Would you prefer the NFL Playoffs to have a fixed bracket?

[Captaincoop]

Every year when the playoffs roll around, I think about this. Would be interesting to hear the BBTL take on the matter...

What is the point in reseeding the playoffs after the Wild Card games, instead of just having a fixed bracket like we did back before 1990?

The season is so long, and injuries are such a huge x-factor, that, come January, it seems like a total crapshoot who the strongest remaining teams are, regardless of seed and regardless of record. This is especially true with the division winners automatically having higher seeds than the wild card qualifiers.

In theory, the #1 seed (this year the Broncos) is rewarded (vis-a-vis the #2 seed - in this case the Patriots) by reseeding after the WC games. But in practice, that is a huge crapshoot from year-to-year. I don't even think you can say that it works out that way most years, as opposed to maybe half of the time.

As a fan, I'd rather just know right now that the Patriots are playing the winner of Game X, so that I can focus in on that game and on those possible opponents.

 

[tims4wins]

With the new (well, since 2002) divisional format, it seems really likely that at least one of the wild card teams will be better than the worst division winner / 4 seed, if not both wild cards. This sets up a scenario where the #1 seed could have to face a better team than the #2 seed. Look no further than this year - if Pittsburgh and Houston win, the Pats clearly get the more favorable opponent, which isn't particularly "fair".

I don't particularly care either way though.

 

[johnmd20]

Would prefer if they had a fixed bracket.

 

[Toe Nash]

The #1 seed should get to choose their opponent in the divisional round. That would give more incentive to get the #1 and add a fun bit of "disrespect" fodder for people to get worked up about. And it would reward smart coaches who think they match up better against certain teams.

 

[joe dokes]

The #1 seed should get to choose their opponent in the divisional round. That would give more incentive to get the #1 and add a fun bit of "disrespect" fodder for people to get worked up about. And it would reward smart coaches who think they match up better against certain teams.

BB would "defer" and force a team to pick *his* team.

 

[ifmanis5]

Just let Blandino decide.

 

[moondog80]

In theory, the #1 seed (this year the Broncos) is rewarded (vis-a-vis the #2 seed - in this case the Patriots) by reseeding after the WC games. But in practice, that is a huge crapshoot from year-to-year. I don't even think you can say that it works out that way most years, as opposed to maybe half of the time.

Someone should test this. My guess is that the #5 seed is better than the #6 seed more than 50% of the time (though not always).

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

BB would "defer" and force a team to pick *his* team.

Nice thought, but wouldn't the #2 seed be the logical next chooser?

 

[SumnerH]

Get rid of re-seeding.

The #1 team already has massive advantages, including home-field.

The #6 is already at a huge disadvantage, having to play the #3 first just to get to week 2; the reward in a seeded bracket for managing the upset is that you get to take their place in the seeding--being constantly pitted against the best remaining team is grossly unfair.

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

If you are going with a true bracket method, then you would need to consider ranking the teams 3-6 by another method. I am not sure a committee is the right approach as with March Madness, but maybe another formula to be able to rank division winners and wild card teams fairly.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I guess the question is: How much difference is there between 1 and 2 seeds? If the 6 beats the 3, is playing the Patriots or Cardinals instead of the Broncos or Panthers really that "grossly unfair"?

I'm just asking, because I don't know.

 

[BaseballJones]

Because it's very likely that a wild card team will actually be better than a division winner, I think the best way to do the playoffs is simply to seed teams 1-6 by record. Each division winner gets in automatically, regardless of record (we do want to reward division winners), and the top two wild card teams. So this year the seedings would be:

AFC
1. Den
2. NE
3. Cin
4. KC
5. Pit
6. Hou

Hou at Cin
Pit at KC

NFC
1. Car
2. Ari
3. Min
4. GB
5. Sea
6. Was

Was at Min
Sea at GB

And then you can either reseed or just run the brackets, with the 3-6 winners playing the 2 seeds, and the 4-5 winners playing the 1 seeds.

 

[johnmd20]

Because it's very likely that a wild card team will actually be better than a division winner, I think the best way to do the playoffs is simply to seed teams 1-6 by record. Each division winner gets in automatically, regardless of record (we do want to reward division winners), and the top two wild card teams. So this year the seedings would be:

AFC
1. Den
2. NE
3. Cin
4. KC
5. Pit
6. Hou

Hou at Cin
Pit at KC

NFC
1. Car
2. Ari
3. Min
4. GB
5. Sea
6. Was

Was at Min
Sea at GB

And then you can either reseed or just run the brackets, with the 3-6 winners playing the 2 seeds, and the 4-5 winners playing the 1 seeds.

