Drew_Fl Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 I started this thread and I still believe that AT LEAST, the playoffs should be re-seeded, and heres why: Any team in the NFL is good enough to beat another any given Sunday. We all know this and have seen many examples. However, IMO, the playoffs aren't the place to prove you should be in the playoffs. That should be the regular season. 7-9 does not prove you belong, but since you win the division you get in. You put the 0-16 lions in the playoffs and they could've won a game also, does that mean they were supposed to be in the playoffs also? I think the current seeding de-values the regular season a lot (by 4 games exactly) when this is possible. Thoughts? Anyone's opinion change or get re-inforced over yesterday's game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box76 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Let the 2 best records be the #1 and #2 seeds The other 2 division winners will automatically be in the playoffs but not guaranteed the #3-4 slots...instead re-seed according to record 4-6. This would have put Seattle in New Orleans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Thing is that more and more, HFA means nothing. You think the Redskins problems at home are unusual? The norm is for teams to do better on the road than at home. Now certain teams, like Green Bay and Seattle have a very strong HFA but they are the exceptions. In most cases, the advantage is getting the bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I started this thread and I still believe that AT LEAST, the playoffs should be re-seeded, and heres why:Any team in the NFL is good enough to beat another any given Sunday. We all know this and have seen many examples. However, IMO, the playoffs aren't the place to prove you should be in the playoffs. That should be the regular season. 7-9 does not prove you belong, but since you win the division you get in. You put the 0-16 lions in the playoffs and they could've won a game also, does that mean they were supposed to be in the playoffs also? I think the current seeding de-values the regular season a lot (by 4 games exactly) when this is possible. Thoughts? Anyone's opinion change or get re-inforced over yesterday's game? Being 12-4 and defending Superbowl Champions doesn't prove anything either. A #6 seed team has won the Superbowl in the past and the #1 seed has won the Superbowl. Why shouldn't the teams that qualify for the playoffs be allowed to compete for a championship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Bleed_B&G Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 why is the Wild Card thread closed??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 why is the Wild Card thread closed??? I was asking the same thing. Start another one. I think Jumbo accidentally closed it, or somebody else did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABSTRACT Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 why is the Wild Card thread closed??? yeah Im confused too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 WTF, both new threads closed now. Is some one DRUNK???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Bleed_B&G Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Is someone playing a joke on us. New game threads closed now??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABSTRACT Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 WTF, both new threads closed now. Is some one DRUNK???? smh this is crazy. We should just talk about the game in here lol. But I'd probably be expelled from the Site. Feel like I'm in Communist China Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 Being 12-4 and defending Superbowl Champions doesn't prove anything either. A #6 seed team has won the Superbowl in the past and the #1 seed has won the Superbowl. Why shouldn't the teams that qualify for the playoffs be allowed to compete for a championship? I don't think you understood my post the way I meant for you to. I agree with what you said but I never said anything about the #6 seed not every winning anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I don't think you understood my post the way I meant for you to. I agree with what you said but I never said anything about the #6 seed not every winning anything.I know you didn't said anything about it. I used it to back up my claim. The records, stats, seedings, none of that matters. Any team in the playoffs capable to advancing and possibly winning the Superbowl. You mention that playoff isn't the place for a team to prove they belong there. I say that what happened in the regular season is irrelevant. 7 wins was good enough to win the NFC West. There's nothing that could of been done about that. Winning a division rewards that team a home playoff game. If the Saints wanted a home playoff game, then they should have won their division like the Seahawks, Eagles, and the Bears did or else they're the wildcard and must travel on the road. If the Saints are the better team based on their record, then playing at Seattle shouldn't of been a problem for them. The Ravens had no problem with heading out on the road and taking out the Chiefs. Currently the Packers are on the road and up 14-0 against the Eagles. There's nothing wrong the playoff seeding. It makes winning the division more important, therefore not devaluing the regular season at all. At the same time, winning a division does not guarantee a free ride to the Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 I know you didn't said anything about it. I used it to back up my claim. The records, stats, seedings, none of that matters. Any team in the playoffs capable to advancing and possibly winning the Superbowl. You mention that playoff isn't the place for a team to prove they belong there. I say that what happened in the regular season is irrelevant. 