NFL Discussion - 2008-09 Playoffs
- Thread starter the 4th hanson bro
- Start date
No, no system is perfect, however if the goal is to have the best teams in the playoffs, then the current NFL system misses the mark. When a post-season shows flaws as deep as this, reforms should be made.
When an 11-5 team and a 9-7, in arguably the best division in football is at home while an 8-8 team in arguably the worst division in football goes to the playoffs and plays host to a 12-5 team, I think you've got some deep flaws.
The current system gives way to much reward for winning a division and not enough for just winning games. This isn't college football where we are comparing a 10-2 Ohio State team to a 12-0 Boise. We are comparing teams with similar talent levels and similar opponents where one team won 3 games more than the other team.
I'm not sure where you get that the Chargers will be a MUCH tougher opponent for the Colts. Both teams have strong rivalries with the Colts and both played them very tough this season.
Given how things cycle themselves through every so often, how teams can be lousy one season and great the next, the divisional structure does seem to get in the way. But only up to a point. Season to season can change which division is the stronger.
Even with that in consideration, all NE had to do was not embarrass themselves the way they did against Miami early in the year or eke out a couple more points against the Jets later, and there's no problem.
Again, the quality of a division fluctuates every so often, so in five years perhaps the AFC West and East will flip-flop in terms of who's stronger.
That did look whacked. I meant to say the SD would be a much stronger opponent than you seemed to feel, not that they'd necessarily be "MUCH stronger" against the Colts than would NE. Even with that in play, the Chargers did beat the Patriots convincingly back in October. Plus they are now getting healthy with both Gates and Tomlinson returning to form and an offensive line that's getting healthier as well. Looking at the records it seems on the surface to be a great disparity between the Chargers and the Patriots. Yet don't forget that those last three games between the Colts and the Bolts were each decided by four or fewer points.
For me, the bottom line is that the NFL is still arguably the most successful sports organization in the world. It ain't perfect, but it's doing something right... to the point that there must be some merit to their post-season format.
I personally find the NFL to have the most compelling post-season in sports. I think this is mostly due to the due or die nature of every single game played, then the nature of entrance into the playoffs.
The fact that division strength fluctuates, and the fact that such disparity exists is the reason that it should change. We can still give a reward for winning divisions, such as making it a tiebreaker between even record teams, yet IMO it shouldn't be the deciding factor for entrance into the playoffs.
If there are two 15-1 teams in the same division and no one has an equivalent record, IMO they should be the #1 and #2 seeds.
The fact that division strength fluctuates, and the fact that such disparity exists is the reason that it should change. We can still give a reward for winning divisions, such as making it a tiebreaker between even record teams, yet IMO it shouldn't be the deciding factor for entrance into the playoffs.
If there are two 15-1 teams in the same division and no one has an equivalent record, IMO they should be the #1 and #2 seeds.
Both teams can go and cherry pick large parts of their schedule for almost "sure" wins. This history of their internal conference rivals shows(any conference for that matter) that for the most part they will be at about the same talent level due to recruits interest and the talent level of said recruit.
In the NFL a 1-15 team can become 11-5 due to scheduling which they don't control and off the field moves which they can. I do think a division leader should be rewarded regardless of the occasional disparity.
Frankly I think the NCAA needs to move towards adopting some NFL playoff rules. Each Conference needs a championship game. Each champion could then be seeded based off "pick your factor" and then play ball with your top "x" bowl games. I'd like to start there and then work backwards on the years in advance cherry picking of the schedule.
The NFL has way more right than wrong on this matter.
I feel bad for the Patriots and their fans that they got left out of the playoffs when they finished the year on such a strong note (and, at the same time, I'm relieved that the Steelers won't have to worry about them in the postseason this year!)
