Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The "NFC West" Rule

Drew_Fl

By Drew_Fl
in Around the NFL

Recommended Posts

skinsarethebest

skinsarethebest

Posted
Posted
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. :)

The truth no one wants to acknowledge is that no one ever said the NFL (or sports for that matter) are a pure "meritocracy" in the first place. The point that gets obscured about divisions is that at least in theory, they ensure some form of geographic/regional representation in the postseason.

In other words, no matter how sucky their teams are, the West Coast, Pacific Time Zone, whatever you want to call it, can always be assured that someone from their "area" will be playing in the playoffs. (Yeah, the actual divisions themselves are screwy: why is Dallas in the NFC East after all, why is St. Louis in the NFC West, etc. etc. But that's a debate for another day.) Anyway, without it, you could have a postseason in which basically nobody on the West Coast even gave a hoot about football after January 1. Interestingly, the OP thought that revenue/making money was an argument in favor of his proposal, but it's exactly the opposite: the NFL doesn't want to lose money, and one clear way to do it is to keep every region of the country interested, to the extent possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZRagone

ZRagone

Posted
Posted

Everyone always has issues with one division being "weak". However, if you impliment a rule like this you make winning your division rather worthless.

I think there's a far superior solution to both make winning a division important but rewarding those who have a good record.

Don't garauntee home games for division winners, just garauntee playoff spots.

This way, if the Rams go 8-8 and win the West, they would automatically be one of the 6 teams from the NFC in the playoffs. However, if the higher of the two Wild Card teams is 11-5 then that 11-5 team would play the Ram's at their home stadium rather than in St. Louis.

So you want to win your division to garauntee you a spot, but you want to get the best record to potentially have home field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drew_Fl

Drew_Fl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The truth no one wants to acknowledge is that no one ever said the NFL (or sports for that matter) are a pure "meritocracy" in the first place. The point that gets obscured about divisions is that at least in theory, they ensure some form of geographic/regional representation in the postseason.

In other words, no matter how sucky their teams are, the West Coast, Pacific Time Zone, whatever you want to call it, can always be assured that someone from their "area" will be playing in the playoffs. (Yeah, the actual divisions themselves are screwy: why is Dallas in the NFC East after all, why is St. Louis in the NFC West, etc. etc. But that's a debate for another day.) Anyway, without it, you could have a postseason in which basically nobody on the West Coast even gave a hoot about football after January 1. Interestingly, the OP thought that revenue/making money was an argument in favor of his proposal, but it's exactly the opposite: the NFL doesn't want to lose money, and one clear way to do it is to keep every region of the country interested, to the extent possible.

that's also a good point but it could work the other way also. let's say under original rules, Jacksonville would make the playoffs. However, under slightly different rules, the New York Jets would get in. Which market do you think the NFL would rather have in the playoffs? Or the steelers? You have a good argument but there are several teams who's market/following is bigger some of the west coast states combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
I think each division should have a playoff participant, but seed the teams based on record and not just being division winners.

It's still the same principle/problem, just less dramatic consequences. If we're conceding that a better team could have a worse record, then why are we going to change the way we seed teams?

Same example. Let's say that next year all 4 NFC East teams are great and beat each other up all season. The Redskins win the best division in football with a 10-6 record. Should they play on the road in the wild card round because the Rams beat up on the Cardinals and 49ers to grab second place in a weak NFC West with an 11-5 record (my example assumes that the Seahawks win the division...just hypothetical, of course)?

I think that can happen just as often as a horrible team wins a bad division by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjfootballer

pjfootballer

Posted
Posted
It's still the same principle/problem, just less dramatic consequences. If we're conceding that a better team could have a worse record, then why are we going to change the way we seed teams?

Same example. Let's say that next year all 4 NFC East teams are great and beat each other up all season. The Redskins win the best division in football with a 10-6 record. Should they play on the road in the wild card round because the Rams beat up on the Cardinals and 49ers to grab second place in a weak NFC West with an 11-5 record (my example assumes that the Seahawks win the division...just hypothetical, of course)?

I think that can happen just as often as a horrible team wins a bad division by default.

