Can someone please explain...

• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  how in the world Seattle landed a HOME game against New Orleans?! I understand they won their division, therefore they earned a spot in the playoffs; but how in the world are they receiving a HOME playoff game?!
• Fab1b

  

  I agree with you but they won their division so they get one. I'd like to see the NFL go to 2 divisions per conference taking the 2 division champs then the rest wildcards based on best records.
• Lovejoy1984

  

  Division winners recieve at least 1 home playoff game, regardless of record.
• queencitybuckeye

  Same reason, because a division champ by rule is a higher seed than a wild card, regardless of record. Not unique to the NFL.
• Skyhook79

  

  Scarlet_Buckeye;622839 wrote:how in the world Seattle landed a HOME game against New Orleans?! I understand they won their division, therefore they earned a spot in the playoffs; but how in the world are they receiving a HOME playoff game?!

  
  The same could be said for Indy and KC but no one seems to care about those situations, only Seattle's.
• Skyhook79

  

  queencitybuckeye;622845 wrote:Same reason, because a division champ by rule is a higher seed than a wild card, regardless of record. Not unique to the NFL.

  
  The NBA changed there's, a few years back. The better record now gets the Homecourt in every series regardless if they won their Division.
• Ironman92

  

  oh no
• queencitybuckeye

  Skyhook79;622849 wrote:The NBA changed there's, a few years back. The better record now gets the Homecourt in every series regardless if they won their Division.

  
  The NHL still does it right.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  HighRoller74;622843 wrote:Division winners recieve at least 1 home playoff game, regardless of record.

  
  Ahhh. Okay. I forgot New Orleans had Atalanta in their division. I was thinking New Orleans won their division. Dumb .
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  queencitybuckeye;622853 wrote:The NHL still does it right.

  
  I actually hate the NHL's. I'm okay with scheduling the first rd so that the team with the best record receives homefield advantage, but after the first rd.... if you're fortunate enough to beat the #1 seed, then you should be paired up with the number team the #1 seed would have been playing; not this re-arrangement or the entire playoff bracket b.s.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  The only way to have the best teams from any sport get in is to re work the schedule and get rid of divisions. A team winning their division is rewarded with the play offs and a home game - don't penalize a team and city because their division sucks.
• wildcats20

  

  The Raiders also got screwed IMO.
  
  Isn't the definition of "division winner", the team who WINS the division(best record in the division)??
  
  The Raiders went 6-0 in the AFC West. The Chiefs(2-6) "win" the division because of a better overall record. The Chiefs did NOT win the AFC West, the Raiders did.
  
  They were also the ONLY team in the NFL to go 6-0 in their division.
• Laley23

  

  Raiders did go 6-0 in division. I think first team to ever go unbeaten in division and miss the playoffs.
  
  Colts are hosting the Jets with a worse record as well, but I call that justice since the 8-8 Chargers hosted the 12-4 Colts a few yrs ago and won
• Commander of Awesome

  

  I hate thread titles like these.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Beat three teams' records, win your division. It is simple....and fair. Sure, the Seahawks are an outlier this year, but it rarely happens. In fact this might be the first time a team with a losing record made the playoffs.
• Laley23

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;623248 wrote:Beat three teams' records, win your division. It is simple....and fair. Sure, the Seahawks are an outlier this year, but it rarely happens. In fact this might be the first time a team with a losing record made the playoffs.

  
  But it's hardly the first time a team with the worst record hosts the game. In fact, it's gonna happen in 3/4 this year, and cold ne 4/4.....not sure what way GB Philly tiebreaker would go.
• Skyhook79

  

  Laley23;623255 wrote:But it's hardly the first time a team with the worst record hosts the game. In fact, it's gonna happen in 3/4 this year, and cold ne 4/4.....not sure what way GB Philly tiebreaker would go.

  
  Green Bay beat Philly head to head. Tie breaker goes to GB.
• Laley23

  

  Skyhook79;623274 wrote:Green Bay beat Philly head to head. Tie breaker goes to GB.

  
  So all four games will be played on the home field of the team that would otherwise be on the road. Amazingly dumb.
• wildcats20

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;623248 wrote:Beat three teams' records, win your division. It is simple....and fair. Sure, the Seahawks are an outlier this year, but it rarely happens. In fact this might be the first time a team with a losing record made the playoffs.

