PDA

View Full Version : Revising the Playoff System


neko4
11-09-2007, 09:13 PM
Should the best 6 (according to record) get in regardless of Division Winner and Such?
I think so...
Are the seahawks likely to have a better record than the Lions, Giants, or Redskins
Probably not, but they are still more likely to make the playoffs than one of those 3 (Unless the Rams pull of a come back :))

Anyway whats your thoughts?

soybean
11-09-2007, 09:19 PM
Should the best 6 (according to record) get in regardless of Division Winner and Such?
I think so...
Are the seahawks likely to have a better record than the Lions, Giants, or Redskins
Probably not, but they are still more likely to make the playoffs than one of those 3 (Unless the Rams pull of a come back :))

Anyway whats your thoughts?

it works in basketball because every team plays every team esentially. It wouldn't work in football because then it just favors those with a weak strength of schedule.

bigbluedefense
11-09-2007, 09:20 PM
No, because that de-emphasizes the importance of division rivalries.

Xiomera
11-09-2007, 09:25 PM
I say yes, so long as one team from each division still gets in the playoffs.

bigbluedefense
11-09-2007, 09:27 PM
I say yes, so long as one team from each division still gets in the playoffs.

....reread what you just wrote...

nfrillman
11-09-2007, 09:27 PM
I have seen this problem coming ever since realignment. An easy solution the problem is all teams must have at least a .500 record to make the playoffs. That seems simple enough. It would be extremely rare that the playoff field was altered by this rule, but if a division winner is 7-9 or something then sorry, tough luck.

soybean
11-09-2007, 09:36 PM
i actually like that idea of having to be at least .500 to make it in, though, I wouldn't even want a .500 team in.

something needs to be done to even the playing field because it's gonna be a long time before anyone else besides the colts and the pats in the afc north and south win the division.

Mr. Stiller
11-09-2007, 09:48 PM
i actually like that idea of having to be at least .500 to make it in, though, I wouldn't even want a .500 team in.

something needs to be done to even the playing field because it's gonna be a long time before anyone else besides the colts and the pats in the afc north and south win the division.

Pats are East..

North is up in the air, yearly.

2006: Ravens
2005: Bengals
2004: Steelers
2003: Ravens
2002: Steelers

As for the Colts.. I don't see it being too Long..

Kubiak has Houston playign well.. with a better OL+Matt Schaub+Andre Johnson+future RB and #2/#3 WR.. dominant.

and Tennessee should be pretty good for years to come as well..

AFC East on the other hand.. well. Their Defense is slowly going to go the way of Baltimore, too old.. Their offense on the other hand.

A Perfect Score
11-09-2007, 09:55 PM
i actually like that idea of having to be at least .500 to make it in, though, I wouldn't even want a .500 team in.

something needs to be done to even the playing field because it's gonna be a long time before anyone else besides the colts and the pats in the afc north and south win the division.

Fantasy Draft! that will even things out madden style

fenikz
11-09-2007, 11:23 PM
No, the Cardinals only have one chance to make the playoffs and that is in the NFC West

princefielder28
11-09-2007, 11:45 PM
keep as is

yodabear
11-10-2007, 12:13 AM
NO nEED TO DISS ON THE RAMS SOME MORE. THANK U!

Shiver
11-10-2007, 01:32 AM
I say that mediocrity should never be rewarded. If the NFC West sucks, and it does, they don't deserve any free passes.

The Unseen
11-10-2007, 10:37 AM
No, because that de-emphasizes the importance of division rivalries.

Agreed totally. I don't see the point in divisions if they don't matter in the end.

someone447
11-10-2007, 01:05 PM
....reread what you just wrote...

He meant that the seeds should be determined from records, but the winner of each division should still make the playoffs.

MaxV
11-10-2007, 01:24 PM
If it ain't broke, why fix it?

I say keep it as it is right now. I think the current system is pretty good.