That's such a great idea, it would obviously never happen.

 

[RG33]

Get rid of re-seeding.

The #1 team already has massive advantages, including home-field.

The #6 is already at a huge disadvantage, having to play the #3 first just to get to week 2; the reward in a seeded bracket for managing the upset is that you get to take their place in the seeding--being constantly pitted against the best remaining team is grossly unfair.

Is having the home field advantage that much of an advantage though? Your post made me think about it, and from looking at various studies on it, I'm not that sure.

This was a very interesting look by PFReference that looked at the records of teams in the matchups, and found that teams that had the same records saw the home team winning about 53% of the time. It is a bit dated, but shows data from 1993-2006. Ultimately, it is saying that if the home team is 2 or more games better than the visiting team, then yes, they are probably going to win about 80% of those games -- but that is to be expected since they had significantly better regular season records.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=218

Anyways, I thought it would make for interesting discussion.

EDIT: Forgot to include the 2nd link which shows the home team at 70-26 in the divisional round over a long period of time -- but begs the question, is it because of "home field advantage" or because the majority of those home teams were significantly better teams.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/nfl-playoffs-dallas-cowboys-green-bay-packers-baltimore-ravesn

 

[Captaincoop]

Someone should test this. My guess is that the #5 seed is better than the #6 seed more than 50% of the time (though not always).

It's kind of hard to quantify since "better" is very subjective.

But just looking at the last two years, I personally would rather have played the #5 seed in both leagues, both years:

2015: Seattle and Pittsburgh (6 seeds) versus Green Bay and Kansas City (5 seeds)
2014: Detroit and Baltimore (6 seeds) versus Arizona* and Cincy (5 seeds)

*by playoff time last year, Arizona's offense was horrific due to injuries. Ryan Lindley started the playoff game.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

On reason why I imagine they keep it is to increase interest in the first round. A casual Patriots or Broncos fan might be more likely to watch the KC-HOU game, for example, since they both know there's a chance they're getting the winner.

Other than that, I think it's six of one and half dozen of the other. It's all a crapshoot, with seeding often coming down to tiebreakers and the #5 seed usually really being either the 3rd or 4th best team in the conference. I like the idea of letting the #1 seed pick their opponent, but I think coaches wouldn't want anything to do with that rule change. Maybe letting the #1 seed which game they want the winner from? As in Denver could choose to play the winner of the CIN-PIT game or HOU-KC. That might add some strategy intrigue without the "slap in the face" factor.

 

[tims4wins]

Good point on keeping fan interest for the first round

 

[alydar]

Current system can make for some weird fan situations. For example, I don't know who I want to win the KC-HOU game until the next game is played. If Pit wins, I would have wanted HOU, but a Cincy win and I would retrospectively want KC. So I don't like the re-seeding.

 

[snowmanny]

One practical advantage - of course I don't know how big an advantage - of fixed seeding is that teams can devote clearer and fairer manpower to game planning their divisional round opponent early on. Right now, for example, the Patriots are working on KC, Houston and Cincinnati; with fixed seeding they would be looking at Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. If Kansas City wins they might play Denver or New England; with fixed seeding they know it's Denver. Cincinnati knows right now that if they beat Pittsburgh they go to New England.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

Get rid of re-seeding.

The #1 team already has massive advantages, including home-field.

The #6 is already at a huge disadvantage, having to play the #3 first just to get to week 2; the reward in a seeded bracket for managing the upset is that you get to take their place in the seeding--being constantly pitted against the best remaining team is grossly unfair.

This argument won my vote.

Although "#1 seed picks their opponent" would be fantastic entertainment, and given the oft-farcical nature of the NFL, what's a little more debasement for the sake of entertainment?

 

[wiffleballhero]

BB would "defer" and force a team to pick *his* team.

Slater would have them playing a road game as the one seed.

(FWIW I know, an easy joke. I like Slater as much as the next guy. I even sort of liked the idea of taking the wind at the time).

 

[simplyeric]

Get rid of re-seeding.

The #1 team already has massive advantages, including home-field.

The #6 is already at a huge disadvantage, having to play the #3 first just to get to week 2; the reward in a seeded bracket for managing the upset is that you get to take their place in the seeding--being constantly pitted against the best remaining team is grossly unfair.

Why is it unfair? The system should still favor the alpha team, no? Is that one extra advantage of picking your divisional opponent really that big? Sure it can be big in some instances, but I wonder if you'd see all that much of a change in win rate from the 1 seed.

