Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Playoff Structure
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stallyns


Global Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 23946
Location: 414
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PHillysPHinest2 wrote:
2) The televising of games would be done somewhat like the NCAA basketball tournament :all day. But only on Sundays, Mondays, and I guess Saturdays since college football would be over. You could easily fit 5 or 6 games into a day, and just have 2 night games. Now I realize broadcasting companies would never do this but from a fan's perspective this is perfect.
Your talking about pushing the SB further into February sweeps. Most TV series stall production from mid November until February to accomadate the holidays, Bowl season and the playoffs.

That doesn't even take into account pushing the league calendar back. Since the SB was pushed into the start of February now, free agency was pushed back to the start of March. So a mid February SB means mid march free agency and the possibility of pushing the draft back to the start of May.

Then we get into teams firing coaches after their 'season' is done but others are still playing.(we already seen the Patriots hire Josh McDaniels mid playoffs)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViolentMonk71


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 3766
Location: Don Shula's front porch
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PHillysPHinest2 wrote:
ViolentMonk71 wrote:
PHillysPHinest2 wrote:
sp6488 wrote:
PHillysPHinest2 wrote:
ViolentMonk71 wrote:
Ummm no.....I think this is a horrible idea.

Most team would treat the regular season as a tune up, protecting their best players in hoping to make a strong playoff run.

Teams that lost in the first round (half of the NFL) would only end up playing 13 games losing the revenue they would have earned from those 3 remaining games.

Stats and records would be completely pointless as no one would be able to achieve the level of production they have from a 12 game season.

With 16 playoff games which do you televise? When do you play them? Who gets prime time consideration?

Again....a resounding NO....


Those are semantics not real reasons sir. Those are all easily worked around. They manage to get the NCAA tournament on, you can watch every single game if you chose to.

And I don't like the NFL playoff system because bye weeks are stuuuuupid. Why have them in the playoffs? They really don't end up helping you as much as they hurt you.

And the reason I included a regular season is because I would prefer just an all out tournament, but then there would only be about 5 games unless you did it over again. This is honestly the best way to find out which team is really the best. Our current system is basically who has the best depth and/or who got lucky. The reason the regular season is important in this hypothetical situation is exactly what the quoted poster above just said. Money. The teams who advance make the most money. So teams are playing for revenue, players would get huge bonuses and/or the majority of their contract secured in the playoffs so their motivation to move on is the same as everyone else. There is nothiing more American than a blood sport played for financial gain. Everyone loves that.


This is the most incorrect, horrible myth that has ever been started on this forum and in general regarding byes in the playoff system.

Since the current playoff structure took effect in 2002, 14 teams with a first round bye have made it to the SB, while 8 teams without a first round bye have made it to the SB. For those of you counting at home, that's 14 of the 44 teams with first round byes over the last 11 seasons (32%) vs. 8 of the 88 teams without first round byes over the last 11 seasons (9%). Obviously teams without first round byes are knocked out in the WC round by teams without first round byes, but that IS the point. Having a first round bye increases your chances of earning a trip to the SB.

Taking it to SB winners, 50% of the last 10 SB winners (no winner for this season yet obviously) had first round byes. That's 5 out of 44 teams with first round byes that went on to win the SB (11%) vs. 5 out of 88 teams without first round byes that went on to win the SB (6%). Despite all of the talk about how seeding doesn't matter, a team inarguably raises its chances of winning the SB by securing a first round bye.

EDIT - I messed up the denominators on the SB portion of the discussion as I was still using 11 years worth of teams. percentages should be 12.5% and 6.25% for first round bye teams and non first round bye teams, respectively.


This was a great post, I'm glad you did the math. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if you're gonna take the time to go out of your way to prove your position.

The thing that we really came across when we developed this highdea was that the NFL is easily the most strategy based league in professional sports. It's like chess with more variables. No team in the NFL is more athletic than the next. I mean obviously there are certain players who are just freaks of nature, but in general most teams are equal. So the idea of one team being that much better than the other is a tad ridiculous. it really falls on how coaches use their players to implement their strategies and how the players do so on the field. That is why the current playoff system is a bit skewed. It only takes the "best" 12 teams, which is really the 12 teams who managed to get lucky and not screw up their coaches strategy. The 32 team tournament just seems like the natural way to show which team is the best in a continually high pressure situation.