Smooth Criminal
11-10-2007, 01:24 PM
I like it as is. No need for change.

osi+ap=allshallperish
11-10-2007, 01:24 PM
This change would punish teams in better conferences kinda like the BCS punishes teams in the SEC. You want teams who face better competition and excel to be in ahead of teams that shellak bad teams and don't really get tested against top teams.

Kurve
11-13-2007, 02:04 PM
so your saying you should throw away the afc and nfc titles and have no championship games. I think divisional rival games are part of football history taking there importance away would be sad. I dont see nothing wrong with the system in place now, for this i dont see the need to change it for the occasional team not going in the afc who has a better record then the wildcard team of the nfc or vise versa. Therefor the superbowl should always be the champions of the AFC and the NFC thats the reason why it was created for the champs of both divisions to play.

someone447
11-13-2007, 02:08 PM
What I think the best solution is, is that it is exactly the same as it is now, BUT division winners are no longer guaranteed a home game, instead, that goes to the team with the better record, regardless if it is the wildcard or division winner.

MaxV
11-13-2007, 03:42 PM
What I think the best solution is, is that it is exactly the same as it is now, BUT division winners are no longer guaranteed a home game, instead, that goes to the team with the better record, regardless if it is the wildcard or division winner.

I disagree.

If they do that, then what's the point of having divisions?

someone447
11-13-2007, 03:46 PM
I disagree.

If they do that, then what's the point of having divisions?

The division winner would still make the playoffs automatically. But I think it is ridiculous that a 10-6 wild card team would have to travel to play an 8-8 division winner.

It rarely comes up, but it should be fixed.

d34ng3l021
11-13-2007, 04:02 PM
The division winner would still make the playoffs automatically. But I think it is ridiculous that a 10-6 wild card team would have to travel to play an 8-8 division winner.

It rarely comes up, but it should be fixed.

Good post, and I agree, but if the 8-8 division winner doesnt make it, then no one from that division makes playoffs. Its just kind of weird to think that. And, like someone said, it also undermines division games.

someone447
11-13-2007, 04:12 PM
Good post, and I agree, but if the 8-8 division winner doesnt make it, then no one from that division makes playoffs. Its just kind of weird to think that. And, like someone said, it also undermines division games.

I am saying the division winner DOES make it. The only thing that would change is that the better record gets home field advantage.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 04:16 PM
I say that mediocrity should never be rewarded. If the NFC West sucks, and it does, they don't deserve any free passes.Word for word.

Agree. Why should the 7-9 Seahawks get a spot and not the 8-8 Packers?

bearsfan_51
11-13-2007, 04:19 PM
Word for word.

Agree. Why should the 7-9 Seahawks get a spot and not the 8-8 Packers?
An 8-8 team has nobody to blame but themselves if they don't make the playoffs.

Shane P. Hallam
11-13-2007, 04:19 PM
This system is fine. Though you could make the case for not letting teams with less than 8 wins getting in.

someone447
11-13-2007, 04:20 PM
This system is fine. Though you could make the case for not letting teams with less than 8 wins getting in.

Why should an 8-8 team get a home game against a 10-6 team? That is the only flaw I see in the system.

If the season ended today, I think the Giants and the Lions should have home games, even though they didn't win their division.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 04:41 PM
An 8-8 team has nobody to blame but themselves if they don't make the playoffs.
Yes... because the 8-8 team only managed to win 8 games. That "other" team only managed to win 7, but they deserve the spot... because... they're... in... another... division?

Making it to (and winning) the Super Bowl is the goal for every season, for every team, in the NFL. To do so, you need to make the playoffs. Why should you allow one team (that has done less) to make it and hold back another team (that has done more)?

