Playoff Seeding in the NFL: A Broken System in Dire Need of Fixing

The final game of the 2010 NFL season on Sunday night will determine whether the Rams (8-8) or the Seahawks (7-9) get to host a playoff game. 

Undoubtedly, the team that wins the NFC West will be a heavy underdog to whichever wild-card team they play against. And with good reason. If the Saints beat the Bucs at home, the defending Super Bowl champs will end the season with a record of 12-4. 

Assuming that the Falcons beat the hapless Panthers, the only thing keeping the Saints from being the top seed in the NFC is an improbable missed 29-yard field goal by Saints kicker, Garrett Hartley. If Hartley had made the game-winning, chip-shot field goal against the Falcons, the Saints would likely be the top seed in the NFC.

Clearly, the Saints are a much better team than either the Rams or the Seahawks. 

The only thing keeping them from hosting a playoff game is the fact that they are in the same division as the Falcons. 

If the Bears lose to the Packers, the Saints could end up with the second-best record in the NFC, but will not get a bye week. They will not play at home in the playoffs unless they make it to the championship game against the No. 6 seed, which is very unlikely.

Although most people have no interest in seeing a team with a losing record make the playoffs, the fact of the matter is that the division winners need to make it (regardless of their record). 

Otherwise, the divisions would be meaningless. However, there is no reason to reward a mediocre season with a home playoff game.

Parity in the NFL has made it much more difficult for the best teams to remain on top from year to year. 

Those that manage to stay on top should be rewarded, not punished, for being in the same division as another top team. 

Instead of seeding the playoff teams based on divisions (which were created mostly by geography) the NFL should seed teams based on their performance. If they did this, everyone would win.

The NFL would win. 

Coaches would be less likely to rest star players in the final week of the season if winning their game helped to improve their playoff seeding. 

Case in point: The Bears would have much more at stake against the Packers this week if winning their game meant the difference between getting a bye and playing in a wild-card game. 

Unless the Panthers somehow manage to upset the Falcons, the Bears are locked into the No. 2 seed.  The Eagles already know that they have nothing to gain this week against the Cowboys since they are locked into the No. 3 seed.

The fans would win.

No one wants to pay top dollar to attend a game and watch the starters standing on the sidelines in street clothes. 

Even the fans watching on television would benefit, as the final games of the season would be much more meaningful. 

Needless to say, the millions of people who play fantasy football would be happy to see their key players in the game when championships are on the line.

The networks would win.

Viewership for meaningful games is always higher than it is for exhibition games, which is what many games become when the star players don’t play.

The bottom line is that the conference championship games should have the potential for the two best teams to meet to determine who goes to the Super Bowl. 

Under the current seeding system, the two best teams may be forced to meet before the championship game. Not only is it unfair to the best teams, but it also deprives football fans of the chance to see the most competitive, entertaining game possible.

Every year, the NFL tweaks some of its rules. 

Traditionalists may balk at first, but eventually, everyone gets used to the “new normal.” 

Other than tradition, there is no reason to keep the current seeding system in place. 

It is time for the NFL to do the right thing and fix the broken system that may very well force the defending Super Bowl champions to travel across the country to play a wild-card game in the home stadium of the 7-9, division-winning Seattle Seahawks.