Ok I don't get it

Tobias-Reiper · 01-03-2005, 04:11 PM

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]

In 2003, Miami ended with a 10-6 record, beating the Ravens in week 11. The Ravens ended 10-6. The Ravens went to the playoffs, yet Miami didn\'t... it may not seem \"fair\", but Baltimore won its division, Miami didn\'t.. sort of same type of thing here... you have 3 teams that have identical records.. since you cannot apply the head-to-head tie breaker to 2 of the three, you have to go to the next tie breaker...

[Edited on 3/1/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]

01-03-2005, 04:11 PM	#11
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	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] In 2003, Miami ended with a 10-6 record, beating the Ravens in week 11. The Ravens ended 10-6. The Ravens went to the playoffs, yet Miami didn\'t... it may not seem \"fair\", but Baltimore won its division, Miami didn\'t.. sort of same type of thing here... you have 3 teams that have identical records.. since you cannot apply the head-to-head tie breaker to 2 of the three, you have to go to the next tie breaker... [Edited on 3/1/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]