NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?! - Off Season

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah but this year, the worse record comes from the crappy division while a good team that missed the playoffs and went 10-6 duked it out with the top teams.

The Giants losses came to the Colts, Eagles twice, Packers, Titans (when they were healthy and playing great football), and Cowboys.

[Lord Avalon]

I have no problem with division winners getting a home game. Why the hell not? If you're a wildcard, you hit the road. Fortunes of war.

I think what's got people losing perspective is the fact that this is probably the strongest group of wild card teams ever. Even without NYG, TB, etc. The NFL's unquenchable desire for parity has resulted in more decent teams, fewer great ones. And all the "decent" teams are scrambling for just a few spots. We had NYG, Philly, GB, Chi, Atl, NO, and TB fighting for 5 slots. And that doesn't even count Minny and Dallas, both of which were preseason darlings.

It's all about parity. Everyone thinks they have a shot, everyone feels entitlement, yet someone has to lose. It's one of the stronger lessons professional sports has to offer.

Why is it "losing perspective" to say that the worse records in the playoffs have to hit the road? Maybe "losing perspective" was expanding the league, adding a 4th division, but still keeping the importance of winning a division the same.

Even if that record was obtained by playing the crappy division -- while better teams duked it out against each other?
That would be every bit as unfair.

You can only play the games you're given. You don't know beforehand how strong or weak the schedule is going to turn out.

[SlowwHand]

You can't change the structure every year to accommodate the Giants. Hell, most years, two teams come from the NFC East already.

[Lord Avalon]

I assume that's to Al, because the Giants are still out my way. Now if you abolished the divisions, maybe they'd be in...

[-Jrabbit]

My comment was directed primarily to Al B.
It is losing perspective to call for draconian changes in playoff structure just because the Seahawks went 7-9 instead of 8-8.

This just in: The sky is not falling.

[Donegeal]

Don't absolve Divisions... absolve the conferences and seed 1-8 div champs and 9-12 nest best records.

[Lord Avalon]

My comment was directed primarily to Al B.
It is losing perspective to call for draconian changes in playoff structure just because the Seahawks went 7-9 instead of 8-8.

This just in: The sky is not falling.

As for my part, I may have not voiced dissatisfaction with division winners hosting better-record teams before, but that dissatisfaction has been growing in recent years and has come out at a time when a division winner has a losing record. I don't particularly care that Seattle was 7-9 instead of 8-8, but more that they (and others) are hosting a game. And to go further and offer a solution, I don't think you can just pick on one team, so I suggested seeding by record.

[SlowwHand]

This is the first time that a team with a losing record has even made the playoffs, much less won a division. You don't make rules for the common scenario because of an aberration.

[Al B. Sure!]

That's why you make this just a corollary contingent on a division leader being below .500! No need to change anything in 99.9% of circumstances.

[SlowwHand]

No, Al. Rules are rules, not suggestions.

[-Jrabbit]

I suggested seeding by record.

It's not a solution; it's an alternative. I see it as trading one problem for another. '

I find it interesting that there's all this NFC angst, but it's the AFC where things are really wacky. Both AFC wild cards (12-4 Balt, 11-5 Jets) have better records than the division champs they are playing (Indy and KC, both 10-6).

BTW, they did change the rules for this year. The #1 seeds get the lowest-seeded remaining team in their first game; the 2-seeds get the higher remaining team from wildcard weekend. This means you can now play a divisional opponent in your first playoff game.

So if Philly and NO win next week, the Saints will go to Atlanta. (Packers are a #6, so if they win, they will get Atlanta.) There's a pretty good chance that Baltimore would travel to Pittsburgh for their second game.

[-Jrabbit]

That's why you make this just a corollary contingent on a division leader being below .500! No need to change anything in 99.9% of circumstances.

So you're really OK with screwing the #2 seed - making them play an extra game - just so the Giants can get in?
And your excuse to do it is something that had nothing to do with keeping the Giants out of the playoffs?

O. M. G...

[SlowwHand]

You know, I used to just hate the Redskins, but then I found out that Philly has a pretty fair jackass team. Giants, I never really cared. I didn't hate Eli Manning.
In one year, Al has single-handedly made me despise the Giants. Well-done, Al.

[Lord Avalon]

It's not a solution; it's an alternative.

Maybe you don't agree with it, but how is it not a solution? I see a problem, I proposed a fix, rather than just *****ing about the way things are.

I find it interesting that there's all this NFC angst, but it's the AFC where things are really wacky. Both AFC wild cards (12-4 Balt, 11-5 Jets) have better records than the division champs they are playing (Indy and KC, both 10-6).

Al has the NFC angst. It's just an example to me (although it does stand out more). When asked to clarify, I said Indy & KC should go on the road, too.

[-Jrabbit]

A solution would ensure arguably "fair" outcomes in all seasons. It is my contention that your proposal would ultimately produce just as many anomalous results as the present system.

Not saying I couldn't live with it; just don't see it as an improvement.

I say: a champion should be able to win on the road. Some have even done so. Wild cards have made the SB like 9 times.