ahnicaricoohh Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I realize this would probably be widely up popular because it would really harm division rivalries IMO but the artice makes a good arguement, I know the NFC is weak this year but.... well what do you guys think ESPN.Com Page 2: Time for a new playoff format http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2701560&type=Page2Story&imagesPrint=off&type=Page2Story&imagesPrint=off Once again the NFL is hurtling toward weak teams reaching the playoffs while strong teams clean out their lockers for next season. This isn't funny -- and the solution is to make the NFL postseason a seeded tournament. What would happen if the NFL postseason was a seeded tournament? Games would be better and public interest would increase, that's all. Last season 11-5 Chicago enjoyed a first-round bye and then played at home, while 12-4 Jacksonville got no ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Man I just wish that people would stop complaining. I would support this only if the idea of conferences were eliminated, which I do not see happening. Without that AFC versus the NFC you could make it a seeded thing, but while having conferences you have to be the best in your conference. Period. There will come a time when the NFC will not be the weaker conference and this argument will emerge again. In the meantime, just shut up and win. You know the format. It has been the same for quite a while now. Win or go home. Period. Sheesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahnicaricoohh Posted December 20, 2006 Author Share Posted December 20, 2006 BTW I am not arguing for the change I just wanted to see what people thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I agree with post #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 in order to do that.. every team would have to play every team in their conference and never see the opposing conference til the superbowl to make it fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahnicaricoohh Posted December 20, 2006 Author Share Posted December 20, 2006 I think the only way the NFL would consider making a change is if they had to suffer the embarassment of sending a team with a losing record to the playoffs which is possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I don't like the league-wide seeding thing because it would take away from winning a tough division with a bad record. Let's assume the NFC East was everything it was cracked up to be and the Giants won it with a 9-7 record. Should they be seeded far below a team that played a much easier schedule and didn't even win its division? Also, from conference to conference, who's to say that an 8-8 team in the NFC isn't as good as a 9-7 team in the AFC? What if a handful of teams are compiling good records because 4 or 5 teams are REALLY bad in the AFC while the NFC is more balanced? Basically, if you go strictly record-driven, you are being way too one-dimensional. I like the fact that winning your division guarantees you a playoff appearance AND a home game...I think that's deserved. I also like segregating the two conferences...it allows a true Super Bowl at the end and also allows things to work themselves out properly. I just think too many people are worried about the wild cards these days. To me, the idea is to reward the two best teams per conference that didn't win their division, not just the 4 teams in the NFL with the next best records. Those are two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsNation Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Keep it the way it is. 100% of the people/teams arent gonna be happy...EVER...in any sport. Your gonna have some people who will feel or appear to get shafted for whatever reason. U cant keep flipping the format around to try and chase the past years foul ups (such as Jax 12-4 earning them a road game while Chi got a home game+bye). The PERFECT playoff scenario will never exist. By meaning "Perfect" im saying that the NFC and AFC will never both have the equal # of teams with the same records...for example - the NFC & AFC will never EACH have two 13-3's, two 12-4's & two 10-6's. -- its just not gonna work out like that in most cases. But to take it one step further....the records can be thrown out. Just look at the Steelers who were 11-5 last year. They were behind Jax/Cincy/Colts & Denver record wise but won the whole thing. Point is the team with the best record doesnt win the whole thing each year. Once the playoffs begin you throw out the regular season record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidenreich Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 The PERFECT playoff scenario will never exist. By meaning "Perfect" im saying that the NFC and AFC will never both have the equal # of teams with the same records...for example - the NFC & AFC will never EACH have two 13-3's, two 12-4's & two 10-6's. -- its just not gonna work out like that in most cases. People would still complain, even if that happened. Say one of the 12-4 teams was Jacksonville, while one of the 13-3 teams was Indy. Since Jax didn't win the division, they'd still open up on the road against a 10-6 division champion. Easterbrook just has to ramble about something to make his 35,000 word article every week....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsNation Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 People would still complain, even if that happened. Say one of the 12-4 teams was Jacksonville, while one of the 13-3 teams was Indy. Since Jax didn't win the division, they'd still open up on the road against a 10-6 division champion. Easterbrook just has to ramble about something to make his 35,000 word article every week....... True...what im saying is that the 13-3's were division winners...the 12-4's were the other two division winners. Then the 10-6's were the wildcard's. Im trying to say that the most PERFECT situation will never happen......it seems to sound like the complainers are expecting the perfect scenario to occur to validate the current playoff system...or just want to complain cuz their bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art McDonough Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 It already is a seeded tournament. The top two seeds in each conference get first round byes and the rest play until they lose. My only change would be that each division have a wild card in additon to the champion. That means a 16 team playoff and no byes or an off week before the Super Bowl. The first seed in each conference would play the last seed and so on based solely on record with the only stipulation being that division champions always play wild cards at home regardless of comparative records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 It already is a seeded tournament. The top two seeds in each conference get first round byes and the rest play until they lose. My only change would be that each division have a wild card in additon to the champion. That means a 16 team playoff and no byes or an off week before the Super Bowl. The first seed in each conference would play the last seed and so on based solely on record with the only stipulation being that division champions always play wild cards at home regardless of comparative records. I