If another below .500 team makes the playoffs...

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Sum1

Sum1

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,604
ROD Credit 2025
0
I think the league needs to make a change.

My idea...

You win the division you are in and host a playoff game...unlesss

You must be .500 to qualify for postseason. If you are below .500 and win your division you forfeit your spot to a third wildcard team with the best record.

Any comments or other ideas?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: Pick6, Athos, psxpaul and 1 other person
Sum1 said:
I think the league needs to make a change.

My idea...

You win the division you are in and host a playoff game...unlesss

You must be .500 to qualify for postseason. If you are below .500 and win your division you forfeit your spot to a third wildcard team with the best record.

Any comments or other ideas?
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this yesterday and totally agree. As bad as the NFC South is, they could send someone to the playoffs at 7-9 or even 6-10. So yes, if a team wins their division with less than a .500 record and there is another team at .500 or better, that team should go instead.
 
I'm not for changing it. It's suppose to be the Winner of each division. Keep it that way!!
 
I wouldn't change it. Being under .500 doesn't necessarily make you a bad team - you've got to take into account strength of schedule and division etc. What happens if the .500 team wins the big show? That surely shows they deserved to be there?
 
I agree... I think you should have to at LEAST get to 8-8 to "qualify" for the playoffs. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if the bar was raised to 9-7 with the caveat that the division winner could go to the playoffs if there weren't any WC teams to take their place.

In other words, if there are a bunch of 14-2 teams and a bunch of 2-14 teams... well, the NFL would be having kittens, but the rule would be the division winner would have to have a "winning" record to qualify meaning more wins than losses, so 8-7-1 would qualify as a winning record, but 8-8 would not.

If a division winner were at 8-8 or below, they would only qualify for the playoffs under the Wild Card rules, thus using head to head matches, conference games, strength of schedule...etc. However that's done now. That way, if a really poor division winner (like maybe Atlanta now who's 4-6 and atop the NFC South, but their 4 wins have ONLY come in the division, they've lost all 6 games outside of the NFC South...) ends up at 7-9 or 8-8 in a year with great parity and tremendous competitiveness... I mean look at the playoff picture this year.

Cards playing lights out.
Eagles playing well.
Detroit finally playing like they want to win.
Cowboys are playing like they want to actually win that division
Packers just lit up the Eagles like they were a Div 2 college team.
SF stays competitive and in the playoff hunt even with half the team out.
Seattle is down this year, but hardly out.
St. Louis is almost though the woodchipper part of their schedule and went 3-1.

That's already 8 teams that I'd LIKE to see in the playoffs including the ENTIRE NFC West... Now obviously that won't happen, but the idea that 3 of those teams won't make it, but a 7-9 or 8-8 Falcons or Saints team will???

Just saying that this will make the case for expanded playoffs more than any academic argument anyone's made, yet. These last two years will seal the deal, imho.

Really be something if the Cards and Rams are responsible for expanding the playoffs, tho. I mean, across the nation most folks don't think of either team as playoff teams even when they're in the playoffs...
 
RaminExile said:
I wouldn't change it. Being under .500 doesn't necessarily make you a bad team - you've got to take into account strength of schedule and division etc. What happens if the .500 team wins the big show? That surely shows they deserved to be there?
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more.

If there is a team at 10-6 and they miss the playoffs because the team that won their division is 11-5 while another division leader has a record of 6-10 that's a joke.

I don't think you'd have to scrap the division setup at all with the format I suggested. The way I suggested let's a team still be the division champ but they have to have a .500 record to qualify for the playoff. It's pretty simple while also keeping the competition level high.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: Memento, Pick6 and Athos
No leave it as is.

If it were to change then divisions would be pointless.

Winning your division, no matter how bad it is, should reward the team with a playoff birth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjab360
I didn't complain about it when we had a chance in 2010 and I'm not going to start now. Whatever happens, happens.
 
It's just silly that a team with less than 8 wins can go to the playoffs AND host a game over a team with 9 or more wins being left out of the playoffs or having to play on the road. If the Rams run the table and end the season at 10-6 and miss the playoffs while a 6 or 7 win Atlanta team makes the playoffs, I think people would be upset.

My suggestion is that the playoffs are arranged by 1-6 seeds per conference. The first tie breaker between teams with matching records will be divisional play. This way the best teams will be in the playoffs each year as well as divisional games having a big importance still. That is my thought off the top of my head.
 
I'm with @Sum1 on this.

Think about it this way. Let's say that each conference, AFC and NFC, wanted to have the best chance of winning the Super Bowl, and they got to pick whichever teams they wanted. Well, if a team wins the division @ 7-9, no way this team is going to be competitive in the playoffs. They pretty much would have had a good record against other teams in the division, but sucked against everyone else. There aren't enough games to have everyone play everyone in the NFL (like the NBA or NHL), so the division format makes total sense. But if a team cannot win outside their division, don't send them to the playoffs.
 
Leave it.

Don't mind a .500 or less team making it if they played a harder schedule than a non division winner with a cake schedule
 
No. How about subtracting wins from a teams total because the teams they played suck? It's fine the way it is.
 
The only change I would make would be re seeding the bracket based of record. I think expanding the playoffs is the real answer.
 
I'm not tied to the divisions the way they are. I think the best teams should be in the playoffs. It would be OK with me if they went from 4 to 2 divisions. Play each division opponent once a season. Would all but eliminate any chance a .500 team wins their division. The division winners, then the next 4 (or 6 for expanded playoffs) make the postseason. If the NFL expands I think it would be interesting to get rid of divisions and play each conference opponent every year. With the only interconference games being the SB and preseason. That's just me, I'm certain not too many would agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back