NFL Playoff Seeding: A Companion Piece
Let's throw some wild shit against the wall and see what sticks.
This is a companion piece for my last article about NFL Playoff seeding. This article might not make sense on its own, so you’ll probably want to read that one first. But you’re an adult, so do whatever the hell you want.
This first suggestion is an add-on to the fluctuating-number-of-playoff-spots idea. Its primary purpose is to help owners recoup revenue from “lost” playoff games, but, from a fan’s perspective, it’d just be amazing–I would watch every single one of these.
The rule: Using a fourteen-team field (I wish it was still twelve, but we are where we are) as a baseline, whenever a conference sent fewer than seven teams to the postseason, any wildcard games not played as a result would count as “lost'' games. And those lost games would automatically trigger a new kind of postseason game–one that determines draft positioning at the top of the board. One lost game would trigger a #1 vs #2 draft pick game, two lost games would trigger a #1 vs #2 and a #3 vs. #4 draft pick game, etc…
To use this past year as an example, since both Penn teams missed the cut, the playoff field in each conference would’ve been six. As a result, the number of WC games gets cut down from six to four, and the owners essentially “lose” two playoff games. But the loss of those two games would, in turn, trigger games to determine the order of the first four draft picks. So the Jags would’ve played the Lions, with the winner getting the top pick, and the Texans would’ve played the Jets to determine which franchise would pick third and which would pick fourth. And since it’s a one-off, they could have continued with their quest for a weeklong NFL slate by scheduling the contests on any night of the week they wanted.
Now, had this actually happened, I think it would’ve been one of the most entertaining events of the year. Honestly, I watched maybe five minutes of Bucs/Eagles (I’ll always make time to watch the Steelers get embarrassed, but that's beside the point), but, had Jax and Det played for the top pick, I’d have set multiple alarms for that game. Watching those teams battle it out for something so coveted would easily be classified as must-see TV.
Of course, any change this substantial also comes with a thousand redflags to consider. And like I pointed out in my previous piece, there’s always going to be edge cases with new rules, but this one in particular could get really hairy really fast. Like suppose a one-win team was playing a nine-win team the last week of the season. In order to avoid triggering a game for the #1 pick, would the one-win team tank to ensure their opponent got into the playoffs? Maybe, but is that really all that different from what we have now? Because one-win teams throwing away their last game of the season can and does already happen in the current system. So there isn’t an added incentive to tank–it's pretty much the same incentive structure just with a much cooler decision tree attached to it.
But the real knottiness would come into play when first-round draft picks have already been traded away. Because if a playoff team owns the one-win team’s pick, does the one-win team play? And would they even care about winning? If an eight-win team owned the one-win team’s pick, could they trade places with them? But there’s always workarounds. For instance, if this year's Lions pick had already been sold to, say, Buffalo, the Lions could be awarded a third round comp pick for a win. Or, if it had been traded to Chicago, the Bears could then tag the Lions out and play for the pick themselves.
But, I’ll admit, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. To delve into some other possible conundrums: Would veteran players want to risk an injury for a team they might be leaving in the offseason? That could be worked into the incentive portions of contracts. It could also be a chance to let some other players step into bigger roles if vets choose to sit. And how would the game be classified for stats purposes? Is it like game 163 in baseball–an extension of the regular season? Or is it a postseason game? I mean, who cares? Nothing in the world is less important than football stats. I say make it like game 163 so that it can count towards regular season incentives. If your contract pays you extra for ten sacks and you get your tenth in the draft pick game, collect your money. You earned it.
Now, the fact that I could list and then counter possible objections all day long probably tells you everything you need to know about the feasibility of this idea. And that’s why I deliberately left this suggestion out of the previous piece–it’s just a hair too far fetched to take seriously. While I think my accordion-esque playoff field idea easily could (and should) be implemented, there’s just too many moving parts with this one. But, I can’t lie, I fucking this idea–draft pick games would automatically be some of my favorite sporting events of the year.
This next rule can stand on its own with the current playoff structure or be used in tandem with the other rules I’ve suggested.
At risk of exposing my unyielding, ultra-petty grudge against Brady’s Pats, divisional strength should play a more important role in playoff seeding. But all jokes aside, why were the Patriots, who were guaranteed 5 or 6 wins against their pisspoor division every season, gifted with a yearly bye to go along with their slack schedule? Same goes for this season’s thirteen-win Packers. They played six games against the anemic NFCN and were rewarded with the top seed in the end. While the twelve-win Rams, who had to play four divisional games against other playoff teams (and I’d still take the Seahawks over the bottom three in the NFCN), got knocked all the way down to the four seed. Like the divisional winner automatic berth, this also has never sat right with me.
The rule: Each additional playoff team from a division gives all members of that division an extra win. This won't go on their permanent record. It only happens once they make the playoffs and it’s only used for seeding purposes–it doesn’t affect their draft position or anything like that. It’s more like a ghost win, and it couldn’t be used by, say, the 2021 Ravens to get an extra win and get into the tourney. Again, it only happens once you’ve made it in.
So, basically, since the NFCW sent three teams, each of those teams would receive two ghost wins. So, for seeding purposes, the Rams are a 14-5 team, the Cards are a 13-6 team and the Niners are a 12-7 team. The Cowboys (13-5) and Eagles (10-8) would each pick up a ghost win, too. That makes the Rams the top seed, while Dal becomes the four seed (Thirteen wins only ties Dal with the Packers and Bucs, and their five losses keeps them behind those two squads).
Records are a great jumping off point for determining the best teams, but, without factoring in the quality of wins, we’re still heaping the best rewards on the wrong teams. Changes like this (or using SoS) would go a long way in remedying that.
And finally, the wackiest suggestion yet. This one has to be added to the rule set currently used by the NFL (No divisional or WC thresholds, no fluctuating number of playoff entrants, no ghost wins).
The rule: Using the current seven-team per conference system, keep the divisional rules as they are, but only seed the first two WC slots using team records. Now there’s still a seventh seed, but it’s not automatically awarded to the team with the seventh best record–it’s awarded by some sort of election process, instead. This would be great for extenuating circumstances, like when a team starts poorly but gets red hot at the end of the year. The 2018 Browns and the 2021 Dolphins come to mind. So instead of that putrid ‘21 Steelers team stumbling into the seventh seed, the electoral process could’ve let a much more scrappy, much more fun-to-watch Dolphins team take their shot against the Chiefs.
Now voting processes can get a little whackadoo, but the seventh seed isn't some sacred institution we have to protect at all costs. It’s not like Johnny U or Jerry Rice ever seventh-seeded their way to a championship. The fucking thing is only two years old. And, in three out of four instances in those two years, it’s allowed a dogshit team into the playoffs–so I don’t really care if this turns unlucky #7 on its head. In fact, I hope it does.
And that’s where the vote comes in. It could be fans or media members, sure, but my preferred structure would be to put one representative (maybe a former player/coach/executive) per team on the voting committee. For the Ravens, I imagine it would be Ray or Ed or Ozzie–someone on that level. Now that person would get together with the other representatives following the last game of the season, and they would all cast their votes for the seventh seed in each conference. Some political wonk could figure out if it'd be best to do plurality, majority, run-off, ranked choice, etc… That’s secondary in my view. The main thing is that something that’s proven itself to bne terrible and stupid is somewhat improved while adding a touch of drama and intrigue, as well. And like the college bball selection show or the draft pick game, who wouldn’t watch this?
If you liked this article, you may enjoy my book, Wells View. It’s only $0.99 on Amazon.