Wildcard weekend lineup proves need for playoff changes

spkb25 · 01-03-2011, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by CashAndFlash

changing the playoff format would be as reactionary as changing the overtime format. I disagree with both.

I am not sure I follow the logic- but basically you are saying that you don't make a change because of a perceived flaw?

I am not sure I agree, but that is your opinion.

The OT format I liked previously because I thought it added more excitement. I like sudden death. I see the logic to the new system

For the playoffs I think you can look at it as improving the overall game by making all games important. Just my opinion.

Most changes are reactionary- I am not sure that argument holds much water.

I respect your opinion though.

CashAndFlash · 01-03-2011, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by spkb25

I am not sure I follow the logic- but basically you are saying that you don't make a change because of a perceived flaw?

I am not sure I agree, but that is your opinion.

The OT format I liked previously because I thought it added more excitement. I like sudden death. I see the logic to the new system

For the playoffs I think you can look at it as improving the overall game by making all games important. Just my opinion.

Most changes are reactionary- I am not sure that argument holds much water.

I respect your opinion though.

I just see it as being the same argument.

It "wasn't fair" that the Vikings lost that way last year.

It "isn't fair" that the Saints don't get to host a playoff game.

I, too, liked the sudden death format. I think if they had to change it, they should give both teams a chance to score, and if both do, let it run out the whole 15 minutes before declaring a victor.

spkb25 · 01-03-2011, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by CashAndFlash

I just see it as being the same argument.

It "wasn't fair" that the Vikings lost that way last year.

It "isn't fair" that the Saints don't get to host a playoff game.

I, too, liked the sudden death format. I think if they had to change it, they should give both teams a chance to score, and if both do, let it run out the whole 15 minutes before declaring a victor.

I don't think I used the argument it wasn't fair for the Saints. My point is that week 17 becomes just as important as all other weeks and makes the entire season interesting for fans

CashAndFlash · 01-03-2011, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by spkb25

I don't think I used the argument it wasn't fair for the Saints. My point is that week 17 becomes just as important as all other weeks and makes the entire season interesting for fans

How many of the NFC seeds were set before yesterday?

NOLA54 · 01-03-2011, 11:28 AM

The NFL is never going to change the playoff seeding. We should not over look this game with the Hawks. also remember the Saints have lost more games at home then on the road. Once GB beats the Eagles the Falcons will be next. We take care of business in Seattle & Chicago then we play the NFC championship at home.

spkb25 · 01-03-2011, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by CashAndFlash

How many of the NFC seeds were set before yesterday?

current system, all but atlanta. The likelihood that they were going to lose was next to nothing. Which is more than likely why so many people were held out by us. We couldn't move, bears couldn't, eagles couldn't.

Eagles aren't sitting people if the system changes, and neither are we, minus maybe colston.

Bears ended up playing in that game, but that is the exception, not the norm.

CashAndFlash · 01-03-2011, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by spkb25

current system, all but atlanta. The likelihood that they were going to lose was next to nothing. Which is more than likely why so many people were held out by us. We couldn't move, bears couldn't, eagles couldn't.

Eagles aren't sitting people if the system changes, and neither are we, minus maybe colston.

Bears ended up playing in that game, but that is the exception, not the norm.

this is the first time in 40 years a losing team has made the playoffs.

I agree that the system has its flaws, i just think the historical awfulness of the NFC west is a very rare exception, and that it really doesn't merit a change.

On that point, we'll just have to disagree.

spkb25 · 01-03-2011, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by CashAndFlash

this is the first time in 40 years a losing team has made the playoffs.

I agree that the system has its flaws, i just think the historical awfulness of the NFC west is a very rare exception, and that it really doesn't merit a change.

On that point, we'll just have to disagree.

Yeah that's cool- nothing wrong with it

Budsdrinker · 01-03-2011, 12:15 PM

Changing the seeding would be nice but it will not happen. But saying you don't derserve a home game without winning your division isn't right either because technically winning your division doesn't mean you won the most games against your division. Just look at the Raiders. They are the first team in 40 years that go 6-0 against their division and miss the playoffs. So with that said, basically it's the team with the most overall wins that wins the division which now lets you argue against the way the current seeding is done in my opinion.

UK_WhoDat · 01-03-2011, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker

Changing the seeding would be nice but it will not happen. But saying you don't deserve a home game without winning your division isn't right either because technically winning your division doesn't mean you won the most games against your division. Just look at the Raiders. They are the first team in 40 years that go 6-0 against their division and miss the playoffs. So with that said, basically it's the team with the most overall wins that wins the division which now lets you argue against the way the current seeding is done in my opinion.

Good spot.

Good point.

