NFL owners are set to meet in Minneapolis next week for the league’s spring meeting, where they will cast their votes on potential rule changes that could result in sweeping changes to football’s storied rivalries.
Earlier this offseason, the Detroit Lions proposed a rule change that would reshuffle postseason seeding based strictly on winning percentage rather than divisional rankings. The proposal, if passed, would still reward the No. 1 seed to a division winner with the best record in the conference, but the remaining six seeds would be determined solely by winning percentage rather than by divisions. This would allow teams who did not win their division to surpass division winners with an inferior record.
Although it may be an inevitable change in the future, this proposal is unlikely to be passed by owners this offseason, ESPN’s Jeremy Fowler reported during an appearance on SportsCenter.
“The league has some support on this,” Fowler said. “It’s considered a long shot to pass because owners would need to vote at least 24-to-8, so you’d need a majority of 24-of-32 votes to get this passed. I don’t know if enough teams can wrap their head around that yet, they still cling to the fact that division winners are really important and they believe that that’s sacred.”
NFL is unlikely to pass rule that would drastically alter playoffs
Many teams, players and fans have bemoaned the current playoff seeding in the past. Some teams have battled through difficult divisions to secure a playoff spot, only to find themselves on the road in the playoffs against an opponent that won their division by default.
Perhaps the most infamous case of this occurred after the 2010 season, when the Seattle Seahawks were rewarded home-field advantage over the New Orleans Saints, the defending Super Bowl champions. Seattle won the NFC West with an 8-9 record, which gave them a higher seed than the Saints, who finished second in the NFC South with an 11-6 record. New Orleans suffered a 41-36 loss at Qwest Field, one of the most hostile environments for visiting teams.
Despite possessing the best record in the league, Detroit was forced to battle for the division in Week 18 while other playoff teams with inferior records comfortably rested their starters after winning their division. If the proposed rule had been in place, it may have forced the Philadelphia Eagles and Los Angeles Rams to play their starters in the regular-season finale as well, since they could have been under threat of losing their seeding for a home playoff game.
“I think the league will try to change this,” Fowler added. “This is more of a long-term play because right now you have a 17-game schedule. They’re probably eventually going to go to 18 games. The league wants to eliminate those meaningless games in those final weeks where teams may be locked into a No. 2 seed and rest their starters. They want more late season impact. That’s what the Lions want, that’s why they proposed this. We’ll see if it gets enough traction. Probably won’t pass this time, but eventually I could see it passing if it doesn’t next week.”
While the proposal would result in more competitive games late in the season, it would diminish the significance of divisional rivalries. If the league wanted to ensure each game remained competitive, the addition of a third wild-card spot for each conference seems counterproductive.
The NFL’s last collective bargaining agreement drastically reorganized the league’s regular season and postseason scheduling, resulting in massive implications for contending teams. The schedule was extended to 17 regular-season games, while the playoff field was expanded to a 14-team format with the addition of a third wild card spot for each conference. The seventh seed has not fared well in the playoffs, often resulting in a dull and uncompetitive wild-card contest.