SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisFour of the NFL’s Six Worst Teams (by SRS) Are in NFC West
This one doesn't need a whole lot of explanation... According to the home-field-adjusted Simple Rating System, the NFC West contains four of the six worst teams in the entire league:
| Rank | Team | Games | Offense | Defense | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NWE | 14 | 12.59 | 0.54 | 13.13 |
| 2 | GNB | 14 | 2.34 | 7.29 | 9.63 |
| 3 | PIT | 14 | 0.82 | 7.54 | 8.36 |
| 4 | SDG | 14 | 3.49 | 3.28 | 6.77 |
| 5 | PHI | 14 | 7.88 | -1.51 | 6.37 |
| 6 | ATL | 14 | 4.23 | 1.98 | 6.21 |
| 7 | RAV | 14 | 1.51 | 4.35 | 5.86 |
| 8 | NYJ | 14 | 0.00 | 5.07 | 5.08 |
| 9 | NYG | 14 | 1.83 | 1.97 | 3.80 |
| 10 | CLT | 14 | 3.55 | -0.27 | 3.28 |
| 11 | OTI | 14 | -0.30 | 3.36 | 3.06 |
| 12 | NOR | 14 | 2.22 | 0.17 | 2.39 |
| 13 | CHI | 13 | -3.25 | 5.29 | 2.04 |
| 14 | MIA | 14 | -2.79 | 4.17 | 1.38 |
| 15 | DET | 14 | 1.48 | -0.65 | 0.83 |
| 16 | KAN | 14 | -1.33 | 1.36 | 0.03 |
| 17 | CLE | 14 | -3.43 | 3.34 | -0.09 |
| 18 | RAI | 14 | 2.11 | -2.70 | -0.59 |
| 19 | MIN | 13 | -3.27 | 2.01 | -1.26 |
| 20 | HTX | 14 | 2.30 | -3.80 | -1.50 |
| 21 | DAL | 14 | 3.85 | -5.52 | -1.67 |
| 22 | JAX | 14 | 0.04 | -2.37 | -2.33 |
| 23 | BUF | 14 | 0.13 | -2.93 | -2.81 |
| 24 | TAM | 14 | -2.31 | -0.54 | -2.86 |
| 25 | CIN | 14 | 0.07 | -3.39 | -3.32 |
| 26 | WAS | 14 | -3.00 | -0.94 | -3.94 |
| 27 | RAM | 14 | -5.88 | -0.64 | -6.52 |
| 28 | SFO | 14 | -5.80 | -0.96 | -6.76 |
| 29 | SEA | 14 | -3.40 | -5.92 | -9.32 |
| 30 | DEN | 14 | -1.44 | -8.20 | -9.65 |
| 31 | CRD | 14 | -5.43 | -6.43 | -11.86 |
| 32 | CAR | 14 | -9.28 | -4.40 | -13.68 |
| Lg PPG: | 22.14 | ||||
| HFA: | 1.81 |
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 19th, 2010 at 11:06 pm and is filed under Simple Rating System. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The first time I've ever seen a 6-8 team control their destiny in terms of the playoffs. And if they slip up, the 5-9 49ers are actually in contention. Just bizarre!
I hope that they don't change the rules just because one time a bad team had a home playoff game.
Unless, of course, they get rid of all divisions and conferences and have one pool of 32 teams, all of whom play against 16 (or 18) different teams once! I would love random scheduling! Rivalries, schmivalries. Why play some teams twice a year and others every 4th year?
Then again, the league, who changed the whole coin flipping procedure in response to a singular questionable coin flip, is bound to make a change that is ludicrous.
An aside: All you Brady and Manning fans, you better hope that your favorite quarterbacks don't have an overdue library book they forgot to return. I'd hate to see them miss the playoffs due to suspension. Mr. Goodell is looking for a few good adult men to punish.
It could be worse. Theoretically, if a division featured four teams that only won home games against division opponents, then a 3-13 team would win the division. (Alternatively, if a division featured four teams that only lost on the road against division opponents, their fourth place team would finish 13-3 and miss the playoffs.)
On the coin flip: That decision took all the science out of the coin toss.
