Unfortunately for the "no changes" folks, by being conservative on an issue they are, by definition, stuck. History favors the progressives and the change. Stagnation is rarely favored.Dynamic seeding offers more flexibility. Innovation wins.
Any change made for the sake of change, or executed without a sound reason and plan for an alternative is not evolution or progress, is foolishness. One of my favorite sayings is "Think like a man of action, but act Ike a man of thought..."Knee jerk reactions to the anomaly that is the disparity of this year's Niners and Green Bay records is silly.
Unfortunately for the "no changes" folks, by being conservative on an issue they are, by definition, stuck. History favors the progressives and the change. Stagnation is rarely favored.Dynamic seeding offers more flexibility. Innovation wins.
Any change made for the sake of change, or executed without a sound reason and plan for an alternative is not evolution or progress, is foolishness. One of my favorite sayings is "Think like a man of action, but act Ike a man of thought..."Knee jerk reactions to the anomaly that is the disparity of this year's Niners and Green Bay records is silly.
Dynamic seeding offers more flexibility.Also, divisions are BULL! They're not balanced whatsoever. You know what would be more balanced? 15 game schedule where you play every team in the AFC/NFC and seed accordingly31 game schedule would be perfect, but football is a bit too taxing on the body.
Guess it didn't matter much, the Niners looked pretty much like they have all year. It was actually GB that looked out of sorts early on, and they had a few guys go down early too. Just glad I got to watch that one from the couch. It looked colder than a MF'er out there.
Unfortunately for the "no changes" folks, by being conservative on an issue they are, by definition, stuck. History favors the progressives and the change. Stagnation is rarely favored.Dynamic seeding offers more flexibility. Innovation wins.
Any change made for the sake of change, or executed without a sound reason and plan for an alternative is not evolution or progress, is foolishness. One of my favorite sayings is "Think like a man of action, but act Ike a man of thought..."Knee jerk reactions to the anomaly that is the disparity of this year's Niners and Green Bay records is silly.
Dynamic seeding offers more flexibility.Also, divisions are BULL! They're not balanced whatsoever. You know what would be more balanced? 15 game schedule where you play every team in the AFC/NFC and seed accordingly31 game schedule would be perfect, but football is a bit too taxing on the body.
Using bold or caps does not make your argument any stronger, or someone else's any weaker- just a heads up. By the way, what exactly do you mean by flexibility?As far as divisions being "bull", rivalries built through twice a year tilts and division titles on the line have helped make the NFL as compelling a league as it is. There are no glaring flaws in the system as it stands, so this sudden push for , as yet, half baked plans is unnecessary and silly in my humble opinion.
As far as divisions being "bull", rivalries built through twice a year tilts and division titles on the line have helped make the NFL as compelling a league as it is. There are no glaring flaws in the system as it stands, so this sudden push for , as yet, half baked plans is unnecessary and silly in my humble opinion.
** thunderous applause **
Unfortunately for the "no changes" folks, by being conservative on an issue they are, by definition, stuck. History favors the progressives and the change. Stagnation is rarely favored.Dynamic seeding offers more flexibility. Innovation wins.
Any change made for the sake of change, or executed without a sound reason and plan for an alternative is not evolution or progress, is foolishness. One of my favorite sayings is "Think like a man of action, but act Ike a man of thought..."Knee jerk reactions to the anomaly that is the disparity of this year's Niners and Green Bay records is silly.
Dynamic seeding offers more flexibility.Also, divisions are BULL! They're not balanced whatsoever. You know what would be more balanced? 15 game schedule where you play every team in the AFC/NFC and seed accordingly31 game schedule would be perfect, but football is a bit too taxing on the body.
Using bold or caps does not make your argument any stronger, or someone else's any weaker- just a heads up. By the way, what exactly do you mean by flexibility?As far as divisions being "bull", rivalries built through twice a year tilts and division titles on the line have helped make the NFL as compelling a league as it is. There are no glaring flaws in the system as it stands, so this sudden push for , as yet, half baked plans is unnecessary and silly in my humble opinion.
I never said it did. You said "Any change made for the sake of change..." and thus I bolded to help you out. Flexibility means we can bend things. Change them. Okay. NFL rivalries are manure. Have you been to a college rivalry game? Come live in Alabama and walk to a local store. Observe the hatred the RIVALRY between Auburn and Bama.Find a place with a good mix of Ohio State and Michigan fans.THOSE are rivalries. Put a Tampa and Carolina fan in the same room. Or a Seattle and 49ers fan in the same room. Rivalry? More like 2 folks sharing a pitcher of beer. The flaws are apparent. Remember a few years ago when a team with a LOSING record got into the playoffs? It's broke so we're gonna fix it.