Maybe they could do it like overtime: the 1 gets the re-allocated lowest seed, and keeps home field. OR it picks the other seed (because it sees a better matchup for them or worse for the 2 seed), BUT if both the 1 and the 2 seeds win, then the 2 seed gets home field. (I.e. The 1 seed gets a choice, but it comes with a possible penalty.)

But that's convoluted.
Re-seeding seems good, because it runs counter to the 'everyone gets a prize/into the playoffs' trend. Sure there's more playoff spots, but the road is tougher and it should be. Why should it be any easier for the Cinderella team?

 

[wiffleballhero]

The pisser about sports leagues is that the whole idea of a playoff is basically irrational and unfair from the get-go. This is least apparent in football and most apparent in baseball, but true none the less. The idea that the 2001 Mariners were not really the best baseball team of the year or (even more severely) that that 18-0+ 58 minutes Patriots were not the best team of the year is obviously wrong, but also far less compelling or exciting to watch. Playoffs only really make sense in situations like (ironically) college football where it can be used to face-off teams that don't play each other in the regular season or in sports like tennis where you always only in a 'play-off' situation. So the whole thing is a fraud, but as far as it goes I want the 1 seeds to have the easiest walk to the Super Bowl.

 

[SumnerH]

Why is it unfair? The system should still favor the alpha team, no?

Not repeatedly, no. The low seed gets the shaft by having to pay a tougher team in the first round. If they win, they've earned a bit easier path and the top seed is still getting the a priori easier pay off the bracket. The damage to the lower seed who's earned their path much outweighs the difference for the alpha team, imo.

Reward the on the field play, not original seeds. It's why people love March Madness.

EDIT: really, your question is the crux of the question. Do you bias everything toward the top seed, or do you allow lower seeds to earn a better position without being repeatedly screwed? I greatly prefer the latter.

 

[simplyeric]

Not repeatedly, no. The low seed gets the shaft by having to pay a tougher team in the first round. If they win, they've earned a bit easier path and the top seed is still getting the a priori easier pay off the bracket. The damage to the lower seed who's earned their path much outweighs the difference for the alpha team, imo.

Reward the on the field play, not original seeds. It's why people love March Madness.

EDIT: really, your question is the crux of the question. Do you bias everything toward the top seed, or do you allow lower seeds to earn a better position without being repeatedly screwed? I greatly prefer the latter.

Those teams alrwady had 16 on-the-field-play games from which to reap reward. You're saying that game 17 should hold more weight and benefit than the previous 16?
You want an easier road, win more games in the regular season...on the field.
Right now it's 3 v 6, and 4 v 5. Which bracket do you fix to whom? If you fix the 3/6 bracket to 1, then 1 could play 6, or play 3, while the 2 is playing 4 or 5. That's not fair to 1, if 3 wins.

I guess you would probably switch it to 3 v 5 and 4 v. 6? Then lock the 4/6 to the 1 seed but really how much difference it that? Then you're kinda dealing with the differences between the 4 and 5 seed for the most part.

Unless you want to do 3/4 v 2, and 5/6 v 1 and lock that in, but then what's the difference, in terms of a 5 or 6 on the way to the end. It just eliminates the possibility of 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3, which is (sortof) the most fair (IF the 3/4/5/6 was adjusted for wins, as opposed to a 9-6 team winning the division at 3 and a 10-4 team getting the 4...but then again: strength of division?).

It's chaotic to be sure. But, meh. Wouldn't kill me if they changed it, but it seems like change for change, or almost change for sympathy, and not really change to actually improve the testing process of 'The Champion'.

 

[alydar]

to actually improve the testing process of 'The Champion'.

Raises an interesting thought experiment. Let's say aliens showed up in September with their Planet Destruction Ray and said Earth would be spared if our best pre-existing football team (e.g. no assembling an all-star team or anything like that) could beat the current Intergalatic Champions, the Neptune Tralfamadorians, in a single game of football to be played that coming February. If we could pick that team any way we wanted, how best to ensure the fate of the planet? Assume crap like injuries, etc. still happen.

 

[8slim]

Raises an interesting thought experiment. Let's say aliens showed up in September with their Planet Destruction Ray and said Earth would be spared if our best pre-existing football team (e.g. no assembling an all-star team or anything like that) could beat the current Intergalatic Champions, the Neptune Tralfamadorians, in a single game of football to be played that coming February. If we could pick that team any way we wanted, how best to ensure the fate of the planet? Assume crap like injuries, etc. still happen.

I believe we pick Michael Jordan and some cartoons.

 

[SumnerH]

Those teams alrwady had 16 on-the-field-play games from which to reap reward. You're saying that game 17 should hold more weight and benefit than the previous 16?

