The Super Bowl is becoming meaningless

[brady199]

I'm sure the NFC fans thought the same thing when the pats were 14 point underdogs against the rams.

 

[Patjew]

How'd this work out for the NBA this past season?

It didn't work out... because the NBA didn't do it. As always, they split their playoffs between East and West, just like the NFL does between AFC and NFC. And because the West is so dominant, it ruined the Finals.

I for one really like the idea of a bracketed playoff system where all qualifying teams are grouped together and ranked based on record, SOS, etc. I like that idea for the NFL and NBA.

 

[smg93]

Quite arguably the Patriots weren't the best team in the league in 2001. Did that make the game less interesting?

Just because the past two years have had bad Super Bowls (other than the Devin Hester kickoff return) doesn't mean that it's devolving.

I really believe that many of you are still missing the point.

I still would like to see the 12 team playoffs still be split between 6 nfc and 6 afc when determining playoff spots. That way you'll always have sleepers like the Patriots were in 2001. The Pats still would have played the SB in 2001 assuming they still WON against all their playoff opponents!

I am not saying that the two best teams should always meet in the Superbowl but that they, because of a new seedings system be given that chance to play against each other if they both WON out. If there was a new way to seed teams in the same way that they rank teams in each conference to determine who makes the playoffs currently, this would make the possibility of the two best teams playing in the SB that much more certain unlike now where one NFC team and one AFC team are automatically locked into a superbowl spot should they win their conference.

 

[Frezo]

If the AFC wins this year, each conference will have 21 Lombardis. I think the big picture is worth giving it another 5 or 6 years. (maybe even 10)

 

[godef]

I really believe that many of you are still missing the point.

I still would like to see the 12 team playoffs still be split between 6 nfc and 6 afc when determining playoff spots. That way you'll always have sleepers like the Patriots were in 2001. The Pats still would have played the SB in 2001 assuming they still WON against all their playoff opponents!

I am not saying that the two best teams should always meet in the Superbowl but that they, because of a new seedings system be given that chance to play against each other if they both WON out. If there was a new way to seed teams in the same way that they rank teams in each conference to determine who makes the playoffs currently, this would make the possibility of the two best teams playing in the SB that much more certain unlike now where one NFC team and one AFC team are automatically locked into a superbowl spot should they win their conference.

The 2001 Pats are a bad example... it did not take a weak conference to get the Pats in the pool.

 

[Deus Irae]

How'd this work out for the NBA this past season?

It didn't work out... because the NBA didn't do it. As always, they split their playoffs between East and West, just like the NFL does between AFC and NFC. And because the West is so dominant, it ruined the Finals.

I for one really like the idea of a bracketed playoff system where all qualifying teams are grouped together and ranked based on record, SOS, etc. I like that idea for the NFL and NBA.

The #1 team in the conference got beaten in the first round, as the Warriors sent the Mavericks home. In other words, reseeding wouldn't have accomplished the goal people here are claiming they want.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

I think fixed brackets are the best idea. Set them up at the beginning of the playoffs with no re-seeding along the way. The NFC and AFC are no longer rivals. It's only useful for division play. If the Pats and the Colts are the two best teams, they should have a chance to contend for the Lombardi. They should also be rewarded with the chance of having the most at-home playoff games. How could that be unfair or undesireable?

 

[Deus Irae]

I think fixed brackets are the best idea. Set them up at the beginning of the playoffs with no re-seeding along the way. The NFC and AFC are no longer rivals. It's only useful for division play. If the Pats and the Colts are the two best teams, they should have a chance to contend for the Lombardi. They should also be rewarded with the chance of having the most at-home playoff games. How could that be unfair or undesireable?

Given that not everybody plays the identical schedule and there's only a 16 game season, the margin of error is far too large for this to be truly 'fair'.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Given that not everybody plays the identical schedule and there's only a 16 game season, the margin of error is far too large for this to be truly 'fair'.

Just as fair as even having the present system, if your right about that. The seedings could be weighted based on W-L, wins of opponents, and other strength of schedule formulas, I don't know about the details, but the margin of error could be mitigated to a good degree......I just want to see the 2 best play in the SB...that's not the case about half the time.

 

[Deus Irae]

Just as fair as even having the present system, if your right about that. The seedings could be weighted based on W-L, wins of opponents, and other strength of schedule formulas, I don't know about the details, but the margin of error could be mitigated to a good degree......I just want to see the 2 best play in the SB...that's not the case about half the time.

