SkinsFTW Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 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" They already play 2 games each within the division so they are more significant. 6 games are within the division. I think they should have left it at 3 divisions and if they had we'd be much less likely to see a 7-9 team in the playoffs anyway. The only time in history 8-8 or 7-9 teams have been in the playoffs is in the 4 team divisions. I remember in the 80's the Browns/Bengals/Steelers made it with 9-7 or 8-8 at least once each because that division sucked, then San Diego got in at 8-8 a few years ago. I think they should have 5 team divisions but to do that they will have to add a few more teams. 2 divisions would be better than 4 though. At least that way the good teams would get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 They already play 2 games each within the division so they are more significant. 6 games are within the division. I think they should have left it at 3 divisions and if they had we'd be much less likely to see a 7-9 team in the playoffs anyway. The only time in history 8-8 or 7-9 teams have been in the playoffs is in the 4 team divisions. I remember in the 80's the Browns/Bengals/Steelers made it with 9-7 or 8-8 at least once each because that division sucked, then San Diego got in at 8-8 a few years ago. I think they should have 5 team divisions but to do that they will have to add a few more teams. 2 divisions would be better than 4 though. At least that way the good teams would get in. If my count is correct it happened 5 times prior to the realignment. Since teh realignment all the 8-8 and 7-9 teams that have made the playoffs have won there first game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scyber Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 If my count is correct it happened 5 times prior to the realignment.Since teh realignment all the 8-8 and 7-9 teams that have made the playoffs have won there first game Not sure if you were talking about division winners only, but Giants were a 8-8 Wildcard in '06 and lost their first playoff game (vs. Philly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted January 10, 2011 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.Those 3 or 4 wins aren't meaningless because most likely they were contention of a division title as well i.e. Saints and Ravens. A slip up from the Falcons and Steelers would of made them winners of their respective division. Wild Card are teams that didn't qualify for meeting the regular requirements(winning the division). It's not supposed to be fair, that's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why does everyone want a 7-9 team to host the NFC title game or go to the SB? They sucked during the regular season, why would I want to watch them in a big game? I really wanted New Orleans to tear them a new ass, but they were over motivated. Hell, the Redskins would split 5-5 with them at this point in a 10 game series and we suck. I don't get it. I don't want them beating Chicago. It's really not funny seeing them win. It's bad for the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why does everyone want a 7-9 team to host the NFC title game or go to the SB? They sucked during the regular season, why would I want to watch them in a big game? I really wanted New Orleans to tear them a new ass, but they were over motivated. Hell, the Redskins would split 5-5 with them at this point in a 10 game series and we suck. I don't get it. I don't want them beating Chicago. It's really not funny seeing them win. It's bad for the league.Redskins beat both the Packers and Bears, why would you want to watch them in the big game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 As I posted previously, if the 3rd place team in another division in the same conference is 3 games better than the 1st place team in another division I think the division winner should be excluded from the playoffs. This means in the unlikely scenario that the division winner is 7-9 while another division has a 3rd place 10-6 team, or the division winner is 8-8 and the 3rd place team is 11-5, the 10-6 or 11-5 team would go instead of the 7-9, 8-8 team. I don't think it is that unfair, everyone says how important division games are, well consider this: The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were 10-6 this year and are sitting at home. The Seattle Seahawks were 7-9 and are in the playoffs. Sure the Bucs didn't beat out the Saints who eventually lost to the Seahawks, but a 7-9 team playing a home playoff game in an emotional atmosphere can beat an 11-5 team. Hell the Redskins beat the Bears, Packers and Eagles this year and all those teams made the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 As I posted previously, if the 3rd place team in another division in the same conference is 3 games better than the 1st place team in another division I think the division winner should be excluded from the playoffs. This means in the unlikely scenario that the division winner is 7-9 while another division has a 3rd place 10-6 team, or the division winner is 8-8 and the 3rd place team is 11-5, the 10-6 or 11-5 team would go instead of the 7-9, 8-8 team. I don't think it is that unfair, everyone says how important division games are, well consider this: The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were 10-6 this year and are sitting at home. The Seattle Seahawks were 7-9 and are in the playoffs. Sure the Bucs didn't beat out the Saints who eventually lost to the Seahawks, but a 7-9 team playing a home playoff game in an emotional atmosphere can beat an 11-5 team. Hell the Redskins beat the Bears, Packers and Eagles this year and all those teams made the playoffs.and the Giants are sitting at home with a 10-6 as well and had plenty of chances to win the NFC East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Redskins beat both the Packers and Bears, why would you want to watch them in the big game? Better than a 7-9 team. Packers were 10-6 and had a TON of injuries. Bears have a great defense. Seattle was a survivor, plain and simple. And you didn't answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Rock, my issue with potential rules like that is that we seem to be making this way too complicated and arbitrary. To me, though I hate the idea, the only fair way to remove division champions from hosting a playoff game would be to eliminate divisions. Otherwise, why have teams play a division-weighted schedule at all? Picking any set of factors to decide why a wild card team should make it over a division team doesn't make sense. So, either keep it exactly as it is or divide the NFL into the NFC and AFC and let everyone play essentially the same schedule...you'd have each NFC team play everyone else in the conference (15 games) and then you'd have some sort of way to play 3 games against the AFC (assuming an 18-game schedule). That way, tie-breakers can all be head-to-head and no one can argue that they played in a tough division or lost out to a team in an easy division. Personally, like I said, I hate that idea. But, the only way to fairly have divisions is to reward division champions. Otherwise, what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Don't be like the NFL and overreact. Leave it the way it is. If NO had whipped Seattle, I could MAYBE see looking at it, or even if this happens every 3rd year or so. But I like it the way it is. All four games were exciting and if Seattle is as bad as people say they are, they'll get trounced against a team