If your answer is the division and only the division, you should be voting to revise.

yodabear
11-13-2007, 05:07 PM
The playoff system is fine, quit ur bitching. I don't give a flying **** if a 7-9 team will make the playoffs over a 8-8 team. Like BF_51 said, a 8-8 team has only itself to blame. They could win their own ******* division. And I don't even care if the 7-9 team gets a home game over a 10-6 team. If the 10-6 team is really a legit team they can beat a 7-9 team whether they play on the road or on the moon. Good god damn day.

sweetness34
11-13-2007, 05:11 PM
The Bears will get to the Wild Card with Sexy Rexy back at the helm, bank it! :D

bearsfan_51
11-13-2007, 05:12 PM
Yes... because the 8-8 team only managed to win 8 games. That "other" team only managed to win 7, but they deserve the spot... because... they're... in... another... division?

Making it to (and winning) the Super Bowl is the goal for every season, for every team, in the NFL. To do so, you need to make the playoffs. Why should you allow one team (that has done less) to make it and hold back another team (that has done more)?

If your answer is the division and only the division, you should be voting to revise.
It's bitching about nothing to me quite frankly. When a 7-9 division winner makes it to the Superbowl I'll care, but those teams usually make the first round and get knocked out anyway, what difference does it make? The fact that something like this almost never happens isn't really worth realinging the system. People like divisional rivalries, discrediting the value of winning a division for the sake of "fairness" makes no sense to me.

bearsfan_51
11-13-2007, 05:13 PM
The Bears will get to the Wild Card with Sexy Rexy back at the helm, bank it! :D
Oh please...everyone knows that. When the sex-cannon unleashes his throwgasm all over the NFL they aren't going to know what hit 'em.

yodabear
11-13-2007, 05:15 PM
I don't even care if a 7-9 team gets to a superbowl. They woulda beat the 4th, 2nd, and 1st best team most likely. Give em props and the 1 and 2 seed would be on the road. So I don't even care then. Guess I am a fan of mediocrity.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 05:19 PM
It's bitching about nothing to me quite frankly. When a 7-9 division winner makes it to the Superbowl I'll care, but those teams usually make the first round and get knocked out anyway, what difference does it make? The fact that something like this almost never happens isn't really worth realinging the system. People like divisional rivalries, discrediting the value of winning a division for the sake of "fairness" makes no sense to me.

Wow. Your argument for allowing a 7-9 team to make the playoffs over a 8-8 team is: they wont win, so it doesn't matter? Are you kidding?

So, which team do you see beating the Pats this year? How many teams do you think have an honest chance? Because, using that logic, only those teams should make the playoffs this year... you know... those teams that can actually win.

Anything can happen in the NFL... but a team can't win the Super Bowl if they aren't in the playoffs. Bottom line: the teams that win the most games should get a spot.

bearsfan_51
11-13-2007, 05:34 PM
Wow. Your argument for allowing a 7-9 team to make the playoffs over a 8-8 team is: they wont win, so it doesn't matter? Are you kidding?

So, which team do you see beating the Pats this year? How many teams do you think have an honest chance? Because, using that logic, only those teams should make the playoffs this year... you know... those teams that can actually win.

Anything can happen in the NFL... but a team can't win the Super Bowl if they aren't in the playoffs. Bottom line: the teams that win the most games should get a spot.
Well thanks for the bottom line. I'm so glad we have your thoughtful insights once again to tell us all how it really is.

The Legend
11-13-2007, 05:38 PM
No, because that de-emphasizes the importance of division rivalries.

yep it would lower the point of divisions

skinzzfan25
11-13-2007, 06:16 PM
The playoff system is fine, quit ur bitching. I don't give a flying **** if a 7-9 team will make the playoffs over a 8-8 team. Like BF_51 said, a 8-8 team has only itself to blame. They could win their own ******* division. And I don't even care if the 7-9 team gets a home game over a 10-6 team. If the 10-6 team is really a legit team they can beat a 7-9 team whether they play on the road or on the moon. Good god damn day.

Co freakin sign.

