Moral Hazard and the Modern Playoffs

[JBlood]

An article written by Kerry Byrne in 2009 holds true today. It's an embarrassment to a 16 game schedule that an 8/7/1 team that gave up more points than it scored hosts a 12/4 team in the playoffs.

It's time to return to an Eastern and Western divisional alignment in each Conference and take the top 4 of each division for the playoffs, thereby making the regular season actually mean something. Even in 1967 the Colts were screwed by the system; but at least the Packers were a solid team that year, outscoring its opponents by 123 points.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/moral-hazard-and-the-modern-playoffs/6856/

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's time to return to an Eastern and Western divisional alignment in each Conference and take the top 4 of each division for the playoffs, thereby making the regular season actually mean something. Even in 1967 the Colts were screwed by the system; but at least the Packers were a solid team that year, outscoring its opponents by 123 points.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/moral-hazard-and-the-modern-playoffs/6856/

How would you set up the schedule though in a confernce with two divisions consisting of eight teams each???

 

[Poppa San]

How would you set up the schedule though in a confernce with two divisions consisting of eight teams each???

Unite North and South into the Central. Unite East and West into the Coastal division. Using North as example, play other North teams home-and-home for 6 games. Play south every year alternating home games for 4 more. Play one current east and 1 current west for two more (not necessarily same record). Play one current AFC division for a total of 16. Winners of Central and Coastal get #1 & 2 seeds. Next 4 best duke it out as wild card. Winning North but not Central is #1 tie breaker after record even trumping head-to-head.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

I don't think you could overreact when something like this happens. It's not the norm. The best six teams usually make the playoffs with the correct teams hosting games.

 

[Carl]

I am not in favor of any system that would get rid of the division rivalries and take away the near annual sweep of the Bears.

 

[ivo610]

I'm open to new ideas but hesitant bc I like the importance of winning your division. As I have said before I like the idea of eliminating 2 preseason games and adding 2 extra reg season bye weeks. Oh and let's move the Super Bowl to Saturday

 

[TJV]

An article written by Kerry Byrne in 2009 holds true today. It's an embarrassment to a 16 game schedule that an 8/7/1 team that gave up more points than it scored hosts a 12/4 team in the playoffs.

It's time to return to an Eastern and Western divisional alignment in each Conference and take the top 4 of each division for the playoffs, thereby making the regular season actually mean something.

As we all know, currently there are 256 regular season games with 12 teams making the playoffs playing 11 post season games. No realistic modification can result in fewer regular season games or fewer post season games because it would cost the league money, and that’s not going to happen.

I think most fans like the current division structure because it keeps rivalries in place. And I understand the reasoning behind having each division winner making the playoffs no matter the team’s record. But here’s the change I’d like to see: Keep the current playoff structure in place but seed teams according to their records in each round. Division winners still make the playoffs but that status only matters as the tie-breaker between teams with the same record. There could still be teams with better records than the worst division winner but at least an 8-8 team would not host a 12-4 team in any round of the playoffs.

 

[NOMOFO]

... and sometimes a team's record also doesn't tell it all. Sometimes that 11-5 team isn't as good as the 8-8 team. It all comes out in the wash and evens out.

 

[JBlood]

Play every other team in your division twice, and 2 games against other division teams. Keep the 2 conv

Unite North and South into the Central. Unite East and West into the Coastal division. Using North as example, play other North teams home-and-home for 6 games. Play south every year alternating home games for 4 more. Play one current east and 1 current west for two more (not necessarily same record). Play one current AFC division for a total of 16. Winners of Central and Coastal get #1 & 2 seeds. Next 4 best duke it out as wild card. Winning North but not Central is #1 tie breaker after record even trumping head-to-head.

I like it. But I would suggest playing home and home with each of the Central, leaving 2 games with a yearly rotating schedule of Coastal. Have no Inter-conference games (with AFC) during regular season, which would be great for endless debates over who is the better--just as it used to be in baseball before interleague play--and the Super Bowl Champion would own true bragging rights as to Conference superiority.

Expand playoffs to 8 teams in NFC, 8 teams in AFC. Take the top 4 of the Central and top 4 of Coastal for playoffs. First 2 playoff rounds among teams of each division, leaving NFC Championship game between the divisional champs. Same in the AFC. Home teams would be based on seeding in each round, using current tiebreakers.

There is still the chance of a strong team in one conference not getting in the playoffs, but much less likely than in the present alignment.

 

[Poppa San]

Play every other team in your division twice, and 2 games against other division teams. Keep the 2 conv

I like it. But I would suggest playing home and home with each of the Central, leaving 2 games with a yearly rotating schedule of Coastal. Have no Inter-conference games (with AFC) during regular season, which would be great for endless debates over who is the better--just as it used to be in baseball before interleague play--and the Super Bowl Champion would own true bragging rights as to Conference superiority.

Expand playoffs to 8 teams in NFC, 8 teams in AFC. Take the top 4 of the Central and top 4 of Coastal for playoffs. First 2 playoff rounds among teams of each division, leaving NFC Championship game between the divisional champs. Same in the AFC. Home teams would be based on seeding in each round, using current tiebreakers.

There is still the chance of a strong team in one conference not getting in the playoffs, but much less likely than in the present alignment.

I really don't think that will be an option.
More likely a bad team gets in.

 

[JBlood]

I really don't think that will be an option.
More likely a bad team gets in.

It's certainly an option, but I agree that it has little chance of enactment. Even so, I like the idea of separate conferences. The old AFL fans, and their on-air cheerleader Curt Gowdy, thought their champs could beat the NFL champs for years, until the Packers (at the tail end of their dominance) ended the debate. Meanwhile, the debate continues. Since the merger, the NFC has won 54% of Championships (26 of 48). The AFC has won 52% of all interconference games (1215 of 2329). So both leagues have legitimate claims to superiority--admittedly a minuscule difference regardless of how you look at it. Eliminate interconference games and let the Championship decide, adding a bit more juice to the game.

 

[HyponGrey]

Yeah, completely against such a change. Redo the seeding if you want (though I dislike that idea also) but once you dissolve divisions things get stupid, especially with scheduling.

Also, JBlood's Packer fandom was revoked for the OP.

 

[TJV]

Expanding the playoffs from 12 teams to 16 is a possibility because it would mean more revenue but IMO it would go against the idea of

...making the regular season actually mean something.

I don't like the idea of half of the teams making the playoffs.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

dont think the current system needs a change.....but....every year some team gets screwed and some team manages to slip in. I know that they won their division, but several years ago the seaCawks made the play offs with a 7 - 9 record.... did they deserve to go? No. Now this past season the Arizona cardinals finished 10 - 6 but didn't make the play-offs due to their division having 2 other teams with better records. Normally 10 -6 gets you in, but if I were them, I would feel somewhat screwed..... plus they beat the seaCawks at the end of the season, in the 12th man stadium.....that at least has to say something.

 

[JBlood]

I

Expanding the playoffs from 12 teams to 16 is a possibility because it would mean more revenue but IMO it would go against the idea of I don't like the idea of half of the teams making the playoffs.

don't disagree, but keeping 10 or 11 win teams out of the playoffs while 8 win teams get in is a greater problem.

 

[JBlood]

[quote="HyponGrey, post: 543790, member: 6441"

Also, JBlood's Packer fandom was revoked for the OP.[/quote]

Oh, oh. I'd be worried if I knew what the H you're talking about....