Backing into the Saddle

By now you are aware of the epic battle for the NFC South crown with the champion of the division having the privilege of hosting a playoff game.  My beloved 8-5 Steelers head to Atlanta to face the 5-8 Falcons, both thirsting for victories for the exact reason.  Understand this article is not about the Steelers as I fully expect them to struggle in a dome against Matty Ice.  The Steelers, too, haven't won two road games in two weeks since 1953.  (I actually think is the 2010 season when they won in Tennessee and Tampa Bay, but I may be wrong.)

At this point, I'm not certain any of the NFC South teams want to win the division.  Really.  Let's say the Saints or Falcons win the division ... at 6-10!  Do you realize they would most likely have a top-10 draft pick AND a home playoff game?  Going into Week 15, there are already 19 teams in the NFL with seven wins. Quick math ... 32 - 19 = 13 worse teams with the higher draft order.  And most people would say the Rams and Vikings (and maybe the Bears) could end-up tallying seven or more wins with a stronger roster.

The thought of having a high draft pick and hosting a superior NFC foe is embarrassing.  When the 7-9 Seahawks hosted the 11-5 Saints in January 2011, most of the country not displaced in the Northwest thought the Saints would win.  First, never bet on a road favorite playing outdoors that makes their home in a dome.  Second, because it was already an black eye for the NFL to have this imbalance of rewards, how silly does the league look when the home field advantage IS the deciding factor ... along with the best run in the last 10 years.  Third, even with the Seahawks victory, there was no realistic hope for a Super Bowl run with Atlanta, Chicago and Super Bowl champion Green Bay moving forward in the playoffs that season.  Every player in the Seahawks locker room believed they could win, but do you think the league was happy when one of it's marquee, successful teams - not to mention the defending Super Bowl Champions - were bounced from the first game of the first day of the tournament, basically because of archaic rules?

I don't want to hear the playoff system works and this season, the NFC South champion's losing record is an anomaly.  It also happened five years ago, and when that occurred, those 2010 Seahawks were also called an anomaly.  The 10-6 Giants and the 10-6 Buccaneers did not go to the playoffs in 2010, and that will seem like less of a robbery if  three superior NFC teams are three games better than the mighty Falcons or devastating Saints here in 2014.  Don't forget, the Panthers have a super flyweight puncher's chance to the win the division at the heels of their impressive tie against the Bengals.  While we marvel at the playoff runs by the Steelers, Giants and Packers in recent years ... seizing victory on the road in three playoff contests before winning the Lombardi Trophy on neutral ground, those teams had earned their postseason birth and caught fire at the right time.  Can you imagine if the Saints make the Super Bowl, entering the postseason four games below .500, and, even with three playoff wins, only muster nine wins in five months?

So what do we do about this?  First, if I could run the League, all teams in the NFL postseason tournament would have 9 wins or more.  (That's right; they can't be 8-7-1.  Nine wins.)  Second, teams are seeded in order of record, regardless of division champion.  Third, head-to-head match-ups are ultimate tiebreakers.  This year, if the Saints, Falcons and Panthers don't have nine wins (and they won't,) they are disqualified from the playoffs and there would then be three Wild Card teams instead of two.  Since they are not going to the playoffs under this format, they could be guaranteed a top-10 draft pick for their efforts.

Now for this week's winners:

Did you know there are 10 divisional rematches on the Sunday menu?  Arizona already beat St. Louis on Thursday night and I would argue that  sweeping any division opponent is rare, even if there is a chasm in the division standings.  The Rams were on a roll defensively, and they continued that roll against the Cards.  Problem was Shaun Hill reminded us why he's Shaun Hill and, in the end, the Cardinals left town with a sweep of their division opponent.  

Here's the shakedown of showdowns, with the lines and the team that won the first match-up of the season underlined:

* Tampa Bay at Carolina (-3)

* Cincinnati at Cleveland (-1)

* Houston at Indianapolis (-6.5)

* Oakland at Kansas City (-10)

* Miami at New England (-7.5)

* Washington at NY Giants (-6.5)

* Denver at San Diego (+4.5)

* Minnesota at Detroit (-7.5)

* San Francisco at Seattle (-10)

* Dallas at Philadelphia (-3.5)

Now ask yourself, as I look at the menu above, how many of those teams do I see sweeping the season series?

Here's who I'm taking, with a small footnote:

* Tampa Bay +3 ... Derek Anderson is starting.  Two wins in a row for Carolina is one too many.

* Cincinnati +1 ... I can't see the series sweep for the Brownies.

* Houston +6.5 ... This is the Texans' Super Bowl ... they may lose, but they'll cover by forcing turnovers.

* Kansas City -10 ... REVENGE!!!

* New England -7.5 ... I hear Miami plays awesome in the cold weather.

* Washington +6.5 ... I'd like to think the road team will have a better record than last year's 3-13 squad.

* San Diego +4.5 ... Eight in the box forces Manning to throw two costly interceptions.

* Minnesota +7.5 ... Vikings defense is tougher than advertised; if they can contain Johnson and Tate, they have a shot.

* San Francisco +10 ... I mean, how many consecutive weeks can the Niners not cover?

* Dallas +3.5 ... I feel like Sanchez fooled us on Thanksgiving.  His other games against the Packers and Seahawks are what we are used to enjoying.

In summary, if the team lost the first meeting, I'm taking their side to cover the number.  Analysis of the logic to come next week.  Good luck to you all.