I like the system the way it is.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 06:51 PM
The playoff system is fine, quit ur bitching. I don't give a flying **** if a 7-9 team will make the playoffs over a 8-8 team. Like BF_51 said, a 8-8 team has only itself to blame. They could win their own ******* division. And I don't even care if the 7-9 team gets a home game over a 10-6 team. If the 10-6 team is really a legit team they can beat a 7-9 team whether they play on the road or on the moon. Good god damn day.The problem: it puts more empahsis on the division you play in and not how talented your team is. It stops being about games won and a team's performance and rewards a team for something it can't control: the talent (or lack thereof) of the teams in its division.

a 8-8 team has only itself to blame.Shouldn't a 7-9 team have "more blame to put on itself"? What... they're supposed to blame themself for having a harder schedule and still being more successful? I just don't see it.

osi+ap=allshallperish
11-13-2007, 06:55 PM
I say that mediocrity should never be rewarded. If the NFC West sucks, and it does, they don't deserve any free passes.

True, but if you change the system then you'll find that a team in a crappier division could be ranked higher than a team that's better but is in a better division. For example the Lions this year, I"m not taking anything away from what they've done but they're in a division with two teams that are absolutely atrocious offensively, one team that's legit and them, the bears and viks are 4 easy wins this year for a team that's at least decent. Meanwhile a team from a strong division doesn't get the benefit of 4 gimme games in division.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 07:13 PM
True, but if you change the system then you'll find that a team in a crappier division could be ranked higher than a team that's better but is in a better division. For example the Lions this year, I"m not taking anything away from what they've done but they're in a division with two teams that are absolutely atrocious offensively, one team that's legit and them, the bears and viks are 4 easy wins this year for a team that's at least decent. Meanwhile a team from a strong division doesn't get the benefit of 4 gimme games in division.
Wait... so, you agree with changing the current system? "A team in a crappier division could be ranked higher than a team that's better but is in a better division"... that's exactly what it is now.
the bears and viks are 4 easy wins this year for a team that's at least decent.The Bears beat the Packers. Hmm... "4 easy wins" for a team "that's at least decent"... yet the Packers are the "one team that's legit".

Thought that was odd.

DeathbyStat
11-13-2007, 07:21 PM
Its perfect how it is

yodabear
11-13-2007, 08:25 PM
Shouldn't a 7-9 team have "more blame to put on itself"? What... they're supposed to blame themself for having a harder schedule and still being more successful? I just don't see it.

Not if they play in a ****** division, and u can win your division, oh well. And if the case is a 7-9 Seahawk team makes it in over an 8-8 Lion team, tough tittie. Life sucks, wear a helmet. It is the way it is.

someone447
11-13-2007, 08:48 PM
Not if they play in a ****** division, and u can win your division, oh well. And if the case is a 7-9 Seahawk team makes it in over an 8-8 Lion team, tough tittie. Life sucks, wear a helmet. It is the way it is.

And the way it is isn't right. It isn't right that a 7-9 Seahawks team can have a home game against an 8-8 Lions team. I think you should still get a playoff berth for winning your division, but HFA should be by your record.

yodabear
11-13-2007, 08:51 PM
And the way it is isn't right. It isn't right that a 7-9 Seahawks team can have a home game against an 8-8 Lions team. I think you should still get a playoff berth for winning your division, but HFA should be by your record.

If the Lions are truly the better team, they can go to Seattle and beat them.

osi+ap=allshallperish
11-13-2007, 08:54 PM
Wait... so, you agree with changing the current system? "A team in a crappier division could be ranked higher than a team that's better but is in a better division"... that's exactly what it is now.
The Bears beat the Packers. Hmm... "4 easy wins" for a team "that's at least decent"... yet the Packers are the "one team that's legit".

