Drew_Fl Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 The competition committee should look at implementing a rule where if the 3rd place team in one division has a better record than the division champ in another division, that 3rd place team should go to the playoffs and that division should be stripped of the spot. I'm sure the teams and players (at least in that division) wouldn't like it, but the NFL is always about what generates ratings and revenue so that's why i think there is a chance something like this may happen. I can't believe it's actually possible to get a 7-9 team into the playoffs while a 10 win team may have to stay home. I believe this has happened with a 9-7 team, but it's getting ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I think the season/playoffs are perfect the way they are. The NFL is already to reactionary when it comes to implementing rules changes. Look at the change to Playoff overtime format, when it's shown that the change was unneccessary. If a 7-9 team gets in more than 1-2x within a 5year period I could see changing it, otherwise, keep it the way it is, because NFL playoffs are great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I'm on the fence on this. I hate the fact that some garbage team will get in with an awful record, while another team who has been playing well is watching from the outside knowing that team took their spot and is gonna lose in the Wild Card game. On the other hand I don't think it's a great idea to change just for the sake of change, you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 I think the season/playoffs are perfect the way they are. The NFL is already to reactionary when it comes to implementing rules changes. Look at the change to Playoff overtime format, when it's shown that the change was unneccessary.If a 7-9 team gets in more than 1-2x within a 5year period I could see changing it, otherwise, keep it the way it is, because NFL playoffs are great. i agree the nfl playoffs are great, but please explain how having a 7-9 team instead of a 10-6 team in there makes sense on any level? the only thing i can see is that it would de-value a division championship to mean nothing basically. but honestly at 7-9, what should it mean anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 i agree the nfl playoffs are great, but please explain how having a 7-9 team instead of a 10-6 team in there makes sense on any level? the only thing i can see is that it would de-value a division championship to mean nothing basically. but honestly at 7-9, what should it mean anyways? Just because a team is 10-6 doesn't mean they're better than the 7-9 team. Like I said, I think if this happened often, I could see addressing it, but has there ever been a time a team with a losing record has gone to the playoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I think there should be a cutoff—say, 8-8 (or 9-9 in an 18-game season). If you win your division but finish worse than .500, then your division forfeits the spot. I’d be fine with that, and I think it’s absurd to put a 7-9 team in the playoffs while keeping a 10-6 or 11-5 team out. But as long as a division winner finishes with at least a .500 record, I’d probably leave it alone. You could have the opposite problem where there’s a really tough, competitive division, where all the teams beat each other up and they all finish around 8-8 or 9-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Just because a team is 10-6 doesn't mean they're better than the 7-9 team. Like I said, I think if this happened often, I could see addressing it, but has there ever been a time a team with a losing record has gone to the playoffs? I agree...though more than likely a division champ with a worse record is a bad team in a bad division, it's possible that it's the best team of a very competitive division. I don't think you can make this rule without figuring out a way to guarantee that a 10-6 second-place team from a horrible division doesn't beat out a 9-7 first-place team from a very tough division. And, you can't do that without some sort of subjectivity which is rightfully not included in the NFL post-season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always A Commander Never A Captain Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Just saying, every now and then a ****ty NFC West team catches fire...like the Cardinals in '08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 The competition committee should look at implementing a rule where if the 3rd place team in one division has a better record than the division champ in another division, that 3rd place team should go to the playoffs and that division should be stripped of the spot. I'm sure the teams and players (at least in that division) wouldn't like it, but the NFL is always about what generates ratings and revenue so that's why i think there is a chance something like this may happen.I can't believe it's actually possible to get a 7-9 team into the playoffs while a 10 win team may have to stay home. I believe this has happened with a 9-7 team, but it's getting ridiculous. I definitely agree with this. And this would also eliminate a team with a ****ty record who won their division getting homefield advantage over a team with a better record who didn't win their division. That happened a couple of years ago when the Colts finished 12-4 behind the Titans who were 13-3 and they had to go play at San Diego