don't like that...I think the playoffs are too watered down as it is! I would almost prefer if, now that there are four divisions in each conference, only division winners made it. 8 teams at the end for all the marbles. That would be pretty cool. I know it won't happen, but that's OK. Edit: If the NFL ever expanded to an 18-game season, I believe this is how they'd do the playoffs so cut down on how long the season would run. This playoff structure would eliminate a round and the bye week for the top seeds. Divisional Playoff (1 vs. 4 & 2 vs. 3) Championship Game Super Bowl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 To be honest, I think they should use the PowerRankings from the four major sports sites and crown the champion that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahnicaricoohh Posted December 20, 2006 Author Share Posted December 20, 2006 To be honest, I think they should use the PowerRankings from the four major sports sites and crown the champion that way. I really hope thats a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallntfox Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I think the only way the NFL would consider making a change is if they had to suffer the embarassment of sending a team with a losing record to the playoffs which is possible 2 teams with 4-5 records went to the playoffs in the strike shortened 1982 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahnicaricoohh Posted December 20, 2006 Author Share Posted December 20, 2006 2 teams with 4-5 records went to the playoffs in the strike shortened 1982 season. I know we did win the Superbowl that year but imagine if a team in a full season, however unlikely, were to make the playoffs at 7-9 or worse while teams in the other conference with 10-6 records or better did not go edit: I think the NFL was embaressed enough with the strike that they just wanted to get back on track Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins n' Bones Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I don't like the league-wide seeding thing because it would take away from winning a tough division with a bad record. Let's assume the NFC East was everything it was cracked up to be and the Giants won it with a 9-7 record. Should they be seeded far below a team that played a much easier schedule and didn't even win its division? Also, from conference to conference, who's to say that an 8-8 team in the NFC isn't as good as a 9-7 team in the AFC? What if a handful of teams are compiling good records because 4 or 5 teams are REALLY bad in the AFC while the NFC is more balanced? Basically, if you go strictly record-driven, you are being way too one-dimensional. I like the fact that winning your division guarantees you a playoff appearance AND a home game...I think that's deserved. I also like segregating the two conferences...it allows a true Super Bowl at the end and also allows things to work themselves out properly. I just think too many people are worried about the wild cards these days. To me, the idea is to reward the two best teams per conference that didn't win their division, not just the 4 teams in the NFL with the next best records. Those are two different things. I agree with this. Before the season, EVERYONE was saying how the NFC would be tougher overall, especially the East and South, with the teams all beating up on each other. That's pretty much what happened....but as a result, their records aren't as good (or as bad) as the AFC that has more clearly defined good, average, and bad teams. I like the format how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Each team could play 2 teams (2 teams from their own division incuded) out of every division in the league, equaling 16 games. Or maybe they should shorten the preseason games by 1 and make it a 17 game season. That way each team can play their divisional foes at least once each year. Or eliminate a second team from each division each year, but still play each team from your own division every year (GOTTA play the cowpukes at least once every year). Then start seeding for each conference come playoff time. The process for tie breaking could still be the same, but without a divisional step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuckinphilly1 Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 To be honest, I think they should use the PowerRankings from the four major sports sites and crown the champion that way. :laugh: ...enter the all the info into the BCS computer even better!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I don't like the league-wide seeding thing because it would take away from winning a tough division with a bad record. Let's assume the NFC East was everything it was cracked up to be and the Giants won it with a 9-7 record. Should they be seeded far below a team that played a much easier schedule and didn't even win its division? This is the best argument to keep it the way it is. Why should a team in the NFC East get penalized when Chicago can wipe up the NFC North every year. 6 easy wins for them. I agree, keep it the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 This is all stemming from two 8-8 teams making the playoffs and Pittsburgh winning it all last year. Jax was 12-4 and had to go on the road. Well, so did Pittsburgh. They didn't piss and moan about it and wiped the floor with everyone. Everyone in the playoffs starts 0-0. screw revamping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeesburgSkinFan Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Just out of curiousity, does anyone know what team had the best record to never make the playoffs? I think Denver went 11-5 in Elway's rookie year but failed to make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahnicaricoohh Posted December 20, 2006 Author Share Posted December 20, 2006 Just out of curiousity, does anyone know what team had the best record to never make the playoffs? I think Denver went 11-5 in Elway's rookie year but failed to make it. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Broncos#Trivia The Broncos currently hold the best season record for a team that did not make the playoffs that year. Their 1985 team went 11-5, but lost out in tiebreakers for the last wild card spot. Meanwhile, the Cleveland Browns that same year finished 8-8, but since they won the AFC Central division, they got an automatic spot in the playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeesburgSkinFan Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Broncos#Trivia The Broncos currently hold the best season record for a team that did not make the playoffs that year. Their 1985 team went 11-5, but lost out in tiebreakers for the last wild card spot. Meanwhile, the Cleveland Browns that same year finished 8-8, but since they won the AFC Central division, they got an automatic spot in the playoffs Now that is something I would change..if there was at least a 3 game difference in records, I'd give the slot to an at-large team instead of a division champ. I wonder if that 1985 Denver team was an impetus to change the playoff format. At the time, only the 3 division champs and 2 wild cards went from each conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I like the paloffs the way they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.