NFL Week #18 THE PLAYOFFS

[Number27]

Says who? Says the NFL. This is the structure the NFL has been using since forever. Division winners get first round home games. You are rewarded for winning a division title, not just winning a bunch of games. Come on man, you know this.

Well of course says the NFL, but that is just an arbitrary rule they decided upon long ago, like many of the rules in professional sports. Now i'm not saying they're all stupid and should be changed but i don't see why, if there's a better way of doing things, old rules can't be changed. I mean hell, they realigned the divisions only a decade ago, splitting up rivalries that had been going for over twenty years (although the Pats still play the Colts every year regardless). They introduced instant replay even after years of people moaning about how it would ruin the game (I still don't understand how people can think that refs screwing up the call and letting it stand is a good thing). So they've made major changes in the past, so "This is the structure the NFL has been using since forever" simply isn't a good enough excuse to exclude superior teams from the playoffs.

As lousy as the Seahawks are in your opinion, they did enough to win their division. They did not win a tie breaker or back in like other teams have in the past.

Well actually they did win a tie breaker because both them and St. Louis are 7-9, and IIRC they lost 5 straight games prior to the season finale, if that's not backing in i don't know what is.

Is the Raiders question a serious one? You obviously need to do more than beat your division opponents to win a title.

Exactly. But hey at least the Raiders finished with a .500 record, only they weren't quite as fortunate as the Seahawks in as far as their division foes were slightly more competant against intradivision teams.

What is the point of having divisions then if you're all for letting the top six teams in the playoffs? What if eight teams had records to qualify for the playoffs? What about the two you would have to leave out? Definitely not fair to them.

-Mike

Divisions would still be useful for 2 reasons:
1. Rivalries. As a steelers fan you relish the games against the Browns, Ravens, and Bengals right? You (or anyone else) love it when your team stomps their rivals. It's an important part of sports. Playing your division rivals twice a year is good for keeping those rivalries going.
2. Geography and Scheduling. Now that the divisions are aligned geographically (mostly) it makes life just a little bit easier on the road teams as far as travelling is concerned. It also allows for more convienient scheduling, but that is rather minor point.

If you had eight teams with playoff worthy records? Clearly that's what tie breakers are for. Maybe it is a little "unfair" but its no different to how we decide the wild cards right now anyway.


Taken from the final NFL standings this is what the playoffs would look like if it were the true top 6 teams in each Conference:

NFC

1st seed Atlanta -bye
2nd seed Chicago -bye
3rd seed New Orleans v. 6th seed Philadelphia
4th seed Green Bay v. 5th seed New York

AFC

1st seed Pats -bye
2nd seed Baltimore -bye
3rd seed Pittsburgh v. 6th seed Kansas City
4th seed New Jersey v. 5th seed Indianapolis

There, not a whole lot wrong with that, and it's not really that different to the current situation except that teams with better records were rewarded with home playoff games. Certainly it would be impossible for a team to slop its way into the playoffs by being slightly less terrible than it's 3 division opponents.

Literally the only people who could be incensed by this system would be Seattle fans... and really what would their argument be? "aww but we were better than St Louis (7-9), San Francisco (6-10), and Arizona (5-11)" Wow what an accomplishment.

 

[Number27]

To add on to MJ5150... Should ease of schedule come into play then? The Chicago Bears for example... 9 of 16 games were against teams with a losing record. Kansas City? 10 games were against teams with a losing record and 2 teams with an 8-8 record. Or to put it another way. Kansas City played 3 games against teams with winning record and two of them were against the 9-7 San Diego Chargers. Seattle, in the weakest division, only played 8 games against teams with a losing record. The same amount as the New England Patriots. I could probably go on and on...

And in case you didn't read my earlier post (Only because you mentioned the NFC West) 3 of the 4 games this weekend have the best record going on the road.

What happens when the league moves to 18 games? Sounds as if there will be more teams with mediocre or losing records getting into the playoffs.

All that proves is that Chicago and Kansas City beat teams worse than them and that Seattle failed to beat teams better than them. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Besides the schedules are decided years ahead of time on an easily rotating basis. There is no reason to take it into account (except for like the 8th tiebreaker maybe).