who were 8-8. That was bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsarethebest Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I highly doubt the NFL would even contemplate this. If it did, then what would be the point of even having divisions anyway? If the rule you propose were to take effect, you might as well just award playoff spots (and seeding order, for that matter) to the top six teams in each conference, and just have two conferences. I'm not at all saying your proposal is a bad one, or even an illogical one. It just completely goes against the current "structure" of the NFL and the very purpose of having intra-conference divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I definitely agree with this. And this would also eliminate a team with a ****ty record who won their division getting homefield advantage over a team with a better record who didn't win their division. That happened a couple of years ago when the Colts finished 12-4 behind the Titans who were 13-3 and they had to go play at San Diego who were 8-8. That was bull****. See, I'm echoing some of my previous arguments, but I still think you should reward teams for winning their divisions. If not, why have divisions within conferences and have teams play their division opponents twice per season? There has to be some reason for that. You are basically advocating a 16-team conference where the top 6 teams make the playoffs and seeded strictly by record. I don't like that. I think you still need to give importance to winning your division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I highly doubt the NFL would even contemplate this. They apparently have contemplated the possibility of having a division winner go on the road to play at a WC team's stadium if the WC has a better record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I highly doubt the NFL would even contemplate this. If it did, then what would be the point of even having divisions anyway? If the rule you propose were to take effect, you might as well just award playoff spots (and seeding order, for that matter) to the top six teams in each conference, and just have two conferences.I'm not at all saying your proposal is a bad one, or even an illogical one. It just completely goes against the current "structure" of the NFL and the very purpose of having intra-conference divisions. That's why I propose having a cut-off mark (a .500 record, for example). That way the divisional alignment, etc., remains in tact, but if in the rare event a division winner goes 6-10 or 7-9, the division would essentially be “disqualified” from the playoffs. So at least 95% of the time everything would remain normal, except in those extremely rare cases where an entire division completely ****s the bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachSkin Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 The 12-4 '08 Colts have no room to complain...if you go and lose to an 8-8 team in the playoffs that's your own damn fault, whether it's a road game or not. Don't like it? Win your division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 The competition committee should look at implementing a rule where if the 3rd place team in one division has a better record than the division champ in another division, that 3rd place team should go to the playoffs and that division should be stripped of the spot. This doesn't make any sense, though...why should the 3rd place team be given that vacated playoff spot? What if there are other teams with better records than the third place team? There could be three 2nd place teams who all have better records than the 3rd place team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 That's why I propose having a cut-off mark (a .500 record, for example). That way the divisional alignment, etc., remains in tact, but if in the rare event a division winner goes 6-10 or 7-9, the division would essentially be “disqualified” from the playoffs. So at least 95% of the time everything would remain normal, except in those extremely rare cases where an entire division completely ****s the bed. That caveat makes it a better rule, but I still think it's too subjective. I think there should be a reward for winning your division...period. Why are we arbitrarily saying that 8-8 is an OK record by 7-9 isn't? If you're the best of the 4 teams the NFL puts you up against in your division, you win. If it happens to be a down year, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I get the idea, but it just seems too screwy. Have to sit back and see what happens if LA gets a team, then they'd have to probably make some changes in the West Coast divisions. Seems like momentum is building for someone to get moved out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I actually sat down to see what the lowest record that could possibly win that division this year. I came up with the Arizona Cardinals at 6-10 could win the division with everyone else finishing at 5-11. It would require the Cards to sweep their division opponents and not win another game (SF twice, StL), SF to split their division opponents (losing twice to the Rams, but beating Sea and StL) and losing to everyone else, and the Rams beating Seattle and losing the rest of their games. Not likely, but To get back to the subject, what probably we get to is that being a division winner is no longer special and that we seed by record. That way, most "deserving" teams get