<![CDATA[Playoff qualifications]]>How do you feel about a team that has a losing record of 8-8 or worse, and still get in the playoffs, only because they have the better record in their division. Such as the NFC South. How do you feel about the chances of a team making it in the playoffs with a record of 8-8 or worse, and a team with a record of 10-6 or 9-7 not making it in because their division record? What should be the cut off record of making it in to the playoffs, 10-6, 9-7, or 8-8?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/31047/playoff-qualificationsRSS for NodeThu, 01 Oct 2026 10:43:54 GMTTue, 25 Nov 2014 16:34:42 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sun, 30 Nov 2014 16:56:03 GMT]]>

@ibleedbrown said:

Yes, but no. You start off in your little bubble of a division, and you and the fan base concern yourselves with that.

Even though you suck, your entire fan base is intrigued and so is the surrounding teams' fan base because, any given Sunday, right?

And who knows. The playoffs are one and done, but if some team stumbles in there with a losing regular season record and actually wins it all? Good God, that's a story for the ages.

It would inspire the fan base of every shitty team for years to come.

And inspired fans buy jerseys and shit.

Ok, two divisions for each conference. The division winners get the bye, and you'll get the best 12 teams in the playoffs 99.9% of the time. Once again, you broaden the variety of matchups, and the bigger the variety, the better the chance that the best teams rise to the top.]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454960https://brownsboard.com/post/454960Sun, 30 Nov 2014 16:56:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:43:32 GMT]]>

@clevfan4life said:

keep the division winners but if there's a wildcard team with a better record they should get the home field. That was easy.

Bingo, IMO this would be the best solution.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454861https://brownsboard.com/post/454861Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:43:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:39:27 GMT]]>

@clevfan4life said:

keep the division winners but if there's a wildcard team with a better record they should get the home field. That was easy.

Why is it damn near everything you say is what l would have thought of before l think of it?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454860https://brownsboard.com/post/454860Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:39:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:31:56 GMT]]>keep the division winners but if there's a wildcard team with a better record they should get the home field. That was easy.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454859https://brownsboard.com/post/454859Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:31:56 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:01:50 GMT]]>

@mr.-make-believe said:

I think the OP has it right. Division winner UNLESS you sport a losing record. Loser teams shouldn't be eligible for the post-season.

No sirree bob.

Losers need love too.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454857https://brownsboard.com/post/454857Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:01:50 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 22:40:46 GMT]]>I think the OP has it right. Division winner UNLESS you sport a losing record. Loser teams shouldn't be eligible for the post-season.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454846https://brownsboard.com/post/454846Sat, 29 Nov 2014 22:40:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:50:57 GMT]]>Shut up, you bitches.

Division winners get in. That's it.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454812https://brownsboard.com/post/454812Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:50:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 16:14:25 GMT]]>

@hoorta said:

Exactly. Freddie Colman on ESPN radio has been beating this drum for a couple of weeks...

Just googled and see that it's Coleman...

Any relation to Ken Coleman... local TV broadcaster and host of the weekly "Quarterback Club" show from the 60's... and his son, Casey?

Also I just had a Gib Shanley flashback... I went to school with Gib's son.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454771https://brownsboard.com/post/454771Sat, 29 Nov 2014 16:14:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 07:36:17 GMT]]>What was Seattles record the year they lost to Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454725https://brownsboard.com/post/454725Sat, 29 Nov 2014 07:36:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 07:28:01 GMT]]>

XxDaBuckeyexX said:

I think we should get rid of divisions and have the best 6 from each conference in the playoffs. Each team should be assigned 3 or 4 other teams they play each year (rival games). Youd broaden the variety of matchups and get the better teams in the playoffs.

Yes, but no. You start off in your little bubble of a division, and you and the fan base concern yourselves with that.

Even though you suck, your entire fan base is intrigued and so is the surrounding teams' fan base because, any given Sunday, right?

And who knows. The playoffs are one and done, but if some team stumbles in there with a losing regular season record and actually wins it all? Good God, that's a story for the ages.

It would inspire the fan base of every shitty team for years to come.