And as for the poster who asked who would want to watch the 1 vs 32 game, as in the Broncos vs Chiefs, the people who already do want to watch that game. It's the NFL, every game has a market.


Your attempts at justification get poorer and poorer as this discussion goes on. Points have been made by every poster as to why this is one of the worst playoff proposals to have graced the internet and yet you still try to find a way to prove a point with very little data and information you think is correct.

You don't think there is a significant differences in the level of talent between the Chiefs and Broncos and it only comes down to strategy? Really? Because Cassel/Quinn/Sanzi are on par with Manning....it just so happens the Broncos have a better strategy....Puuuuuhlease! There may be more parity in the teams that make the playoffs (that's why they have the playoffs), but once you get to those bottom third teams there is definitely talent discrepancy.



Wow someone takes their time on the internet too seriously.

1) There could be a 16 game regular season, revenues and stats would be the same. Your problem is fixed boom. The 32 team playoff round robin is only 5 rounds for the championship teams. So only 1 extra game more than what the Ravens played this year. Not a big deal if you are getting paid millions of dollars.

2) The televising of games would be done somewhat like the NCAA basketball tournament :all day. But only on Sundays, Mondays, and I guess Saturdays since college football would be over. You could easily fit 5 or 6 games into a day, and just have 2 night games. Now I realize broadcasting companies would never do this but from a fan's perspective this is perfect.

3) Are you joking with your explanation sir? Comparing the QB position of the Chiefs and Broncos. Niiiice. You picked the two positions on the teams where the talent disparity is the greatest and the position where athletic prowess matters the least outside of punters and kickers. The offensive linemen, defenders and WR's outside of the pure freaks like Calvin and JJ Watt etc. are pretty equal in terms of athleticism. The difference comes from coaches implementing strategies that best utilize players strengths and mask weaknesses while simultaneously building a cohesive synergy between players. Coaching is a lot more than just calling plays sir. Coaches control the atmosphere of the locker room and promote the attributes they find successful, even bad play callers can be great coaches (Andy Reid). The worst teams often beat the best, or much better teams, because there is a relatively small gap, if any, in athleticism and sometimes coaches who suck get the best of their more successful peers. You see this every week. Any given Sunday.

You are all taking this hypothetical situation way too literally. You are looking at the exact execution and no the general idea. As far as I can see anyway. I think a 32 team playoff would be sweet. You don't. Cool. Thanks for acting like tough guys on the internet and belittle people's opinions. Really classy and adult of you, the internet needs more posters like you. Thanks for responding, bro Very Happy


My apologies....I didn't mean to hurt your feelings

I'm going to move on as this has become more and more pointless...I thought that chat was fun, but when the poster starts to get upset it's better to leave them alone. Good day and enjoy the Super Bowl...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Perfundle


Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 1964
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
The only thing I would even consider to be an option to look into would be to change the fact that a division winner automatically gets a home game. But really, the argument against it is that a team could play in a weak division, win it with a bad record, and get a home game against a team that has a much better record. But then the flip side is that a team could play in a very competitive division, finish with a worse record than a team in a very easy division (but didn't win it) and have to go on the road.

This seems highly unlikely. If the wildcard team has a better record than the division winner, but didn't beat out its own division leader, that means that that division had two teams with better records (or better tiebreakers) than the division winner. That doesn't sound like a very easy division to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Perfundle


Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 1964
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
Why? these are the types of teams that won the last 2 SB's. Those teams could have very easily been left out in other years. There is nothing wrong with half for the NFL. Maybe for the NBA cuz they have 82 games to separate themselves, the NFL only has 16 games to separate themselves....8 teams from each conference should be in or you might as well go to 4, cuz more often than not 5-8 are extremely similar.
Your contention was that a team who won 8-9 games with a tough schedule is more worthy then a 10 win team with a soft schedule. Who is the lucky person to determine when that should be applied? It is arbitrary at best and not worth the argument.

