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

[pf9]

At the time, the Packers had not won a playoff game against the Giants since 1962 - at the time, JFK was President, he was assassinated a year later. The curse was finally broken in 2016.

[pf9]

The 2011 season also hurt because prior to the Giants-Packers game, home teams were 7-0 in the playoffs, and seemed destined to go a perfect 10-0 that year, a first in NFL history. The only two teams to lose a home playoff game that year, both lost to the Giants.

My troubles with the Manning family continued that offseason, when Peyton chose not to join my other team, the Browns, at a time the Browns had not made the playoffs for 9 years in a row. He chose the Broncos, who had just made the playoffs the year before.

Of course, when Tom Brady joined the Buccaneers he did something Peyton Manning was unwilling to do and join a team which had a long playoff drought, he ended up taking the Bucs back to the playoffs.

This made Peyton look like a hypocrite.

Edited December 28, 2020 by pf9

[Slingin' Sammy]

6 minutes ago, pf9 said:

The 2011 season also hurt because prior to the Giants-Packers game, home teams were 7-0 in the playoffs, and seemed destined to go a perfect 10-0 that year, a first in NFL history. The only two teams to lose a home playoff game that year, both lost to the Giants.

My troubles with the Manning family continued that offseason, when Peyton chose not to join my other team, the Browns, at a time the Browns had not made the playoffs for 9 years in a row. He chose the Broncos, who had just made the playoffs the year before.

Of course, when Tom Brady joined the Buccaneers he did something Peyton Manning was unwilling to do and join a team which had a long playoff drought, he ended up taking the Bucs back to the playoffs.

This made Peyton look like a hypocrite.

You’re starting to ramble.

[redsoxsuck05]

20 minutes ago, pf9 said:

The 2011 season also hurt because prior to the Giants-Packers game, home teams were 7-0 in the playoffs, and seemed destined to go a perfect 10-0 that year, a first in NFL history. The only two teams to lose a home playoff game that year, both lost to the Giants.

My troubles with the Manning family continued that offseason, when Peyton chose not to join my other team, the Browns, at a time the Browns had not made the playoffs for 9 years in a row. He chose the Broncos, who had just made the playoffs the year before.

Of course, when Tom Brady joined the Buccaneers he did something Peyton Manning was unwilling to do and join a team which had a long playoff drought, he ended up taking the Bucs back to the playoffs.

This made Peyton look like a hypocrite.

Are you Badgers or VikeDaddy’s alt? Y’all sound like an old-timer!

[pf9]

10 minutes ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

Are you Badgers or VikeDaddy’s alt? Y’all sound like an old-timer!

I resent that remark

How would you feel if your team failed to land a highly-sought after free agent QB that your team has never beat but needs badly to reverse their sagging fortunes?

That was the relationship the Browns had with Peyton. They always lost to him, and also failed to sign him, due to the presence of Big Ben on the Steelers, a QB Peyton did not want to play twice a year.

[redsoxsuck05]

3 minutes ago, pf9 said:

I resent that remark

How would you feel if your team failed to land a highly-sought after free agent QB that your team has never beat but needs badly to reverse their sagging fortunes?

That was the relationship the Browns had with Peyton. They always lost to him, and also failed to sign him, due to the presence of Big Ben on the Steelers, a QB Peyton did not want to play twice a year.

In your shoes? I’d accept the fact that losing franchises are not entitled to the best free agents just because the potential turnaround would make a great narrative. Then I would thank my lucky stars that my actual favorite team has one of the best to ever play.

[Soko]

3 hours 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". 

It’s not about being fair. It’s about fair opportunity. 

The Bears, Colts, and Browns knew exactly what they’d have to do to make the playoffs when Week 1 kicked off - win their division or get a wildcard spot. Every week that picture became clearer and clearer, and they put themselves in the spots they’re in by losing games. No one pulled the rug out from under them, sitting at 9-5 (or whatever), and said “hey, you actually have to win 12 games, sorry you’re out!” 

Is it fair that the Giants play in a garbage division and only need 6-7 wins to claim it? No, but not anymore fair than the Panthers losing CMC to injury or the Browns losing all of their receivers to the COVID list. Not everything can be fair, but all the teams knew that coming into the season. We’re not talking about the refs favoring one team type of fairness, this is pretty random and doesn’t favor one team or another (in the beginning). 

One way or another, whether it be through scheduling, injuries, media, management, coaching, or the players - some teams have bumpier roads than others to get a playoff spot. That doesn’t mean the system’s broken. 

