Jump to content

Does the NFL make a change if the NFCE is won at 6-10?


Slingin' Sammy

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

What a bizarre post, dude. Giants decisively  beat your 15-1 team that was apparently entitled to make the Super Bowl, then they beat two other 13-3 teams. The only entity embarrassed about a 9-7 team whooping *** is you because your team laid an egg against said 9-7 team.

Just a reminder - the Giants have to visit the Superdome again next year. They still have not won there since 1993.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rich homie said:

This is the one thing that's always fascinated me about NFL fans vs most other sports, this weird inherent conservatism that feels the need to defend everything just for the sake of keeping it the same. 

The point of the playoffs in any sport is to pit the best teams from the regular season against each other in a tournament to determine the champion right? So when the current system is clearly not conductive to that it should be changed. 

It makes absolutely no sense why the Giants can make the playoffs at 6-10 while the Colts could miss out at 11-5. Any other sport would have figured this out back in 2007, or in 2008, or in 2010, or in 2011, etc. (maybe not baseball)

Football has a disadvantage in that you really have a cap on the number of games you can play due to time needed to recover and injury rates. Combine that with the number of teams and divisions you have to make massive changes to make things more "fair." As it stands I think it's ok, some wild card teams play in crap divisions and get weak divisions on their schedule, so I don't think just prioritizing records without evening out schedules would be fair either. I think you'd have to completely redo the division system and get rid of the "play your division rival twice" format.

Or you can do it more like soccer. Four 8 team divisions, play everyone in that division twice. Two top records from each division play in two leg competitions, one home one away based on aggregate. No overtime unless tied after two games. Finals on neutral site is one game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

And thats why football is kicking their arses. We have preserved the sanctity of divisions and its importance to playoffs.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. NFL fans will really make up **** like "sanctity of divisions" to try and justify why a flawed system works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jotun_Fan said:

Football has a disadvantage in that you really have a cap on the number of games you can play due to time needed to recover and injury rates. Combine that with the number of teams and divisions you have to make massive changes to make things more "fair." As it stands I think it's ok, some wild card teams play in crap divisions and get weak divisions on their schedule, so I don't think just prioritizing records without evening out schedules would be fair either. I think you'd have to completely redo the division system and get rid of the "play your division rival twice" format.

Or you can do it more like soccer. Four 8 team divisions, play everyone in that division twice. Two top records from each division play in two leg competitions, one home one away based on aggregate. No overtime unless tied after two games. Finals on neutral site is one game.

While the unbalanced schedules will always be a problem, it would still be infinitely more fair to just line up the teams by record (as you can only beat the teams in front of you) than to have a 6-10 team make it over an 11-5 team and then try and justify it with "maybe their schedule was harder". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rich homie said:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. NFL fans will really make up **** like "sanctity of divisions" to try and justify why a flawed system works.

Its not made up. I like the "flaws". I think it enhances the game that one of our crap teams get in. I felt the same way about the Seahawks when they beat the Saints. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Its not made up. I like the "flaws". I think it enhances the game that one of our crap teams get in. I felt the same way about the Seahawks when they beat the Saints. 

Letting in bad teams that have no shot at the Super Bowl isn't what the playoffs should be about. There is no inherent value in winning your division. It only comes from setting up a better chance for a Super Bowl, because of the flawed system. The Texans win the AFC South pretty much every year, but nobody cares because they're still the only team in the division not to make an AFCCG appearance this past decade. Same way I assume Cowboys fans don't celebrate winning the 2007 NFC East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rich homie said:

Letting in bad teams that have no shot at the Super Bowl isn't what the playoffs should be about. There is no inherent value in winning your division. It only comes from setting up a better chance for a Super Bowl, because of the flawed system. The Texans win the AFC South pretty much every year, but nobody cares because they're still the only team in the division not to make an AFCCG appearance this past decade. Same way I assume Cowboys fans don't celebrate winning the 2007 NFC East.

You must have slept through the Giants winning it. Twice. Beating teams that had like 5-6 more wins than them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rich homie said:

While the unbalanced schedules will always be a problem, it would still be infinitely more fair to just line up the teams by record (as you can only beat the teams in front of you) than to have a 6-10 team make it over an 11-5 team and then try and justify it with "maybe their schedule was harder". 

Fair is in the eyes of the beholder in this one I think. The NFL tries to blend different systems and sometimes it doesn't seem to work as well as others. If we're not going to award division winners then divisions need to go. No one whines about the world cup format when a team with 5 points in one group doesn't make it through but a team with 2 points makes it from another group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

You must have slept through the Giants winning it. Twice. Beating teams that had like 5-6 more wins than them. 

Are you trying to refute my point? Because you're doing the opposite. The Giants made it in first as a wild card, and then the second time they were the division winner but they still had a better record than any non-playoff team. They would have made it in that season regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rich homie said:

Are you trying to refute my point? Because you're doing the opposite. The Giants made it in first as a wild card, and then the second time they were the division winner but they still had a better record than any non-playoff team. They would have made it in that season regardless.

Note that without seeding priority in 2011, the Giants would have been the #6 seed and have had to open the playoffs in the Superdome, where they were thoroughly beaten 49-24 by the Saints earlier that year. As of 2020, the Giants still have not won in the Superdome since 1993. They have to go there again next year.

Edited by pf9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost unthinkable, but 3-9 Dallas could win the division and make the playoffs.

Barring ties, Washington has to lose to Philadelphia and Dallas has to beat the Giants. Stranger things happen every year.

Regardless, the DFCE champion will have a losing record. It's possible the wild card will be 8-8. 

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, pf9 said:

Note that without seeding priority in 2011, the Giants would have been the #6 seed and have had to open the playoffs in the Superdome, where they were thoroughly beaten 49-24 by the Saints earlier that year. As of 2020, the Giants still have not won in the Superdome since 1993. They have to go there again next year.

So your entire point hinges on the Giants not being forced to play this one specific team that they have struggled in the past to defeat on the road, based on very small sample size? You still haven’t explained how that travesty of a team whooped your 15-1 team, and would’ve beaten them in the RS without terrible refereeing.

Reread your original post and the logic totally contradicts itself. You're mad that the team with the worst record got to play an easier Wild Card opponent because they won the division? I get that. But why wouldn't you want to face an easier opponent in the Divisional Round as a Packers fan? Why do you feel as if handing the Packers a worse opponent on paper is what robbed them of their destiny to match the 1985 Bears?

Edited by redsoxsuck05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, pf9 said:

Note that without seeding priority in 2011, the Giants would have been the #6 seed and have had to open the playoffs in the Superdome, where they were thoroughly beaten 49-24 by the Saints earlier that year. As of 2020, the Giants still have not won in the Superdome since 1993. They have to go there again next year.

And logically they shouldn't have won at Lambeau against the 15-1 Packers in the divisional either

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...