Well, that's exactly what the NCAA committee does every year for college basketball. Like the NFL, the teams don't nearly have the same schedule strengths, and the committee has to use somewhat arbitrary criteria to determine the entrants.

Of course, in the NFL there are only two spots up for debate in each conference, so it's much less likely that a stronger team with a much harder schedule but weaker record has been left out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12988
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perfundle wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
Why? these are the types of teams that won the last 2 SB's. Those teams could have very easily been left out in other years. There is nothing wrong with half for the NFL. Maybe for the NBA cuz they have 82 games to separate themselves, the NFL only has 16 games to separate themselves....8 teams from each conference should be in or you might as well go to 4, cuz more often than not 5-8 are extremely similar.
Your contention was that a team who won 8-9 games with a tough schedule is more worthy then a 10 win team with a soft schedule. Who is the lucky person to determine when that should be applied? It is arbitrary at best and not worth the argument.

Well, that's exactly what the NCAA committee does every year for college basketball. Like the NFL, the teams don't nearly have the same schedule strengths, and the committee has to use somewhat arbitrary criteria to determine the entrants.

Of course, in the NFL there are only two spots up for debate in each conference, so it's much less likely that a stronger team with a much harder schedule but weaker record has been left out.

You guys keep bringing up college basketball in this discussion. This isn't even basketball. Basketball players can play three games in three to four days time. The NFL can't do that. NFL players need time to rest- a week of time to rest and prepare. Heck they even have a bye week in the season to give teams additional rest with how physical the sport is.

The NCAA wouldn't be able to produce such a schedule as March Madness if they didn't indeed have the flexibility to schedule teams to play twice in a short period of time- while making it possible for every game to be televised.

If the NFL tried the same thing, the product would drastically decrease in quality. It would mean less time for coaches to gameplan and their teams to prepare. It would mean more injuries to star players as teams would be forced to play their schedules at a frenetic pace, etc... while also having less time to workout and maintain their bodies... veteran players now are made to be obsolete faster with less recovery in between games.

In general this thread just doesn't offer a good 'solution' to the 'playoff problem' it seeks to cure. But really this system isn't broke, so there's no reason to try and fix it.

Who cares if 9 and 8 win teams don't get in because they were 'unlucky'... perhaps they should've prepared harder as a team to battle past the point where "luck" wouldn't allow them to get into the playoffs. They had the opportunity to make it... and had they prepared better, they would've been more "lucky" like those teams that did get in. In sports, winning is all that matters, not how many injuries you accumulated that season.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ArrowheadRage58


Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 4695
Location: Hate for the Donkeys is at a mile high
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
Not liking the idea, but the real question is "What is flawed with the current playoff system?'


They give 4 teams home field advantage AND a bye. While leaving perfectly capable teams out of the mix nearly every year. Teams that usually have the same record as teams who DO make it, teams that tie for their division title, teams that win 10 games, teams that win 8 or 9 games with a brutal schedule are left out for 10 win teams with easy schedule.

You can't include every team, but atleast eliminate the bye.

12 teams out of 32 (37.5%) make the playoffs. The only league with a smaller percentage of playoff teams is the MLB (33%). I'd hate for the NFL to allow 50%+ like NHL or NBA

I don't see the bye as a negative. The only way to get rid of the bye is to:
A ) Add 2 more Wild Cards to each conference
B ) Eliminate the Wild Cards altogether
I don't think either option is acceptable.

As far as trying to say that 8 or 9 win teams are worthy to make the playoffs because their schedule was tough? I'm not buying that as a legitimate gripe.


Why? these are the types of teams that won the last 2 SB's. Those teams could have very easily been left out in other years. There is nothing wrong with half for the NFL. Maybe for the NBA cuz they have 82 games to separate themselves, the NFL only has 16 games to separate themselves....8 teams from each conference should be in or you might as well go to 4, cuz more often than not 5-8 are extremely similar.
Your contention was that a team who won 8-9 games with a tough schedule is more worthy then a 10 win team with a soft schedule. Who is the lucky person to determine when that should be applied? It is arbitrary at best and not worth the argument.