If the playoffs were purely, 100% about watching the best teams in the league play each other, would you bump the Chiefs out of the playoffs if Mahomes goes down with injury in Week 17? Would you put in the Jets over the Steelers, because the Jets have more wins over .500+ teams this last month than the Steelers do? The answers to those are obvious no’s, because the playoffs are not all about putting the best teams against each other, but hey, we all knew that coming in.

[FinSting]

3 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

It’s not about being fair. It’s about fair opportunity. 

The Bears, Colts, and Browns knew exactly what they’d have to do to make the playoffs when Week 1 kicked off - win their division or get a wildcard spot. Every week that picture became clearer and clearer, and they put themselves in the spots they’re in by losing games. No one pulled the rug out from under them, sitting at 9-5 (or whatever), and said “hey, you actually have to win 12 games, sorry you’re out!” 

But...but...it's someone else's fault. 

 

[Norm]

Nfce team will win their first game though

 

It's destiny

Edited December 28, 2020 by Norm

[rich homie]

53 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

It’s not about being fair. It’s about fair opportunity. 

The Bears, Colts, and Browns knew exactly what they’d have to do to make the playoffs when Week 1 kicked off - win their division or get a wildcard spot. Every week that picture became clearer and clearer, and they put themselves in the spots they’re in by losing games. No one pulled the rug out from under them, sitting at 9-5 (or whatever), and said “hey, you actually have to win 12 games, sorry you’re out!” 

That applies to literally every single team in the NFL. The entire problem is that "win your division" means completely different things to every single team in the NFL. For the Colts, 
"just win your division" means win 12 games, for the Giants it means 6 games.

Quote

Is it fair that the Giants play in a garbage division and only need 6-7 wins to claim it? No, but not anymore fair than the Panthers losing CMC to injury or the Browns losing all of their receivers to the COVID list. Not everything can be fair, but all the teams knew that coming into the season. We’re not talking about the refs favoring one team type of fairness, this is pretty random and doesn’t favor one team or another (in the beginning). 

One way or another, whether it be through scheduling, injuries, media, management, coaching, or the players - some teams have bumpier roads than others to get a playoff spot. That doesn’t mean the system’s broken. 

If the playoffs were purely, 100% about watching the best teams in the league play each other, would you bump the Chiefs out of the playoffs if Mahomes goes down with injury in Week 17? Would you put in the Jets over the Steelers, because the Jets have more wins over .500+ teams this last month than the Steelers do? The answers to those are obvious no’s, because the playoffs are not all about putting the best teams against each other, but hey, we all knew that coming in.

None of this is relevant to the idea that wins and record should be the ultimate factor in deciding playoff teams. It's a little bit unclear what exactly the point you're trying to push is. Surely if you're arguing that the schedule you play is just another circumstance to a team like injuries, then the only conclusion is that you shouldn't try and elevate a lower win team above another based on "well they may have had a harder schedule" just like you wouldn't vault the Panthers into the playoffs because "well they may have won more games if McCaffrey was healthy". 

Again, my point is that having all the division winners occupy the top 4 spaces of each conference regardless of record is a completely arbitrary choice that the NFL makes, with my views to try and make it less so. And all the hypothetical situations you list are just as odd. If Mahomes goes down injured for the rest of the season I would not call for the Chiefs to be eliminated, simply because they have accumulated the best record in the NFL over the year. The Jets also shouldn't make it over the Steelers because the Steelers have a record over the year that has clinched a playoff spot while the Jets have not. If you're postulating that the Jets have been a better team than the Steelers this year then I would disagree with you on that. If the playoffs aren't about pitting the best teams from the season against each other, then what are they about? Why don't we just throw darts at a map to see who makes it then?

[pf9]

1 hour ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

In your shoes? I’d accept the fact that losing franchises are not entitled to the best free agents just because the potential turnaround would make a great narrative. Then I would thank my lucky stars that my actual favorite team has one of the best to ever play.

They could be entitled if the NFL were to adopt a rule, known as the Peyton Manning Rule, which requires free agents with as high a profile as him to sign with a team that has gone at least 15 years without winning a Super Bowl (the Broncos had been without a title for only 13 years at the time Peyton joined them). In addition to the teams that have never won the Super Bowl, such free agents would also have to sign with these teams in 2021:

Chicago Bears (last Super Bowl title: 1985)

Dallas Cowboys (1995)

Las Vegas Raiders (1983)

Los Angeles Rams (1999)

Miami Dolphins (1973)

New York Jets (1968)

San Francisco 49ers (1994)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2002)

Washington Football Team (1991) Unless the Super Bowl winner this year is a team that had waited at least 15 years.