7 wins was good enough to win the NFC West. There's nothing that could of been done about that. Winning a division rewards that team a home playoff game. If the Saints wanted a home playoff game, then they should have won their division like the Seahawks, Eagles, and the Bears did or else they're the wildcard and must travel on the road. If the Saints are the better team based on their record, then playing at Seattle shouldn't of been a problem for them. The Ravens had no problem with heading out on the road and taking out the Chiefs. Currently the Packers are on the road and up 14-0 against the Eagles. There's nothing wrong the playoff seeding. It makes winning the division more important, therefore not devaluing the regular season at all. At the same time, winning a division does not guarantee a free ride to the Superbowl. The argument that if a team is better then beating this other team shouldn't be a problem is bogus. We've seen crappy teams (based on record) beat great teams in the regular season also, but that doesn't mean the great teams are ****ty just b/c they lost that one game. I said the playoffs aren't where you prove you belong in the playoffs b/c we shouldn't be using a playoff victory to justify a team being seeded where they are. We should be using the regular season record b/c if they don't then why do they play so many out of division games? How can you claim seeding a 7 win team over an 11 win team isn't de-valuing the regular season? That's exactly what it is. What else would you call it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboysSaintsFan Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The playoff seedings are more than fair-bottom line, everyone is 0-0 to start the playoffs. The Hawks beat the Saints fair and square. If they advance to the NFC title game(and host it), they've deserved it fair and square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The argument that if a team is better then beating this other team shouldn't be a problem is bogus. We've seen crappy teams (based on record) beat great teams in the regular season also, but that doesn't mean the great teams are ****ty just b/c they lost that one game. I said the playoffs aren't where you prove you belong in the playoffs b/c we shouldn't be using a playoff victory to justify a team being seeded where they are. We should be using the regular season record b/c if they don't then why do they play so many out of division games? How can you claim seeding a 7 win team over an 11 win team isn't de-valuing the regular season? That's exactly what it is. What else would you call it? There's nothing wrong the playoff seeding. It makes winning the division more important, therefore not devaluing the regular season at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 I believe this is a topic that truly can't be settled b/c either way they put it there will be a lot of room for discussion. I've made my points, and I've read and understood all of your points. That second line you quoted is right except it is devalued for the several other wildcard contenders (who's 3 or 4 extra wins have been rendered meaningless, hence de-valued), not the division winner though. Is that fair? IMO no, but i've already stated why, but I've also read all the arguments stating why it is fair and I definitely see how it's valid so i'm not trying to say anyone is wrong b/c I don't have a perfect solution. All we have is what it is. And that's still the best playoff system in sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I'm down with the other suggestion from earlier. Instead of 18 game season just add a couple more wild card teams and make the paloffs longer. A lot more people watch those games anyway. Only thing is then the NFL playoffs would be kinda like the NBA playoffs where teams with below .500 records make it. But that happened this year anyway. At least then the 10-6 teams who are in stronger divisions would get a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I'm down with the other suggestion from earlier. Instead of 18 game season just add a couple more wild card teams and make the paloffs longer. A lot more people watch those games anyway.Only thing is then the NFL playoffs would be kinda like the NBA playoffs where teams with below .500 records make it. But that happened this year anyway. At least then the 10-6 teams who are in stronger divisions would get a shot. That lessens the value of the 1 and 2 seeds. If you don't have the best record in the Conference, you might as well just rest starters, because you're not getting that bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 That lessens the value of the 1 and 2 seeds. If you don't have the best record in the Conference, you might as well just rest starters, because you're not getting that bye. Fine then add 3 more playoff teams. 9 total. 6 play wildcard weekend. 3 teams get a bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I kind of want to see a 7-9 team host an NFC Championship game. Green Bay @ Seattle for the NFC??? We will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Fine then add 3 more playoff teams. 9 total. 6 play wildcard weekend. 3 teams get a bye. More wild cards than Division winners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I like the system the way it is. It places a higher value on division games, which is just the way I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I like the system the way it is. It places a higher value on division games, which is just the way I like it. I know it's not going to happen, but if they could weight the division games to be 1.5 games on the record, that would make those game figuratively (and literally) more important than other games. It would also mean that the Raiders would have been in the race (if not won their division) It would weight the 6 division games out to 9 games on the record (meaning the final record adds up to 19 games played). You wouldn't have .500 records any more, and those "important" division games would actually be more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 and those "important" division games would actually be more important. only if you want to confuse me. j/k Honestly, I don't want any tinkering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 only if you want to confuse me.j/k Honestly, I don't want any tinkering. I tend to agree with you, I just couldn't think of anything else that would give division games the significance of being more important other than "they're our rivals" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.