But I'm not in favor of changing the NFL playoff system. As others have said, winning a division needs to mean something, even if it's at 8-8. The division rivalries are one of the best things about the NFL season. Everyone knows that the games against your division rivals are the most important ones of the year to win-- and that just contributes to the excitement that's already created by the fact that you have a long history of great games against your rival, and (in some cases) that they are nearby geographically.
There's also a fairly strong argument that it would be unfair not to give each division winner an automatic playoff berth. The schedules are determined by division. The Patriots and Chargers didn't just play different divisional opponents; they played completely different out-of-division opponents as well based on the divisions they're in.
The Patriots played the AFC West and NFC West (both of which had off-years; there's just one winning record among those 8 teams!), and the Chargers played the AFC East and NFC South (two tough divisions; there's only one losing record among those 8 teams). Add to that the fact that the Chargers beat the Patriots 30-10.
The only way it would be fair to purely let records decide playoff spots would be to ignore divisions entirely and have every team in the AFC play all 15 opponents, have every team in the NFC play all 15 opponents, and have one week of inter-conference games. And I just don't think that would be quite as much fun as looking forward to a Steelers-Ravens, Cowboys-Redskins, or Patriots-Jets game.
But I'm not in favor of changing the NFL playoff system. As others have said, winning a division needs to mean something, even if it's at 8-8. The division rivalries are one of the best things about the NFL season. Everyone knows that the games against your division rivals are the most important ones of the year to win-- and that just contributes to the excitement that's already created by the fact that you have a long history of great games against your rival, and (in some cases) that they are nearby geographically.
There's also a fairly strong argument that it would be unfair not to give each division winner an automatic playoff berth. The schedules are determined by division. The Patriots and Chargers didn't just play different divisional opponents; they played completely different out-of-division opponents as well based on the divisions they're in.
The Patriots played the AFC West and NFC West (both of which had off-years; there's just one winning record among those 8 teams!), and the Chargers played the AFC East and NFC South (two tough divisions; there's only one losing record among those 8 teams). Add to that the fact that the Chargers beat the Patriots 30-10.
The only way it would be fair to purely let records decide playoff spots would be to ignore divisions entirely and have every team in the AFC play all 15 opponents, have every team in the NFC play all 15 opponents, and have one week of inter-conference games. And I just don't think that would be quite as much fun as looking forward to a Steelers-Ravens, Cowboys-Redskins, or Patriots-Jets game.
4 straight wins. Against three easy teams and an Arizona team who was already
in the playoffs and packed up. The Patriots weren't all that good this year.
And yes. The playoffs are fine. If it had been the Patriots at 8-8 making
the playoffs none of their fans would have said a thing. Win your division.
It's nice to see some teams that haven't made the playoffs for a while get in this year- should make for some interesting games. My predictions for this weekend's games:
NFC
Eagles over the Vikings (Go Philly!!)
Falcons over the Cards
AFC
Colts over the Chargers
Ravens over the Dolphins
NFC
Eagles over the Vikings (Go Philly!!)
Falcons over the Cards
AFC
Colts over the Chargers
Ravens over the Dolphins
You guys really don't see a problem w/ an 8-8 team making the playoffs by winning their division when there are teams with better records out there?
Just think about it. If an 8-8 team wins its division, that means it plays in a weak division, and more than a third of its games will be against teams with a .500 mark or less. Not one team in the AFC West had a winning record outside of the division. San Diego, a playoff team is 3-7 outside of their division. The teams combined record against the rest of the league is 11-29.
Where the Patriots were 7-3 outside of their divison and had to play against tougher teams within their division. The AFC East against the rest of the league was 26-14.
If the goal is to get the six best teams into the playoffs, the NFL failed this year in regards to the AFC.
Still not mentioned in this is San Diego and Arizona are both hosting home games to teams with better records!
