Since he was hired, there were too many instances he reminded me of Mike Ditka towards the (Chicago) end.
I figured that would get him fired more than a bad record, eventually.
NFL Talk - 2010-11 Season
- Thread starter tomalak301
- Start date
- Status
Since he was hired, there were too many instances he reminded me of Mike Ditka towards the (Chicago) end.
I figured that would get him fired more than a bad record, eventually.
If the Rams had lost to the Niners, I'd be rooting for them wholeheartedly this week against the Seahawks. But, seeing as they won, I have to root for Seattle.
Obama is a fan of the Eagles playing Vick:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/2...rnaround_in_call_to_eagles_owner_jeffrey.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/2...rnaround_in_call_to_eagles_owner_jeffrey.html
The NFL is going to have to re-evaluate how playoff teams are picked. Tampa Bay will more than likely miss the playoffs, have a better record than Seattle and St. Louis and beat both of those teams in the regular season... yet will get to sit home. Hell... they beat every team in the NFC West.
The best of the three teams by far will be sitting home for the playoffs... simply because they play in a tougher division.
The best of the three teams by far will be sitting home for the playoffs... simply because they play in a tougher division.
I understand that point of view, but I think any other system would require eliminating the divisions and just having the top 6 teams in each conference play post-season If we keep the divisional structure, then you have to let each champion play, regardless of how they fared. It says you have to win your division, it doesn't say by how much or by what record.
So the other side of the coin would be a division champion staying home while a second or third place team goes to the playoffs. That doesn't sound much better to me.
I'm not a Buccaneers fan... but they proved both in record and on the field vs. both potential NFC West representatives that they were the better team.
A way to fairly resolve the scenario really needs to be built into playoff scenarios going forward. Not every conference winner (in college) qualifies for a BCS bowl bid.
You need to pick the six best teams from each conference... regardless of division. Even under the 'best six' scenario, the Rams or Seahawks would still get to raise a banner as NFC West champs, they just wouldn't receive the automatic playoff berth. Under the current scenario the Rams or Seahawks will pick behind the Buccaneers come the April draft.
You have to love the fact that the NFC West winner is going to get to host the Saints or Packers come WildCard weekend.
Last edited:
I've never understood the whole "let's give them a playoff spot because they won a division" idea that is in every major sport.
If a team has a better record, they should go the playoffs. Pure and simple.
Then why have divisions at all?
MLS doesn't do that. I think this year half the teams in the East playoff bracket were actually from the West.
Oh, wait, you said major sport.
But 1001001 does raise a good point.
Also, WTF is with the BCS analogy? That's not a playoff.
For one it allows you to build rivalries with a select group of teams (hopefully geographically or historically connected). Two, the division winner is still the division winner... it represents a point of pride if nothing else and gives the other teams something to strive for that is within reach.
Most of all... I feel sorry for the fans of Seattle/St. Louis, who will get to pay astronomical prices for tickets to what is going to be a probable spanking at the hands of New Orleans/Green Bay.
Just showing that not every "winner" of a conference/division gets a chance at the big prize.
If winning the division is meaningless, where's the "point of pride"?
I agree with the regional rivalries thing, but that's part of the overall playoff structure as it is now. Theoretically, the best teams from the West, East, North, and South go to the playoffs, not the teams with the best records.
I can't imagine any owner signing off on the idea that you can win your division but not go to the playoffs. I doubt many fans would favor that either. Sure, this year is a weird one, but this is not always the case. And other teams with better records have sat at home while a "lower" team went to the playoffs. They lived.
There are so many other variables that any structure you come up with will have problems. I prefer it stays the way it is.
There is only one variable involved when you go with the "best six" and that is to win as many games as possible to go to the playoffs. Hell... I'm all for a "best twelve" Super Bowl tournament and have the teams seeded 1 - 12 based on record. Sorry 11-5/10-6 NY Jets, you have to go to a possible 9-7 'division' winner because you were unfortunate enough to get stuck in the same division as the Patriots dynasty.
I want the 12 best teams competing for the Super Bowl. Not some 9-7 team that lucked out because the artificially drawn division lines say they get in.
Two years from now, we'll have an 11-7 team sitting home while an 8-10 'division' winner makes the playoffs... then you'll hear people howling.
Not that the BCS produces a legitimate champion. Some college teams no matter how good they play will never be considered for a college championship and some teams get bowl games just because of who they are not how they played. I'll take the NFL's method, over the BCS any day.
If they went to a "best six" option I could live with it I guess, but again I think the only way to do that is to drop the divisional structure. And I don't like that idea. I think a lot of history would be lost if the Giants and Eagles didn't play twice a year, for example. Or Kansas City and Oakland.
Hell, when 9-7 Arizona was a couple plays away from winning the Super Bowl, at least two (maybe three) other 9-7 teams were sitting at home watching. The difference? They didn't win their division.
The difficulty with taking top six best records is the lack of a balanced schedule, which is something that will never happen in the NFL. The players don't want an 18 game schedule let alone one that would last 32 games (if only playing within conference).
I don't have a problem with the occasional sub-par team getting into the playoffs. However, I don't think those teams should get a home game. Better record should always get the home field.
I don't have a problem with the occasional sub-par team getting into the playoffs. However, I don't think those teams should get a home game. Better record should always get the home field.
Bears can clinch the #1 seed with:
a Win
Falcons Loss
Saints Loss
and at least one Eagles loss
This should be fun...
a Win
Falcons Loss
Saints Loss
and at least one Eagles loss
This should be fun...
This is an issue so infrequently that I don't really see a need to "fix" it. However, if one must go with the "best six" route, then the only way to really do it fairly is to get the schedule set up so that every team in the conference faces each other once. This eliminates the issue of weaker schedule vs softer schedule or "This team got 6 free wins because it's definitely better than its division rivals, but they suck compared to the rest of the conference.". Hell, if you look at this year's playoff teams, one team that is getting in the the New York Jets. 8 of their 10 wins came against very beatable teams, and some of those wins came down to dumb luck. Their only wins against note-worthy teams was NE (who later kicked the shit out of them) and Pitt. While their record may be one of the "best", does winning against teams with a combined record of 63-86 (or 39-80 if you remove the only two good teams they beat) really make them worthy of a playoff berth? So, the only "fair" way to pick the best 6 is to make sure everyone sees each other once. And, if they go to an 18 game schedule, that leaves open time to visit 3 comparable opponents of the other conference.
I personally like the way things are set up now and, like I said above, this whole "The better team got left home!!!" thing happens infrequently enough that I don't see a need to repair it. However, one way to do it is to keep the divisional set up and add a third wildcard and only give the number 1 team a bye. In week one, have:
Team 2 vs team 7
Team 3 vs team 6
Team 4 vs team 5
In week two, have the weakest survivor travel to the Team 1, and have the other two teams play each other. Then the champions of those games go to the conference championship. Simple enough solution to a fairly minor problem.
I personally like the way things are set up now and, like I said above, this whole "The better team got left home!!!" thing happens infrequently enough that I don't see a need to repair it. However, one way to do it is to keep the divisional set up and add a third wildcard and only give the number 1 team a bye. In week one, have:
Team 2 vs team 7
Team 3 vs team 6
Team 4 vs team 5
In week two, have the weakest survivor travel to the Team 1, and have the other two teams play each other. Then the champions of those games go to the conference championship. Simple enough solution to a fairly minor problem.
- Status