MAY 21: The Lions withdrew their proposal to change the NFL’s playoff seeding, per NFL Network’s Judy Battista. It will likely resurface in the future, potentially as part of an effort to expand the regular season to 18 games, according to Mark Maske of The Washington Post.
MAY 20: This measure is unlikely to pass, but ESPN’s Jeremy Fowler said during a SportsCenter appearance it should not be expected to venture off the radar. A change should be expected — one that would introduce the possibility of a division winner beginning its playoff slate on the road for the first time since 1989 — down the line, as Fowler offers the increasingly inevitable move to 18 games could be what pushes this change past the goal line.
Indeed, Breer adds the proposal was not close to passing in March. Owners did, however, discuss language that would have included a winning record being required for any non-division winner to host a game. That component did not make its way into the Lions’ final proposal, however.
MAY 16: Olympic participation will be one of the key items on the agenda for the upcoming owners meeting in Minneapolis. Another one will pertain to a potential tweak in the way playoff teams are seeded moving forward.
In January, it was learned the NFL would look into changing the playoff format. In particular, seeding the postseason-bound teams from each conference based solely on record has received consideration. Such an arrangement would still see division winners assured of a playoff spot but not necessarily home field during the wild-card round.
Owners will have the opportunity to vote on a proposal from the Lions which would seed the playoff teams from 1-7 next week, Albert Breer of Sports Illustrated writes. Questions were raised earlier this offseason about removing the guaranteed home game from division winners and thus the likelihood of such an alteration receiving sufficient support for it to be passed. Breer adds a change has since been made to the proposal which would see teams reseeded after the opening round of the postseason.
Division winners would also receive the tiebreaker over wild-card teams under this proposal (regardless of the outcome of head-to-head matchups), per Breer. While that would lend even further credence to the significance of topping a division, passing the resolution – or at least some form of it – would constitute a notable departure from the status quo in how the playoff bracket is arranged. A strong possibility therefore exists less than the required 24 yes votes from owners will exist in the coming days.
On that note, CBS Sports’ Jonathan Jones reports it is considered unlikely the current proposal will pass if it is brought to a vote. He adds, however, that opinions on the matter could begin to shift once an 18-game regular season schedule (long seen as an inevitability) is put in place. As both Breer and Jones note, the changes being floated would create more opportunities for teams to move up and down the playoff order through to the end of the campaign even after clinching their division. That, in turn, would presumably lead to more starters remaining on the field for otherwise meaningless (or at least less meaningful) matchups in the closing weeks of the year.
Of course, the fact a proposal is set for discussion and potentially a vote illustrates the support it has among some in the league. Jones writes that commissioner Roger Goodell is among the advocates for altering the playoff seeding. Whether or not that helps sway the view of enough owners next week will be worth monitoring.
Lions have a couple of good years and want to propose playoff change haha
Oh boy
The revised playoff structure will be a 32 team playoff.
At this point they might as well. Just play 30 game schedules and whoever has the most players left healthy wins.
I think with one exception the SB has always been a neutral site game for teams so the simplest solution would be to have every playoff game played at a neutral site. Any team unable to win on the road when it matters really isn’t deserving of a championship anyways.
No way this will ever happen. Cities and owners would not want to see the gate revenue along with merchandise and concessions split for a neutral site. Cities with teams would lose out on major tax dollars from hotels, dining etc.
Super Bowl is enough for a neutral site
If Roger Goodell is successful with his master plan to export the NFL to foreign markets then a greater number of neutral site games is probably inevitable. We’re already seeing NFL cities forfeiting home games and the trend seems likely to continue.
With the logistics, time zone, lack of “home” stadiums, accommodations, extended time away from families, travel time, the forfeiture of revenue from the loss of a home game, etc.: wouldn’t it be easier and more practical to just revive and implement the old NFL Europe??
I agree..they would never give up those extra game revenues. Super Bowl is a event now…takes lots of planning and yhe city has to be able to handle it.
Also those home playoff games are reward to the fans.
I suppose there are people still naive enough to think owners care about the fans. How many team relocations will have to occur before people understand this is simply not true?
I agree…wasn’t saying owners are loyal to fans….slap in face to thefans to lose out on home playoff games
The owners know those stadium seats will get filled for a playoff game no matter what city is playing host. They don’t care if the fan drove 1 mile to the stadium or 500 miles. The TV revenue alone from those games will ensure the owner does very well financially and that’s what matters to him/her.
The Bucs and Rams sure had home-field advantage for the SB.
Stupid idea. NFL divisions matter bigly.
The NBA basically eliminated divisions because their schedule was so balanced. The NFL’s home-and-away divisional play necessitates the league value divisions. If this proposal passes, the NFL should also eliminate home-and-away divisional play.
We might want to believe that NFL divisions matter bigly but some of the storied rivalries of the past have become a farce. Lets start win the oldest rivalry. Packers have won 11 of the past 12 meetings against the Bears. The Chiefs/Raiders rivalry dates back to the AFL days and was great at one time but Chiefs have won 13 of the past 15 meetings. Lastly there is the classic Cowboys/Redskins rivalry that produced champions in the past but now has lost most of it’s status. Dallas has won 9 of the last 13 meetings there.
Due to the NFL never allowing a completion of the Bills at Bengals game from 2022(Hamlin) the Bengals got screwed and had to go to Buffalo for the playoff game. Some speculated a neutral-site game solution but the Bengals whipped them anyway.
“Better send those refunds!”
The most recent incarnation is just bizarre.
Especially Rule 4(d) – “assist the runner by individually blocking opponents for him”.
So Double Team blocking is now prohibited! What happens if the QB Drops back to pass. The OL double teams the 2024 NFL Sack Leader Trey Hendrickson. If the QB Throws the Ball all is good. If the QB runs to escape pressure it is now a penalty?
I doubt that is the INTENT….But that is what it SAYS.
Heck….it may get LESS Votes than it did before because they just made it more convoluted.
Not sure what it matters? Soon everyone will be playing in 72 degree-at-all-times domes. Then the sterilization of the game will be complete.
There are more pressing, universally desirable, or possibly useful changes to consider first, no?
For instance, the expansion of rosters to accommodate for the ever increasing number of games? Consideration of a second bye to help accommodate that strain of another game? Reconsideration of the automatic first down reward for nearly every defensive penalty in the modern NFL? Awarding a sack to a defender who forces a QB out of bounds, instead of considering it a negative rush?
Not all of those are universally accepted, but they probably are more than this change is. They’re definitely each more useful for the game in some way. This seems like another change that nobody really asked for (albeit, more requested than, say, letting any player wear any number from a while back).
I don’t think I’m alone in thinking the most pressing, universally desirable and useful change would be an improvement in the game officiating.
The lack of full-time officials feels like an intentional insult to every possible known observer.
Not to mention the abuse of the whole “that’s not why you lost!” attitude in sports that lets the NFL continue to get away with terrible calls…but that’s another topic.