I don't get this thread. Somehow you guys started arguing about the worth of divisions and swapping out NFC teams with AFC teams. The point is simple. Winning your division should get you into the play offs, but once you are in, you and the other 5 teams from your conference are seeded by your record with your strength of schedule as tie breaker. Period. It's really not complicated or worth fighting about. It's just common sense. The current system makes about as much sense as the electoral college vote we use to elect a president. It over complicates what should be very simple.
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?
That would be the next logical step. I can see a lot of the same folks clamoring for just such a change. Please let's not give them any ideas.
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?
No
I don't get this thread. Somehow you guys started arguing about the worth of divisions and swapping out NFC teams with AFC teams. The point is simple. Winning your division should get you into the play offs, but once you are in, you and the other 5 teams from your conference are seeded by your record with your strength of schedule as tie breaker. Period. It's really not complicated or worth fighting about. It's just common sense. The current system makes about as much sense as the electoral college vote we use to elect a president. It over complicates what should be very simple.
Exactly. These guys sound like the minority that favored the BCS over a playoff in college.
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...
A losing team getting in over a winning team is still an injustice and a huge flaw in the system
I don't get this thread. Somehow you guys started arguing about the worth of divisions and swapping out NFC teams with AFC teams. The point is simple. Winning your division should get you into the play offs, but once you are in, you and the other 5 teams from your conference are seeded by your record with your strength of schedule as tie breaker. Period. It's really not complicated or worth fighting about. It's just common sense. The current system makes about as much sense as the electoral college vote we use to elect a president. It over complicates what should be very simple.
I don't understand how the current system is so complicated. Getting home field because you have a better record has just as many potential flaws as giving home field to a division winner. again, 2010 is a prime example. Can you honestly say that the Bucs would have earned home field, after racking up 11 wins against bad teams and backup QBs over Seattle?I really don't understand this sudden surge of passion to fix what isn't broken...
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?
No
Why not? According to your logic, Shouldn't we be rewarding the best teams with the best records regardless of abstract lines of separation like conferences or divisions?
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.
How is everyone in the NFC playing eachother and the teams with the best records getting into the playoffs foolhardy compared to a losing team getting in over a winning team?Maybe that hardy Seattle team would have had a winning record in my system.
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...
A losing team getting in over a winning team is still an injustice and a huge flaw in the system
So to be clear, you disagree with Both JDUB and Hate and me. The 7-9 team won their division, but still has a losing record while the Bucs were 10-6. You believe that Tampa Bay should have taken Seattle's place in the playoffs then, right?
I don't get this thread. Somehow you guys started arguing about the worth of divisions and swapping out NFC teams with AFC teams. The point is simple. Winning your division should get you into the play offs, but once you are in, you and the other 5 teams from your conference are seeded by your record with your strength of schedule as tie breaker. Period. It's really not complicated or worth fighting about. It's just common sense. The current system makes about as much sense as the electoral college vote we use to elect a president. It over complicates what should be very simple.
I don't understand how the current system is so complicated. Getting home field because you have a better record has just as many potential flaws as giving home field to a division winner. again, 2010 is a prime example. Can you honestly say that the Bucs would have earned home field, after racking up 11 wins against bad teams and backup QBs over Seattle?I really don't understand this sudden surge of passion to fix what isn't broken...
To the bolded. In week 16 that year we went to Seattle and destroyed the Seahawks 38-15. We also beat every team in their division that year. So to answer your question, yes. Absolutely. If we had got that 11th win and made the playoffs, we absolutely deserved the home field over Seattle.
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.
How is everyone in the NFC playing eachother and the teams with the best records getting into the playoffs foolhardy compared to a losing team getting in over a winning team?Maybe that hardy Seattle team would have had a winning record in my system.
It's foolhardy because the NFL is already eying expanding the regular season, and your plan would pare back the number of games instead. Not to mention, it would obliterate the marquee match ups created by in-division rivalries. Just for starters.....
I don't get this thread. Somehow you guys started arguing about the worth of divisions and swapping out NFC teams with AFC teams. The point is simple. Winning your division should get you into the play offs, but once you are in, you and the other 5 teams from your conference are seeded by your record with your strength of schedule as tie breaker. Period. It's really not complicated or worth fighting about. It's just common sense. The current system makes about as much sense as the electoral college vote we use to elect a president. It over complicates what should be very simple.
I don't understand how the current system is so complicated. Getting home field because you have a better record has just as many potential flaws as giving home field to a division winner. again, 2010 is a prime example. Can you honestly say that the Bucs would have earned home field, after racking up 11 wins against bad teams and backup QBs over Seattle?I really don't understand this sudden surge of passion to fix what isn't broken...
To the bolded. In week 16 that year we went to Seattle and destroyed the Seahawks 38-15. We also beat every team in their division that year. So to answer your question, yes. Absolutely. If we had got that 11th win and made the playoffs, we absolutely deserved the home field over Seattle.
....and I would disagree with you...
