I don't know how you don't understand what I am saying, but I think it is because you are still trapped in "define by division champs" for seeding. The fact that this only applies to teams 1-4, as you and I have both said, is exactly what defines the separate pools for seeding, within each league. How do you not understand that? teams 1-4 are absolutely not seeded by record, on equal standing with all the teams. They simply aren't. Saying that this is "OK because division champs" isn't much of an argument when looking at the current reality of the system.
EDIT: correction--I see that I think I typed that wrong, earlier. Within the division champs, yes, they are all seeded by record among themselves, that is true. What I mean is that when you consider that the Wild Card is added to the mix, that simply breaks down. Effectively, you have the top two seeds, which will always be the top 2 seeds, and division champs, getting those spots based on their record. But because 2 more division champs are "Required to fill out seeds 3 and 4" they aren't really subjected to the same seeding rules as everyone else. In actual reality, seeds 1, 2, 5, 6, and now 7, are basically seeded on equal terms. 3 and 4 however are "gifted" these magic seeds (not their playoff spots--I am only talking about seeds) outside of consideration of really everyone else in the playoffs--it is in reference to the top 2 seeds, but only that.
I am saying that defining seeding by division champs is the problem. Yes, the division champs are 1-4 seeds. That is why they have a separate pool, for each league--how do you not understand that is what I am saying?--and that is why it no longer makes any sense. Nearly half of the playoff participants now are no longer division champs. Giving the champs automatic bids, but then subjecting EVERYONE to the same seeding rules is the only way forward: this preserves the 1-2 seed the way it has ALWAYS been, by default, and insures that garbage teams aren't coddled into favorable conditions through circumstance of playing garbage competition. (WFT has not earned the right to host Tampa Bay, for example. They really haven't, and basically anyone agrees with that when not using the "well, because the rules say so!" argument)
I am saying that this needs to be dissolved; you seem stuck on the impossibility of removing "division champ" as the qualification for the 3 and 4 seeds (again, seeds 1 and 2 are always going to be naturally based on record, and they will always be division champs, anyway. Math). I don't understand how you currently don't see that the 3 and 4 seeds have an entirely different set of rules for their seeding than the other teams, though. It's punching you right in the face with its silliness!
Also, since you said the NFL playoffs are Perfect as they are--does this include the previous couple of decades, or this year only, with the increased # of teams? That's a massive change, so either it was perfect up until this year and isn't, or it only is now. Which is it? It can only be perfect--because of what perfect actually means--in one of the two now-recent models of the playoffs.
I don't know why adding a team, to further muddying how seeding works, and which will inevitably and inarguably lead to more participation of garbage teams, is somehow unquestionable, whereas fixing the seeding, which is clearly wrong, is untenable. I just don't get it.
So, I saw yesterday that there were 4 (now 5) sub-500 teams to ever make the playoffs (SB era). This is what people use to defend the system, but that is also because they aren't looking at what this data actually says (I know, small number, but many seasons to look at, hence--this is where the meaning lies). The first 2 were in 84 and, I think, 86 or 87 or something like that. So, it took nearly 24 years in the SB era for this to happen. But then, who cares? Much of that time was far fewer teams...you know, actual division champs, and only division champs. So, one pool of teams subjected to equal conditions for seeding. In 1978, the Wild Card was added. ...what's this? Only 5 or 6 years later, we start seeing sub-500 teams make the playoffs now? Oh, that's strange. Suddenly something has changed. But then, another drought, of another 25 years or so...when we've had 2 more years of sub-500 teams (Seattle and what was it, Philly? and now WFT). So, 3 out of 5 of those sub-500 teams appearing in the playoffs are concentrated in our current era of the playoffs. So, 60% of the events we are tracking have occurred in the most recent >5% of the potential history of the events.
It is
changing. This is how numbers tell us, in real time, that things are actually changing and should be addressed. There is no more argument for how rare this is, because the new rule, which further changes everything, has basically enshrined that we will get crap teams with an automatic bid (or just overall more crap teams) participating. And remember, there is no "football reason" for increasing the number of teams. It is only about money. Nothing more, nothing less. That is all they will use to make their decisions. Knowing this, I fail to see how appeals to history or illogical defense of illogical precedent are justified with an organization that really doesn't care that much about these things when you get down to it. They truly only want to know how much more profit their product can generate every year.