Should the NFL adopt a NBA type playoff format for Home Field/Seeding?

[MylesKnight]

I believe the NFL would be wise, and fair, to come up with some kind of similar structure.

I really like what the NBA has done here on two levels.

First, giving teams with better records the opportunity to have home court advantage in playoff series regardless of their finish within their own divisions. Second, the concept of allowing the team with the second best record within their own conference to receive the second seed in the playoffs regardless of whether they are a Division Champion or not.

Currently, the NBA rule reads that the three division winners are guaranteed three of the top four seeds in their conference playoff structure, with homecourt advantage throughout the entire playoff process based strictly on overall record.


There have been four occasions in the past three seasons (since the rule went into effect) where the new homecourt rule has come into effect..

Examples;
2008 West 1st Round - #5 Seed Houston (55-27) Homecourt against #4 Utah (54-28 Northwest Division Champ)
2007 East 1st Round - #5 Chicago (49-33) Homecourt against #4 Miami (44-38 Southeast Division Champ)
2007 West 1st Round - #5 Houston (52-30) Homecourt against #4 Utah (51-31 Northwest Division Champ)
2006 West 1st Round - #6 LA Clippers (47-35) Homecourt against #3 Denver (44-38 Northwest Division Champ)


And there have been three occasions in the past two seasons (since the rule went into effect) where the new seeding rule has come into play..

Examples;
2008 - West #3 Seed San Antonio (56-26 Non-Division Winner) seeded ahead of #4 Utah (54-28 Northwest Division Champ)
2007 - East #2 Cleveland (50-32 Non-Division Winner) ahead of #3 Toronto (47-35 Atlantic Division Champ) & #4 Miami (44-38 Southeast Division Champ)
2007 - West #3 San Antonio (58-24 Non-Division Winner) ahead of #4 Utah (51-31 Northwest Division Champ)

[RainMaker]

I don't think so. The schedules are completely unbalanced in football so I think you need to put emphasis on the division champs. A seeding system completely devalues the divisions and the games within them. I think this is just a real odd year and we shouldn't overreact to it.

[Young Drachma]

No.

[MylesKnight]

For arguments sake, here's what we would be looking at for this NFL Season with seeding/homefield advantage based strictly on overall W-L records. In this scenario, all Division Champions still make the playoffs, but that is all they are guaranteed.

AFC
1. Tennessee 13-3 (South Champion)
2. Indianapolis 12-4 (WC)
3. Pittsburgh 12-4 (North Champion)
4. Balitmore 11-5 (WC)
5. Miami 11-5 (East Champion)
6. San Diego 8-8 (West Champion)

* Indianapolis gets tiebreaker over Pittsburgh due to head-to-head victory
* Baltimore gets tiebreaker over Miami due to head-to-head victory


NFC
1. NY Giants 12-4 (East Champion)
2. Carolina 12-4 (South Champion)
3. Atlanta 11-5 (WC)
4. Minnesota 10-6 (North Champion)
5. Philadelphia 9-6-1 (WC)
6. Arizona 9-7 (West Champion)

* NYG get tiebreaker over Carolina due to head-to-head victory

[Izulde]

I think the NFL's bye weeks in the playoffs, the one-off nature of the games and the short season all are reasons not to switch to the NBA style playoff format.

[albionmoonlight]

The NFL right now has a system that encourages teams to have the best record in the conference (home field throughout), have the second best record (of division champs) in the conference (first round bye), win your division (host an opening round game), and make the playoffs.

The fact that so many meaningful distinctions exist means that teams in the playoffs tend to be playing meaningful games through week 17.

I think that, far from needing to change, the NFL playoff seeding system is one of the best things going in sports.

[Wolfpack]

I'd say it's a fair bet that playoff seeding and even the number of teams that make the playoffs (remember, there was a lot of debate about San Diego being in and New England not, for example) will be brought up at an owners' meeting during the offseason. I'd personally prefer leaving the field at 12 (14 kind of starts creeping the NFL towards the NBA/NHL playoff structure where more than half the teams make it even after 82 games have been played), but only guarantee the division winners a playoff berth and nothing more, much as MK posted. An alternate idea I've had would be to reseed by record rather than by seed in the remaining rounds. In other words, if the NFL feels strongly enough that division winners should be rewarded with at least one home playoff game, then weaker division winners should only potentially get one at the most.