And if we did, shouldn't we be taking injuries into account too? Green Bay had a record 4000* people on IR this year, surely the fact that they managed a 10-6 record proves they're better than the New England Patriots who had hardly any injuries at all (for a change). Not really. The world isn't perfect, and there's no way to know for sure that "in a vacuum, under ideal conditions the Packers would beat the Patriots" because life is full of variables. And because nobody has control over those variables all you can say for sure is that the Patriots beat Green Bay, or that New York won more games than Seattle.

A variable we do have control over, however, is when a team with a losing record is rewarded with a home playoff game just because it was slightly less awful than the 3 other teams in it's divison.


*number may be slightly exagerated



P.S. I don't have anything personal against the Seahawks, it's just i don't like the idea of a 7-9 team hosting a playoff game while two 10-6 teams sit at home.

 

[Jeff K]

Taken from the final NFL standings this is what the playoffs would look like if it were the true top 6 teams in each Conference:

NFC

1st seed Atlanta -bye
2nd seed Chicago -bye
3rd seed New Orleans v. 6th seed Philadelphia
4th seed Green Bay v. 5th seed New York

AFC

1st seed Pats -bye
2nd seed Baltimore -bye
3rd seed Pittsburgh v. 6th seed Kansas City
4th seed New Jersey v. 5th seed Indianapolis

I get your point, but I'm a little confused as to why you have Baltimore "seeded" above Pittsburgh. Their records are identical; they split the two games they played head-to-head; and I think the Steelers had a better record in their Division. I know it's a moot point anyway, but I'm curious about that. Thanks.

 

[MJ5150]

.......that is just an arbitrary rule they decided upon long ago......

Well actually they did win a tie breaker because both them and St. Louis are 7-9.......

Exactly. But hey at least the Raiders finished with a .500 record, only they weren't quite as fortunate as the Seahawks in as far as their division foes were slightly more competant against intradivision teams.

Literally the only people who could be incensed by this system would be Seattle fans...

Arbitrary rules? You win a division, and your reward is a home playoff game. If it was some rule that didn't make sense, then maybe I'd see where you guys are coming from. This one is simple. For the first time in the history of the arrangement, we get this anomaly, and now you guys are ready to change the rules.

The Seahawks had to win the game to get in, that is what I meant. There have been years where teams lost a final game and still made it in.

Those same Raiders would miss the playoffs under your proposal, so you're stiffing them too.

How did Baltimore get ahead of Pittsburgh in your standings? How did you come up with your 4-6 in the
NFC?

This year, yes the Seahawks fans are the only ones who would be upset. Guar-dang-tee you if your plan was put in place and it somehow hosed the Patriots, you guys would burn the NFL offices down.

-Mike

 

[Passinwind]

Well of course says the NFL, but that is just an arbitrary rule they decided upon long ago, like many of the rules in professional sports. Now i'm not saying they're all stupid and should be changed but i don't see why, if there's a better way of doing things, old rules can't be changed. I mean hell, they realigned the divisions only a decade ago, splitting up rivalries that had been going for over twenty years (although the Pats still play the Colts every year regardless). They introduced instant replay even after years of people moaning about how it would ruin the game (I still don't understand how people can think that refs screwing up the call and letting it stand is a good thing). So they've made major changes in the past, so "This is the structure the NFL has been using since forever" simply isn't a good enough excuse to exclude superior teams from the playoffs.

Of course it is, along with the fact that money talks, and TV ratings and betting drive pro sports revenue streams. Make it too fair and predictable, lose money. Simple. Superior teams win whatever they need to, the rest are all filler anyway.

 

[Waterpilot]

All that proves is that Chicago and Kansas City beat teams worse than them and that Seattle failed to beat teams better than them.

Does it? Chicago lost to Seattle at home and Kansas City played 2 teams that ended the year with a winning record. How can you say Kansas City is better then New York or Tampa Bay?

A variable we do have control over, however, is when a team with a losing record is rewarded with a home playoff game just because it was slightly less awful than the 3 other teams in it's division.

I'm struggling with the "hosting" part myself.

