ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Employing the use of the online interwebs, I have confirmed a suspicion I had earlier in the day: The Patriots may be hosting the tougher opponent during the divisional round, despite being the first seed. Two issues:
01. Four of the best teams in the conference were in two divisions - East and North. Yeah, we gotta see if the Jets are still deserving of this distinction (the only thing keeping them in the picture was the victory over the Steelers) but either way you're getting teams that were at one point looking like division winners as wild card contenders. This doesn't impact the Pats immediately since they have the bye, but...
02. The Chiefs seem to be a total wrench in the prognostication machinery (sounded better than calling them the "wild card"). They have only played ONE of the other AFC playoff teams this year in a loss to the Colts. The NFC division they played isn't going to a field a + .500 team in the playoffs. I have no idea how anyone predicts how they fare in the wild card round. It would be easy to write off their lack of a tough schedule but the Cardinals made it to the superbowl two years ago.
The way I see it, the Chiefs could be better than people are giving them credit for, but not quite as good as a team they are seeded higher than like the Ravens. The Steelers could be sitting pretty with the #2 seed, not having to play Baltimore in the divisional round. There is no way the Patriots play the Chiefs in the divisional round, so they could be looking at either Indy or Baltimore. Despite recent performances, it is hard to even consider the Jets as a lesser team since they played a considerably tougher schedule and have the same number of wins right now. The plus side there is a recent matchup indicates the Pats are simply the better team right now, even with the expectation of a playoff game being closer. Wild card weekend is going to be very, very interesting.
there is no pitfall to the one seed. zero nadda zip. what difference does it make when they play the best team available? they have to win two games . it doesnt matter when they play any team.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
For you guys you love history, the pats have been a #1 seed two other times, both times they made it to the super bowl. In my time of being a fan they have had a bye 5 times before this year, and they have played in the super bowl all 5.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Patriots Dynasty!!!!
Super Bowl XXXVI XXXVIII XXXIX Champs
"Stats are for losers, the final score is for winners." - Bill Belichick
since the first game the Pats will play in the playoffs is coming off a bye, it is actually advantageous for them to play the more difficult opponent coming off 2 weeks than in the AFCCG
Agreed. I'm glad they are #1 and have home field and the bye. I probably should have worded the thread title better but it really has more to do with division winners automatically getting a third or fourth seed, and this to me is actually going to be a much bigger deal in the NFC considering they will likely have the Saints and Packers as wild cards.
Falcons could easily be "none and done" in terms of playoff wins if the Packers or Saints go into there in the division round - either of those matchups would be a worthy conference title game. The Steelers best win to get to the superbowl for Ring #5 was over Indy in the divisional round, not over the Broncos in the title game.
Most interesting story to me this weekend is the potential for the Seahawks getting the #4 seed with a losing record. The league has to want the Rams to win to save face, because otherwise you're going to be hearing plenty about nuking the initial seeding just based on division winners when you potentially have to the two best teams in the conference playing in the divisional game. I just don't think such an oddly skewed playoff seeding due to a crap division results in the best games. Saying "win your division" is all well and good but the Saints may very well be four wins (or FIVE!) better than the NFC West "champion." We already saw a few seasons ago how eleven wins wasn't enough to get into the playoffs which was ridiculous.
__________________
Not a member of bleedingheartneurosis.net To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Ok, so I looked at the list there and basically what I read is, if you're a #1 seed you have a HUGE statistical advantage of winning a superbowl. More than 20 of the last 30 superbowls were won by #1 seeds. NFC having a wide advantage there, but regardless, #1 is a gigantic advantage in first getting to the superbowl and then winning it. There's absolutely no drawback.
If you were to plot it out like a bell curve it quickly becomes apparent that #1 seeds are the big boy at the top of the curve. I don't see any disadvantage here at all.
Ok, so I looked at the list there and basically what I read is, if you're a #1 seed you have a HUGE statistical advantage of winning a superbowl. More than 20 of the last 30 superbowls were won by #1 seeds. NFC having a wide advantage there, but regardless, #1 is a gigantic advantage in first getting to the superbowl and then winning it. There's absolutely no drawback.
If you were to plot it out like a bell curve it quickly becomes apparent that #1 seeds are the big boy at the top of the curve. I don't see any disadvantage here at all.
Like I said, it was poor wording on my part. It is more about how the 3 - 6 seeding works. I honestly think if the Seahawks get in there is going to be a change.
__________________
Not a member of bleedingheartneurosis.net To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A wide open SB field, to be sure - no suppposedly "annointed" SB teams - but the Pats are at this point being looked at as the "first among equals".
But this thread is verging on kaballah with the numerology. Here's the deal: if sayyyy the Colts are real tough and scary and you don't like the matchup, just for example, you're just saying we don't belong in the SB. Sure, it can be easier or harder, but the idea is to go undefeated for 3 (or 4) games among the best teams in the league. If you can do that, you win. If you can't, you're part of "everybody else" and will be remembered as a footnote to someone else's season (except the 07 Giants... pretty much known not as the SB champs, but as the team that stopped the Patriots.)
By the way, now that we're on that subject, who of us thought there was a better possible outcome in 07 than playing the sorry-***** Giants, a 6th seed?
Re: The one pitfall of being the #1 seed
Linear Mode