I don't have a problem with a division-winner making the playoffs at 7-9 or worse. I do take issue with that team hosting a playoff game, possibly over a team with 11 or 12 wins. The NFL already does enough to incentivize winning the division with two first-round byes. After that, I think the 3-6 teams should be seeded by record. The goal is to win as many games as possible. It shouldn't be "win just enough to get you by."
Also, good teams would probably have to play to the very end. You could have two teams that are 10-5(one a division champ, the other a wildcard-lock) with a playoff home game still up for grabs.
Home field is important. While it doesn't seem to matter in the NFL as much as it used to, don't you think the 2008 playoffs might have played out very differently if the 12-4 Colts hosted the 8-8 Chargers and the 11-5 Falcons hosted the 9-7 Cardinals?
I think owners who opposed re-seeding feared something like this:
Tm A plays in the hardest division in the NFC. This year, they also play the hardest division in the AFC and the easiest division along with two first place teams from last year the NFC. They go 3-3 in their division, 0-4 vs. the AFC and 6-0 outside their division in the NFC. They finish 1st in their division with a 9-7 record.
Tm B plays in the easiest division in the NFC. They play the easiest division in the AFC as well. Plus Tm A's division and two last place NFC teams from 2009. They sweep their division and the AFC (10 wins) and lose all 6 other NFC games. They finish 10-6, 2nd in their division, and get a wild card.
Who should be seeded higher, Tm A, division winner, or Tm B, wild card?
While this is an extreme case, some comments I read yesterday indicated this general idea is why some owners oppose re-seeding. Personally, I'd re-seed any division winner that failed to win at least 9 games, but if they reached that threshold, the get a top 4 seed.
I don't like the idea of re-seeding.
How about this... I believe it is possible to be 14-2 and not make the playoffs. It is certainly also possible to be 15-1 and be a wild card team, assuming the top 2 teams in a division split their series and beat everybody else. Also, as Da Hook pointed out, a 3-13 team could win its division....
Imagine if a 3-13 division winner hosted a 15-1 wild card team, while another team who is 14-2 failed to qualify for the playoffs! That'd be hilarious! Further, imagine the 3-13 team going on a tear and winning the Super Bowl! Beyond that, imagine if that win was against a 3-13 division winner from the other conference!
I'd love to watch a Super Bowl between two 3-13 teams!
I like the seeding how it is as it gives more of an incentive to win the division, but for cases like this year where every team in the NFC West is pretty bad, perhaps it should be that if a wild card team is 2 games ahead of a divisional winner, then they can be seeded ahead of them. Because I don't think a 11-5 wild card team should be rewarded ahead of a 10-6 divisional winner, but I'm fine with an 11-5 wild card team getting seeded ahead of a 8-8 or maybe 9-7 divisional winner.
One exception I'd have is for the rarest of cases that a wild card team would be at least 2 games ahead of all the other division winners, then they should only qualify for a #3 seed at best, because I'd still think only division winners should qualify for a bye.
Personally I am fine with the current format or if they reseed.
I think it all settles on money. I don't know the breakdown, but you make more $$ in a home game than a road game because of everything else involved. Owners would not discuss dropping preseason games partially because of the extra revenue by having 10 home games until it was suggested to flip to an 18 game regular season and keep 10 total home games per team.
If you were the owner of a team in a weak division, which would you rather be awarded for winning your division; 1) a playoff berth and a possible home playoff game -or- 2) a playoff berth and a guarenteed home playoff game that would generate more revenue than a typical regular season with merchandise, concessions, tickets, etc.
There's nothing wrong with the playoff system; there's something wrong with the NFC West.
If an eastern team relocates to Los Angeles, it may be time for some realignment to shake things up a bit.
My preference: four conferences of eight, instead of eight divisions of four. In each conference, 1st place gets a bye, while the 3rd-place team plays the 2nd-place team in the first round. Or, better yet, lose the 3rd-place teams, just 2nd at 1st for a spot in the final four...if not all that, then at least make a rule that any team with fewer than nine wins can't make the playoffs.
Just for the sake of understanding, Geoff, could you define the difference between a conference and a division in the format you proposed?
Since realignment, the worst an entire division has been outside of its division has been 10-30 by the 2008 NFC West. It featured the 9-7 Cardinals, 7-9 49ers, 4-12 Seahawks, and 2-14 Rams. The Cardinals were 6-0 in the division and 3-7 out of it, but of course went on to win the NFC and play the Steelers in the Super Bowl.
