NFL Playoffs: Seeding Critics Are Onto Something, But ...

The politician types now arguing about the NFL's playoff seeding format are much like their real-world counterparts on Capitol Hill and our assorted state legislatures: They see the minor problem, but not the major problem.

Instead of focusing on the fact that the New Orleans Saints are playing a wild-card game at Seattle this weekend despite having finished four games ahead of the Seahawks, their overriding concern should be over the fact that the New York Giants finished three games ahead of the Seahawks, and aren't even in the playoffs at all.

(True, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are in the same situation as the Giants, but they finished in the bottom half of their division, so citing their plight is not likely to attract anywhere near as much sympathy).

And there is another serious flaw in the current playoff system that absolutely nobody is talking about: The difference between being a #2 seed and a #3 seed is actually greater than the difference between being a #1 seed and a #2 seed, in that both the 1 and 2 seeds get both a first-round bye and home field in the divisional playoffs, while the 3 seed gets neither.  Where's the logic in that?

Fortunately, one change can resolve both of these dilemmas: Add one more wild-card playoff qualifier to each conference.

From 1990 through 1994, 12 of the 28 teams the NFL then had advanced to the playoffs, or 42.9 per cent - and did the sky fall? 

If two more playoff teams were to be added starting next year, the resulting 14 out of 32 comes to 43.8 per cent - a truly infinitesimal increase.

But wouldn't this be tantamount to rewarding "mediocrity"?  Not significantly more than it's being rewarded under the present system: This year's 7-9 Seahawks are the fifth .500 or worse team to reach the playoffs since the 2002 realignment (the other four were all 8-8 - the Rams and Vikings in 2004, the Giants in 2006, and the Chargers in 2008). 

Had seven teams in each conference instead of six made the playoffs throughout this nine-year period, a total of three more 8-8 teams would have made it, from a sample of 18 additional playoff teams.

In two of the three years when this would have occurred, other 8-8 teams also qualified anyway; in fact, in all nine years, at least one of the would-be "seventh seeds" had at least the same record as the worst of the 12 teams that actually did make the playoffs, with both of them doing so in six of the years.

There is also another aspect of the seeding format that is being completely overlooked, even by its most vociferous critics - and that is that it can often dissipate the advantage for earning the top seed. 

Take this year's NFC bracket for example.  Let's say the Seahawks do manage to defeat the Saints (who have never won a playoff game on the road) while the Packers upend the Eagles in the conference's other wild-card game. 

In that case, the top-seeded Falcons would be forced to play the 10-6 Packers rather than the 7-9 Seahawks in the divisional playoffs.  That's some way to reward Atlanta for having the best record in the conference.

Think of this as the NCAA basketball tournament, where a team winning its conference gets an automatic bid, but is not necessarily seeded higher than every single at-large team.

So it should go in the NFL: Give a team that wins its division an automatic playoff berth, but do not seed them higher than a wild-card team that had a better record. 

Any tie, however, should go to the division winner, a safe and sane compromise - and that same principle should be applied to determining the wild cards as well.

If two teams tie for a wild-card spot and one team finished second in their division and the other finished third in theirs, the second-place team should get in.

This needs to be done all the more if another wild card is added in each conference, otherwise a team that finished last in their division could conceivably make the playoffs.

Indeed, had there been three wild cards in the NFC in 2007, NFC East cellar-dweller Philadelphia would have gotten the last playoff spot, as the Eagles finished 8-8 and a had a better conference record than NFC North and West runners-up Minnesota and Arizona, respectively, who also went 8-8.

Either the place a team finishes in their division matters, or it doesn't. If you won't give a second-place team a higher seed over a first-place team that had a poorer record, how can you possibly justify giving a third-place team (or even a last-place team if the playoff field is expanded) a playoff spot over a second-place team that had the same record?  

Not only that, but if you're going to give a team a tougher schedule the following season for finishing second rather than third in their division, surely that team is entitled to higher priority for a playoff spot in the current season.

And with seven playoff teams in each conference, only the 1 seed gets a first-round bye, the 2 seed does not get a bye but is guaranteed home field in the second round providing they win their first-round game, and the 3 seed does not get home field in the second round unless the 2 seed gets upset in their first-round game - a fair and logical progression.

This need not be rocket science.  But it can (and should be) equitable and consistent.