Web Page Name 

---

Exactly what I'd like. I didn't mind that the 8-8 Chargers got into the play-offs over the 11-5 Patriots. I like how tht works. What I don't get is, that once in the play-offs, the seeds don't get shuffled towards the teams' records.

If you ask me, we should be the 3rd or 4th seed. Not just because I'm a homer, but because it'd be more fair.

Division winners get into the play-offs, 2 wild card teams and the seedings get decided from there on out.

I don't like the rules, too, but unfortunately that are the rules. And if you're a hot team, you don't care about playing at home or not. The Steelers (#6) made it to Vince, so will the Packers 😃

---

This season I'm glad they're on the road. All these warm environments are great for the passing game. The only cold game they'd have to play is the NFC Championship in GB against Philly, and I don't see that being a huge probability.

---

I've never cared about this issue, but Vandermause convinced me. There would still be a reward for winning a division, as it would assure a team of a playoff appearance. But at the same time, it would increase competition between teams in separate divisions. Something would be gained, and nothing would be lost.

---

I think the most compelling argument he makes is that it would reduce, if not eliminate, the incentive to tank toward the end of the season. I had never considered that possibility before, but I think he's right. At least, it would postpone the tanking until someone had clinched homefield advantage throughout.

---

"Whatever happened to the idea of fairness?"

That is one of the central premises of his argument, that the NFL should be "fair." That there should be "equity." I do not know how you can use that as a basis for an argument when you suggest that the division winning teams should still get a berth in the playoffs.

Last year New England was 11-5 but sat at home and watched as San Diego got to play January football despite finishing 8-8. How is that fair? They won three games more than San Diego, and the same amount as what Green Bay won this year. The difference is they had no chance of competing in the playoffs. Green Bay does. Honestly, who cares if you have to go on the road in the playoffs, do your job and you can still win and advance. You do not have that choice if you're sitting at home. New England's case last year was grossly more unfair than ours is this year.

That said, why should the NFL be fair. If it was always fair we'd remove human error from referring and make the weather the same for everyone (only way to do that is have domes all around). Being screwed from time to time is part of any sport and it is part of what gets fans so heated about games. Personally, I value the rivalries in football far more than I value fairness. If you take away rewards for winning the division you devalue the rivalries and the competition between division teams. If Green Bay wins just one game against Minnesota this year we're the number two seed and they're the number six I think. Rivalry games should have an inherent importance to them and making division winners get home field advantage in the wild card round is a way to do that.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that this creates more chances to force teams to compete in the final weeks either. In some cases it will but in others it will not. If you compare it to a situation in which no spots are given to division winners then last year when Denver and San Diego played in the final week it would have been irrelevant. But what if division winners are just given playoff spots. Well consider the following:

Let's say NFC West division winner and NFC South division winners finish 14-2 and get get the 1 and 2 spots, so we'll just focus on potential wild card game teams. Two NFC North teams enter the final game of the season at 11-4 and two NFC East teams enter the final game of the season at 9-6. No other team in any NFC division is competing for a playoff spot. If you have division winners get home field, those games matter. If you have division winners just get a playoff berth, then they don't. In this case, the final week is more interesting with home games going to division winners.

I also disagree with the argument that having a division winner with a lower record than that of another division automatically makes that division weaker. What if, for example, you have one division with one team at 10-6 and three teams at 3-13. Is that division stronger than one with four 9-7 teams? What if the 10-6 team got 6 of their wins in the division and all four of the 9-7 teams went 3-3 in their division? Or how about if two teams in one divison have a better record than that of another? Well again if one division had two 10-6 teams and two 1-15 teams while another had four 9-7 teams, I don't think you can say the division with four 9-7 teams is weaker.

In short, I don't agree with any of his major claims.

---

i think the playoff system is just fine...Division winners should get a home field game reguardless of their record because they have to battle 3 other teams for that spot instead of one or two wild card teams...

mi_keys: You've obviously put a lot of thought into this, but you lost me right at the beginning by saying that fairness should not matter. If you throw the idea of fairness out the window, then you can justify any playoff system.

The situation you describe in your second-to-last paragraph seems pretty rare to me. At any rate, I would expect that in the system that Vandermause proposes, if two teams have the same record and one of them won the division, the division winner would get home field. So those games would still matter.

---

Thems the rules and until the NFL change them we have to deal with them.

We won't be bothered when we win it all in February anyway.

---