SWFLSkins Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 The problem is, the NFC West is not really a "division" lol ...nobody wins the NFC West, they just are deemed to be the team that stunk the least. It would be hard to argue but could'nt you just say all the teams were so good that they just beat up on each other and the best team won? , uh nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 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. Agree with much of your post, Bang....however, I'm not as bothered with the new OT rules. It really isn't college OT, which really would suck. As for only 2/19 games being decided on the first posession of OT this year......last year it was 5/13. Historically, its been about 30 percent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 keep it the way it is. otherwise there is no damn incentive to win your division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 There should be a little more weight put on the division record, a little more incentive to do well in division other than tiebreakers, a little bit of the way the college conferences do it: best in-conference records go to the championship game. I know you just can't do that solely, but when a team goes 6-0 in division (like the Raiders this year) there should be some reward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 No. However, I would support a rule change that gave the teams with the best record home field advantage rather than division winners. Its one thing for Seattle to go to the playoffs (which I have absolutely no problem with), it is another to give them a home playoff game. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 No.However, I would support a rule change that gave the teams with the best record home field advantage rather than division winners. Its one thing for Seattle to go to the playoffs, it is another to allow them to host a home playoff game. Home field should always be given to the better team. So, theoretically, a 6 seed could host a 2 seed. I'm not too sure I like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Historically, its been about 30 percent. Oh no! Change the rule! ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Bang, I couldn't agree more with you. You generally have good posts, this was one of the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 Bang, I couldn't agree more with you. You generally have good posts, this was one of the best. This is one of Bangs post I can't agree with all the way. For overtime, I wouldn't care if they changed it, but be consistent for regular season AND playoffs. This current way just seems stupid. But explain to me how a rule stating if you're a sub-.500 division champ, you make the playoffs but lose your home game be a knee-jerk and complete overreaction? I don't believe they should even have a playoff spot, however for the sanctity of division titles, that has to mean something so i guess we shouldn't take that away. Taking away the home game just seems logical and encourages competitive fairness and balance. Kind of like Foxnews I don't care if this happens once every 100 years. That's too much and it can be somewhat fixed while not breaking the rest of it. I see where you guys are coming from on this and don't want to change things, but this just seems blatantly unfair. ...I should've made this thread when the Redskins were one of the 10-6 teams sitting at home, but that would require them getting 10 wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 This is one of Bangs post I can't agree with all the way. For overtime, I wouldn't care if they changed it, but be consistent for regular season AND playoffs. This current way just seems stupid. But explain to me how a rule stating if you're a sub-.500 division champ, you make the playoffs but lose your home game be a knee-jerk and complete overreaction? I don't believe they should even have a playoff spot, however for the sanctity of division titles, that has to mean something so i guess we shouldn't take that away. Taking away the home game just seems logical and encourages competitive fairness and balance. Kind of like Foxnews Because it's only happened once. If it happens 6 times in the next ten years, change the rule. But one time in 80+ years? Leave it be. I don't care if this happens once every 100 years. That's too much and it can be somewhat fixed while not breaking the rest of it. I see where you guys are coming from on this and don't want to change things, but this just seems blatantly unfair. ...I should've made this thread when the Redskins were one of the 10-6 teams sitting at home, but that would require them getting 10 wins It's an anomaly. Nothing more. We missed the playoffs in a 10 win season once. Back in about 86 or so. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibarramedia Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think the division winners deserve to go to the playoffs. What is the incentive or reward for winning the division if you can't get in the 'tournament'? What happened with the Seahawks is an anomaly that won't be happening on a yearly basis. If the Seahawks somehow win their first playoff game, there could be a resurgence of instant Cinderella Bandwagon supporters. Especially if they make it all the way to the superbowl and win it all. It would be the football story of the year, possibly the decade. From 7-9 to 11-9 and World Champion. Before realignment, we had 3 division winners and 3 wildcard teams. Now we have 4 division winners and 2 wildcards. They should add 2 more teams to the playoff picture to offset this. We had realignment because we added new teams, the latest being the Houston Texans. From the mid 90's to the present we have seen 4 new franchises enter the league in the Carolina Panthers, Jacksonville Jaguars, The New and resurrected Cleveland Browns and the Houston Texans. So it makes sense to add playoff teams tot he tournament. 