Nobody makes that determination, but we all know it's true...and it's simply one of the many reasons to add 2 WC teams.
_________________
49ers Finest wrote:

People just seem to be mad because the chiefs are all of a sudden doing what their fans thought they were capable of
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ArrowheadRage58


Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 4695
Location: Hate for the Donkeys is at a mile high
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FourThreeMafia wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
They give 4 teams home field advantage AND a bye.


And? What is flawed about that? Every single team has a shot at that. The better teams get it as a reward.

Please explain what is wrong with it.

Quote:
While leaving perfectly capable teams out of the mix nearly every year.


Uhh...what do you think teams fight for all year? Yes...a capable team does get left out. But guess what...LESS THAN CAPABLE TEAMS GET IN AS WELL. You run the same risk of letting teams in that DONT DESERVE to be there.


Quote:
Teams that usually have the same record as teams who DO make it, teams that tie for their division title, teams that win 10 games, teams that win 8 or 9 games with a brutal schedule are left out for 10 win teams with easy schedule.


Once again...your argument is also just as much in favor of letting more LESS DESERVING teams in.

Quote:
You can't include every team, but atleast eliminate the bye.


How about explaining why, because at this point, it makes no sense.


Home field advantage IS the reward...they don't also need a bye, especially considering that teams are often give a bye by virtue of tiebreaker. Play football, earn your way by winning 3 games, just like every other team as well as the other sports you have to win a certain amount of games to be the champ, 16 in basketball. I think it's bogus that in the NFL some teams have to put together 3 wins and others only 2...HOME FIELD is the advantage, that should be it.

It also alters record books regarding playoff wins, a team with a bye that loses very well would've had a playoff win if they played the first weekend. Tony G never had a win not because his teams always sucked, but because he had 3 or 4 1st round byes. That's not the main reason, but it's worth pointing out.

To answer your other question: because it's worse to leave a deserving team out than to have an undeserving team in, which already happens anyway with the unbalanced schedules and weak division winners.
_________________
49ers Finest wrote:

People just seem to be mad because the chiefs are all of a sudden doing what their fans thought they were capable of
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallyns


Global Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 23946
Location: 414
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
Not liking the idea, but the real question is "What is flawed with the current playoff system?'


They give 4 teams home field advantage AND a bye. While leaving perfectly capable teams out of the mix nearly every year. Teams that usually have the same record as teams who DO make it, teams that tie for their division title, teams that win 10 games, teams that win 8 or 9 games with a brutal schedule are left out for 10 win teams with easy schedule.

You can't include every team, but atleast eliminate the bye.

12 teams out of 32 (37.5%) make the playoffs. The only league with a smaller percentage of playoff teams is the MLB (33%). I'd hate for the NFL to allow 50%+ like NHL or NBA

I don't see the bye as a negative. The only way to get rid of the bye is to:
A ) Add 2 more Wild Cards to each conference
B ) Eliminate the Wild Cards altogether
I don't think either option is acceptable.

As far as trying to say that 8 or 9 win teams are worthy to make the playoffs because their schedule was tough? I'm not buying that as a legitimate gripe.


Why? these are the types of teams that won the last 2 SB's. Those teams could have very easily been left out in other years. There is nothing wrong with half for the NFL. Maybe for the NBA cuz they have 82 games to separate themselves, the NFL only has 16 games to separate themselves....8 teams from each conference should be in or you might as well go to 4, cuz more often than not 5-8 are extremely similar.
Your contention was that a team who won 8-9 games with a tough schedule is more worthy then a 10 win team with a soft schedule. Who is the lucky person to determine when that should be applied? It is arbitrary at best and not worth the argument.


Nbody makes that determination, but we all know it's true...and it's simply one of the many reasons to add 2 WC teams.

Could you elaborate on that? Your response suggests that this is already happening and that couldn't be further from the truth. In the history of the league, no 8-9 win team ever made the playoffs over a 10 win team based soley on strength of schedule. They have done it on winning their division but that's not what you said.