A better and more fair seeding IMO would be:
1. Tennessee
2. Pitt
3. Ind
4. Miami
5. NE
6. NY Jets
and
1. NYG
2. Carolina
3. Atlanta
4. Minnesota
5. Phil
6. Arizona (b/c of winning division against other 9-7 teams)
Just think about it. If an 8-8 team wins its division, that means it plays in a weak division, and more than a third of its games will be against teams with a .500 mark or less. Not one team in the AFC West had a winning record outside of the division. San Diego, a playoff team is 3-7 outside of their division. The teams combined record against the rest of the league is 11-29.
Where the Patriots were 7-3 outside of their divison and had to play against tougher teams within their division. The AFC East against the rest of the league was 26-14.
If the goal is to get the six best teams into the playoffs, the NFL failed this year in regards to the AFC.
Still not mentioned in this is San Diego and Arizona are both hosting home games to teams with better records!
A better and more fair seeding IMO would be:
1. Tennessee
2. Pitt
3. Ind
4. Miami
5. NE
6. NY Jets
and
1. NYG
2. Carolina
3. Atlanta
4. Minnesota
5. Phil
6. Arizona (b/c of winning division against other 9-7 teams)
8-8 does not necessarily mean a weak division, though it tends to bend things in that direction. Such a record could indicate a very competitive division, one where everyone is more or less evenly matched.
The NFL seeks to promote rivalries, and one way they do that is through geographic grouping into the divisions. Take away the playoff spot that goes with winning your division and you lose so very much of that. In fact your approach completely eliminates the need for divisions altogether, which in all likelihood greatly blunts the development of natural rivalries. Those types of games throughout the season really tend to amp up attendance.
New England didn't win their division, even though they had ample opportunity to do so. Maybe it sucks, but they at least seem to be accepting of it all. If the Pats themselves can accept it (not that they like it, mind you), it's not much of a stretch to expect others to do so. You have to accept the fact that the "goal" is not necessarily to get the six best teams but to create the most compelling matchups to draw in the most interest.
The NFL seeks to promote rivalries, and one way they do that is through geographic grouping into the divisions. Take away the playoff spot that goes with winning your division and you lose so very much of that. In fact your approach completely eliminates the need for divisions altogether, which in all likelihood greatly blunts the development of natural rivalries. Those types of games throughout the season really tend to amp up attendance.
New England didn't win their division, even though they had ample opportunity to do so. Maybe it sucks, but they at least seem to be accepting of it all. If the Pats themselves can accept it (not that they like it, mind you), it's not much of a stretch to expect others to do so. You have to accept the fact that the "goal" is not necessarily to get the six best teams but to create the most compelling matchups to draw in the most interest.
I can accept it for this season. The Pats can to b/c they know the rules. That doesn't mean the rules shouldn't change. 8-8 winners in divisions play in weak divisions. Teams only play 6 games in division and play 10 outside. Winning a division requires at least a 3-3 record in division (assuming no ties) meaning that at best, the winner of that division is 5-5 outside of the division.
We can still make divisions matter, and winning them matter, but not to the extent of an 8-8 team making the playoffs over two teams with better records and getting to host a home playoff game to a team who defeated them and won 4 more games then they did. If division games are suppose to matter so much, why are divisions decided by overall record before division record?
Would you still be saying the same thing if the team were 7-9 or 6-10 and getting in over the Patriots and the Jets? Those are plausible scenarios. This year is pretty bad, but it could be worse, and the NFL in the off-season should take action to change this.
We can still make divisions matter, and winning them matter, but not to the extent of an 8-8 team making the playoffs over two teams with better records and getting to host a home playoff game to a team who defeated them and won 4 more games then they did. If division games are suppose to matter so much, why are divisions decided by overall record before division record?
Would you still be saying the same thing if the team were 7-9 or 6-10 and getting in over the Patriots and the Jets? Those are plausible scenarios. This year is pretty bad, but it could be worse, and the NFL in the off-season should take action to change this.
No I wouldn't have an issue with that if they won their division.
That's what counts. As I said in a post elsewhere, it all balances out.