And inspired fans buy jerseys and shit.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454722https://brownsboard.com/post/454722Sat, 29 Nov 2014 07:28:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:38:19 GMT]]>From 1933 until 1978 no team in the NFL that did not have a record of at least 2 games above .500 ever made a postseason appearance. But since then there have been a few, and here they are, the teams with the worst records ever to make the playoffs:

1978 Vikings 8-7-1

1982 Browns 4-5...strike year where they included 16 teams in the playoff

1982 Lions 4-5.....same as above

1985 Browns 8-8....first .500 team to make playoffs in non-strike year

1987 Vikings 8-7-1

1990 Saints 8-8

1991 Jets 8-8

1999 Lions 8-8

1999 Cowboys 8-8

2004 Vikings 8-8

2004 Rams 8-8

2008 Chargers 8-8

2010 Seahawks 7-9...first sub .500 team to make playoffs in non-strike year

2011 Rams 8-8

2013 Packers 8-7-1

This year it seems like we may be guaranteed to have another sub .500 team in with the situation in the NFCS.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454590https://brownsboard.com/post/454590Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:38:19 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:10:28 GMT]]>Further information:

From 1970 to 1977 the NFL played a 14 game schedule. There were 3 divisions in each conference and one wildcard got in the playoffs. A total of 8 playoff teams. The following teams had the best record during those years but failed to make the playoffs despite going 10-4 for a .714 record:

1975 Dolphins

1975 Oilers

1976 Bengals

1976 Cardinals

1977 Dolphins

In 1978 the league expanded to a 16 game season. With that they also expanded the playoffs to take 5 teams from each conference for a total of 10 playoff teams. So from 1978 to 1990 when the playoffs were expanded again to take in 12 teams, one team had an 11-5 record and failed to earn a playoff spot:

1985 Denver Broncos 11-5 .688 win pct.

In addition, from 1978 to 1990 ten (10) teams had a 10-6 record and failed to make the playoffs (almost one per year)

In 1990 the league went from 10 playoff teams to 12. Since that time only one team had an 11-5 record that failed to make the playoffs:

2008 New England Patriots 11-5 .688

In addition 9 teams have gone 10-6 and failed to make the playoffs including the 2007 Browns. The last one was the 2013 Arizona Cardinals.

Note that there were 10 10-6 teams that failed to make it in the 12 years from 1978-1990, but only 9 teams with that record have failed to make it in the 23 years since 1990.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454570https://brownsboard.com/post/454570Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:10:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:11:21 GMT]]>Here is the history from 1933 the year of the first playoff game until 1969, the year before the merger. The following teams with records of .750 or better did NOT make the playoffs those years:

1934 Lions 10-3 .769

1936 Bears 9-3 .750

1939 Redskins 8-2-1 .800

1942 Packers 8-2-1 .800

1943 Packers 7-2-1 .778

1944 Eagles 7-1-2 .875

1948 Bears 10-2 .750

1949 Bears 9-3 .750

1951 Giants 9-2-1 .818

1953 49ers 9-3 .750

1956 Lions 9-3 .750

1962 Lions 11-3 .786

1963 Packers 11-2-1 .846

1964 Cardinals 9-3-2 .750

1967 Colts 11-1-2 .917.....maybe the best team to never make playoffs

1968 Rams 10-3-1 .769

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454542https://brownsboard.com/post/454542Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:11:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:41:54 GMT]]>I think we should get rid of divisions and have the best 6 from each conference in the playoffs. Each team should be assigned 3 or 4 other teams they play each year (rival games). Youd broaden the variety of matchups and get the better teams in the playoffs.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454485https://brownsboard.com/post/454485Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:41:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:54:55 GMT]]>

@winstonlegthigh said:

Division winners should get in no matter their record, yes its unfair, but oh well that's the way it works and the way it should work.

@tour2ma said:

Agree...

As for hosting a First Round game???

No, treat any team at or under .500 as a WC team and seed the teams from the get-go instead of beginning in Rnd 2. Don't reward a .500 or under team with home field...

Exactly. Freddie Colman on ESPN radio has been beating this drum for a couple of weeks, & I totally agree. I'll be charitable and say the Saints or Falcons finish at 7-9, though I think 6-10 is more likely. They get to host a team like the Seahawks or Lions because they won their crappy division this year? I think the NFC South is currently so bad, they're going to be forced to change the rules. LOL Atlanta still hasn't beat a team outside of their division, and I'm betting the Saints are going to go oh-fer against the AFC North. Tampa at 2-9 isn't even mathematically eliminated yet- how sad is that? You win your division at or under .500, I'll still give you the 4th seed, but you play the wild card team with the best record on the road. .