P.S. I don't have anything personal against the Seahawks, it's just i don't like the idea of a 7-9 team hosting a playoff game while two 10-6 teams sit at home.

I know and don't blame you for feeling that way. It's not something I'm extremely proud of either but am excited nonetheless... But... It is the first time ever and it may never happen again.

Literally the only people who could be incensed by this system would be Seattle fans... and really what would their argument be? "aww but we were better than St Louis (7-9), San Francisco (6-10), and Arizona (5-11)" Wow what an accomplishment.

That isn't true. This year it is. But what happens next year if Pittsburgh is (assuming it's still a 16 game season) 11-5 and wins their division but have the 7th best record? There would be no incentive to ever win your division again. 18 games? More time for injury and for more losses...

 

[cassanova]

I disagree completely. Winning your division is important, regardless of how the seeds fall. If Green Bay won the NFC North, but had a worse record than the Eagles, would you want them to have to travel to Philly for the game, especially if Philly was a Wild Card team? I would bet not.

The teams that make it as a Wild Card are just that. They are the BEST teams that COULDN'T win a division being granted a second shot at the playoffs.

My friends and I have thought for years that a better way to do things would be to take the best 2 teams from each conference and advance them to the bowl. If there are teams within the conference with the same record, then do a playoff game or games.

 

[Number27]

I get your point, but I'm a little confused as to why you have Baltimore "seeded" above Pittsburgh. Their records are identical; they split the two games they played head-to-head; and I think the Steelers had a better record in their Division. I know it's a moot point anyway, but I'm curious about that. Thanks.

You are correct, and i wasn't sure which way around to go myself. Obviously with the way the playoff system works now the Steelers are seeded above the Ravens and likewise for the Eagles/Giants. Like you said this is based off of Division record, but if my arguement was that we should eliminate the importance of winning the division as the factor for determining playoff berths i thought that Conference record would be the next decider after head to head. It is also the exact order that they were seeded in the NFL final standings.

Arbitrary rules? You win a division, and your reward is a home playoff game. If it was some rule that didn't make sense, then maybe I'd see where you guys are coming from. This one is simple. For the first time in the history of the arrangement, we get this anomaly, and now you guys are ready to change the rules.

I know, it works most of the time, although it has shut out worthy 10-6 teams (and a certain 11-5 team ) before. I'm not saying that it totally sucks but if there is a better way of doing it then why not? I don't really see a bad side to letting better teams play each other in the playoffs.

The Seahawks had to win the game to get in, that is what I meant. There have been years where teams lost a final game and still made it in.

Ok true enough, they did at least win their do or die game.

Those same Raiders would miss the playoffs under your proposal, so you're stiffing them too.

Indeed, but at least it they'd be judged to need to win the same number of games as everyone else (which would be 1 more than the 7th place team)

This year, yes the Seahawks fans are the only ones who would be upset. Guar-dang-tee you if your plan was put in place and it somehow hosed the Patriots, you guys would burn the NFL offices down.

-Mike

Haha, i can't speak for all New Englanders but i'd like to think i'm sane enough not to resort to arsen

Does it? Chicago lost to Seattle at home and Kansas City played 2 teams that ended the year with a winning record. How can you say Kansas City is better then New York or Tampa Bay?

You honestly can't. In this instance Kansas City could be concidered fortunate to be in the AFC instead of the NFC (i don't really believe this though as i believe the AFC to be the superior conference), but at least there is no doubt that they won more games than San Diego, Oakland, or the Dolphins. I could attempt to debate the merits of eliminating the NFC and AFC and replacing them with 2 geographically set conferences like in the NBA, but i don't want to get run out of town

I know and don't blame you for feeling that way. It's not something I'm extremely proud of either but am excited nonetheless... But... It is the first time ever and it may never happen again.

and you should be excited, i would be. Hopefully for the fans in Seattle, who have seen a sports apocalypes descend on their city, they (the seahawks) make the most of it.

That isn't true. This year it is. But what happens next year if Pittsburgh is (assuming it's still a 16 game season) 11-5 and wins their division but have the 7th best record? There would be no incentive to ever win your division again. 18 games? More time for injury and for more losses...