01-03-2011, 10:30 AM	#21
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,057	Originally Posted by CashAndFlash changing the playoff format would be as reactionary as changing the overtime format. I disagree with both. I am not sure I follow the logic- but basically you are saying that you don't make a change because of a perceived flaw? I am not sure I agree, but that is your opinion. The OT format I liked previously because I thought it added more excitement. I like sudden death. I see the logic to the new system For the playoffs I think you can look at it as improving the overall game by making all games important. Just my opinion. Most changes are reactionary- I am not sure that argument holds much water. I respect your opinion though.
	Your team stinks

01-03-2011, 10:36 AM	#22
CashAndFlash Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: 30 miles from Paradis Posts: 602 Blog Entries: 1	Originally Posted by spkb25 I am not sure I follow the logic- but basically you are saying that you don't make a change because of a perceived flaw? I am not sure I agree, but that is your opinion. The OT format I liked previously because I thought it added more excitement. I like sudden death. I see the logic to the new system For the playoffs I think you can look at it as improving the overall game by making all games important. Just my opinion. Most changes are reactionary- I am not sure that argument holds much water. I respect your opinion though. I just see it as being the same argument. It "wasn't fair" that the Vikings lost that way last year. It "isn't fair" that the Saints don't get to host a playoff game. I, too, liked the sudden death format. I think if they had to change it, they should give both teams a chance to score, and if both do, let it run out the whole 15 minutes before declaring a victor.

01-03-2011, 11:02 AM	#23
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,057	Originally Posted by CashAndFlash I just see it as being the same argument. It "wasn't fair" that the Vikings lost that way last year. It "isn't fair" that the Saints don't get to host a playoff game. I, too, liked the sudden death format. I think if they had to change it, they should give both teams a chance to score, and if both do, let it run out the whole 15 minutes before declaring a victor. I don't think I used the argument it wasn't fair for the Saints. My point is that week 17 becomes just as important as all other weeks and makes the entire season interesting for fans

01-03-2011, 11:16 AM	#24
CashAndFlash Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: 30 miles from Paradis Posts: 602 Blog Entries: 1	Originally Posted by spkb25 I don't think I used the argument it wasn't fair for the Saints. My point is that week 17 becomes just as important as all other weeks and makes the entire season interesting for fans How many of the NFC seeds were set before yesterday?

01-03-2011, 11:29 AM	#26
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,057	Originally Posted by CashAndFlash How many of the NFC seeds were set before yesterday? current system, all but atlanta. The likelihood that they were going to lose was next to nothing. Which is more than likely why so many people were held out by us. We couldn't move, bears couldn't, eagles couldn't. Eagles aren't sitting people if the system changes, and neither are we, minus maybe colston. Bears ended up playing in that game, but that is the exception, not the norm.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-03-2011, 11:28 AM	#25
NOLA54 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,701 Blog Entries: 1	The NFL is never going to change the playoff seeding. We should not over look this game with the Hawks. also remember the Saints have lost more games at home then on the road. Once GB beats the Eagles the Falcons will be next. We take care of business in Seattle & Chicago then we play the NFC championship at home.

01-03-2011, 11:35 AM	#27
CashAndFlash Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: 30 miles from Paradis Posts: 602 Blog Entries: 1	Originally Posted by spkb25 current system, all but atlanta. The likelihood that they were going to lose was next to nothing. Which is more than likely why so many people were held out by us. We couldn't move, bears couldn't, eagles couldn't. Eagles aren't sitting people if the system changes, and neither are we, minus maybe colston. Bears ended up playing in that game, but that is the exception, not the norm. this is the first time in 40 years a losing team has made the playoffs. I agree that the system has its flaws, i just think the historical awfulness of the NFC west is a very rare exception, and that it really doesn't merit a change. On that point, we'll just have to disagree.

01-03-2011, 11:43 AM	#28
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,057	Originally Posted by CashAndFlash this is the first time in 40 years a losing team has made the playoffs. I agree that the system has its flaws, i just think the historical awfulness of the NFC west is a very rare exception, and that it really doesn't merit a change. On that point, we'll just have to disagree. Yeah that's cool- nothing wrong with it

01-03-2011, 12:15 PM	#29
Budsdrinker A Cajun Transforming TX Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Woodlands, Texas Posts: 2,787	Changing the seeding would be nice but it will not happen. But saying you don't derserve a home game without winning your division isn't right either because technically winning your division doesn't mean you won the most games against your division. Just look at the Raiders. They are the first team in 40 years that go 6-0 against their division and miss the playoffs. So with that said, basically it's the team with the most overall wins that wins the division which now lets you argue against the way the current seeding is done in my opinion.

01-03-2011, 02:58 PM	#30
UK_WhoDat 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Wherever I lay my hat Posts: 3,824	Originally Posted by Budsdrinker Changing the seeding would be nice but it will not happen. But saying you don't deserve a home game without winning your division isn't right either because technically winning your division doesn't mean you won the most games against your division. Just look at the Raiders. They are the first team in 40 years that go 6-0 against their division and miss the playoffs. So with that said, basically it's the team with the most overall wins that wins the division which now lets you argue against the way the current seeding is done in my opinion. Good spot. Good point.