Should division champs have home field advantage even though the wild card team had a better record then them?

Question

Okay, last year, the Jags had to play the Steelers in Pittsburgh even though the Jags had a better record then them. The Steelers division was not that strong, while the Jags division was, mainly because of the Colts. Same case with the Giants and Bucs. Sure, both teams proved they were better and won, but do you think i should be changed?

Also in 2005, the Jags were 12-4, but the Colts had already won the AFC South at 14-2 so the Jags had to play the Patriots in the first round at Gillette Stadium, even though the Pats were only 10-6

Answer 1

Well if we take it from division Champions then should we even have Division Champions? Why not just say the top 6 teams are rated in order of record? As to last year with the Jags, well the refs gave them a form of home field advantage so guess it doesn't matter. That's why the NFL had to apologize after the game. Had the refs made that holding call late in the game then the Steelers would have likely won. Anyway though yes the home field advantage should go to the division winner. You think the AFC North is kinda weak because the records. Well you have to consider how the teams play, it is one of the toughest divisions. For the record the Browns were almost in the playoffs in place of the Texans and then the AFC North would have had two teams, same as the AFC South.  

Answer 2

No, I think that's wrong. It should all depend on your record. You should be rewarded for your record, not because your conference is weak.

Answer 3

It works both ways,a team like the Patriots might have a great won lost record because they play in a weak division,while a team playing in a strong division might show less wins because of the good competition in their division,there's argument for both sides on this issue