According to the season-end beatpath graph, the playoff seedings should be the following:
AFC: NE, IND, SD, PIT, JAC, TEN
NFC: DAL, GB, TB, SEA, NYG, DET
The AFC seedings match the NFL seedings, and the NFC swaps TB and SEA, while awarding DET instead of WAS for #6. But several teams get “screwed”. In the AFC, JAC and TEN are both ranked ahead of PIT. DEN is too.
In the NFC, NYG is second-highest ranked team in the NFC. DET is also ranked ahead of SEA (and TB). Other teams ranked ahead of SEA: PHI, CHI, CAR, NO, WAS.
Most curious is of course Detroit and Washington. Washington never managed to rise above its beatloss to Buffalo, which is keeping it down. And despite Detroit’s late season collapse, they had some strong victories – TB, CHI, DEN – that are responsible for its placement in the graph.
A note about Seattle – I’ve read elsewhere that Seattle seems to keep having easy schedules. That’s reflected in the beatpaths, too – they didn’t even play anyone that is currently ranked in the top ten. So it’s hard to say if they are actually a lousy team, or just haven’t been given the opportunity to gather some quality victories.
Is there an easy explanation for Detroit being above Washington despite Washington’s 34-3 win over Detroit?
There’s a DET->TB->WAS->DET beatloop, and there aren’t beatloops to remove DET->DEN and BUF->WAS.
Re: Seattle–it’s mostly a function of playing in the NFC West, which save for Seattle has been truly awful for a few years now. Any halfway decent team should be able to mark down 6 automatic wins in that division.
There has been some luck involved, too–they played the NFC North last year when most of it was down, and the NFC South this year when it was similar.
Furthermore, the turnover at the top of those divisions means Seattle’s “strength of schedule” games were anything but – they got last year’s first place teams, Chicago and Philly, who were this year’s last place teams (combined record of 15-17). Meanwhile, 2006 NFCW runner-up St. Louis got Dallas and Green Bay (combined record of 26-6).
The only way Seattle’s schedule could have been softer would be if they had played the AFCE in stead of the AFCN. That would be one nearly guaranteed loss, but one fairly easy game and two very very easy wins.
All of that said, there’s nothing to make me think Seattle was a powerhouse that was a “victim” of a weak schedule. If they had beaten Pittsburgh and Cleveland they would be highly ranked. They lost.