Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
IMO that has nothing to do with why there will be discussion of changing things up. This re-seeding thing isnt about this one blip of a 7-9 team, its about better teams having to travel and not hosting a game.
To me its all about what each team earned during the season, and it would be impossible to argue that the Saints didnt earn more than the Seahawks. Home field isnt just about the players and coaches, its also about the fans. NO fans deserve to see that game in their house as they were, by far, the better team all year.
Again all just my opinion, but after listening to much debate about it, it is the right thing to do IMO. Home field can be an advantage, and in the case of Seattle a huge one, but that ad should be earned and not given because they happened into the weakest division in the history of the league...at least as far as this year is concerned anyhow.
remember...if this was in effect for this year, it wouldnt just affect the Seahawks...it would literally change every single venue this weekend. The Colts would be in NY, the Chiefs would be in Baltimore and the Eagles would be in Lambeau as well.
|
If they move to reseeding I don't think everyone would be happy. For instance, teams in particularly strong divisions are being punished for having tougher schedules. In the NBA the reseeding works because the division games don't make up as high of a percentage of the schedule. In the NFL and say its like the years where the Dolphins, Jets and Patriots are all legit, then you are of course going to have a worse record than a team who is way above their division peers. I don't think it really needs to be changed honestly. Do I think the Jets should have home field, because they put together a better season than the Colts? Yes. But, I don't think there is a fair way to do it.