Polian likes alternate playoff seeding plan

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by NewsGrabber, Dec 18, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NewsGrabber

    NewsGrabber Guest

    <em>Posted by ESPN.com's Paul Kuharsky</em> <p>JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Bill Polian like the idea of the playoff field being seeded according to records, but said on his weekly radio show this week that while the competition committee favors it, owners don't and he doesn't expect it to happen.</p> <p>This may be rehash, but I don't remember reading about this in any detail</p> <p>He's how he recounted the discussions and vote:</p> <blockquote> <p>"The Competition Committee, of which I am a member, voted 7-1 last year to change the seeding process and to do exactly what you are advocating. That was to seed by record, so you would go 1-6 by record, then go ahead and play it out from there. The committee was open to some suggestions as to maybe getting a division-winner a home game, but nevertheless putting the seeds where they were based on records. There were some compromise issues talked about, but clearly it was the committee's preference to do it by record, because we felt that was the best way to determine who did the best job during the regular season. My understanding is that's the way basketball does it, that it's done by record. We had seven votes in the committee for that and I'm not sure we got more than seven votes on the floor. (Laughing)</p> <p>"It was roundly defeated, and I don't think we'll bring it up again anytime soon. It's an owner's position and they're not interested in the football niceties. They believe if they won the division they should get the home [playoff] game and all that goes with that, including some buzz in the offseason, some of them claim. So, that's an idea whose time has come and gone no matter what the purists may think. That's the system. The football people, I think it's fair to say, when the system was first proposed wanted to do it on a seeding basis. They were defeated then. The thought was, 'Let's see how it works.' We were frankly afraid that you'd get a situation where you might have a losing-record division-winner hosting in bad weather an 11-5 or 12-4 team. That has not happened.</p> <p>"There has been no division-winner that has been below .500. Interestingly enough, the seeding has sort of worked out de facto, anyway. The team with the better record has a preponderance of winning in the postseason. We'll see how it works out. The bottom line is the committee proposed it and no one adopted our proposal."</p> </blockquote> <p>Polian <a href="http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=article7&news_id=b6669160-6650-42db-a6fe-40fd8be2f277" shape="rect" target="_blank">also talks</a> about being optimistic that Dominic Rhodes will want to return and offers an update on Mike Hart.</p>

    More...
    #1
  2. nate42104

    nate42104 Camp Fodder

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,059
    I absolutely love the current format, I almost think playing on the road for a team like the Colts of this year will give them a bit of a chip on their shoulder.

    Plus it keeps division rivals in tact, which are the most intensely played games - thus creating a better atmosphere for both the players and fans. Take a system like the NBA, it uses season record formats and has zero emphasis on any divisional accomplishments. It has no true rivalries in the sport.

    Being a wildcard team certainly hasn't kept teams out of the Superbowl in recent years. I can recall 2 recent #6's winning the whole thing off the top of my head; Steelers & Giants
    #2
    • High Five High Five x 2
  3. Gunny

    Gunny Lord and Master Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Messages:
    46,610
    I dunno. I see his point.

    Why should a team who has a better record be punished because they didn't win a division.
    #3
  4. GoT

    GoT Strength and Honor Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    26,310
    because the point of the season is to win your division and get a home PO game. There is only 2 games differnet - schedule wise - within any division so it is as true a measure as is likely to be had. After realignment the divisions are at least somewhat geographical so there is also that logic.
    #4
    • High Five High Five x 1
  5. Fry

    Fry Hatin' is what I do.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    25,912
    winning your division should be your first goal throughout the season.
    #5
  6. LetsRock

    LetsRock Camp Fodder

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    19
    Not all divisions are equal in talent.
    #6
  7. Fry

    Fry Hatin' is what I do.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    25,912
    and the teams who play in lesser divisions will be knocked out of the playoffs if they don't play well. that's why playoffs are so great.
    #7
  8. Alex1939

    Alex1939 Old Man Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,042
    I'm in favor of keeping the current system, simply because of the emphasis on division games. It's unique that the Titans only play three different team twice each season. The winner of the group deserves a playoff spot and a home game.



    Now, whoever wants playoff seeding done by records alone, then why even have divisions? I'd be ok with doing it that way, if they just scrap divisions, scrap playing certain teams twice, and the only "divisions" in the NFL would be the NFC & AFC.




    (On a side note, I hope the NFL keeps with its divisional structure, simply because I hope in my lifetime two new divisions will be added: A European Division and a "North American" division including LA, two canadian franchises, and Mexico City)
    #8
    • High Five High Five x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.