the playoffs, they win there division after a tough season of getting beat up by equally talented teams, but send them on the road as there prize to a team that had a better record but did not win there division, solely because they have 3-4 teams in it that won around 15 games each yea thats real fair.

[madmikeisback]

They should reseed after every round. It's common sense.

[slats]

I’m all for Division winners getting automatic playoff berths but hosting a playoff game against a team with a better record is BS. I believe the NBA and NHL changed their playoff rules over the last 5-10 years to seed teams based on their records.

I think it's fair.

Unlike those sports, in the NFL each team only gets to play 13 other teams in a 32 team league. The AFC West could have an extremely difficult 8 games against two tough divisions, while the AFC East got a cakewalk in the two divisions they play. So coming out on top in the division represents finishing on top vs. mostly common opponents. It wouldn't be fair to reward a wildcard team with a great record against weak opponents a home playoff game over a division winner that had a lesser won-lost record against much tougher competition, either - right?

Sucks to be the 11-12 win team on the road to face an 8-8 division winner, but that's why it's important to win your division in the NFL. I think that's a good thing.

[Maxman]

It may change. The NFL changed the way the draft order was determined after the 2008 Chargers (8-8) made the playoffs and the Pats (11-5) didn't.

The Chargers made the playoffs and had a high draft pick because they sucked in the regular season but won their shitty division.

There are a lot of rumblings about this. I think it is going to be changed next year.

[JiFtheOracle]

The team that wins the NFC West will probably end up with 7 or 8 wins. Is it fair that they get to host a playoff game in the 1st round against a team that will have 10+ wins?

I’m all for Division winners getting automatic playoff berths but hosting a playoff game against a team with a better record is BS. I believe the NBA and NHL changed their playoff rules over the last 5-10 years to seed teams based on their records.

I’m aware that the 10-6 Pats hosted the 12-4 Jags in 2005 and that the 9-7 Jets hosted the 10-6 Colts in 2002. The home team in those games won easily but would the results have been different if the games were played in Jacksonville and Indy?

Look at this season. The Pats & Jets are both going to win 12+ games but one of them is going to have to hit the road in week 1 of the playoffs.

Thoughts?

If you take this away. Whats the point of having divisions? Why not just have the 2 conferences and 6 best records go?

I like how it is and think its fair under the current playoff system.

Plus, I'm hoping the Jets wind up in Jax because I have season tix.

[ZachEY]

As Belichick says, ad naseum... "DO YOUR JOB"

The Jets job was the beat the Patriots to secure the division. They couldn't accomplish that task, so they'll have to compete for the wildcard spot.

It's fair because the rules are clear and simple. If the Jets wanted a home game and a bye, they shouldn't have lost in embarrassing fashion, or at all.

"DO YOUR JOB" and you'll get home field advantage.