Ok I don't get it
 

I thought if you beat a team in the NFC you got into the playoffs. The Saints are 8-8 and beat the Rams. I thought the Saints owed that tie breaker.

Ok I don't get it
 

yeah that\'S waht i thought too
but i guess the rams won more games in their own division or something like that.........

Ok I don't get it
 

I don\'t understand this either. If the Rams had beaten the Vikings this would make sense. We beat the Rams, the Vikings beat us and the Rams and Vikings did not play each other. How are we out of the playoffs? Another shaft in the a** from Tagliubue.

Ok I don't get it
 

It\'s been explained elsewhere.

When there are more than two teams tied, and there were three with the Saints, Vikings, and Rams, the first tiebreaker is if one team had beaten each of the others (therefor winning) or lost to each of the others (therefore out). These three teams didn\'t each have common games though the Saints had played both.

So the next tiebreaker is conference record. The Rams had the best conference record at 7-5. The Saints and Viking were both at 6-6 IIRC. So the Rams win the 1st WC slot. The other two go back into the pool.

Well the Vikings had beaten the Saints during the season so head to head rears its ugly head. The Vikes win the last slot based on head to head.

So that\'s it.

But neither of these teams are going anywhere in the playoffs. They don\'t have the defense to pull off anything.

Next year the Saints will remember the games that slipped away early in the season, losing to winless Arizona and Tampa Bay, or giving up 605 yards to the Vikings. Anytime you score 31 points and lose the game, you\'ve got problems.

SFIAH

Ok I don't get it
 

Here\'s how it shakes out. In a three-way tie, such as we had with the Saints, Rams, and Vikings, the tie-breaker is conference record, which the Rams have the edge...so, they are in. That leaves the Saints and the Vikings for one slot left, and the tie-breaker for a two-way tie is head-to-head, which the Saints lost, I think it was on a Sunday night, something like 38-31. I hope that clears it up for you a little bit.

Ok I don't get it
 

I understand how they came up with the decision. I just think it makes no sense to have a Rams team that lost to the Saints get in based on conference record when the Rams did not have to play the Vikings.

Ok I don't get it
 

Stockman that exctly what i\'m saying. It is like the Raiders VS Patriots game in the playoffs. The people of authority say tuck rule others say fumble. Oh well!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok I don't get it
 

..and that is why it is set up the way it is... if you have 3 teams with the same record and 2 of them did not play, you can\'t use head to head records because there is not head to head record between 2 of them... this is done so because teams don\'t get to play all other teams in the conference...


.. and widows, unlike the tuck rule, the playoff tie breaker isn\'t subjective...

Ok I don't get it
 

No the tuck rule thing was a joke. I mean the tuck rule thing is bs, and so is this tie breaker thing. I mean this does not seem right. I\'m sure you know what I mean. We beat the Rams but they go to the playoffs over us. I understand because they had a better confrence win loss record and the Rams did not play the vikes but this is retarded. I sure hope the Saints come back pissed after this.

[Edited on 3/1/2005 by blackwidows]

Ok I don't get it
 

Well the rule has been around and all teams play by those rules. I agree it just sucks to be out when it seems like we are the hottest team in the NFC right now.
My philosophy however is take care of buisness and not get caught up in situations where you don\'t control your own destiny. I like what Philly does... when you got your foot on someones throat you keep it there don\'t toy with them and let them stay in the game.
Would have been nice to get in but we would be facing GB in GB and I don\'t think that would have been pretty for us but would have been nice anyways.