Yeah, and it's not even close. Having playoff games matter more is a no brainer as far as viewer engagement goes. It's why March Madness dominates ratings compared to regular season basketball. That's what playoffs means to most people.

If you're doing a one and done playoff, it's for viewer excitement. Period. And allowing underdogs to succeed is a big part of that kind of format. Reseeding undercuts the whole point.

 

[H78]

Get rid of divisions and the six best records in each conference are in.

Divisions skew records and create opportunities for undeserving teams, and eliminate opportunities for deserving teams. I hate to admit it, but the Jets should be in the playoffs, not the Texans.

Then have a fixed bracket within each conference for the playoffs.

 

[simplyeric]

Yeah, and it's not even close. Having playoff games matter more is a no brainer as far as viewer engagement goes. It's why March Madness dominates ratings compared to regular season basketball. That's what playoffs means to most people.

If you're doing a one and done playoff, it's for viewer excitement. Period. And allowing underdogs to succeed is a big part of that kind of format. Reseeding undercuts the whole point.

There are two points: fan interest due to opportunity and fan interest due to championshipness.

Reseeding undercuts the 'opportunity of the underdog', but not championshipness, and even then only slightly. but I guess I can see your point...capture the Cinderella fanbase over the 'winninger team' fanbase. But that's not about fairness, that's about marketing.

It seems reasonably fair to me for the 1 seed have advantage over the Cinderella team. If that doesn't create greater fan interest so be it, but you're exchanging fairness for fan-ness.

Perfectly reasonable, by the way.

 

[simplyeric]

Get rid of divisions and the six best records in each conference are in.

Divisions skew records and create opportunities for undeserving teams, and eliminate opportunities for deserving teams. I hate to admit it, but the Jets should be in the playoffs, not the Texans.

Then have a fixed bracket within each conference for the playoffs.

I think the division winner should get in, but maybe (maybe) not be seeded higher than a wildcard with a better record. It's quite possible that a particular division could have 4 strong teams, while another could be all shit teams. The shit team division wildcard could have a better record but not be a better team than the division winner from a highly competitive division.
Frankly it's hard to know. I think you you want is power rankings comparing relative strength of schedule, as opposed to a w/l record.

 

[SumnerH]

There are two points: fan interest due to opportunity and fan interest due to championshipness.

Reseeding undercuts the 'opportunity of the underdog', but not championshipness, and even then only slightly. but I guess I can see your point...capture the Cinderella fanbase over the 'winninger team' fanbase. But that's not about fairness, that's about marketing.

Going 1-and-done you've already decided to put excitement over fairness. Anybody can lose one game. Once you've made that call, go with it.

 

[simplyeric]

Going 1-and-done you've already decided to put excitement over fairness. Anybody can lose one game. Once you've made that call, go with it.

One and done is not necessarily unfair (for the less-winning team on the field from the regular season).
Once you've decided that on-the-field success is relevant, stick with it. Reward the better record. (Again, unless you want to go with some sort of more involved power ranking based on schedule).

 

[SumnerH]

One and done is not necessarily unfair (for the less-winning team on the field from the regular season).
Once you've decided that on-the-field success is relevant, stick with it. Reward the better record.

So the 18-1 Patriots are the 2007 champions over the 13-6 Giants? And the 13-5 2001 Pats lost out to the 15-3 Rams?

Playoffs are the chance to shine in short series or one-and-dones. That's what they've always been, and that's how the viewing public views them. It's more exciting to watch. If you want to know who the best team is, the season-long record is probably a better indicator. But playoffs give a head-to-head excitement and let anyone in them win. It's why Villanova in 1985 is so awesome.

 

[simplyeric]

So the 18-1 Patriots are the 2007 champions over the 13-6 Giants? And the 13-5 2001 Pats lost out to the 15-3 Rams?

Playoffs are the chance to shine in short series or one-and-dones. That's what they've always been, and that's how the viewing public views them. It's more exciting to watch. If you want to know who the best team is, the season-long record is probably a better indicator. But playoffs give a head-to-head excitement and let anyone in them win. It's why Villanova in 1985 is so awesome.

Not sure what you mean. Sounds like you think that in 2008 the Pats shoukd have had a harder road, and the Giants should have had an easier road, to the Super Bowl?

In the current system, in the divisional, the 16-0 Pats would have faced the 5 or the 6. In your system they'd face the 3 or the 6? Or the 4 or 6? Or the 5 or 6? Or the 3 or 4 (doubt that's your intention but...)?