Thought that was odd.

a)It works both ways, if a team is in a stacked division they'll have a tougher schedule than the lone good team in a crappy division. Imagine that there's a team that's average, but plays in a division with 2 bottom feeders and so their division is matched up with another weak division, meanwhile there is another division that is stacked with 4 teams that have legit playoff hopes and are very close in talent, but this division is matched up with another very talented division. So the team that ends up winning this tougher division that plays against a tougher schedule could conceivably have a far worse record than the average team. And assuming both are being compared for the last playoff spot the more talented division winner would be left out when the team that beat up on the 2 bottom feeders in their division and the other weak division they face gets in. I think that's not the best way to ensure that the best team wins the superbowl.

b) as for the packers/bears game I dunno what to say. I'm not on the packers band wagon just yet so I can understand that lose but I still think they're clearly the best team from the nfc north. Detroit has a nice record but they've beaten Oakland, Chicago 2x, Minny, TB and Denver. Of those teams TB is probably the best but that's more of a comment about the other teams that detroit beat than it is about TB. Not even mentioning they've been absolutely destroyed by some teams that aren't playing very well, arizona, washington and philly, I could understand detroit losing to washington and philly but not getting absolutely dismantled like they did.

osi+ap=allshallperish
11-13-2007, 08:56 PM
all concede that my example with the nfc north wasn't great but I was at a business dinner and was out having a cigarette when i posted that.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 10:32 PM
Not if they play in a ****** division, and u can win your division, oh well. And if the case is a 7-9 Seahawk team makes it in over an 8-8 Lion team, tough tittie. Life sucks, wear a helmet. It is the way it is.The whole point of this thread is to discuss the current system and suggest improvements. The whole "It is the way it is" theory is pointless here... we're throwing ideas out, not expecting anything to change. Yes, we know how it is now and that it wont change, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't.

a)It works both ways, if a team is in a stacked division they'll have a tougher schedule than the lone good team in a crappy division. Imagine that there's a team that's average, but plays in a division with 2 bottom feeders and so their division is matched up with another weak division, meanwhile there is another division that is stacked with 4 teams that have legit playoff hopes and are very close in talent, but this division is matched up with another very talented division. So the team that ends up winning this tougher division that plays against a tougher schedule could conceivably have a far worse record than the average team. And assuming both are being compared for the last playoff spot the more talented division winner would be left out when the team that beat up on the 2 bottom feeders in their division and the other weak division they face gets in. I think that's not the best way to ensure that the best team wins the superbowl.Yeah... in other words, you just described the current set-up. Teams in talented divisions are at a disadvantage to average teams in week divisions.
b) as for the packers/bears game I dunno what to say. I'm not on the packers band wagon just yet so I can understand that lose but I still think they're clearly the best team from the nfc north. Detroit has a nice record but they've beaten Oakland, Chicago 2x, Minny, TB and Denver. Of those teams TB is probably the best but that's more of a comment about the other teams that detroit beat than it is about TB. Not even mentioning they've been absolutely destroyed by some teams that aren't playing very well, arizona, washington and philly, I could understand detroit losing to washington and philly but not getting absolutely dismantled like they did.I know what to say about the Packers/Bears game: any team can win any game on any given day. Unless you're one of the "elite", there are no "easy games".

A note about Chicago: if Detroit was the same Detroit as in years past, Chicago would be 6-3 this year. 6-3. It's easy to look at their record now and think they're an "easy win", but it just isn't true.

I don't think the Lions are a top 10 team, and I (honestly) don't see them making the playoffs this year... but they've improved a lot from where they were and they're finally playing like a team. If the offense finally clicks, they have a shot... but I don't see it happening.

someone447
11-13-2007, 10:43 PM
If the Lions are truly the better team, they can go to Seattle and beat them.

But they shouldn't have to.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 11:07 PM
If the Lions are truly the better team, they can go to Seattle and beat them.Hmm... OK. So, for now on, the #1 ranked team should not get a 1st round bye and should play each of its games on the road. After all, if they're truly the better team, they can go on the road and beat everyone... right?

It isn't what they "should" be able to do, but what they deserve for winning games. The purpose of the NFL is to play games... and the goal of a game is to win. Why should a team with fewer wins get a shot at the championship while another team (with more wins) doesn't?