Each year there is going to be a crappy division that gives a new team
a taste of the playoffs and then that division usually improves and the
next year it's a different divsion. I'm happy two 8-8 teams made it.
The Chargers certainly deserved to be there regardless of the record.
Even the Cardinals may show they deserved to be there, even if they
lose, if they put up a good fight.
New England certainly didn't deserve to be there with a their lame schedule.
And the Jets ended up showing they were crap. The NFL has pretty much
the perfect playoff setup and it better not change.
That's what counts. As I said in a post elsewhere, it all balances out.
Each year there is going to be a crappy division that gives a new team
a taste of the playoffs and then that division usually improves and the
next year it's a different divsion. I'm happy two 8-8 teams made it.
The Chargers certainly deserved to be there regardless of the record.
Even the Cardinals may show they deserved to be there, even if they
lose, if they put up a good fight.
New England certainly didn't deserve to be there with a their lame schedule.
And the Jets ended up showing they were crap. The NFL has pretty much
the perfect playoff setup and it better not change.
Mike Martz is gone. On One hand I have faith in Singletary, but on the other, this is the 6th OC in 6 years. The team needs some kind of consistency to be a contender.
Peter King doesn't seem to have a problem with the way things worked out this season.
And if you want to know if I'd have a problem wee a division winner 7-9 and getting in... I'd say two things:
#1.) How likely is that to occur?
#2.) If one game makes that much of a difference, then again, NE could have rendered this moot by winning one more game by scoring one more TD against either the Colts or Jets.
Maybe the NFL will look at it, but I doubt it. See how the attendance at the games and the viewership turns out. Unless those change dramatically, things won't change, and I'm not sure if they should. It's a business as much as it is a sport anymore.
And if you want to know if I'd have a problem wee a division winner 7-9 and getting in... I'd say two things:
#1.) How likely is that to occur?
#2.) If one game makes that much of a difference, then again, NE could have rendered this moot by winning one more game by scoring one more TD against either the Colts or Jets.
Maybe the NFL will look at it, but I doubt it. See how the attendance at the games and the viewership turns out. Unless those change dramatically, things won't change, and I'm not sure if they should. It's a business as much as it is a sport anymore.
No way! I did not expect that at all. Wonder what kind of comic the Denver paper will come up with for this.
It's a pity they couldn't hire Crennel as DC, because that might have helped matters.The playoffs system shouldn't be changed, and NE really should've won their divisional games, but, let's be honest, if you're going to be making an argument that N.E. had a weak schedule, then the same should be applied to S.D.
Let's look at S.D's regular season opponents:
1. Carolina
2. Denver (weak)
3. Jets (weak)
4. Oakland (weak)
5. Miami
6. N.E.
7. Buffalo (weak)
9. New Orleans
9. Kansas City (weak)
10. Pittsburgh
11. Indianapolis
12. Atlanta
13. Oakland (weak)
14. Kansas City (weak)
15. Tampa Bay (weak, come on now, losing to Oakland...)
16. Denver (weak)
N.E. regular season schedule
1. Kansas City (weak)
2. Jets (weak)
3. Miami
4. San Francisco (weak)
5. San Diego
6. Denver (weak)
7. St. Louis (weak??)
8. Indianapolis
9. Buffalo (weak)
10. Jets (weak)
11. Miami
12. Pittsburgh
13. Seattle (weak)
14. Oakland (weak)
15. Arizona
16. Buffalo (weak)
On to something that should be looked at is the current draft system.
Outside of the two teams that reach the superbowl (who will be in the last two slots in the first round), why is it that the notion of reaching the playoffs does not really get factored into the first round pick order?
"Remaining teams are sorted by regular season record, with worse records picking first, regardless of playoff status; in the case of tied records, teams that make the playoffs can't pick before teams that do not"
Shouldn't it be ordered by:
(non-playoff teams)
(non-superbowl playoff teams)
(superbowl teams)
Similar threads