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454443https://brownsboard.com/post/454443Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:54:55 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 02:48:30 GMT]]>

@winstonlegthigh said:

Division winners should get in no matter their record, yes its unfair, but oh well that's the way it works and the way it should work.

Agree...

As for hosting a First Round game???

No, treat any team at or under .500 as a WC team and seed the teams from the get-go instead of beginning in Rnd 2. Don't reward a .500 or under team with home field...

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454430https://brownsboard.com/post/454430Fri, 28 Nov 2014 02:48:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 04:19:51 GMT]]>

@bbedward said:

11-5 i believe since there have been 16 games. I know it happened to the broncos in the 80s and could have happened to the cards last year if they won their last one (they would have had a chance at 11-5 but not a clinch I think)

I think 7-9 is the worse to make it, but don't quote me on it (3-13 is worst possible to win a division if you split with your division mates)

True. And on the flip side wouldn't it suck donkey balls to go 13-3 and miss the playoffs?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454138https://brownsboard.com/post/454138Thu, 27 Nov 2014 04:19:51 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 03:28:37 GMT]]>

@kvoethe said:

Dumb idea, you would lose all the divison rivalries. It makes the game more intersting. Any given sunday and all that. Be realistic. So what if a suck team makes it in the playoffs.

Keep current system

Division rivalries rock

Top six would suck balls

Maybe between division winners 3,4 and wild cards 1,2 home field should be based on record, then the usual tie breakers after that. But I agree division winners should be in regardless. It never works to our advantage because of how tough our division is, but maybe some day it will.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454127https://brownsboard.com/post/454127Thu, 27 Nov 2014 03:28:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:46:00 GMT]]>Dumb idea, you would lose all the divison rivalries. It makes the game more intersting. Any given sunday and all that. Be realistic. So what if a suck team makes it in the playoffs.

Keep current system

Division rivalries rock

Top six would suck balls

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454086https://brownsboard.com/post/454086Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:46:00 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Wed, 26 Nov 2014 22:38:21 GMT]]>

@brownsfaninpa said:

How do you feel about a team that has a losing record of 8-8 or worse, and still get in the playoffs, only because they have the better record in their division. Such as the NFC South. How do you feel about the chances of a team making it in the playoffs with a record of 8-8 or worse, and a team with a record of 10-6 or 9-7 not making it in because their division record? What should be the cut off record of making it in to the playoffs, 10-6, 9-7, or 8-8?

It really doesn't matter how I feel. Win your division, you are in, the record doesn't matter.

It is what it is.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454033https://brownsboard.com/post/454033Wed, 26 Nov 2014 22:38:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:25:07 GMT]]>

@winstonlegthigh said:

Division winners should get in no matter their record, yes its unfair, but oh well that's the way it works and the way it should work.

I disagree it should work like that. I think the top teams in ALL the NFL should enter the playoffs.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/454016https://brownsboard.com/post/454016Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:25:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:12:01 GMT]]>I remember that. That's the season bigfoot Derek Anderson crapped his pants at Cincy with 4 interceptions. I almost smashed my TV...

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/453992https://brownsboard.com/post/453992Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:12:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:09:29 GMT]]>

@opal312 said:

After the Browns were eliminated in 2007 at 10-6, I thought they changed the rules that year. The Titans went to the playoffs at 9-7 because the Colts didn't play Manning the last game. What happened to the rule change? Or maybe I'm mistaken.

The Titans were 10-6 as well, won the tiebreaker vs. us that year. I still hate Tony Dungy for that, resting his starters. I was happy they got bounced at home in their divisional playoff that season.

They never changed the rules. I think Gipper mentioned this (in another thread) is the product of eight divisions with 4 teams- it's possible for a losing team to emerge as a division champion once in awhile.

The AFC North "cellar dweller" may be 10-6 this season, crazy.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/453991https://brownsboard.com/post/453991Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:09:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Playoff qualifications on Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:32:16 GMT]]>After the Browns were eliminated in 2007 at 10-6, I thought they changed the rules that year. The Titans went to the playoffs at 9-7 because the Colts didn't play Manning the last game. What happened to the rule change? Or maybe I'm mistaken.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/453985https://brownsboard.com/post/453985Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:32:16 GMT