(Both of St. Louis' wins were out of the division, San Francisco had 4, and Seattle 1)
This current NFC West is currently 12-26, I have no notion that any of them will make it out of the first round, but its fun to dream.
On the flip side the best division since realignment was the 2007 AFC South with the 13-3 Colts, 11-5 Jaguars, 10-6 Titans, and 8-8 Texans, which were 30-10. They were 1-3 in the playoffs.
@Bill: no difference, just names. Calling them divisions would be fine too.
I think Seattle and St Louis both losing this week, then playing to a tie next week, with the winner on tiebreakers becoming the first 6-9-1 team to make a run all the way to the Super Bowl, would be wonderful. I for one would be rooting for them all the way and be joyous to see that team lift the Lombardi trophy.
I do have a problem with a 7-9 team making the playoffs. I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be rewarded with a postseason berth (and a home game) just because you came out on top of a horrible division. If anything, it's even MORE pathetic that none of these teams could eke out .500 considering how awful the others all were.
Granted, it's still possible that the Rams or Seahawks could win out. But eight wins should be a minimum for making the playoffs.
The four teams combined, in non divisional games, are 12-28, with a 4-19 record against winning teams. I believe the best six teams should make the playoffs, and that doesn't always happen, but I cannot be convinced that ANY of the NFC West teams (who are also responsible for both of Carolina's wins) are worthy of the postseason.
Sorry to keep harping on this, but....
It's not the fault of the teams in the NFC Western Division that they are in that division or that the other teams are bad. The rules say if you have the best record in the division, you are in the playoffs and have a home game. Should the rule be changed just because at some point in time people don't like what happens when the rule is applied?
Can somebody give me one good, solid reason why conferences and divisions are needed in the first place? Why can't there be just 1 big pool of 32 teams, each of which play 1 game each against 16 (or 18) different opponents each year, either randomly or by some scheduling formula?? Please make it a valid reason. Extra credit given if the words "tradition" or "rivalry" are not used.
Once you have 1 pool of 32 teams, then just figure how many teams you want in the playoffs, and take the top n teams, and there you go.
I guess the passage of time sort of makes my point.
There are half a dozen marketing reasons why divisions and conferences are needed. From a football standpoint conferences and divisions are preferable because of traveling purposes. In a randomly generated schedule a West Coast team could theoretically go week to week flying across the coast for months at a time. Also, you have to factor in the weather issues, but then again Miami is in the AFC East. Geographic issues is the main reason why they are positioned the way they are.
I'm not sure if it wouldn't be better or worse from a pure competitive standpoint. It would fundamentally change the way teams play late in the season because of lack of divisional clinches. Whether to start or sit players, etc. etc. It's an interesting thought though. It would give incentive for teams like the Chargers to actually play all 16 (18) games of the regular season.
Malik,
Thanks for responding to my post. I thought it was going to die of loneliness.
I'm not a custom and tradition guy. I am a great lover of ideas that make sense.
Here's an even better idea.... Have a 31 week season and play a round robin schedule! Not enough weeks? Get rid of the preseason and postseason, and extend the rosters and make it happen! If that's too much of a concentrated beating, add in 4 or 5 byes. No law that the football season has to be shorter than every other sports season.
Stupid me.... it's way better if the Bucs and Panthers play twice a year no matter what, and if the Chargers visit the Packers only 5 times in 4 decades. I am so mentally inferior to the custom and tradition crowd.
Incidentally... Who says a season has to take place in one X-week chunk? Baseball has a relatively short all-star break -- Why couldn't football take a month or two off mid-season?
Worst teams from the West! Giants won the world series and now the Seahawks will win the Superbowl. Hell yeah
Marshawn vs. Willis
Guess I'll settle for Marshawn vs. LT
Even though the Seahawks beat the Saints, I still think a division title should only grant you an automatic berth, but teams should be seeded based on record. Its not the Saints fault that their division didn't have 3 other awful teams, just 1. The equivalent of the Seahawks hosting the Saints to me would be like in the NCAA Tournament if bubble teams were forced to take 15 and 16 seed and the 34 auto qualifiers were given seeds 1-9, even the really small schools.