Edited December 28, 2020 by pf9

[redsoxsuck05]

9 minutes ago, pf9 said:

They could be entitled if the NFL were to adopt a rule, known as the Peyton Manning Rule, which requires free agents with as high a profile as him to sign with a team that has gone at least 15 years without winning a Super Bowl (the Broncos had been without a title for only 13 years at the time Peyton joined them). In addition to the teams that have never won the Super Bowl, such free agents would also have to sign with these teams in 2021:

Chicago Bears (last Super Bowl title: 1985)

Dallas Cowboys (1995)

Las Vegas Raiders (1983)

Los Angeles Rams (1999)

Miami Dolphins (1973)

New York Jets (1968)

San Francisco 49ers (1994)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2002)

Washington Football Team (1991) Unless the Super Bowl winner this year is a team that had waited at least 15 years.

Ok so I’ve been trolled. Props.

Edited December 28, 2020 by redsoxsuck05

[pf9]

8 minutes ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

Ok so I’ve been trolled. Props.

No I'm serious.

This would be a good way to make the NFL more competitive

[Soko]

7 minutes ago, rich homie said:

That applies to literally every single team in the NFL. The entire problem is that "win your division" means completely different things to every single team in the NFL. For the Colts, 
"just win your division" means win 12 games, for the Giants it means 6 games.

The Colts did not enter the season with the 12 standard division winner line. Neither did the Giants with 6. That’s how things shook out, but they both started off with the same set of rules. 

7 minutes ago, rich homie said:

None of this is relevant to the idea that wins and record should be the ultimate factor in deciding playoff teams.

Wins/record ARE the ultimate deciding factor regarding playoff teams. They’re just not the ONLY factor(s).

7 minutes ago, rich homie said:

It's a little bit unclear what exactly the point you're trying to push is. Surely if you're arguing that the schedule you play is just another circumstance to a team like injuries, then the only conclusion is that you shouldn't try and elevate a lower win team above another based on "well they may have had a harder schedule" just like you wouldn't vault the Panthers into the playoffs because "well they may have won more games if McCaffrey was healthy". 

Try it this way:

The Panthers should make the playoffs because they may have won more games if CMC were healthy. 

The Patriots should make the playoffs because of the games/players that opted out, plus all of the COVID misses. 

The Colts should make the playoffs because if they were in another division they’d have enough wins to be the winner. 

All silly statements. Giants won their division, Colts didn’t. It’s the standard they knew going in. Did it measure up to the same standard? Nope, but it was equal from the start. Nothing unfair about it, anymore unfair than injuries. Tough luck.

7 minutes ago, rich homie said:

Again, my point is that having all the division winners occupy the top 4 spaces of each conference regardless of record is a completely arbitrary choice that the NFL makes, with my views to try and make it less so.

It’s not arbitrary, lol. You win your division, you host a playoff game. That’s no more or less arbitrary than doing a 1-16 playoff tournament. You might not like it, you might not think it’s fair, you might not think it’s the most competitive, but it isn’t arbitrary. You lose your division? You can still get in, just be top 2/3 amongst the rest of the losers! Can’t do that? Maybe you aren’t good enough, or maybe you can whine about it and the league will change its rules.

7 minutes ago, rich homie said:

And all the hypothetical situations you list are just as odd. If Mahomes goes down injured for the rest of the season I would not call for the Chiefs to be eliminated, simply because they have accumulated the best record in the NFL over the year.

It’s not odd. You said “the point of the postseason is to pit the best teams of the regular season against each other”. The Chiefs without Mahomes would certainly not fit that criteria. Neither would the the Hawks without Wilson, Bucs without Brady, Packers without Rodgers, etc. So if that’s all it were about, as you said, then the system should have a policy that allows the league to strip a team of playoff status if they lose someone as important as a QB, right?

7 minutes ago, rich homie said:

If the playoffs aren't about pitting the best teams from the season against each other, then what are they about? Why don't we just throw darts at a map to see who makes it then?

Two extremes. So if it’s not 100% winning focused with nothing else involved whatsoever, then we might as well throw darts? 

The best teams ARE being pit against each other. The Chiefs and the Packers are both making the playoffs. So are the Steelers, Bills, Saints, and Seahawks. You’re arguing for what would be the bottom of the barrel of acceptable playoff teams, they’re not “the best”. 

[Soko]

10 minutes ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

Ok so I’ve been trolled. Props.