in. Some might not like it, because even a division winner with a good record could be seeded lower than a "wild card" from another division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 To get back to the subject, what probably we get to is that being a division winner is no longer special and that we seed by record. That way, most "deserving" teams get in. Some might not like it, because even a division winner with a good record could be seeded lower than a "wild card" from another division. And that's why I don't like the proposed rule change...because eventually you're going to punish a team for coming out of a tough division and being seeded lower than a team with an easy schedule. It may not happen as often as a "bad" team getting in due to playing in an easy division, but it will eventually happen. Once it does and people complain, you've opened up a can of worms because then the next step is to somehow determine which divisions are worthy of sending division champs and which ones aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Another chink in the armor: what if you have TWO crappy division? lol... What if, say, the NFC West and the NFC North have division winners with a record of 7-9? Are both divisions eliminated from the playoffs? Here's another scenario: What if there's a division winner with a 6-10 record, and a 3rd place team with a 7-9 record? Does the 7-9 3rd place team now make the playoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Another chink in the armor: what if you have TWO crappy division? lol...What if, say, the NFC West and the NFC North have division winners with a record of 7-9? Are both divisions eliminated from the playoffs? Here's another scenario: What if there's a division winner with a 6-10 record, and a 3rd place team with a 7-9 record? Does the 7-9 3rd place team now make the playoffs? All of those variables are the reason that, if you stick with divisions and weigh division games, you have to reward all 4 division winners with a playoff spot (and, in my opinion, the top 4 seeds). If you want to give a playoff spot to the best 6 teams, you should eliminate divisions and take the top 6 records. In fact, you could make it so that each team plays all 15 conference opponents once and 1 (3 once they go to 18 games) opponent from the other conference. That way, your regular season is basically a round-robin tournament. I hate that idea, personally, but it's the only fair way to award playoffs spots based strictly on record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 TD, you raise good points. I guess my concern is it seems the jokers in the NFC West have almost been lulled into this idea that they don’t have to be competitive because, well, they’re in the NFC West. And a .500 record just might get you in. It’s probably too soon to call it a trend—after all, the Cardinals were in the Super Bowl the year before last. But I got my eye on ‘em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 TD, you raise good points. I guess my concern is it seems the jokers in the NFC West have almost been lulled into this idea that they don’t have to be competitive because, well, they’re in the NFC West. And a .500 record just might get you in. It’s probably too soon to call it a trend—after all, the Cardinals were in the Super Bowl the year before last. But I got my eye on ‘em. I suppose the NFL should always keep their eye on competitive balance (I'm picturing you doing the Meet the Parents DeNiro thing with your fingers to your eyes). However, I find it tough to believe that 4 teams are scuffling along purposely in order to just skate by. If you were any one of those teams and you looked around to see how bad the other three were, wouldn't it be MORE incentive to become as good as possible so that you could wrap up home field or something with your naturally weak schedule. The 49ers did that (not that they weren't also a very good team) for years in the 1980s and 1990s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted November 23, 2010 Author Share Posted November 23, 2010 This doesn't make any sense, though...why should the 3rd place team be given that vacated playoff spot? What if there are other teams with better records than the third place team? There could be three 2nd place teams who all have better records than the 3rd place team... By limiting it to the 3rd place team i was trying to keep the significance to the division structure. That way the divisions still mean something unless you're division is so crappy a 3rd place team from another division would win yours. If we just gave the spot to the best record that didn't make the playoffs then the divisions would mean absolutely nothing. I'm not saying it's a foolproof plan, but as a football fan I don't want to see a 7-9 team in the playoffs. I disagree with people when they say a 7-9 team is better than a 10-6 team. Like Coach Shanahan says, you are what your record is. Also by letting in a 7-9 team, we are de-valuing the significance of each regular season game. It's one thing that makes the NFL great is every game is major. If you can lose 9 games and still get in though that takes away from the regular season product also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Just saying, every now and then a ****ty NFC West team catches fire...like the Cardinals in '08. I was just about to post this. How quickly the forget. Leave, as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.