Re: Weight Of Division Record
 

[quote=Mattyk72]It's fine as it is now... imagine having a division winner with less overall wins than the 2nd place team?? That would be a real head scratcher. With only 6 division games, it would place way too much emphasis on those games.[/quote]

It would be a head scratcher no doubt, but I also believe that's based on the precedent that we KNOW that the divisional winner is also the one with the best record regardless. Hell, I'd be all for a tournament at the end of the season with the first seed playing the fourth. It would give us some more football at the end of the year.

Re: Weight Of Division Record
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection]Anyway, how are you not division champion if you've beaten EVERYONE in your division, but just had bad luck elsewhere? It's kind of pointless to me to award someone you've maybe swept, division champ.[/quote]

Because the NFL says best record W-L with-in your divison not best record among the divison teams.For my 2 cents ,I think it should count for more .

Re: Weight Of Division Record
 

It definitely should. But the problem is, it would have to be black or white. If you start having qualifiers it would get REALLY complicated, in turn making the playoff picture complicated.

Re: Weight Of Division Record
 

The way it's set up, the NFL desires the division winner to be the best team in that division from a leaguewide perspective. If they were to make it by division record, they would probably have to take away the automatic top 4 seed playoff berth to the division winner, which IMO renders divisions pretty insignificant. Congrats, Arizona! You are 6-10 and win this year's Mike Holmgren trophy. You can now watch the playoffs from the comfort of your own homes!

It's fine right now, IMO.