Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Mike Florio posted an article he wrote today about reseeding the NFL playoffs that we may want to consider for future Frenzy playoff seeding as well.

The gist of the article is that Overall Records should determine seeding, with winning your Division guaranteeing a playoff spot. Alternatively he suggests some formula of required wins for a division winner to be a higher seed than Wild Card a team with a better record.

I'd personally be in favor of seeding based on overall record with winning the division only guaranting your spot in the playoffs.

Here's a link to the story: Revised Playoff Seeding is Long Overdue. What does the Frenzy think?

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

We've been doing this in SACd for several years now. I agree it is better way

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Interesting, has it ever been proposed in Frenzy to your recollection?

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

I will vote against it every day it is brought up and twice on Sunday...NO!!!

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

That's 100% your right to do! Can I ask why you feel so strongly against it? Do you feel the NFL should not change as well? Just curious!

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

The whole article and premise is ridiculous on its face. There could be 3 wildcard teams in our league with better records than a division winner...now with that in mind...what would you do with a 4th team with a better record than a division winner??? If you wouldn't remove that division winner from the playoffs all together then you can't restack the playoffs just because you think it is more fair - because it is not - divisions matter...Baseball is the same way - wildcard teams may have better records than division winners and they don't take the place of division winners because DIVISIONS MATTER...if more teams have better records than division winners they don't move in to playoffs inplace of division winners because - you guessed it - DIVISIONS MATTER....

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

As far as the NFL changing or MLB...no...the occurrence of an overwhelming better wildcard record traveling to a 8-8 or worse division winner is so minuscule that it has happened less than a handful of times in 100 years...so yeah, NO I don't think this is a problem...

Now you want to wonk up the Frenzy? Just go play SAC'd when they have an opening, that's why the world has so many opportunities for folks to play in leagues they like the rules of...we all signed up for this one as is with minor adjustments to make rules more clear...

You will add a 3rd RB before changing the playoff format imo....unless you are willing to change the records of the history of the league and start adding asterisks up and down it...

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

LOL fair enough. You have a good strong opinion, much like mine against 3RBs. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever!

:respect:

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

who makes the playoffs is not changed at all...its just dealing with the seedings...Seedings are simply based on record....the three division winners do not automatically get Seeds 1-3, but all 3 will still make the playoffs.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

According to this vote, we should already be seeding based on record., no?

http://www.predsff.com/forums/poll.p...lts&pollid=174

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Holy cow you're right. Has there ever been a vote to reverse that? It's not what we have currently have written in the rule book.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Sorry Chuck.. Did not fully read your post.
The lone team out has always been an potential, right? How does this really make a difference with that?

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Winning a division would guarantee you a top 5 seed in the playoffs. The 6th would still be All-Play. The 2 Wild Cards would be the top 2 records in the league that DIDN'T win a division.

Seeding is the only thing that would change.

Say the 3 division winners were East 9-5, Central 10-4 and West 8-6, and the 2 Wild Card teams were both 9-5 (both of whom beat the East Division winner).

In this case the seeds would be:
1 Central Div at 10-4
2 WC1 at 9-5 (H2H win over WC2 and East Div)
3 WC2 at 9-5 (H2H win over east div, but loss to WC1)
4 East Div at 9-5 (H2H losses to WC1 and WC2)
5 West Div at 8-5
6 Best remaining AP record

The same teams make the playoffs, and division winners are still guaranteed a spot, they just aren't guaranteed a top 3 seed.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Not sure what to do with this, I searched and never saw it reversed, so this SHOULD be a rule in the Frenzy, but no clue when or if it was ever actually followed. Jim do you have any recollection of how the playoff seeding was done during the 4 years or so I was out of the league after 2010?

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Dang... to be honest, I totally don't remember how playoff seeding was done. Can we look at the MFL historical sites?

(Sorry, I'm off to choir practice now. I'll try to check more into it tomorrow. However, many of the teams who voted in that poll are no longer in the Frenzy.)

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

I know for certain that seeding format hasn't been in place since I came back. Whether is twas in the interim years between 2011 and 2014 or so I have no idea. Those are the years to look at. Who knows, maybe when I came back and seeded teams I went by the format I remembered and it's been wrong since my return, or maybe the league forgot and never applied it.