[Random Parallel]When applying for a job (or a college), the decision to hire (or accept) should be made on that person's qualifications and not that person's ethnicity. This happens in the Marine Corps: a greater number of minorities are often considered (and selected) for certain billets to promote "equal opportunity". For this reason, billets are often filled with members who are less qualified for a certain job/task/assignment. Should being a certain ethnicity give you an advantage?

Should playing in a weak division give you an advantage? Then, why should a 7-9 team make the playoffs over an 8-8 team?[/Random Parallel]

yodabear
11-13-2007, 11:15 PM
Okay, I'll give in, the 8-8 team SHOULD GET HFA over the 7-9. The team with the better record get HFA, or the team who won H2H if they had the same record. However, each division should be represented, just like how it is in a lot of other sports.

someone447
11-13-2007, 11:21 PM
Okay, I'll give in, the 8-8 team SHOULD GET HFA over the 7-9. The team with the better record get HFA, or the team who won H2H if they had the same record. However, each division should be represented, just like how it is in a lot of other sports.

I think that is the only fair way to do it.

I think it would be horrible to take the division winner out of the playoffs. That would completely eliminate the need for divisions, and the divisional rivalries.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 11:26 PM
Okay, I'll give in, the 8-8 team SHOULD GET HFA over the 7-9. The team with the better record get HFA, or the team who won H2H if they had the same record. However, each division should be represented, just like how it is in a lot of other sports.
Division representation is a better argument... and I agree with it. Although I'd rather see the team with more wins in the playoffs, division rivalries are what make the NFL... the NFL.

Hmm. Maybe... just maybe... should conferences adjust their divisions every [x] years? That way, one average team wouldn't be left to clean up weak teams and three strong teams wouldn't have to meet every other week. You'd still maintain rivalries... but, I think I'd rather see the best teams compete in the playoffs.

Ah well.

yodabear
11-13-2007, 11:56 PM
Division representation is a better argument... and I agree with it. Although I'd rather see the team with more wins in the playoffs, division rivalries are what make the NFL... the NFL.

Hmm. Maybe... just maybe... should conferences adjust their divisions every [x] years? That way, one average team wouldn't be left to clean up weak teams and three strong teams wouldn't have to meet every other week. You'd still maintain rivalries... but, I think I'd rather see the best teams compete in the playoffs.

Ah well.

Thats a good idea, but obviously it won't happen. All the divisions make sense. Even though I wouldn't really call Dallas East and Indy South, but it all good. The AFC East (besides the Pats of course) is awful. The AFC South is good if all teams are healthy: Houston has been killed with the injury to Andre. The AFC North is alright. And obviously, the west is struggling. The NFC east has 2 of the 3 best teams in the NFC. The north has three teams that can be around for the playoffs. The NFC South and NFC west are like the Sun Belt Conference and the MEAC. They are awful and thats coming from a guy whose team is in the NFC west. But teams change from year 2 year, the location of teams don't and I just don't see it happening.

TacticaLion
11-14-2007, 12:23 AM
Thats a good idea, but obviously it won't happen. All the divisions make sense. Even though I wouldn't really call Dallas East and Indy South, but it all good. The AFC East (besides the Pats of course) is awful. The AFC South is good if all teams are healthy: Houston has been killed with the injury to Andre. The AFC North is alright. And obviously, the west is struggling. The NFC east has 2 of the 3 best teams in the NFC. The north has three teams that can be around for the playoffs. The NFC South and NFC west are like the Sun Belt Conference and the MEAC. They are awful and thats coming from a guy whose team is in the NFC west. But teams change from year 2 year, the location of teams don't and I just don't see it happening.Exactly. Teams improve (well, some teams...) and others decline year to year. It would be interesting to see the power distributed among the divisions, though:

NFC #1
Cowboys
Bucs
Bears
Rams

NFC #2
Packers
Giants
Falcons
Cardinals

NFC #3
Redskins
Lions
Saints
49ers

NFC #4
Seahawks
Eagles
Vikings
Panthers

It's a rough sketch... but, it would change things up (and fix the NFC East/NFC West crisis happening today).