The Niners may roll all the way now, who is going to beat them?Carolina ?Saints ?Seattle ?I would give the SeaChikens the best shot of that bunch.
Unfortunately for the "no changes" folks, by being conservative on an issue they are, by definition, stuck. History favors the progressives and the change. Stagnation is rarely favored.Dynamic seeding offers more flexibility. Innovation wins.
Any change made for the sake of change, or executed without a sound reason and plan for an alternative is not evolution or progress, is foolishness. One of my favorite sayings is "Think like a man of action, but act Ike a man of thought..."Knee jerk reactions to the anomaly that is the disparity of this year's Niners and Green Bay records is silly.
Dynamic seeding offers more flexibility.Also, divisions are BULL! They're not balanced whatsoever. You know what would be more balanced? 15 game schedule where you play every team in the AFC/NFC and seed accordingly31 game schedule would be perfect, but football is a bit too taxing on the body.
Using bold or caps does not make your argument any stronger, or someone else's any weaker- just a heads up. By the way, what exactly do you mean by flexibility?As far as divisions being "bull", rivalries built through twice a year tilts and division titles on the line have helped make the NFL as compelling a league as it is. There are no glaring flaws in the system as it stands, so this sudden push for , as yet, half baked plans is unnecessary and silly in my humble opinion.
I never said it did. You said "Any change made for the sake of change..." and thus I bolded to help you out. Flexibility means we can bend things. Change them. Okay. NFL rivalries are manure. Have you been to a college rivalry game? Come live in Alabama and walk to a local store. Observe the hatred the RIVALRY between Auburn and Bama.Find a place with a good mix of Ohio State and Michigan fans.THOSE are rivalries. Put a Tampa and Carolina fan in the same room. Or a Seattle and 49ers fan in the same room. Rivalry? More like 2 folks sharing a pitcher of beer. The flaws are apparent. Remember a few years ago when a team with a LOSING record got into the playoffs? It's broke so we're gonna fix it.
Thanks for the definition of flexibility, but I was more interested to hear your definition of flexibility as it pertains to this situation. Does flexibility mean that teams are just seeded as you or some other arbitrary mind sees fit or deemed "fair"?And thanks for the invite, but I'll stay in Florida, thanks. Living in Alabama is no where on my bucket list. And hard core Eagles fans would love to hear you explain how friendly and good natured their faux rivalry with Cowboy or Redskin fan is. Rivalry and genuine dislike is rampant in long established NFL cities. Comparing Tampa Bay and Carolina is like comparing USF and UCF. Not every college conference has such marquee rivalries and Bama and Auburn, just like not every division of the NFL has a Raiders/Chiefs. One way to ensure the NFL never develops those types of rivalries- do away with divisions like you suggest. (By the way, I didn't even bother addressing your idea of giving up a game and playing just an NFC or AFC only schedule for the obvious lunacy of its premise...)Yes, by the way, I do remember when a team with a losing record won their division and made the playoffs waaaaay back in 2010 I believe. I also remember that we were one PI call away from winning a wild card slot and being 11-5 that year, and I can honestly say that despite our 11 win season I don't think we were as good as Seattle was with their 7 win season. I'd wish you and the little mouse in your pocket luck in changing what has and remains a great system, but I can't. I'm just happy with what we've got.
Alright so you're in favor of a losing team getting into the playoffs over a winning team. How asinine.
Alright so you're in favor of a losing team getting into the playoffs over a winning team. How asinine.
I am in favor of the division winner hosting a playoff game. Again, 2010 only serves to reinforce my point. Despite the record, not many folks are going to seriously argue that that Tampa Bay team was more worthy than that Seattle team- and this is coming from a true Bucs fan. Besides, once in a blue moon anomalies should not dictate a change in an already successful format.
Worthy is an opinion. One team had a winning record and the other did not. The system is not fool-proof and thus needs reform. Your argument is invalid.
Alright so you're in favor of a losing team getting into the playoffs over a winning team. How asinine.
that losing team beat the winning team
Alright so you're in favor of a losing team getting into the playoffs over a winning team. How asinine.
that losing team beat the winning team
Yup...
Worthy is an opinion. One team had a winning record and the other did not. The system is not fool-proof and thus needs reform. Your argument is invalid.
No system is fool proof, but please enlighten us with what you consider a fool proof option. The examples you've already provided were foolhardy not fool proof. Seattle proved their worth by beating the Saints. And saying my argument is invalid does not make it so, sorry. By the way, there were several points made above that you have yet to address. Thanks.
i still haven't heard any of the proponents for change answer the question....will we replace a crap NFC wildcard team with a better AFC wild card team?