So how do you propose changing the tie breaker rules for making the playoffs so that a 8-9 tough schedule beats out a 10 soft schedule?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sp6488


Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 9504
Location: MD
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

diamondbull424 wrote:
Perfundle wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
Why? these are the types of teams that won the last 2 SB's. Those teams could have very easily been left out in other years. There is nothing wrong with half for the NFL. Maybe for the NBA cuz they have 82 games to separate themselves, the NFL only has 16 games to separate themselves....8 teams from each conference should be in or you might as well go to 4, cuz more often than not 5-8 are extremely similar.
Your contention was that a team who won 8-9 games with a tough schedule is more worthy then a 10 win team with a soft schedule. Who is the lucky person to determine when that should be applied? It is arbitrary at best and not worth the argument.

Well, that's exactly what the NCAA committee does every year for college basketball. Like the NFL, the teams don't nearly have the same schedule strengths, and the committee has to use somewhat arbitrary criteria to determine the entrants.

Of course, in the NFL there are only two spots up for debate in each conference, so it's much less likely that a stronger team with a much harder schedule but weaker record has been left out.

You guys keep bringing up college basketball in this discussion. This isn't even basketball. Basketball players can play three games in three to four days time. The NFL can't do that. NFL players need time to rest- a week of time to rest and prepare. Heck they even have a bye week in the season to give teams additional rest with how physical the sport is.

The NCAA wouldn't be able to produce such a schedule as March Madness if they didn't indeed have the flexibility to schedule teams to play twice in a short period of time- while making it possible for every game to be televised.

If the NFL tried the same thing, the product would drastically decrease in quality. It would mean less time for coaches to gameplan and their teams to prepare. It would mean more injuries to star players as teams would be forced to play their schedules at a frenetic pace, etc... while also having less time to workout and maintain their bodies... veteran players now are made to be obsolete faster with less recovery in between games.

In general this thread just doesn't offer a good 'solution' to the 'playoff problem' it seeks to cure. But really this system isn't broke, so there's no reason to try and fix it.

Who cares if 9 and 8 win teams don't get in because they were 'unlucky'... perhaps they should've prepared harder as a team to battle past the point where "luck" wouldn't allow them to get into the playoffs. They had the opportunity to make it... and had they prepared better, they would've been more "lucky" like those teams that did get in. In sports, winning is all that matters, not how many injuries you accumulated that season.


To further the reason that basketball isn't relevant here, the tourney pool of 68 comes from 300+ teams. There are plenty of "deserving" teams that get left out every year. Lot's of teams that come from very competitive conferences, but weren't tops in their conference. Is Maryland pretty much always a better team than the division winner of some random conference? Yep. But they couldn't get it done to be the 4th or 5th best team in their own conference, so they've missed the tournament as of late.

And to the talk of a selection committee for the NFL... Wow. There's already tons of talk around snubs/non-snubs in NCAA I can't even imagine it for the NFL...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ArrowheadRage58


Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 4695
Location: Hate for the Donkeys is at a mile high
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
Not liking the idea, but the real question is "What is flawed with the current playoff system?'


They give 4 teams home field advantage AND a bye. While leaving perfectly capable teams out of the mix nearly every year. Teams that usually have the same record as teams who DO make it, teams that tie for their division title, teams that win 10 games, teams that win 8 or 9 games with a brutal schedule are left out for 10 win teams with easy schedule.

You can't include every team, but atleast eliminate the bye.

12 teams out of 32 (37.5%) make the playoffs. The only league with a smaller percentage of playoff teams is the MLB (33%). I'd hate for the NFL to allow 50%+ like NHL or NBA

I don't see the bye as a negative. The only way to get rid of the bye is to:
A ) Add 2 more Wild Cards to each conference
B ) Eliminate the Wild Cards altogether
I don't think either option is acceptable.

As far as trying to say that 8 or 9 win teams are worthy to make the playoffs because their schedule was tough? I'm not buying that as a legitimate gripe.


