Should the Playoff format change (used to be the Dallas- Bears TNF thread)

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, N4L said:

I don't see how that last part is true at all 

How many assistant coaches do you know that get promoted to interim HC, then drop back down and stay with the team as an assistant? 

They normally move on afterwards. 

[N4L]

4 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

How many assistant coaches do you know that get promoted to interim HC, then drop back down and stay with the team as an assistant? 

They normally move on afterwards. 

Jim tomsula did it. I really don't see the issue with it? Like, suddenly they have all the power and can't go back to being positional coaches? 

How many times has an interim head coach gotten hired as a HC somewhere other than the place they were coaching? I can't imagine that's ever happened. 

I guess if you are a coordinator and you feel disrespected because the GM chose someone over you that you may leave. Idk 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

16 minutes ago, N4L said:

I don't see how that last part is true at all 

 

Its the electoral college, essentially

tHe WiNneR oF ThE PoPuLaR VoTE UsUaLly WiNs AnYwAyS

Until they don't. 

 

The NFL will never change it because it adds drama to the final few weeks of the season. If the niners and hawks could both secure byes then the week 17 game is less important than it is now

 

My team has made the playoffs 3 times since 2003, with this year potentially being the 4th time. If we are the 5 seed this year with 12 wins that will be the second time it's happened to us. That sucks. 

I'm a season ticket holder and if my team wins 12 games I want to go to a goddamn home playoff game 

 

Then tell the 49ers to win the division. 

[N4L]

Just now, PapaShogun said:

Then tell the 49ers to win the division. 

Trust me, I've been yelling at them for years but they don't seem to listen 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

25 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Improvement is it's own justification. You shouldn't need a reason to make something better. If you can, you should.

It's also not being rewarded for not winning the division. It's being rewarded for winning more games. This argument that winning a division is on higher merit than winning more games is baffling, to me.

As far as the argument that it doesn't happen often, 8 times in the last decade, a team has won a division with a record of 9-7 or worse, and gotten a higher seed than a wildcard team with a higher record. 8 times in 10 years is not "so rare" that it's a "blip on the radar." That means it's actually the norm. And this doesn't even count teams like, say, the 2018 Chargers, who had the second record in the conference, lost their division on a tiebreaker, and wound up as the 5 seed.

The NFL wouldn't improve with a diminishment of long time division rivalries, and the long time importance of winning a division not being as important. Why even have divisions at all? Just randomize games every year. Heck, just have the fans vote on games.

Also, records don't even take into account strength of schedule. So just reseeding everything just by record would make that problem an even bigger one.

Edited December 6, 2019 by PapaShogun

[Jakuvious]

Just now, PapaShogun said:

The NFL wouldn't improve with a diminishment of division rivalries, and the importance of winning a division not being as important. Why even have divisions at all? Just randomize games every year.

Divisions would still guarantee a playoff berth and the schedule would make rivalries continue to matter.

It's not like I dislike the Raiders because beating them or not changes our odds of a home game. It has more to do with history and frequency of opposition, leading to even more history being created.

As for winning the division not being as important, I'll respond as you do to me earlier. So?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

2 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Divisions would still guarantee a playoff berth and the schedule would make rivalries continue to matter.

It's not like I dislike the Raiders because beating them or not changes our odds of a home game. It has more to do with history and frequency of opposition, leading to even more history being created.

As for winning the division not being as important, I'll respond as you do to me earlier. So?

So if winning the division isn't important, don't have divisions at all. Just have random schedules, and seed everything by record. Kind of pointless to have rivalries without something at stake. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by PapaShogun

[DannyB]

I think the weirdest thing about this argument is how dogmatic those against reseeding are. It's like they get upset at the thought of it changing, yet don't offer reasons why it's better the current way.

Mostly it goes like this: "It's always been this way it's fine, just win your division and stop complaining, changing it seems bizarre"

Tell me WHY it's better this way.

[Malfatron]

Just now, DannyB said:

I think the weirdest thing about this argument is how dogmatic those against reseeding are. It's like they get upset at the thought of it changing, yet don't offer reasons why it's better the current way.

Mostly it goes like this: "It's always been this way it's fine, just win your division and stop complaining, changing it seems bizarre"

Tell me WHY it's better this way.

makes division races more important, which helps to build division rivalries

[Jakuvious]

Just now, PapaShogun said:

So if winning the division isn't important, don't have divisions at all. Just have random schedules, and seed everything by record.

Now you're just being difficult.

Also, I very clearly said, AS important. So division win doesn't give you a home game. Winning a division is 10% less important. Who cares? So what? Nothing is lost.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

9 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Now you're just being difficult.

Also, I very clearly said, AS important. So division win doesn't give you a home game. Winning a division is 10% less important. Who cares? So what? Nothing is lost.

I was gonna say the same thing about you.

Or a division winner gets a home game, as does the second team in that same division. Didn't win the division, but who cares I still get a home game because records. Winning the division ultimately doesn't change anything in that scenario, especially if a team from the same division hosts two playoff games wildcard weekend.

Just do away with divisions. 

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by PapaShogun

[DannyB]

8 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

makes division races more important, which helps to build division rivalries

How does it make division races MORE important? WINNING YOUR DIVISION GETS YOU INTO THE PLAYOFFS. It's the same thing that's at stake in mediocre divisions now. The team that doesn't win isn't in the playoffs, the one that does win is in the postseason. The only way it makes divisional races less important is if teams sit there and go "You know what? With how our season is going, we'll probably only win our division and get into the playoffs, but we won't get that home game. Therefore, it's not even worth trying to win the division, let's just pack it in."

And that's absurd.

[DannyB]

3 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

I was gonna say the same thing about you.

Or a division winner gets a home game, as does the second team in that same division. Didn't win the division, but who cares I still get a home game because records.

Just do away with divisions. 

 

For the record, if two teams are doing so well that they are duking it out for both the division title and comfortably ahead of other divisional leaders, then there's probably a bye week on the line. Methinks teams will definitely want to battle for that.

[Jakuvious]

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

I was gonna say the same thing about you.

Or a division winner gets a home game, as does the second team in that same division. Didn't win the division, but who cares I still get a home game because records.

 

Your suggestion that a team is going to just stop caring because they don't need to win their division to get a home game doesn't make any sense. Every team wants the highest seed they can get. You're still fighting for bye weeks, for more potential home games, for a weaker opposition in the early games, etc. It isn't like San Fran is going to stop giving a damn about their last few games because they don't need to top Seattle for a home game. There are plenty of other reasons for them to still want to end the year above Seattle.

The goal is to win as many games as possible. Winning your division is a result of that, not the cause. Removing a perk for winning a division doesn't make a team stop wanting to win more games. Your argument here makes no fundamental sense.

[berlin calling]

why even have divisions when it would have no influence on playoff seeding whatsoever?

sounds stupid AF to me.