Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?

Leave it as is.. If you aren't going to give the divisional winners homefield then just go to a conference system and give the top 2 teams a bye and leave it at that. Otherwise what's the point of divisions/division winners?

Two questions:

1. Do playoff-clinching teams detract from the quality – even the integrity – of the competition by easing up and/or resting their starters?

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is corrective action in order (that is, a disincentive for slacking, or an incentive to play to win)?

I'd answer yes to the first but no to the second. Here's why....

When the Giants decided to play all out against the Patriots at the end of the season (and I'll admit that the Giants were probably given stern warnings from the league that they'd better "show up to play" in primetime on the NFL Network) it propelled them into a hot streak that carried them through to their Super Bowl win.

Common sense should dictate that with only 16 regular season games, you have to play each one like single elimination. Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom is clinch, then rest up and stay (or get) healthy.

Obviously, I don't agree with the "mail it in" mentality. Arguably, it cost Tampa, Dallas and Indianapolis this year. So ... let the chips fall where they may.

I do like it. There's no reason that a wildcard team that went 11-5 should be seeded lower than a division winner who went 9-7.

Bumps and bruises? What the hell are you talking about, Daseal? Are you trying not to make sense on purpose?

Who cares what the competition is within the division. The bottom line is the team that won more games should get the better seed.


Exactly what I was thinking it makes no sense that a team who wins 11 games has to travel to a place where a team only won 8 or 9.

It's stupid. To the victor go the spoils. Let's watch riggo run one more time: [

HAIL Riggo!


It's already in your sig..

I dont know why this is taking so long. It would be one thing if they were changing the number of teams alowed or the system being enforced to make it to the playoffs, but this is just simple; a team with a better record should play at home. A team in the NFC east that goes 10-6 would be 12-4 in the NFC south anyway.

this is cool. every team will have equal risk going into the playoffs putting in starters till the end. Its almost unfair how last year we had to have our battered and bruised crew out there giving it all we had untill the last second of the regular season while the guys who already had clinched a spot could put their starters out of harms way on the bench. Just think of that 11-5 team going into the playoffs without one of the players that got them there. If they lose the system could be considered flawed, but if they win, it will be that much better. This new system will raise risk and make teams work more as a team and not worry so much about that "star" player who could go down in the last few games.

True dat^, especially if it takes out TO, Romo, and the rest of Dallas this year!

This has been tabled according to Adam Shefter. Expect the same system for at least this year.

i don't like it. there has to be some reward for being a division winner. in the nfl, its all about beating the teams you are supposed to beat. im with Matty, its not broken, so leave it be

Amen,leave it alone.

This has been tabled according to Adam Shefter. Expect the same system for at least this year.

Found a link.Proposal to reseed playoff teams withdrawn by owners (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80789b13&template=with-video&confirm=true)