Why? these are the types of teams that won the last 2 SB's. Those teams could have very easily been left out in other years. There is nothing wrong with half for the NFL. Maybe for the NBA cuz they have 82 games to separate themselves, the NFL only has 16 games to separate themselves....8 teams from each conference should be in or you might as well go to 4, cuz more often than not 5-8 are extremely similar.
Your contention was that a team who won 8-9 games with a tough schedule is more worthy then a 10 win team with a soft schedule. Who is the lucky person to determine when that should be applied? It is arbitrary at best and not worth the argument.


Nbody makes that determination, but we all know it's true...and it's simply one of the many reasons to add 2 WC teams.

Could you elaborate on that? Your response suggests that this is already happening and that couldn't be further from the truth. In the history of the league, no 8-9 win team ever made the playoffs over a 10 win team based soley on strength of schedule. They have done it on winning their division but that's not what you said.

So how do you propose changing the tie breaker rules for making the playoffs so that a 8-9 tough schedule beats out a 10 soft schedule?


Not sure if you're talking to me, but I don't propose any changes regarding schedule strength. I only said we all know that there are often times where an 8 or 9 win team is stronger than a 9 or 10 win team, but doesn't get in based on wins or the tiebreaker. Just add 2 WC teams (with the next 2 most wins), no additional weeks, very simple. Personally, I would seed them based on record, but that's not a big deal as long as there are 2 additional WC's.

We've got a format where a 7 win team can get a 4 seed and an 11 win team that ties for their division gets left out...and some of you want to say there is nothing wrong with it?
_________________
49ers Finest wrote:

People just seem to be mad because the chiefs are all of a sudden doing what their fans thought they were capable of
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallyns


Global Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 23946
Location: 414
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
Not liking the idea, but the real question is "What is flawed with the current playoff system?'


They give 4 teams home field advantage AND a bye. While leaving perfectly capable teams out of the mix nearly every year. Teams that usually have the same record as teams who DO make it, teams that tie for their division title, teams that win 10 games, teams that win 8 or 9 games with a brutal schedule are left out for 10 win teams with easy schedule.

You can't include every team, but atleast eliminate the bye.

12 teams out of 32 (37.5%) make the playoffs. The only league with a smaller percentage of playoff teams is the MLB (33%). I'd hate for the NFL to allow 50%+ like NHL or NBA

I don't see the bye as a negative. The only way to get rid of the bye is to:
A ) Add 2 more Wild Cards to each conference
B ) Eliminate the Wild Cards altogether
I don't think either option is acceptable.

As far as trying to say that 8 or 9 win teams are worthy to make the playoffs because their schedule was tough? I'm not buying that as a legitimate gripe.


Why? these are the types of teams that won the last 2 SB's. Those teams could have very easily been left out in other years. There is nothing wrong with half for the NFL. Maybe for the NBA cuz they have 82 games to separate themselves, the NFL only has 16 games to separate themselves....8 teams from each conference should be in or you might as well go to 4, cuz more often than not 5-8 are extremely similar.
Your contention was that a team who won 8-9 games with a tough schedule is more worthy then a 10 win team with a soft schedule. Who is the lucky person to determine when that should be applied? It is arbitrary at best and not worth the argument.


Nbody makes that determination, but we all know it's true...and it's simply one of the many reasons to add 2 WC teams.

Could you elaborate on that? Your response suggests that this is already happening and that couldn't be further from the truth. In the history of the league, no 8-9 win team ever made the playoffs over a 10 win team based soley on strength of schedule. They have done it on winning their division but that's not what you said.

So how do you propose changing the tie breaker rules for making the playoffs so that a 8-9 tough schedule beats out a 10 soft schedule?


Not sure if you're talking to me, but I don't propose any changes regarding schedule strength. I only said we all know that there are often times where an 8 or 9 win team is stronger than a 9 or 10 win team, but doesn't get in based on wins or the tiebreaker. Just add 2 WC teams (with the next 2 most wins), no additional weeks, very simple. Personally, I would seed them based on record, but that's not a big deal as long as there are 2 additional WC's.