that's had 2 weeks to rest/prepare AND is at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Better than a 7-9 team. Packers were 10-6 and had a TON of injuries. Bears have a great defense. Seattle was a survivor, plain and simple.And you didn't answer my question. You already know the answer to your own question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The NFL needs to go back to a 3 division format: NFC East: Dallas New York Giants Philly Washington Carolina Central: Chicago Detroit Green Bay Minnesota Tampa Bay Atlanta West: Arizona St Louis San Francisco Seattle New Orleans AFC East: Buffalo Miami New York Jets New England Indianapolis Central: Cleveland Cincinnati Pittsburgh Baltimore Tennessee Jacksonville West: Denver Kansas City Oakland San Diego Houston Top 2 division winners get the bye. 3 wild card teams from each conference. Of course, optimally there would be 2 teams contracted (Jacksonville & Carolina). Gee, who coulda seen those two teams having issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 You already know the answer to your own question. I guess I shouldn't have used survivor. They were the last piece of **** left standing in the NFC West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The NFL needs to go back to a 3 division format: That's what I've been saying too. I don't know why they changed it in the first place. The year they added Houston and moved Seattle to the NFC is when they ****ed it up. 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I guess I shouldn't have used survivor. They were the last piece of **** left standing in the NFC West.You should go to the Seattle 12th man thread and watch the video at the 1:43 mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Seattle has a crazy home field advantage in that stadium. If that game is played in the Superdome, the Saints probably win by three touchdowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloosa Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 The NFC West is a joke. Everyone of the teams were in the running for a playoff spot because they can't beat anyone outside their division. That is pitiful for an NFL team to get into the playoffs with a losing record. For God's sake, Seattle only won one or two games more than the Redskins and they are in the playoffs and hosted the Saints at with 4 or 5 more wins. The playoffs need to have the best teams in there going for a Super Bowl championship and not a token NFC West team that won their division as a default entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 You should go to the Seattle 12th man thread and watch the video at the 1:43 mark. And crowd noise has what to do with a 7-9 crappy team in the playoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 As a rule, any time you try to fix something that isn't broken, you usually end up making it worse. I understand that people didn't want to see a team with a losing record make the playoffs, but most of the proposed "solutions" to the "problem" are extreme -- kinda like changing a browser setting on your computer by reloading your whole operating system, or wanting surgery for a mild case of gas. Suggestions include eliminating divisions, changing the divisions to 8 teams, changing the divisions to 5 or 6 teams, changing the seeding of current playoff contenders, changing the value of division games to 150% of the value of non-division games, establishing a max differential of 2 or 3 games between division & wildcard teams, simply taking away a division's playoff representation, and perhaps other I may have missed. The common denominator among them is that they are all far more complex and convoluted than the system that exists now. And for what? To keep something from happening that has only happened one time? Bang is absolutely right, any attempt to "fix" the situation represents a huge overreaction until the problem is really a problem. Currently, every team in the league starts out with the same goal every year -- first, win your division. If you do this, you get a home playoff game. Period. For incentive to do more than just win your division, the league rewards the conference teams with the best records with a bye, and the top team gets HFA throughout the playoff. Part of the problem is that the people making these suggestions are looking at things the wrong way. People are upset that the Saints had to travel to Seattle, but the system worked exactly as designed. The Saints were the top Wildcard team, so as a reward, they got to play the division winner with the worst record. Here's the problem with arbitrarily reseeding playoff teams or disallowing one division winner. When your team wins the division, the reward is not just that you get the home field playoff game, but also that none of your division rivals get one. If you take away a division's playoff spot and give it to another team, or if you reseed for whatever reason, suddenly your division rival is being rewarded with a home game even though they didn't win their division. If that's the case, as others have pointed out, what the hell is the point of having divisions? Some have objected to the whole idea of a wildcard team with a better record traveling to a division winner with a poorer record. I find that bizarre. That happened in three Wildcard games this year, it wasn't just the Saints and Seattle. It's not uncommon. It happened twice in the 2008 playoffs, twice in 2007, once in 2005, once in 2003, once in 2002, and then I got tired of looking. (The realignment was sometime around then anyway.) For what it's worth, my opinion would be exactly the same if the Rams had beaten the Seahawks in week 17. As a Seahawk fan, I'm happy that we won that game and beat the Saints in the Wildcard game, but that's not what drives my opinion. Also, for what it's worth, one year my 12-4 Seahawks played in a Wildcard game while the 9-7 Steelers got a bye. That wasn't what you might call "fair" today, but nobody even thought of complaining about it. Another year, the 10-6 Seahawks watched the playoffs on TV. I was upset that they didn't make the playoffs, but it was their own damn fault they didn't get in. The league may eventually go to three divisions per conference, but that's only going to happen in an expansion year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 You want to be champ? Quit your ******** and win your division. Otherwise accept the help if it comes, and stop whining if you don't get help. Divisions are there to allow for a good group of teams, that might beat each other up, to send a team at 9-7, to playoffs even if there's other teams in a different group with cupcake schedules that go 11-5. Sure there may be a weak team that makes it by the same mechanism, but at least they beat out at least three other teams that played a comparable schedule, so they're not that weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Good post Blue Talon...I don't understand why you'd have to change anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You should go to the Seattle 12th man thread and watch the video at the 1:43 mark. So you want me to watch fans scream in a stadium designed to make 60,0000+ fans sound like 90,000 and this is related to their s***** 7-9 record how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 So you want me to watch fans scream in a stadium designed to make 60,0000+ fans sound like 90,000 and this is related to their s***** 7-9 record how?Go watch the video and find out. This has nothing to do with the stadium noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.