Quantcast

Roger Goodell Considering Changing NFL Playoff Seeding Structure

I saw this over the weekend but like most events in sports, it was overshadowed by the Super Bowl. And matter of fact, considering what the Giants and Steelers have done the past three years, Goodell’s proposed changes might not even matter. But anything that gives more credence to the regular season in sports I’m in favor of, and this change would be one of them:

Speaking here in his annual state-of-the-league address, Goodell revealed a potential shakeup to the existing playoff system that would allow wild-card teams the possibility of a home game.

In the early stages of Goodell’s plan, which would require the owners’ longshot approval, the bottom two division winners by record in each conference would go on the road the first week if they have a worse mark than the wild-card teams.

Goodell’s aim is to cut down on the obvious tanking of games at the end of the season by teams that have already clinched playoff position, the most glaring recent example being the Colts’ final-week home loss to the Titans this year.

Like I said, I’m in favor of a rule that would reward a team for playing better all year long, brushing aside divisions. If you have the Colts going 13-3 every year and you’re the Jags, you know you’re looking at a Wild Card road game, just as an example. They should have been rewarded with a home game for their good season. Probably not going to happen, but I think it should.



Around The Web

  • Dan

    In the AfC it would not have mattered for the Jags. They lost their division no matter what the Colts did. The team it impacted was the Browns. But you also must realize the wildcard teams need to win their first games. Its a tired point. Kust like when the NFC won 13 straight SuperBowls and the talk was to seed the entire playoffs.

  • Michael Procton

    This seems silly to me…keep the reward for outperforming the teams you play most often. Yeah, this may hurt great division runner-ups, but it’s a cyclical issue, rather than one that comes up every year. If you want to host a game in the playoffs, learn to win those six games you have scheduled every year (as the Jags and Texans have finally started to gear themselves up to do in the afforementioned AFC South.)

  • Rodney

    Why not reward the teams with the best record? Why should a division winner from a sorry division that has a 9-7 record host a wild card team with a 10-6 record?

  • nick

    great idea, make games more exiting and challenging

  • mat

    my opinion in this topic is thats not really a good idea. a good idea would be to change the playoff system into 16 teams, instead of the 12 we see know. that gives a chance to this years vikings and browns who didnt make it to have a shot in the postseason. anyhow, the past 3 seasons (counting this years) a 1 or 2 seed who has had a one week bye, failed to win the superbowl, so the first 2 seeds in each conference dont deserve a free ride through the first round!

  • Pingback: Should We Change The Playoff Structure?

  • Pingback: Time to Change the NFL Playoff Seeding Structure, Again | Larry Brown Sports

  • http://yahoo.com ronald mcdougal

    If you ask me, I think the playoff structures works find. I disagree with one thing. The number 1 and 2 teams don’t deserve a bye week. If fact my idea would be to have the number 1 and 2 teams play and the winner would play the lower seeding team from the wild card, which leaves the losers at a threat by playing the higher seeding team from the wild card. This way the number 1 team would have 2 home playoff games, and this would make all the teams fight until the very last second of the season. This way, we get 2 more playoff games without adding more teams. Also, it’s good to know that if your in the top 2 that your going to the divisional round. By the way, having the division winners have a home game makes things more interesting in the long run.