Jeff Gross/Getty Images
KANYE VOICE: Ay yo Tebow, I'm really happy for you and imma let you finish, but you should've had to go to Pittsburgh, not have the Steelers come to you!
Why do we reward teams simply because they're the best teams in an arbitrary geographic group? I mean, this season, while you had the top four teams in the NFC coming from practically the four corners of the country, that hasn't been the case in the AFC in a while, where the best teams have usually come from the Northeast.
Why should a 12-4 Pittsburgh Steelers team have to travel to Denver to play an 8-8 team? Doesn't something seem a bit...I don't know...odd about that?
Pittsburgh was in the far superior division, and the third-place team in its division went 10-6 and got into the playoffs, so why is it the one traveling while the 8-8 team, which by the way enjoys one of the best home-field advantages in football thanks to altitude, gets to host a playoff game?
This always ticks me off. Now division winners should be rewarded; however, making it into the playoffs is more than enough.
Once the playoff field is set, reseed.
You don't have to implement the changes I pointed out in the last two slides to do it, but it should be looked at by the NFL's competition committee.
Had the seeding been done based on record, the AFC would've looked like this in 2011:
1. New England Patriots (13-3)
2. Baltimore Ravens (12-4)
3. Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4)
4. Houston Texans (10-6)
5. Cincinnati Bengals (10-6)
6. Denver Broncos (8-8)
All you really did there was switch the Broncos-Steelers game from being held in Denver to Pittsburgh. As if that wasn't enough of an advantage (and this will be pointed out by Steelers fans), Ryan Clark would also be able to play. Doesn't that change that game already?
It would also affect the NFC side as well, as it would look like this:
1. Green Bay Packers (15-1)
2. San Francisco 49ers (13-3)
3. New Orleans Saints (13-3)
4. Atlanta Falcons (10-6)
5. Detroit Lions (10-6)
6. New York Giants (9-7)
Already as you can see it would be a clearly different NFC playoff picture. As good as the Giants have been, I'm confident they would've been able to beat the Saints, even in the Superdome.
Why would I push for this? Because you shouldn't be awarded a home playoff game based on geography alone, yet the NFL continues to insist on this. But if you ask me, it's more impressive to finish with the second- or third-best record in the entire conference despite a team with the same record (or better) being in your division than it is to win an otherwise weak division (comparatively speaking, of course).
It would also even out instances like last season, when the Saints had to travel to Seattle to face the Seahawks despite winning FIVE more games than Seattle. (My argument for you Seahawks fans is that Seattle did deserve to make it into the playoffs based on winning the NFC West but shouldn't have hosted a playoff game).
After the first round it would be simple: Highest seed (team with best record) hosts the playoff game. This way if an 11-5 wild-card team plays a 9-7 division winner in the conference championship game, the 11-5 team would have home-field advantage.
Again, teams that win more games should be rewarded for doing so.