If they were 11-5 but were 7th best then they were 7th best and shouldn't be in the playoffs . Teams would still want to win their division games, i mean who goes out there and doesn't want to win a game (other than the Colts)? It might shift priorities slightly to make all games equally important, but it wouldn't effect rivalries from a fans perspective would it? I think i'd still hate the Jets whether we had to beat them to the division title or not (hell i still hate the Colts and they've been out of our division for 10 years now).

As for 18 games... well i, personally, hope it doesn't come to that. Unless the owners want to expand rosters, and let teams bring more backups then 16 games is just fine.

 

[mwm70]

As MJ5150 said win your division and you are in and receive a home game. That is how it has been forever. The Ravens did not handle their in-house business this year and need to travel to a team with a worse record. Their fault for not making sure their priorities were taken care of. If you are capable of winning it all, it does not matter where the game is played you will be prepared and come out on top.

 

[Eric Perry]

...If you are capable of winning it all, it does not matter where the game is played you will be prepared and come out on top.

exactly.

 

[mrpackerguy]

I'm with ya jp58. If you want a first round home game and maybe a bye, win your division. If you can't win your division, stop whining.

If we went with this top six seeds by record idea, two of the AFC division winners and Philly would be playing road games this weekend.

-Mike

I dunno guys. I never placed much on winning a division of 4 teams. I still think W-L is a better determinant of where a team should be seeded. And it still gets the division winner in the payoffs regardless. If there were 5-6 team divisions, maybe. I agree strength of schedule is a bit of a numbers game always favoring teams who had losing records the prior year and don't agree with any seeding involving SOS.

 

[mid_life_crisis]

All 32 are pro teams playing other pro teams.

After watching the Dolphins last week and the Bills the week before, I'm not sure how accurate this is.
Sure, they all get paid, so technically they're professionals...

 

[mrpackerguy]

Well of course says the NFL, but that is just an arbitrary rule they decided upon long ago, like many of the rules in professional sports. Now i'm not saying they're all stupid and should be changed but i don't see why, if there's a better way of doing things, old rules can't be changed. I mean hell, they realigned the divisions only a decade ago, splitting up rivalries that had been going for over twenty years (although the Pats still play the Colts every year regardless). They introduced instant replay even after years of people moaning about how it would ruin the game (I still don't understand how people can think that refs screwing up the call and letting it stand is a good thing). So they've made major changes in the past, so "This is the structure the NFL has been using since forever" simply isn't a good enough excuse to exclude superior teams from the playoffs.





Well actually they did win a tie breaker because both them and St. Louis are 7-9, and IIRC they lost 5 straight games prior to the season finale, if that's not backing in i don't know what is.



Exactly. But hey at least the Raiders finished with a .500 record, only they weren't quite as fortunate as the Seahawks in as far as their division foes were slightly more competant against intradivision teams.



Divisions would still be useful for 2 reasons:
1. Rivalries. As a steelers fan you relish the games against the Browns, Ravens, and Bengals right? You (or anyone else) love it when your team stomps their rivals. It's an important part of sports. Playing your division rivals twice a year is good for keeping those rivalries going.
2. Geography and Scheduling. Now that the divisions are aligned geographically (mostly) it makes life just a little bit easier on the road teams as far as travelling is concerned. It also allows for more convienient scheduling, but that is rather minor point.

If you had eight teams with playoff worthy records? Clearly that's what tie breakers are for. Maybe it is a little "unfair" but its no different to how we decide the wild cards right now anyway.


Taken from the final NFL standings this is what the playoffs would look like if it were the true top 6 teams in each Conference:

NFC

1st seed Atlanta -bye
2nd seed Chicago -bye
3rd seed New Orleans v. 6th seed Philadelphia
4th seed Green Bay v. 5th seed New York

AFC

1st seed Pats -bye
2nd seed Baltimore -bye
3rd seed Pittsburgh v. 6th seed Kansas City
4th seed New Jersey v. 5th seed Indianapolis

There, not a whole lot wrong with that, and it's not really that different to the current situation except that teams with better records were rewarded with home playoff games. Certainly it would be impossible for a team to slop its way into the playoffs by being slightly less terrible than it's 3 division opponents.

