Wildcard weekend lineup proves need for playoff changes

arsaint · 01-02-2011, 10:54 PM

The NFL seriously needs to look at changing the way it seeds playoff teams. This season points that out in bold...

(12-4) Ravens at Chiefs (10-6)
(11-5) Saints at Seahawks (7-9)
(11-5) Jets at Colts (10-6)
(10-6) Packers at Eagles (10-6)

In three of the four wildcard matches, the team with the weaker record is hosting the team with the better record.

The fourth matchup contains two teams with the same record, but the Packers have already met and defeated the Eagles in the regular season, in a sense giving them a "tiebreaker".

C17-BING · 01-02-2011, 11:00 PM

I understand what you are saying ARSAINT, but I disagree ... Winning your division should mean something. While it sucks that we are ON THE ROAD against a terrible 7-9 team ... They are division winners and we are NOT.

The NFL is cyclical ... We've had our day (and will again) where it will play in our favor ... Unfortunately this year --- it did not.

spkb25 · 01-03-2011, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by C17-BING

I understand what you are saying ARSAINT, but I disagree ... Winning your division should mean something. While it sucks that we are ON THE ROAD against a terrible 7-9 team ... They are division winners and we are NOT.

The NFL is cyclical ... We've had our day (and will again) where it will play in our favor ... Unfortunately this year --- it did not.

It should mean you make the playoffs, no more.

I mean christ how can you justify Seattle playing in a division as weak as theirs and not having more wins?

We play in a divy where the top 3 teams have 10, 11, and 13 wins.

I agree that the division winner should make the playoffs, but after that they should reseat.

Think about this- how many week 17 games would have been played full out for a chance at either a bye or home game?

It will improve the game overall. I do agree with allowing division winners to make the playoffs.

arsaint · 01-02-2011, 11:03 PM

Its not that I don't think Seattle should be in the playoffs because they did win their division (don't you know Giants and Bucs fans are sick), but I don't think they should be guaranteed a home game...

C17-BING · 01-02-2011, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by arsaint

Its not that I don't think Seattle should be in the playoffs because they did win their division (don't you know Giants and Bucs fans are sick), but I don't think they should be guaranteed a home game...

While I can see your point ... I think the NFL owners voted on this very issue a few years back and while 18 owner's agreed with your point .... there were 14 who did not and it takes 24 to get something changed.

It sucks for us THIS year, but I'll be in the next 10 years you'll see this potentially help us in the NFC South ... Our division won't always be tough as nails ... It's cyclical. I'm not happy either that we have to travel to SEA (I think it's going to be an incredibly tough venue to win at), but rules are rules are rules.

I would rather have gone to St. Louise (e added intentionally) ... SEA is going to be a lot more difficult. Great discussion though ARSAINT --- I think all of us are frustrated THIS year about it.

nisewondful · 01-02-2011, 11:04 PM

yeah i just think if they win under .500 they shouldnt have a home game. But the Saints should have taken care of business more. Im ok with Ravens loss and even the loss against the Browns bc they came in with a plan but we should not have lost against the Falcons, Bucs, and Cards at all this season.

C17-BING · 01-02-2011, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by nisewondful

yeah i just think if they win under .500 they shouldnt have a home game.

Well, this is the FIRST time in NFL history that it's ever happened, so obviously no one ever expected that to be an issue ... O well, if we can't go in there and beat them --- we won't deserve to continue against ANYONE else.

Time to take care of business ...

exile · 01-02-2011, 11:24 PM

I agree with BING... we didn't get the job done. Seattle did. Records be darned. Bucs/Giants had plenty of chances to make the playoffs. Congrats Seattle.. too bad you have a bad draw with the Champions coming to your place.

pumpkindriver · 01-02-2011, 11:32 PM

Personally I think they should change it so that if a division winner has an 8-8 record or worse and there is a team with a winning record, the division winner, should stay at home and watch the playoffs from the couch, while the team with the winning record goes in.

UK_WhoDat · 01-03-2011, 05:47 AM

If there is an issue, it is the NFL and its constitution at fault.

I watch many other sports so my idealistic view is that you must be the best in your division/conference/league if you expect to represent that division/conference/league.

The NFL has the conference thing - fine, and then the division thing - to me not fine. Too compartmentalised . (Gosh is that my longest word of 2011 so far?). And then there are anomalies on home and away games, and you can play a slightly different schedule based on your previous years record - and yet the Championship is played for this year.

If we really can't have every team in ONE conference playing each other at least once, every year, then we will continue to get divisional winners at home to an apparently better team. Especially when the division winner takes all the tiebreaks. Why not, I ask myself, is the CONFERENCE record the statistic of choice to represent your conference, followed by head-to-head or overall wins? Just provoking y'all.

Now my counter argument. Maybe it should be the overall record adjusted for "strength of schedule". Are the great records of the NFC South (Carolina excluded) partly due to the pathetic NFC West? As I said..... just provoking.