We've got a format where a 7 win team can get a 4 seed and an 11 win team that ties for their division gets left out...and some of you want to say there is nothing wrong with it?
I don't think adding 2 WCs solves any problems, as the poster above your last post stated it only causes more problems when you lower the standards and create even more deserving teams.

As long as we have divisions, winning it should mean something. And that means a home game in the playoffs. Otherwise why not get rid of divisions altogether.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 23285
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perfundle wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
The only thing I would even consider to be an option to look into would be to change the fact that a division winner automatically gets a home game. But really, the argument against it is that a team could play in a weak division, win it with a bad record, and get a home game against a team that has a much better record. But then the flip side is that a team could play in a very competitive division, finish with a worse record than a team in a very easy division (but didn't win it) and have to go on the road.

This seems highly unlikely. If the wildcard team has a better record than the division winner, but didn't beat out its own division leader, that means that that division had two teams with better records (or better tiebreakers) than the division winner. That doesn't sound like a very easy division to me.


Hypothetical:

Ravens 12-4 (5-1 in division, split with PIT)
Steelers 12-4 (5-1 in divison, split with BAL)
Browns 2-14
Bengals 2-14

Texans 11-5
Colts 10-6
Titans 10-6
Jags 9-7

Based on that, you're telling me that the Steelers would deserve a home playoff game over the Texans? When 4 of their wins came against two 2-14 teams, and Houston would have had to play a very competitive division instead?

That's the point I'm emphasizing. It works both ways. Sometimes a division winner with a worse record is indeed a worse team than a Wild Card. But the opposite can also be true in that a team with a better record could be a worse team than a division winner with a lesser record.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ArrowheadRage58


Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 4695
Location: Hate for the Donkeys is at a mile high
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
Not liking the idea, but the real question is "What is flawed with the current playoff system?'


They give 4 teams home field advantage AND a bye. While leaving perfectly capable teams out of the mix nearly every year. Teams that usually have the same record as teams who DO make it, teams that tie for their division title, teams that win 10 games, teams that win 8 or 9 games with a brutal schedule are left out for 10 win teams with easy schedule.

You can't include every team, but atleast eliminate the bye.

12 teams out of 32 (37.5%) make the playoffs. The only league with a smaller percentage of playoff teams is the MLB (33%). I'd hate for the NFL to allow 50%+ like NHL or NBA

I don't see the bye as a negative. The only way to get rid of the bye is to:
A ) Add 2 more Wild Cards to each conference
B ) Eliminate the Wild Cards altogether
I don't think either option is acceptable.

As far as trying to say that 8 or 9 win teams are worthy to make the playoffs because their schedule was tough? I'm not buying that as a legitimate gripe.


Why? these are the types of teams that won the last 2 SB's. Those teams could have very easily been left out in other years. There is nothing wrong with half for the NFL. Maybe for the NBA cuz they have 82 games to separate themselves, the NFL only has 16 games to separate themselves....8 teams from each conference should be in or you might as well go to 4, cuz more often than not 5-8 are extremely similar.
Your contention was that a team who won 8-9 games with a tough schedule is more worthy then a 10 win team with a soft schedule. Who is the lucky person to determine when that should be applied? It is arbitrary at best and not worth the argument.


Nbody makes that determination, but we all know it's true...and it's simply one of the many reasons to add 2 WC teams.

Could you elaborate on that? Your response suggests that this is already happening and that couldn't be further from the truth. In the history of the league, no 8-9 win team ever made the playoffs over a 10 win team based soley on strength of schedule. They have done it on winning their division but that's not what you said.

So how do you propose changing the tie breaker rules for making the playoffs so that a 8-9 tough schedule beats out a 10 soft schedule?


Not sure if you're talking to me, but I don't propose any changes regarding schedule strength. I only said we all know that there are often times where an 8 or 9 win team is stronger than a 9 or 10 win team, but doesn't get in based on wins or the tiebreaker. Just add 2 WC teams (with the next 2 most wins), no additional weeks, very simple. Personally, I would seed them based on record, but that's not a big deal as long as there are 2 additional WC's.