Literally the only people who could be incensed by this system would be Seattle fans... and really what would their argument be? "aww but we were better than St Louis (7-9), San Francisco (6-10), and Arizona (5-11)" Wow what an accomplishment.

I don't think you can make the wholesale change of best records only. I think you still keep all division winners in, then Wildcards based on current system. Only thing to make it more fair in the payoffs, is I'm saying to seed them based on record, not divisional titles.

 

[mid_life_crisis]

Denver fans have mentioned Tebow a few times and I knew nothing about him until I saw the "Year of the Quarterback" special on him yesterday. You have to respect that kid's work ethic.
If determination and hard work mean anything, he will end up a quality NFL QB.

 

[sloasdaylight]

This the first year a sub 500 team got into the playoffs, but there have been 8-8 teams get into the playoffs while teams with better records get to sit at home on their couch.

 

[MJ5150]

Denver fans have mentioned Tebow a few times and I knew nothing about him until I saw the "Year of the Quarterback" special on him yesterday. You have to respect that kid's work ethic.

I caught that last night too. Excellent program. I look forward to the one on Jake Locker too. But the one I am most looking forward to is the episode on Condredge Holloway.

-Mike

 

[Adam Barkley]

This the first year a sub 500 team got into the playoffs, but there have been 8-8 teams get into the playoffs while teams with better records get to sit at home on their couch.

This. Plus this, 12-4 Indy traveled to 8-8 San Diego in 2008. San Diego won their stinky division and Indy started out 3-4 (losing 2 of 3 in the divsion in that span) while Tennessee started out 10-0 in the best division in football that year.

Tennessee should be and was rewarded for their hot start. Indy was punished rightfully so for their cold start.

New Orleans fans quit bitching. There are 2 other teams in your boat. If the Saints are truly worth anything they will be able to handle the Seahawks. If anything you should be glad that you have a potential "easy" game and not have to travel to Atlanta or Green Bay and get your bell rung.

 

[Bipslapper]

Denver fans have mentioned Tebow a few times and I knew nothing about him until I saw the "Year of the Quarterback" special on him yesterday. You have to respect that kid's work ethic.
If determination and hard work mean anything, he will end up a quality NFL QB.

I agree (although I don't have much to go on in his young career), this kid could be decent.
I believe you need the physical skills plus the solid mental framework (i.e.: not Ryan Leaf). Timmy has got his priorities straight it seems.

 

[Gard]

This. Plus this, 12-4 Indy traveled to 8-8 San Diego in 2008. San Diego won their stinky division and Indy started out 3-4 (losing 2 of 3 in the divsion in that span) while Tennessee started out 10-0 in the best division in football that year.

Tennessee should be and was rewarded for their hot start. Indy was punished rightfully so for their cold start.

New Orleans fans quit bitching. There are 2 other teams in your boat. If the Saints are truly worth anything they will be able to handle the Seahawks. If anything you should be glad that you have a potential "easy" game and not have to travel to Atlanta or Green Bay and get your bell rung.

Unknot your panties.



There are more non-Saints fans bitching about this than Saints fans. Further, there are even a few SEAHAWKS fans questioning the situation.

The Saints should have taken care of business during the regular season (inexcusable losses at AZ and Cleveland, "coulda-woulda-shoulda loss in week 3 to Atlanta), if they had, they'd have home field advantage. I am not happy about the situation, and don't think that the 'Hawks have any genuine right to be even PLAYING this weekend, much less hosting a game, but the bottom line is that the Saints played themselves out of hosting games and a bye.

Now they gotta take care of business on the road - at least for the next two weeks (if Green Bay wins in Philly & Atlanta - both games they CAN win, and NOLA wins out, the NFCCG is in the Superdome again). If they don't then they don't deserve to make it to the big dance this season, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

(...see, I am capable of being rational... )

 

[MJ5150]

The general feeling among Seattle fans is they are fortunate to have made the playoffs, and kind of embarrassed to be hosting this game. That is the vibe I get from listening to the local sports radio.

-Mike