Basically that would mean the first weekend games were unchanged, but the second weekend would have had Philadephia (9-6-1) play at Carolina while Arizona (9-7) went to New York and then 11-5 Baltimore would have gone to Pittsburgh while 8-8 San Diego went to Tennessee. Given this weekend's results, we could make an educated guess about the conference finals. In the AFC, Pittsburgh outlasts Baltimore while San Diego upsets Tennessee, thus the final would have been San Diego at Pittsburgh. Meanwhile in the NFC, it'd be the Eagles over Carolina while the Giants hold on against a much-improved Arizona, leaving the Eagles to travel to New York next week, but had Arizona prevailed, then Arizona would have had to travel to Philadelphia since Philly had the better record with re-seeding taking effect after the first round.

I think it'd be a good compromise between those who want to reward division winners (by giving them their first playoff games at home) and those who want to reward strong divisions overall (by re-seeding after the first round by record). I think it'd be rather hard to justify that if San Diego had won today that they had a deserved home field advantage over Baltimore simply by virtue of being a division winner in a particularly weak division. As it is, Arizona gets something of that break because they won the NFC west even though Philly has a better record (9-6-1 vs 9-7) and played in a much tougher division.

[kcchief19]

I think there is still value in winning your division. And considering that three home teams lost this week, there doesn't seem to be a compelling argument to change.

I think there might start to be questions about the value of the bye week though. Home teams coming off the bye have really struggled the last few years. This might be an argument some use to expand the playoffs to at least 14 teams. Assuming we don't except random luck of sample size as the reason, I think the most plausible explanation is that the NFL's goal for parity has been achieved to the point where the simply isn't a wide gap between teams anymore. I've watched the Ravens the last two weeks and tried to figure out how they lost five games. And as much credit as we want to give Pennington and Parcells, the Dolphins that went 1-15 aren't that different from the team that went 11-5.

Which brings us back to the fact that I don't think there is really as much a gap between an 8-8 team and 12-4 team as you might think.

[Kodos]

The NFL would be foolish to copy pretty much anything from the NBA.

[MylesKnight]

An 11-5 Baltimore team having to travel to a 8-8 San Diego club for the Conference Title would've just looked silly to the naked eye imho (do they flip coins for homefield or what?), so in that respect I suppose Pittsburgh winning wasn't a bad thing.

Of course decreasing the possibility of 9-7 or 8-8 Division Champions making the playoffs could be accomplished by going back to the three Divisions per Conference format. With 16 teams in each conference, would a 6-5-5 format work though? There certainly are pro's and con's for each and every possible scenario.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think so. The schedules are completely unbalanced in football...

That's the key right there to me. In the NBA and other leagues, you play so many more games and have similar schedules, even within the conference. In the NFL schedules are too different to really compare an 8-8 team to an 11-5 team. For a system like the NBA's to work, you need to remove the intraconference games and play all 16 within the conference to create more balanced schedules within the conference.

[flere-imsaho]

I continue to like it the way it is.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The NFL right now has a system that encourages teams to have the best record in the conference (home field throughout), have the second best record (of division champs) in the conference (first round bye), win your division (host an opening round game), and make the playoffs.

The fact that so many meaningful distinctions exist means that teams in the playoffs tend to be playing meaningful games through week 17.

I think that, far from needing to change, the NFL playoff seeding system is one of the best things going in sports.

agreed

[flere-imsaho]

non-dola:

I actually like the fact that a team can pretty much suck and win a sucky division and be seeded higher than a good team from a great division. There's a delicious catharsis involved in seeing said team's players go into the playoffs all "we're division champs, we're awesome" and getting blown out by a better team.

[gstelmack]

Or blowing out that better team like Arizona did Saturday night...