We've got a format where a 7 win team can get a 4 seed and an 11 win team that ties for their division gets left out...and some of you want to say there is nothing wrong with it?
I don't think adding 2 WCs solves any problems, as the poster above your last post stated it only causes more problems when you lower the standards and create even more deserving teams.

As long as we have divisions, winning it should mean something. And that means a home game in the playoffs. Otherwise why not get rid of divisions altogether.


Winning your division should get you in, but not get you a top 4 seed.
_________________
49ers Finest wrote:

People just seem to be mad because the chiefs are all of a sudden doing what their fans thought they were capable of
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallyns


Global Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 23946
Location: 414
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
Winning your division should get you in, but not get you a top 4 seed.
95-99% of the time winning your division already gets you in the playoffs, by default. The reward for winning your division is a home game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sp6488


Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 9504
Location: MD
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
ArrowheadRage58 wrote:
stallyns wrote:
Not liking the idea, but the real question is "What is flawed with the current playoff system?'


They give 4 teams home field advantage AND a bye. While leaving perfectly capable teams out of the mix nearly every year. Teams that usually have the same record as teams who DO make it, teams that tie for their division title, teams that win 10 games, teams that win 8 or 9 games with a brutal schedule are left out for 10 win teams with easy schedule.

You can't include every team, but atleast eliminate the bye.

12 teams out of 32 (37.5%) make the playoffs. The only league with a smaller percentage of playoff teams is the MLB (33%). I'd hate for the NFL to allow 50%+ like NHL or NBA

I don't see the bye as a negative. The only way to get rid of the bye is to:
A ) Add 2 more Wild Cards to each conference
B ) Eliminate the Wild Cards altogether
I don't think either option is acceptable.

As far as trying to say that 8 or 9 win teams are worthy to make the playoffs because their schedule was tough? I'm not buying that as a legitimate gripe.


Why? these are the types of teams that won the last 2 SB's. Those teams could have very easily been left out in other years. There is nothing wrong with half for the NFL. Maybe for the NBA cuz they have 82 games to separate themselves, the NFL only has 16 games to separate themselves....8 teams from each conference should be in or you might as well go to 4, cuz more often than not 5-8 are extremely similar.
Your contention was that a team who won 8-9 games with a tough schedule is more worthy then a 10 win team with a soft schedule. Who is the lucky person to determine when that should be applied? It is arbitrary at best and not worth the argument.


Nbody makes that determination, but we all know it's true...and it's simply one of the many reasons to add 2 WC teams.

Could you elaborate on that? Your response suggests that this is already happening and that couldn't be further from the truth. In the history of the league, no 8-9 win team ever made the playoffs over a 10 win team based soley on strength of schedule. They have done it on winning their division but that's not what you said.

So how do you propose changing the tie breaker rules for making the playoffs so that a 8-9 tough schedule beats out a 10 soft schedule?


Not sure if you're talking to me, but I don't propose any changes regarding schedule strength. I only said we all know that there are often times where an 8 or 9 win team is stronger than a 9 or 10 win team, but doesn't get in based on wins or the tiebreaker. Just add 2 WC teams (with the next 2 most wins), no additional weeks, very simple. Personally, I would seed them based on record, but that's not a big deal as long as there are 2 additional WC's.

We've got a format where a 7 win team can get a 4 seed and an 11 win team that ties for their division gets left out...and some of you want to say there is nothing wrong with it?
I don't think adding 2 WCs solves any problems, as the poster above your last post stated it only causes more problems when you lower the standards and create even more deserving teams.

As long as we have divisions, winning it should mean something. And that means a home game in the playoffs. Otherwise why not get rid of divisions altogether.


Winning your division should get you in, but not get you a top 4 seed.


And why shouldn't it?

We keep talking about "stronger teams with more difficult schedules, thus worse record" etc. but the only way to control for that without balanced scheduling is to give a reward to division winners. I would say the Ravens were certainly a stronger team than the Colts this year. It makes no sense for them to have to go on the road to Indy when they got it done by winning their division.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group