Broncos6482
Troll Boy Extraordinaire
This is the key point, and @boogiewithstu2007 hasn't bothered to address it.Not until every team plays every other that they are seeded against. Period.
This is the key point, and @boogiewithstu2007 hasn't bothered to address it.Not until every team plays every other that they are seeded against. Period.
It's not just him. There are people with similar views just as the OP raised.This is the key point, and @boogiewithstu2007 hasn't bothered to address it.
See, the problem is schedules are vastly different for teams in different divisions. The Redskins and Packers are a perfect example of this. The Redskins and Packers had 4 common opponents: the Bears, the Rams, the Cowboys, and the Panthers. Both teams went 3-2 in those games. So who's to say that the Packers deserve a home game over the Redskins simply because they won one more game? Maybe they had an easier schedule than the Redskins, that's why they got the extra win. Who knows?
He's probably a "12". They are just learning about football the past few years. Give him a break.
Not until every team plays every other that they are seeded against. Period.
Zero chance they will change it. It's working and works well. They attempt to have high action division games to end the season in hopes there is some drama in that last game. Every week of entertainment matters to them. This formula works and has worked well beyond expectations. What exactly is the need to change it? That there are a few that really don't understand how fair this already is?Disagree... Just because a team beats up on 3 bad teams within there division that should not give them a higher seed... Were talking seeding, it's ridiculous too seed a team higher with a worse record.... We are gonna disagree on this one... I still think the NFL is gonna adjust that ...
This is the key point, and @boogiewithstu2007 hasn't bothered to address it.
Zero chance they will change it. It's working and works well. They attempt to have high action division games to end the season in hopes there is some drama in that last game. Every week of entertainment matters to them. This formula works and has worked well beyond expectations. What exactly is the need to change it? That there are a few that really don't understand how fair this already is?
Fairness isn't $$$ and this brings in both. Even if they thought your idea of fair was right there is no incentive to change it because it's bring in money hand over fist.
This is the fairest system you can make AND it's a cash cow. No reason it will change.
Why?
The regular season in the NFL means so much more game by game than any other professional sports league. And a big part of that is the rewards/consequences of the playoff system. You can get into the dance being slightly above .500, but it's going to cost you. Likewise, putting it all out there and going for a perfect season has a lot more riding on it than simply just getting to the show.
Without those rewards you would 100% see more games with teams resting starters the last week or two and that makes for shitty football. Don't be in favor of shitty football.
Why would they? In order for something to get changed/fixed there needs to be a reason. Why would they change this if it's working exactly as they intended if not actually better than they had hoped?While I agree the NFL is all about the $ ... I still think eventually this get's addressed...
You can't skate to HFA or the #2 seed simply in bad division play. The other games on your schedule weed that out. Teams in weak divisions that get in end up as the 3 or 4 seed. So no bad teams are getting rewarded. That simply doesn't happen. Do you have a case to counter that with? What shitty team ended up even #2?It is an extra week off resulting in 2 weeks so they get a chance to heal injuries, study film and plan for the prospects they will play...
While the other teams have one week to do the same, if that's a level playing field, then birds can't fly...
The HF throughout is reward enough, they may have only won their division by 1 game or even a tie breaker with a 13-3 record while the other opponents won only 10 games but won their division by 4 games....
Different talent in each division can play tricks on your analysis sometimes.....
Point is why should they get an extra week advantage over another team that actually did better in their division , just because they end up with more wins in their possibly weaker division ???
That's why you see a 6th seed go into #1 and #2 seeds back to back and knock them out on their way to a SB victory.....I'm just sayin' !!!
You can't skate to HFA or the #2 seed simply in bad division play. The other games on your schedule weed that out. Teams in weak divisions that get in end up as the 3 or 4 seed. So no bad teams are getting rewarded. That simply doesn't happen. Do you have a case to counter that with? What shitty team ended up even #2?
I don't look at it as much as the reward for them getting that extra week off, as much as punishment for the other 4 teams for not having as good of an overall record. You don't win most of your games and you can't get that extra weeks rest.
All you have to do is win. Not winning has its downside. In this case you end up with road games and having to have an extra win.
It's entirely fair IMO.
Weak math my man.A weak division plays half of their games against them and the other 8 are divyed up between winning and losing teams from last year, so they could potentially play 75% of their games against losing or weak teams...
It's clear to me that an extra week gives an unfair game time advantage to any team to win...
Some one needs to do a poll on just that point, is it an unfair advantage for a team to win with that extra week..
Weak math my man.
You play a total of 6 against the other 3 in your own division. You don't play yourself twice.
6 of 16 games in your division leaving you 10 to prove your mettle against.
And only two are based on last years outcome. You play the two teams in the divisions you aren't facing every team in from your own conference that finished in the same position as you did. So a last place team from last year gets two similar teams. At worst you are banking on a weak team from last year in a bad division this year to face a total of 8 crappy teams.
You can't reach #1/#2 from that alone. Running through those still puts you not better than 8-8. Have to play every team in another division and every team in another division from across the conferences as well.
Can't get any more fair than what they currently have.
It's for sure an advantage. And it's one that MUST be earned. You aren't going to reach the 2 seed on the backs of a weak schedule.You're right about the number of division games, I was thinking home away, I think...Hey there's one never ending perk about getting old, you can blame everything on it...
I still maintain that is an obvious advantage for 2 teams to get an extra week for playoffs...
Think about Pitts, #1 RB missed first 4 games, Ben went down around week 3 missing 4 or 5 games, comes back doing well, #1 RB out for season, then last game #2 RB gets injured and battling to get ready for this weeks playoff game...Don't look like he'll make it, but if they had an extra week, he along with others would be well able to contribute...
All the while 2 teams are resting, healing, and laughing at the unfair advantage they have on all the other teams in their conference.....Man that's clearer that a spotlight in an outhouse at 12 midnight on Walton's mountain...
It's for sure an advantage. And it's one that MUST be earned. You aren't going to reach the 2 seed on the backs of a weak schedule.
Again, show me any really undeserving 2 seed in the last 10 years. If it happens its probably super rare.
You earn that break. Or, more aptly the other 4 didn't earn a break and now have to work harder for it.
There are sports that have play in games and elimination games or double elimination. Some teams have to play twice as many in those tournaments. Some get more rest, some have a harder road because they didn't earn that rest. It isn't unique to the NFL in any way.
Why would they? In order for something to get changed/fixed there needs to be a reason. Why would they change this if it's working exactly as they intended if not actually better than they had hoped?
They had the perfect test case to challenge it when Seattle got in at 7-9 and hosted a game. It was far from a disaster. It was huge rating and lots of interest. Brought them in a lot of money. Ratings were high.
They don't care that people were bitching, they were watching and they were spending money.