Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gruden says Commisioner should change the rules on...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Divisions change over time. The NFC West was pretty decent during the earlier part of the 2000's with at least two competitive teams. This year the division is just have a really awful year. In 2004 we had two teams make the playoffs with 8-8 records. Sometimes your division is hard, other times it isn't. Complaining about that not being fair is like complaining because life isn't fair.

    "Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
    -San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
    Originally posted by Borat
    Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by yodapoop View Post
      Well, I know it does look that way. U just have to believe me.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Ness View Post
        Sometimes your division is hard, other times it isn't. Complaining about that not being fair is like complaining because life isn't fair.
        I do love it when football fans wax philosophical... life is hard a lot like the NFC South's playoff battle. Didn't Descartes say something along those lines?

        Comment


        • #49
          since 2000, the NFC West has been to 4 SB's, winning one of them. All 4 teams are rebuilding and are on the rise, with the exception of the Cardinals. 3 of them need franchise QB's. Things can turn around pretty quick in the NFL. Give the Rams a #1 WR and a couple more defensive players, and they could compete for the NFC title pretty easily. Give the 49'ers a franchise QB, and they aren't far behind. The same with Seattle.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by armageddon View Post
            since 2000, the NFC West has been to 4 SB's, winning one of them. All 4 teams are rebuilding and are on the rise, with the exception of the Cardinals. 3 of them need franchise QB's. Things can turn around pretty quick in the NFL. Give the Rams a #1 WR and a couple more defensive players, and they could compete for the NFC title pretty easily. Give the 49'ers a franchise QB, and they aren't far behind. The same with Seattle.
            You're missing the point... everybody knows divisions rise and fall. If you think this is exclusively about the NFC West you're very short sighted.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by McBain View Post
              That picture will give me nightmares, so thx.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by yodapoop View Post
                That picture will give me nightmares, so thx.
                Good. I hope they scares you into thinking logically.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by McBain View Post
                  Good. I hope they scares you into thinking logically.
                  So if the Redskins were to be in a crap NFC East and go 8-8. And my Rams went 10-6, but lost to the Seahawks at 11-5. And the Packers and Falcons were at 11-5 as wild card winners. Would u be agaist it so much then? I said I do feel bad that there will prolly be better teams left out when the NFC West wins it. But hey, its not fair UConn is going to a BCS game and Boise State is not. Right now we are arguing who gets killed by the Saints. Leave our division alone.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by CC.SD View Post
                    Why would you even consider changing the playoff rules to deal with a hypothetical situation that probably won't even happen?
                    People are watching Goodell do this and figure it's just going to keep happening?


                    Originally posted by WMD
                    Jesse realizing Walt was Santa Claus could really shake things up.
                    Originally posted by gpngc
                    I don't know how old you are, but if you can get to 24/25 without getting arrested or killed, you've done well for yourself lol.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by yodapoop View Post
                      So if the Redskins were to be in a crap NFC East and go 8-8. And my Rams went 10-6, but lost to the Seahawks at 11-5. And the Packers and Falcons were at 11-5 as wild card winners. Would u be agaist it so much then? I said I do feel bad that there will prolly be better teams left out when the NFC West wins it. But hey, its not fair UConn is going to a BCS game and Boise State is not. Right now we are arguing who gets killed by the Saints. Leave our division alone.
                      I think it's more unfair to the 1 or 2 seed who gets the play the Saints after a glorified bye. It takes away from the bye they earned. The Saints will be getting a tune up game basically. But I agree kicking them out of the playoffs is going too far. They should just re-seed it on record. Weak division winners happen and it's cyclical. I forget their record but the Bucs 3 years ago were an awfully week division winner. It's because of the unbalanced schedule.
                      Last edited by Jughead10; 12-01-2010, 08:09 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Expanding the playoffs, and eliminating the bye week is ideal I think. How many times have you seen that team come into a game flat and get knocked off by a team full of confidence from winning in the wild card round, as well playing competitive football at the end of the season to earn the wild card.

                        sig by BoneKrusher

                        PACKERS BADGERS BREWERS BUCKS

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by senormysterioso View Post
                          Expanding the playoffs, and eliminating the bye week is ideal I think. How many times have you seen that team come into a game flat and get knocked off by a team full of confidence from winning in the wild card round, as well playing competitive football at the end of the season to earn the wild card.
                          I only happened to the Chargers last year...

                          Plus expanding the playoffs would only make it more likely for ****** teams to get in. The NBA and NHL have overly expansive playoffs with half the league getting in where even teams with losing records get in.

                          I like the current 6 and 6 set up. I do however think seeding should be done by overall record...we could potentially see it this year where the top two teams in the AFC come from the East...one would get a bye week while the other is a 5 seed? Lame....

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by yodapoop View Post
                            So if the Redskins were to be in a crap NFC East and go 8-8. And my Rams went 10-6, but lost to the Seahawks at 11-5. And the Packers and Falcons were at 11-5 as wild card winners. Would u be agaist it so much then? I said I do feel bad that there will prolly be better teams left out when the NFC West wins it. But hey, its not fair UConn is going to a BCS game and Boise State is not. Right now we are arguing who gets killed by the Saints. Leave our division alone.
                            I would be against it because i want my team in the playoffs. The difference is i wouldn't think i was unbiased nor would i try to seem reasonable with some ridiculous compromise... i would sit back and hope the NFL continued being stupid and not say anything realizing everything i would say would be homer retardation. If the NFL did end up doing away with the ******** divisional winner system... in this hypothetical, i would be annoyed but i would recognize the fairness in the simpler record based system.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I don't understand why winning the division has to do with outside record in the first place. Maybe what should happen is that division record will guarantee you win the division and guarantee a playoff spot, but overall record determines seeding. So a 12-4 team that goes 2-4 in the division would probably be the wildcard, but they would be seeded higher. A 9-7 team that goes 6-0 in the division is guaranteed a playoff spot, but gets a low seed.

                              Just an idea, I haven't really thought through whether I would like it.

                              by BoneKrusher
                              <DG> how metal unseen
                              <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by The Unseen View Post
                                I don't understand why winning the division has to do with outside record in the first place. Maybe what should happen is that division record will guarantee you win the division and guarantee a playoff spot, but overall record determines seeding. So a 12-4 team that goes 2-4 in the division would probably be the wildcard, but they would be seeded higher. A 9-7 team that goes 6-0 in the division is guaranteed a playoff spot, but gets a low seed.

                                Just an idea, I haven't really thought through whether I would like it.
                                Was about to post the same thing. Let the division's automatic birth go to the DIVISION winner. It would add even more to the divisional rivalries, even if it means that some years an 8-8 Chargers team will get in over a 9-7 Broncos team.
                                I'm a state.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information