8 for each conference instead of 6. A sweet 16, if you will. Just for the sake of lol'ing, it is mathematically possible to have a 6-10 or even 5-11 Division Champion. Though a 5-11 division winner is pushing it too much. Seriously what are the odds that this would happen before? It was mathematically possible before and reality now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasaurus Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 If the league decides that next season there is a 18 game season instead of 17, then I believe that the entire format for the post season has to all so get shuffled around. to where a 3rd place 9 or 10 win team. can't miss the post season,.with the event of two teams with the same record. Needing to dealt with in a one game winner gets the last playoff spot game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 If the league decides that next season there is a 18 game season instead of 17, then I believe that the entire format for the post season hasto all so get shuffled around. to where a 3rd place 9 or 10 win team. can't miss the post season,.with the event of two teams with the same record. Needing to dealt with in a one game winner gets the last playoff spot game true i forgot about that. this discussion is pretty much useless if that happens b/c it's a whole new ball game and there's no telling what could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 It looks like the playoff seeding rules are fine as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 It looks like the playoff seeding rules are fine as is. Yup. Any given Sunday, guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrifNick21 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 It looks like the playoff seeding rules are fine as is. Bet you wouldn't have said that had the Seahawks lost knowing your team has 3 more wins and are at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Bet you wouldn't have said that had the Seahawks lost knowing your team has 3 more wins and are at home. Doesn't matter. They won their divison. And today they silenced the critics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I think they should have gotten in, but no home field. The think there should be a "2-win" rule - if the WC team has more than 2 wins over the division winner, the WC gets to host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrifNick21 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Doesn't matter. They won their divison. And today they silenced the critics. I know. I was being frivolous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 We missed the playoffs in a 10 win season once. Back in about 86 or so. ~Bang Hell, that happened 3 times. We had bad luck and a very good division. San Fran would have missed the playoffs altogether in several of their big years if they'd been in our division. They went 10-6 in 88 and won the SB and wouldn't even have qualified for the playoffs in the east. We'd be the dynasty over them in the 80's if we'd have swapped divisions. I still like it the way it is. Seattle beating the 11-5 Saints today was classic. I guess GW didn't take Hasslebeck being on fire into consideration when making that defensive game plan. ---------- Post added January-9th-2011 at 05:54 PM ---------- everyone will always remember that the seahawks are a pretty poor football team, and the saints should crush them next weekend. So much for that idea, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 [Chris Berman]And that's why they play the game![/Chris Berman] (I wish The Blitz was on tonight. I love Berman, he'd be staining his pants with excitement over these games.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Hell, that happened 3 times. We had bad luck and a very good division. San Fran would have missed the playoffs altogether in several of their big years if they'd been in our division. They went 10-6 in 88 and won the SB and wouldn't even have qualified for the playoffs in the east. We'd be the dynasty over them in the 80's if we'd have swapped divisions.I still like it the way it is. Seattle beating the 11-5 Saints today was classic. I guess GW didn't take Hasslebeck being on fire into consideration when making that defensive game plan. ---------- Post added January-9th-2011 at 05:54 PM ---------- So much for that idea, lol. The American people are counting on you to keep your promises, Mr. Speaker. Tea Party Patriots are watching and we will be eternally vigilant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalRecall Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I would rather see 4 wild card teams anyways instead of an 18-game season. I still like the division winners going even if they have a 7-9 record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmchairRedskin Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I think it's fine that division winners get a playoff berth. I think you can make a good argument for re-seeding by record, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 All of you moaning and whining about the playoff seeding (something even I was kinda doing at one time) can shut up. Any given day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.