DaBears9654
11-14-2007, 10:42 AM
You win your division, you deserve to be rewarded. Besides, they'll probably get their butts handed to them once they get there anyway.

TacticaLion
11-14-2007, 01:29 PM
You win your division, you deserve to be rewarded.If you barely win a weak division, how do you deserve a playoff spot more than a strong team that performed well in a tough division? One team barely beat weak opponents, whereas another stayed competitive against legitimate playoff teams... which team deserves to compete for the title?
Besides, they'll probably get their butts handed to them once they get there anyway.Exactly. Which team has a better shot at winning: the weak team that beat weak opponents, or the strong team that played strong opponents (and occasionally won)? So, if they'll just "get their butts handed to them", why do they deserve a chance to compete among the best? Why not the team that actually proved that they can compete?

The team that performed better should get the spot... period. It just can't always be perfect when maintaining division rivalries.

DaBears9654
11-15-2007, 12:13 AM
It really doesn't matter* all that much b/c it's rare for a division to be so pathetic that it is won by an 8-8 team anyway. It's happened what? Once ('85 Browns)?

* - which is what I meant when I said "They'll probably get their butts handed to them anyway."

TacticaLion
11-15-2007, 05:41 AM
It really doesn't matter* all that much b/c it's rare for a division to be so pathetic that it is won by an 8-8 team anyway. It's happened what? Once ('85 Browns)?

* - which is what I meant when I said "They'll probably get their butts handed to them anyway."
Ahh... I see. True. It'll just suck if/when it happens again...

steel man
11-15-2007, 05:48 AM
i do not know if this has already been said but the playoff system is fine, what i do not like is that you can have a record that is not as good as another team in your div. and still win the div. right?

ex. AFC North
if the Steelers win every game but their div games and they lose all of them they would be 10-6, if the Ravens, Cinn., Clev. all split and do not win another game then they would be 4-10 but they would have a better div. record so one of them would win the AFC North over the Steelers which would have a better overall record, right? or am i not reading the rules right?

brat316
11-15-2007, 05:49 AM
The playoff system isn't Flawed, its not like college bcs system. If its not broken don't fix it. Lets leave he playoffs how they are with 12 total teams. Only the NFC has teams going to the playsoff that dont get 10 wins. Most teams that get 10 wins go to the playoffs, or get left out which only happen in he AFC.

If you want to make it fair, take some teams from he AFC and move them to the NFC, shake it up.

brat316
11-15-2007, 05:51 AM
i do not know if this has already been said but the playoff system is fine, what i do not like is that you can have a record that is not as good as another team in your div. and still win the div. right?

ex. AFC North
if the Steelers win every game but their div games and they lose all of them they would be 10-6, if the Ravens, Cinn., Clev. all split and do not win another game then they would be 4-10 but they would have a better div. record so one of them would win the AFC North over the Steelers which would have a better overall record, right? or am i not reading the rules right?

That would be amazing if that happen not to the steelers, but someone like the Cards.

yodabear
11-15-2007, 10:19 AM
Yeah, they should revise it and let everyone in, a 32 team, 2 bracket style, march madness thing. Reduce the regular season to 10, 12 games. Regular season still matters, as it will be seeded as teams finished in the regular season, for instance, the Pats would be #1 in the AFC and the Dolphins would be #16. Just a thought to tryout for the **** of it.

B-Dawk
11-15-2007, 10:34 AM
i do not know if this has already been said but the playoff system is fine, what i do not like is that you can have a record that is not as good as another team in your div. and still win the div. right?

ex. AFC North
if the Steelers win every game but their div games and they lose all of them they would be 10-6, if the Ravens, Cinn., Clev. all split and do not win another game then they would be 4-10 but they would have a better div. record so one of them would win the AFC North over the Steelers which would have a better overall record, right? or am i not reading the rules right?

no im pretty sure that division record only plays into tie breakers