NFL: How I Would Fix the Playoff Format

The college football bowl system is often criticized for its setup. It is not a true playoff and polls determine the teams who play for a championship. Some of the smaller bowls will even feature two 6-6 teams against each other. While it is questionable whether or not .500 teams should play in the postseason, it is a certainty that teams who are below .500 should not be allowed in the postseason.

Of course, there would never be a format that would allow a team below .500 to get in the postseason, right?

Wrong. The NFL may have a team finish 7-9 in the NFC West and not only make the playoffs but also have a home game. How is this possible?

The NFL's current format has four four-team divisions in each conference. The division winners automatically go to the playoffs and then two wild cards are chosen from each conference. The division winners get the home games regardless of their record.

Two years ago the San Diego Chargers went 8-8 and hosted a playoff game. The New England Patriots finished 11-5 and didn't even make the playoffs. Is that fair, does it even make sense?

I know NFL fans want to watch the best teams in the postseason. I am sorry but 8-8 and 7-9 are not up to that level.

I am not here to completely bash the playoff format. It does make sense in many ways. What I am proposing is a couple of suggestions that could fix some of the problems with what is usually a good system.

Proposal No. 1:

Playoff seedings go by record

This is really simple. While it is good to take four division winners and two wild cards from each conference, the seeding system should be changed. What they should do is get the six teams in and then seed them according to best record. If the second best record is a wild card team, so be it. Give that team the No. 2 seed.

Also, this would pretty much make it necessary to give the home games in the wild card round to the teams with the better records. So if a wild card is 10-6 and a division winner is 9-7, the wild card gets the home field. Now, if both teams have the same record, then the division winner can be a tie breaker.

Proposal No. 2:

Playoff Eligibility.

This would likely only come into play once every few years. It would work much like the bowl eligibility requirements they use in college. Each bowl game has contracts with the different conferences. However, if there are not enough bowl eligible teams from a conference tie-in, the bowl will invite from elsewhere.

The way this would work is that in order to be eligible to make the playoffs, a team must win at least nine games. Nine wins does not mean you are in the playoffs, it means you are eligible to make the playoffs.

That would create a bit of an out clause for the current set up that lets .500 or lower teams in. So, if a division does not have a playoff eligible team, that division does not get represented in the postseason. Since the division winner is not playoff eligible, the conference would take a third wild card that is playoff eligible.

This set up would not have kept the Patriots out two years ago. It would also protect us from the idea of a 7-9 team in the postseason this year. Both the Green Bay Packers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are better than any team in the NFC West. Yet both will likely get snubbed this year. I have to wonder if it is best for the game to not have the best teams in the playoffs.

An additional clause I would put into the playoff eligibility format would be that while nine wins is enough to be eligible, a 9-7 division winner would get bumped if there is a third wild card that has a better record. Obviously, a 9-7 division winner would hold the edge over a 9-7 third place team.

I think the NFL should really consider making changes such as these. Under this format, teams from weak divisions would no longer be able to depend on winning that weak division with eight or fewer wins and get a home playoff game. They would now have to match up to the best teams from the tougher divisions.