01-02-2011, 10:54 PM	#1
arsaint Saint Historian Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick & steel of a nondescript building.. Posts: 2,732	Wildcard weekend lineup proves need for playoff changes The NFL seriously needs to look at changing the way it seeds playoff teams. This season points that out in bold... (12-4) Ravens at Chiefs (10-6) (11-5) Saints at Seahawks (7-9) (11-5) Jets at Colts (10-6) (10-6) Packers at Eagles (10-6) In three of the four wildcard matches, the team with the weaker record is hosting the team with the better record. The fourth matchup contains two teams with the same record, but the Packers have already met and defeated the Eagles in the regular season, in a sense giving them a "tiebreaker".

01-02-2011, 11:00 PM	#2
C17-BING 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 231	I understand what you are saying ARSAINT, but I disagree ... Winning your division should mean something. While it sucks that we are ON THE ROAD against a terrible 7-9 team ... They are division winners and we are NOT. The NFL is cyclical ... We've had our day (and will again) where it will play in our favor ... Unfortunately this year --- it did not.
C17-BING 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 231

01-03-2011, 09:49 AM	#3
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,120	Originally Posted by C17-BING I understand what you are saying ARSAINT, but I disagree ... Winning your division should mean something. While it sucks that we are ON THE ROAD against a terrible 7-9 team ... They are division winners and we are NOT. The NFL is cyclical ... We've had our day (and will again) where it will play in our favor ... Unfortunately this year --- it did not. It should mean you make the playoffs, no more. I mean christ how can you justify Seattle playing in a division as weak as theirs and not having more wins? We play in a divy where the top 3 teams have 10, 11, and 13 wins. I agree that the division winner should make the playoffs, but after that they should reseat. Think about this- how many week 17 games would have been played full out for a chance at either a bye or home game? It will improve the game overall. I do agree with allowing division winners to make the playoffs.
	Your team stinks

01-02-2011, 11:16 PM	#5
C17-BING 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 231	Originally Posted by arsaint Its not that I don't think Seattle should be in the playoffs because they did win their division (don't you know Giants and Bucs fans are sick), but I don't think they should be guaranteed a home game... While I can see your point ... I think the NFL owners voted on this very issue a few years back and while 18 owner's agreed with your point .... there were 14 who did not and it takes 24 to get something changed. It sucks for us THIS year, but I'll be in the next 10 years you'll see this potentially help us in the NFC South ... Our division won't always be tough as nails ... It's cyclical. I'm not happy either that we have to travel to SEA (I think it's going to be an incredibly tough venue to win at), but rules are rules are rules. I would rather have gone to St. Louise (e added intentionally) ... SEA is going to be a lot more difficult. Great discussion though ARSAINT --- I think all of us are frustrated THIS year about it.
C17-BING 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 231

01-02-2011, 11:04 PM	#6
nisewondful Rookie Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 2	yeah i just think if they win under .500 they shouldnt have a home game. But the Saints should have taken care of business more. Im ok with Ravens loss and even the loss against the Browns bc they came in with a plan but we should not have lost against the Falcons, Bucs, and Cards at all this season.
nisewondful Rookie Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 2

01-02-2011, 11:03 PM	#4
arsaint Saint Historian Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick & steel of a nondescript building.. Posts: 2,732	Its not that I don't think Seattle should be in the playoffs because they did win their division (don't you know Giants and Bucs fans are sick), but I don't think they should be guaranteed a home game...

01-02-2011, 11:18 PM	#7
C17-BING 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 231	Originally Posted by nisewondful yeah i just think if they win under .500 they shouldnt have a home game. Well, this is the FIRST time in NFL history that it's ever happened, so obviously no one ever expected that to be an issue ... O well, if we can't go in there and beat them --- we won't deserve to continue against ANYONE else. Time to take care of business ...
C17-BING 100th Post Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 231

01-02-2011, 11:24 PM	#8
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608	I agree with BING... we didn't get the job done. Seattle did. Records be darned. Bucs/Giants had plenty of chances to make the playoffs. Congrats Seattle.. too bad you have a bad draw with the Champions coming to your place.
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608

01-02-2011, 11:32 PM	#9
pumpkindriver 500th Post Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Killeen, Tx. Posts: 932	Personally I think they should change it so that if a division winner has an 8-8 record or worse and there is a team with a winning record, the division winner, should stay at home and watch the playoffs from the couch, while the team with the winning record goes in.

01-03-2011, 05:47 AM	#10
UK_WhoDat 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Wherever I lay my hat Posts: 4,000	If there is an issue, it is the NFL and its constitution at fault. I watch many other sports so my idealistic view is that you must be the best in your division/conference/league if you expect to represent that division/conference/league. The NFL has the conference thing - fine, and then the division thing - to me not fine. Too compartmentalised . (Gosh is that my longest word of 2011 so far?). And then there are anomalies on home and away games, and you can play a slightly different schedule based on your previous years record - and yet the Championship is played for this year. If we really can't have every team in ONE conference playing each other at least once, every year, then we will continue to get divisional winners at home to an apparently better team. Especially when the division winner takes all the tiebreaks. Why not, I ask myself, is the CONFERENCE record the statistic of choice to represent your conference, followed by head-to-head or overall wins? Just provoking y'all. Now my counter argument. Maybe it should be the overall record adjusted for "strength of schedule". Are the great records of the NFC South (Carolina excluded) partly due to the pathetic NFC West? As I said..... just provoking.
	Our Saints, Our City, Our Soul Saints are individuals of exceptional holiness