Well, duh, but 3 years ago when the 11-5 Saints played at the 7-9 Seahawks in the Wild Card round it mattered a lot.
When teams from different divisions play completely different schedules (unlike the NBA), I think it makes sense to reward division winners with home field. 10-6 in one division could be very different than 11-5 in another one.
Sure, but if all the teams in the division are weaker... and the team still goes only 8-8 or 7-9... isn't that making the winner of that division even less deserving? They not only get in with a worse record, but they had the benefit of having a weaker schedule as well, with 6 games against bad teams. On the flip side, a wild card team (or a team that misses the playoffs) with a "really good" record has had the dis-advantage of playing in a tougher division with at least one team with a better record. As long as they have divisions, they should probably continue to be rewarded with an automatic playoff spot... but not so sure about giving them home field advantage as well if they have a worse record than a wild card team.
This kind of inefficiency is simply unavoidable for a 16 game season in a 32 team league. I'm fine with the current system in that I accept any tweaking done is just going to be only marginally "more fair" because of how janky the whole system is. I mean the playoffs itself is so fluky anyways. How often does truly the best team win the Superbowl?
Well, it's not so much about all the teams in the division being weaker or better as much as it is about the divisions they play. The divisions that got to play the NFC East or North, for example, probably have an advantage over the teams had to play the NFC West. For example, Indy going 11-5 with the NFC West (they went 2-2) on the schedule is more impressive than KC going 11-5 with the NFC East (4-0). The schedules are simply too different and the sample sizes too small to fairly compare records between teams in different divisions. (this is not the best example in general because the AFC West and AFC South did play each other, but you get the idea)
Sure... but Indy still gets 6 games against the awful Texans, Jags, and Titans... while KC plays 4 games against Denver and San Diego (with 2 more against the awful Raiders). The only thing that's a constant year to year is the division a team plays in... so if a team happens to play in a weak division, and their record is inflated largely because of how weak the division is, I don't think that should automatically be rewarded. And if you're worried about the schedules being "too different", that's even more reason to go strictly by overall record (which takes into account more common opponents)... and not by arbitrary divisions that change in complexity from year to year. KC vs. Indy is not the best example due to the fact that Indy beat KC head to head (and ultimately in the playoffs). A better example is what the Arizona Cardinals did this year vs. any team in the NFC North or East.
It's just as likely the wild card team with the better record played the tougher schedule. Flip a coin. The team with the better record should get home field IMO. I loved it, but what happened to the Saints 3 years ago was not fair. A 7-9 team does not deserve a playoff spot to an 11-5 team.
The 2011, Tim Tebow led (ahem) Broncos went 8-8 in one of the weakest division, and was rewarded home field advantage against the Steelers, who went 12-4 from one of the toughest divisions in football. The undeserved home field advantage resulted in Free Safety Ryan Clark having to sit out the game because of his blood condition being at risk playing at a high altitude, which had an impact on the outcome of the game.
Absolutely - that's my point. If you do it by record, you're letting arbitrary factors of schedule strength determine home field. I think it's much better to reward division winners - the one thing that is more-or-less objectively equal for all 4 teams competing (minus the 2 strength of schedule games). If you're not the best team in your division, then the penalty is playing away. It makes division games more interesting and meaningful and contributes to strengthening rivalries and the like. When you make division titles less important, you get the NBA, where no one cares about divisions and you don't have nearly as intense rivalries. I think what MLB did in rewarding division winners with the wild-card play-in game is fantastic - it makes fighting for the division to the end far more interesting where it might not have mattered much in the past since Home Field there doesn't matter. Anything that makes divisions more important is a good thing, in my opinion.
And when you reward division winners... who only are in a certain division because of their geographic location... its even more arbitrary when it just so happens that the entire division is bad (or good), and you benefit (or are hindered). Baseball has 162 games to figure out who is good and who isn't.... and even with an unbalanced schedule, the best teams usually rise to the top. Its rare for a "bad" team to make the playoffs in baseball. With football having a smaller sample size, it gives the opportunity for "bad" teams to make the playoffs. I understand going just by record makes division championships less "meaningful"... but as long as a team plays 6 of their 16 games against their division, there will always be maintained rivalries. The NBA ruined it because they not only made division championships meaningless, but they also have every team in each conference play almost the exact same schedule (you don't play your division opponents more times than you play other division opponents). The NFL should find the happy medium... continue to keep division rivalries meaningful by playing an unbalanced schedule, but don't automatically reward division winners with bad records home field advantage.
I don't like the idea. It's good as is. Baseball and Football are the only sports where it's actually an accomplishment to make the playoffs.
