- Thread starter
- #1
As the playoff picture currently stands, in 3 of the 4 wildcard match-ups, the visiting team would have a better record than the home team:
KC (11-3) at IND (9-5)
49ers (10-4) at PHI (8-6)
CAR (10-4) at CHI (8-6)
Also note that Arizona has a better record than the 2 NFC division leaders.
Does a system based purely on overall record need to be introduced, with division victors being the first tie breaker (with the 2nd perhaps being head to head)? Or do you like the system as is?
I can see both sides of the coin. Yes, if you want home field advantage, win the biggest most important games against the teams in your division. It's that. simple.
BUT, can anyone really say the Colts actually deserve home field, because for them, the division has been basically handed to them, having Tennessee, Houston and Jacksonville as their competition. Can we really say they deserve to have home field over the Chiefs?
Of course this is where it gets sticky, where you can go into the fact that pretty much all of the Chiefs wins have come against teams with losing records. Are their 11 wins against bad competition more deserving of home field than the Colts and their divisional title against bad competition?
This is a really big issue, and one that seems impossible to solve. The first view says yes, base it purely on overall record, because the Chiefs may have played bad teams, but it's a variety of bad teams. It's not like they are just lucky to been in a bad division and have 6 games against only 3 bad teams. They may have beaten bad teams, but they are not the same 3 teams they have beaten. They have beaten teams from across the league, and done it convincingly. They have beaten a high percentage of teams across the NFL.
You can also look at it from Arizona's perspective. They have had to play San Francisco and Seattle a total of 4 times. They can argue (if they lose 3 or 4 out of the 4) that they have only lost to a small percentage of the league, half of their losses have come against only 2 teams, and have enough other wins against a variety of the league, more wins than a division leader, and should get that spot.
But then it goes back to if you want to make the playoffs, beat the best teams. You'll have to beat them in the playoffs anyways. If you have to play San Francisco and Seattle 4 times, make those 4 wins to add to your record.
It's a terrible circle, that will ALWAYS have a "yeah but..." answer to either view. I get that I may have lost some of you, I'm bad at getting my thoughts down. But I guess what I'm asking is, what is your, non factual opinion on how it should be?
KC (11-3) at IND (9-5)
49ers (10-4) at PHI (8-6)
CAR (10-4) at CHI (8-6)
Also note that Arizona has a better record than the 2 NFC division leaders.
Does a system based purely on overall record need to be introduced, with division victors being the first tie breaker (with the 2nd perhaps being head to head)? Or do you like the system as is?
I can see both sides of the coin. Yes, if you want home field advantage, win the biggest most important games against the teams in your division. It's that. simple.
BUT, can anyone really say the Colts actually deserve home field, because for them, the division has been basically handed to them, having Tennessee, Houston and Jacksonville as their competition. Can we really say they deserve to have home field over the Chiefs?
Of course this is where it gets sticky, where you can go into the fact that pretty much all of the Chiefs wins have come against teams with losing records. Are their 11 wins against bad competition more deserving of home field than the Colts and their divisional title against bad competition?
This is a really big issue, and one that seems impossible to solve. The first view says yes, base it purely on overall record, because the Chiefs may have played bad teams, but it's a variety of bad teams. It's not like they are just lucky to been in a bad division and have 6 games against only 3 bad teams. They may have beaten bad teams, but they are not the same 3 teams they have beaten. They have beaten teams from across the league, and done it convincingly. They have beaten a high percentage of teams across the NFL.
You can also look at it from Arizona's perspective. They have had to play San Francisco and Seattle a total of 4 times. They can argue (if they lose 3 or 4 out of the 4) that they have only lost to a small percentage of the league, half of their losses have come against only 2 teams, and have enough other wins against a variety of the league, more wins than a division leader, and should get that spot.
But then it goes back to if you want to make the playoffs, beat the best teams. You'll have to beat them in the playoffs anyways. If you have to play San Francisco and Seattle 4 times, make those 4 wins to add to your record.
It's a terrible circle, that will ALWAYS have a "yeah but..." answer to either view. I get that I may have lost some of you, I'm bad at getting my thoughts down. But I guess what I'm asking is, what is your, non factual opinion on how it should be?