Thing is, in the old days, you played 8 divisional games which was more than 50% of your schedule. You play 6 games of 16. I'm not sure you'd find alot of instances where a team goes 6-0 in their division and 4-6 the rest of the schedule. Not to say it couldn't happen, but if a team is good, then they will win the other games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Drew_Fl

Drew_Fl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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?

so this year an 11-5 team has to go on the road to face a 7-9 team. and if you think the seahawks are better than the saints, i'd like to have what you're having.

i hope this is only a one-time occurrence, but i believe the NFL should do something besides hoping this isn't a normal thing to have such a terrible team in the playoffs while you have two 10-6 teams at home AND an 11-5 team has to go on the road to face them.

At least take away the home game and seed by record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bubble Screen

Bubble Screen

Posted
Posted
so this year an 11-5 team has to go on the road to face a 7-9 team. and if you think the seahawks are better than the saints, i'd like to have what you're having.

i hope this is only a one-time occurrence, but i believe the NFL should do something besides hoping this isn't a normal thing to have such a terrible team in the playoffs while you have two 10-6 teams at home AND an 11-5 team has to go on the road to face them.

At least take away the home game and seed by record.

Dude, I'm pretty sure the Saints aren't complaining about having to face Seattle, no matter where its played.

Personally, after giving this some more thought, I don't think the NFL should do anything. I mean, this is the first time its ever happened. I think they should focus on more important things, such as a rookie salary cap. No way in hell a guy should get a 60 million contract without ever having played a snap in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drew_Fl

Drew_Fl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Dude, I'm pretty sure the Saints aren't complaining about having to face Seattle, no matter where its played.

Personally, after giving this some more thought, I don't think the NFL should do anything. I mean, this is the first time its ever happened. I think they should focus on more important things, such as a rookie salary cap. No way in hell a guy should get a 60 million contract without ever having played a snap in the league.

i completely agree about the rookie pay scale problem needing addressed also, but i don't see why addressing that would stop them from addressing this. Happening once is one too many times in my opinion. How many times does it have to happen for it to be fixed? It's not like you mess with the integrity of the playoffs by stripping the home field at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
I think a 7-9 team making the playoffs is awesome. It would be very much in character for the NFL to utterly over-react to this. But' date=' I would not change a thing.

I hope the Seahawks make the Super Bowl.[/quote']

The bold part of your post is the one I agree with the most. I fully expect the NFL to overreact to it...something that has happened one time. This year, you have 3 of 4 wild card weekend games where the home team has a worse record than the road team. I think that's OK and to me there is no difference between a 7-9 or 10-6 record if you're the best team in your division. If you want a home game, win your division. If you don't want to reward division winners with home games, than disband the divisions. I think it's a horrible solution to do so, but you can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

They should leave it alone.

The NFL has become nothing but a knee-jerk collection of ninnies trying to correct every perceived unfairness with new rules.

And the NFL sucks as a result of the burden of idiotic rules that insure that games are never officiated the same way twice.

Because of a stupid play in a playoff game between the Rams and Bucs we now have no idea what constitutes a catch.. it's all up to the convoluted and completely inconsistent "interpretation" of the part timers they have reffing games.

Because the Patriots beat the Colts invthe playoffs, now there's more rules than ever making sure that just touching a receiver is a five yard penalty and an automatic first down, no matter if the ball came that way or not. And nevermind that they touch and grab anyway, and it's just up the subjective reasoning of the inconsistent part timers they have reffing the game as to when they want to throw the flag.

Last year Brett Favre didnt get the ball in overtime, and now we have ****ing COLLEGE OVERTIME in the PLAYOFFS. BULL****!!!!!!

This year there were 19 games that went to OT. TWO were decided in the first possession. TWO out of 19. And they change the rules because they listen to the CRYING of a LOSER. Football has never been about throwing a loser a lifeline,, until now.

Do not change the rule because Seattle got in. Do not change the rule because the NFC west is weak.

Do not change the rule because this has happened exactly one time in the near 50 seasons since the Super Bowl began.

Do not change the rule because football is supposed to be a rough sport for tough men, not a bunch of whining ****es who want rules to bail them out of how it's been since the beginnings of the league.

497px-Vulva-handsign-Yoni-mudra.svg.png

Grow a pair, NFL.

Do not change the rule, because every time you do you destroy football just a little bit more.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...