  
  It's not fair when the "Division Winner" did not truly WIN the division. The Raiders WON the division by going 6-0. The NFL is basically saying that a team could go 0-6 in their Division but still make the playoffs.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  wildcats20;623397 wrote:It's not fair when the "Division Winner" did not truly WIN the division. The Raiders WON the division by going 6-0. The NFL is basically saying that a team could go 0-6 in their Division but still make the playoffs.

  
  What were the other 10 games? Friendly scrimmages? Either every game counts, or none of them do. Again, all you have to do is post a better record than 3 other teams. If Oakland didn't get it done in the non-division games they have only themselves to blame.
• wildcats20

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;623441 wrote:What were the other 10 games? Friendly scrimmages? Either every game counts, or none of them do. Again, all you have to do is post a better record than 3 other teams. If Oakland didn't get it done in the non-division games they have only themselves to blame.

  
  But if you want to crown a "division winner" you don't look at the other games, unless there is a tie. When a team goes 6-0 in the division, they are the division champions. Winning the division doesn't mean who wins the most games, it means who wins the most DIVISION games.
  

  If Oakland didn't get it done in the non-division games they have only themselves to blame.

  And to this....KC didn't get it done IN the division. But yet they are still AFC West champions? Kansas City went 2-4 IN the AFC West, they technically finished 3rd in the West.
  
  
  I realize that it doesn't matter in the NFL what your divisional record is, unless 2 teams are tied in the same division. But if that is the way they(the NFL) want it, then they need to get rid of the divisional breakdowns.
• wildcats20

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;623441 wrote:What were the other 10 games? Friendly scrimmages? Either every game counts, or none of them do. Again, all you have to do is post a better record than 3 other teams. If Oakland didn't get it done in the non-division games they have only themselves to blame.

  
  But if you want to crown a "division winner" you don't look at the other games, unless there is a tie. When a team goes 6-0 in the division, they are the division champions. Winning the division doesn't mean who wins the most games, it means who wins the most DIVISION games.
  

  If Oakland didn't get it done in the non-division games they have only themselves to blame.

  And to this....KC didn't get it done IN the division. But yet they are still AFC West champions? Kansas City went 2-4 IN the AFC West, they technically finished 3rd in the West.
  
  
  I realize that it doesn't matter in the NFL what your divisional record is, unless 2 teams are tied in the same division. But if that is the way they(the NFL) want it, then they need to get rid of the divisional breakdowns.
• Laley23

  

  wildcats20;623454 wrote:But if you want to crown a "division winner" you don't look at the other games, unless there is a tie. When a team goes 6-0 in the division, they are the division champions. Winning the division doesn't mean who wins the most games, it means who wins the most DIVISION games.
  
  
  
  And to this....KC didn't get it done IN the division. But yet they are still AFC West champions? Kansas City went 2-4 IN the AFC West, they technically finished 3rd in the West.
  
  
  I realize that it doesn't matter in the NFL what your divisional record is, unless 2 teams are tied in the same division. But if that is the way they(the NFL) want it, then they need to get rid of the divisional breakdowns.

  
  This is just wrong. You have a division winner based on who ends up at the top of the division. It doesn't matter what you re rod versus those teams in, though it usually goes hand in hand. They separate teams into divisions for tv, travel, etc....but that doesn't mean the champions of a said division is only determined by the 6 games versus the rest of the division. Every game matters the same, you just get extras versus the teams you are compressing directly against.
• wildcats20

  

  Right, I realize this and I really don't have a problem with the teams who make the playoffs...well other than Seattle.
  
  
  But to call a team AFC West Champion, making them the winner of a 4 team division, is wrong.
  
  It's basically saying that the 6 games against the other 3 Division teams don't mean anything.
  
  
  What it really boils down to is the use of Divisions.
• Laley23

  

  wildcats20;623484 wrote:Right, I realize this and I really don't have a problem with the teams who make the playoffs...well other than Seattle.
  
  
  But to call a team AFC West Champion, making them the winner of a 4 team division, is wrong.
  
  It's basically saying that the 6 games against the other 3 Division teams don't mean anything.
  
  
  What it really boils down to is the use of Divisions.

  
  They do mean something though. In fact, they mean a ton in deciding who wins the division. Buuuuuut, individually, they aren't any more important than the other 10 games.