Either way I think the format we've been using the past 4-5 years should be used this year and in the interim we can figure out what format should be in place for 2020.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Okay... I'm late to choir. But here's what I found:

2007 & 2008 -- we only had 4 teams in the playoffs.
2009 -- expanded to 6 teams. the #6 team were the Insects. They had both the highest w/l record and the best all-play percentage.
2010 -- the Chunks were #6 team... they had both the best w/l record & all play %
2011 -- the Burners were the #6 team... they had the best record, but NOT the best all play record (my Opihi would have gone in had that been the case).
2012 -- the Preds were the #6 team... and had both the best w/l record and all play %
2013 -- the Opihi were the #6 team... and the w/l record was split, but had the best all play %
2014 -- the Burners were the #6 team... and did NOT have the best w/l record, but did have the best all play %

SO...

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Except we're not looking at the 6 seed, but the seeding from 1-5 based on overall record. The 6th seed is unchanged.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Home teams in playoffs get a 7 point advantage...in all playoff games minus Frenzy bowl...soooo...Divisions still matter...

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Is this the poll from 2007??? I can't open Burts chain is why I ask...

Anyway, that was a 4 team post-season and 1 wild card...plus it appears that only 4 owners out of 12 are still here...

The league thought the change/poll results were so worth while that you all chose to ignore them all together, as you should have...

Tell you what...get rid of the 7 point home field advantage in the playoffs (since it's stupid anyway) (we don't do it in the regular season) and Cards will listen to your playoff scenarios...that way being a top seed, like a division champ actually becomes meaningless...Cards are not for a wild card team having a free 7 point advantage over a division champ...

Hell, while we're at it...let's get rid of divisions, play everyone in league once...then to fill out remainder of season have games scheduled by some random formula like NFL flexes schedule....then just decide if you want 4, 6, or 8 teams to make playoffs...no more strength of schedule or all play playoff squad getting in, just straight records...back to old school playoffs...

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Maybe it's just me, but I hate WC teams getting byes and home games vs division winners...regardless of records...

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

In your "example" both WC teams are from Central div...so why is not division record used as tie breaker...they must have played twice, but you only show 1 H2H meeting...so maybe WC1 won both games, does that trump division record??? What if WC2 had a better division record but still lost twice to WC1???

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

yah, if we have not been using this rule, and its from 2007, then I agree a new poll would need to be done.

I guess I would use current NFL standings as example..Seahawks and Niners both currently have 10-2 records. Say they both finish 13-3 and Dallas finished 8-8 to win their division. Niners are superior team, but Dallas gets #3 seed only because they lucked out winning a mostly losing record division? Personally I don't think that is fair. I do like the friendly rivalry of division foes, so not really into not having divisions, and can see some merit in rewarding division winners...just not enough for me.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

I thought I saw the vote was back in 2010 when I was reading through old rules threads last night, but yes, it appears to go even further back to 2007. I have no idea why it wasn't ever implemented the following season, but agree it would absolutely need to be re-voted in at this point.

As for your example, I agree, and it's happened many times over the years.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

My WC examples didn't specify any division. one could be from the east, the other the west. It was just an example of how seeding could work in a new format.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

So this is a moot point, as we've neglected to enforce this rule.
If someone wants to officially post a poll for future years, great.
Otherwise... move along... nothing to see here. lol

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

Yes that vote is not relevant at this time.

I put up this thread for discussion based on Florio's article that I read and linked yesterday. Burt found that we actually voted in a similar change back in 2007, which changed the focus of the discussion a bit as we tried to see what actually happened and if it was ever enforced. It looks like was never enforced and therefore all of us tend to agree isn't applicable.

I think more of the current teams need to provide feedback on the any such proposal at this point before I'd put it up for a vote. I think only 3-4 teams have provided thoughts on the idea itself thus far.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

I am in support of seeding based on record regardless of division as long as division winners are guaranteed playoff spot AND 7 point home field playoff advantage is removed.

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

I have been trying to get the 7 point advantage removed for years ;-)

Re: Revised Playoff Seeding Discussion
 

I could probably be talked into giving up HFA in lieu of the seeding based on records (with Division winners guaranteed only a spot in the top 5)