How do you propose the wildcard round to be seeded? With the current 3/6 & 4/5, you'd be disadvantaging the Pats with the possible 3, or making a lateral move locking them with the 4/5. Or you'd be disadvantaging them with a possible 3, or locking them to a 5/6.

Seems to me like you should avoid the 1 seed facing the 3, and all the rest is just shuffling. Sure...if you want to lock the 1 to the 5/6 go for it. The 2 would face 3/4...not enough difference to care either way.

 

[m0ckduck]

Raises an interesting thought experiment. Let's say aliens showed up in September with their Planet Destruction Ray and said Earth would be spared if our best pre-existing football team (e.g. no assembling an all-star team or anything like that) could beat the current Intergalatic Champions, the Neptune Tralfamadorians, in a single game of football to be played that coming February. If we could pick that team any way we wanted, how best to ensure the fate of the planet? Assume crap like injuries, etc. still happen.

Obviously we would just reassemble the 2011 Tebow Broncos.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Going 1-and-done you've already decided to put excitement over fairness. Anybody can lose one game. Once you've made that call, go with it.

You can choose how much to balance excitement and fairness though. Just because you've decided that you are willing to trade off some fairness doesn't mean you should trade off all of it. Plus as mentioned above the current system maximizes fan excitement in games that don't involve their team.

I like the current system because it feels like whichever team wins it all had to play a challenging series of games to do so. I think brackets would only add a little bit more excitement while sacrificing both that sense of the worthiness of the winner and rooting interest in the earlier games.

 

[Remagellan]

This idea is as ridiculous as the system was back when home field was decided by rotating the divisions which resulted in an unbeaten Dolphin team having to play the Steelers in Pittsburgh in the 1972 AFC Championship Game. The games end on Sunday night, when would the one seed be required to make its choice? Because until it does, it holds up the preparation plans for the other seeds.

Also, what's wrong with making Cinderella go through a fiery trial to earn her glass slipper? The Giants teams that upset the Patriots in SB XLII and XLVI proved they deserved their rings not just because they beat the Pats in the final game, but because in 2007 they went to Dallas and upset a better Cowboys team and then beat a very good Packers team in Green Bay, and in 2011 they went to Green Bay and destroyed an Aaron Rodgers top-seeded Packers team and then went to San Francisco and survived a Niners team that spent most of the day mauling Eli Manning.

The road to a championship is supposed to be hard. If a team didn't do the work in the regular season, it should be required to do it in the postseason.

 

[tims4wins]

I think the six seed has won it enough recently that we can throw out the idea that their path is too tough. Haven't the Packers, Giants, and Ravens all won it all as the six?

 

[lexrageorge]

The current system ain't broken, so no desire to fix it.

In any professional sports league , playoffs are the reward for the sport's best teams. The absolute best have the "easiest" entry to the championship game, while the bubble teams have to work harder at it. Yes, sometimes amongst the bubble teams there are some "better" teams that miss the playoffs in favor of weaker ones. That's the price of being on the bubble; however, if your team is the one of the 2 or 3 best in the league/conference, there's no chance of not getting in.

Trying to create the "perfect" system is not worth the trouble, IMO. And, yes, sometimes upsets happen; that's what makes the playoffs fun to watch.

 

[Awesome Fossum]

Get rid of re-seeding.

The #1 team already has massive advantages, including home-field.

I'm not convinced re-seeding is an advantage to the top seeds. I'm sure the coaching staffs would rather start laying the groundwork for two possible opponents rather than three during that bye week.

Now, it puts the #1 seed in a stronger position relative to the #2 seed, since you're both in the same boat and they are supposedly getting the stronger opponent, but I'm not sure that outweighs better being able to prepare for the divisional game.

I'd rather just know right now that the Patriots are playing the winner of Game X, so that I can focus in on that game and on those possible opponents.

I bet Belichick feels the same way.

 

[DJnVa]

Unless I'm not paying attention, a lot of the posts would seem to like to change the system, but the votes are lopsided in the other direction.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

I think the six seed has won it enough recently that we can throw out the idea that their path is too tough. Haven't the Packers, Giants, and Ravens all won it all as the six?

Only the Packers were a six - the 2007 Giants were a five and the 2011 Giants and 2012 Ravens won their divisions.

 

[tims4wins]

Thanks for the correction. Larger point kind of stands - many teams have overcome not having a bye to win it all or play 3 straight road games.

 

[Bob420]

Steelers were a 6 and beat #3 Cincy, #1 Indy and #2 Den.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

2005 Steelers were a #6.

edit: that's what I get for not refreshing the thread first...