Wins, strength of schedule and wins of opponents are all key because teams don't play the same schedule. It's still going to have the same built in error. A sport like baseball, with 162 games, can smooth out those issues far better than a 16 game sport, and you still see the "lesser" (i.e. wild card) teams ending up playing, and winning, the World Series.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

The NFC won 15 straight Super Bowls at one point, so the AFC dominance is in its infancy compared to that stretch...It's completely cyclical...The AFC teams do not have a competitive advantage over the NFC ones, it's not like the high payroll teams are in one conference and the low ones in others...It's all the same.

I totally agree. In the end the best team is crowned and free agency insures constant turnover and switching of teams and conferences.

Bad idea to change the format.

 

[AzPatsFan]

The baseball leagues remained segregated, the football leagues did not. One of the stupidest things MLB ever did (among many others) was institute regular-season interleague play, which waters down the contrast between the leagues and takes a bit of novelty out of the World Series.

Because the baseball leagues were segregated, they developed distinctively different styles of play with which they were identified -- National League emphasis on speed, base stealing, fastball pitchers, high-average singles hitters, etc,; American League tendency toward breaking-ball pitchers, homerun hitters, etc.

The AFL and NFL had contrasting styles of play as well before the merger. Style of play is now homogenized leaguewide. Can you think of any identifying factors distinguishing the AFC from the NFC? I can't.

Predominance ofthe 3-4 defense is heavy in the AFC. The Tampa D is prevalent in the NFC.

 

[Patjew]

The #1 team in the conference got beaten in the first round, as the Warriors sent the Mavericks home. In other words, reseeding wouldn't have accomplished the goal people here are claiming they want.

Oh, I see what you mean.

 

[smg93]

The #1 team in the conference got beaten in the first round, as the Warriors sent the Mavericks home. In other words, reseeding wouldn't have accomplished the goal people here are claiming they want.

Again, people are still missing the point.

What reseeding would have accomplished is the CHANCE that the two #1 seeds could have played against each other had they WON all of their matchups.

People seem to be confused here about the idea. It's not about guaranteeing that the two "best" teams meet in the superbowl, its about giving them a chance to do that should they win all of their games in the playoffs.

If the two best teams in the NFL happen to be AFC teams, they would be seeded 1 and 2. Should they win ALL of their games, they would meet in the superbowl. Currently, that's not the case since the spots in the superbowl are guaranteed from the start as being one from the NFC and one from the AFC.

 

[BadMoFo]

Mommy, make them stop.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again, people are still missing the point.

What reseeding would have accomplished is the CHANCE that the two #1 seeds could have played against each other had they WON all of their matchups.

People seem to be confused here about the idea. It's not about guaranteeing that the two "best" teams meet in the superbowl, its about giving them a chance to do that should they win all of their games in the playoffs.

If the two best teams in the NFL happen to be AFC teams, they would be seeded 1 and 2. Should they win ALL of their games, they would meet in the superbowl. Currently, that's not the case since the spots in the superbowl are guaranteed from the start as being one from the NFC and one from the AFC.

Again, there is no way to do it fairly because of the number of games played and the like. Also, will you then reseed each round and ensure that a lower seed keeps having to face the best in the conference rather than rewarding that team for upending the higher seed? Unless you do that, seeding that first round will often become a useless exercise.

Your idea renders the post-season essentially meaningless, except for the final game. You could accomplish the goal by simply taking the two 'best' teams at the end of the year and then having them go straight to playing one another without all the other games in between.

 

[smg93]

Again, there is no way to do it fairly because of the number of games played and the like. Also, will you then reseed each round and ensure that a lower seed keeps having to face the best in the conference rather than rewarding that team for upending the higher seed? Unless you do that, seeding that first round will often become a useless exercise.

Your idea renders the post-season essentially meaningless, except for the final game. You could accomplish the goal by simply taking the two 'best' teams at the end of the year and then having them go straight to playing one another without all the other games in between.

You don't reseed each round. Think NCAA basketball tournament. You set it from the start and you let it play out.

 

[Deus Irae]

You don't reseed each round. Think NCAA basketball tournament. You set it from the start and you let it play out.

That's useless. One loss by a higher seed and the whole thing's a wreck. Think NCAA basketball tournament.

 

[Patjew]

Think NCAA basketball tournament.

You mean the best sporting event of the year?

 

[Deus Irae]

You mean the best sporting event of the year?

Yes, and it's the best because every year a team that shouldn't win does. I wasn't knocking the idea of the wreck at all. I happen to have no problem with the turmoil and requisite weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's got 4 brackets and almost never do all 4 #1 seeds make it to the final four. Sooner or later, one or more #1 seeds lose and everything gets messed up. Even when it's not a #1 seed, you can pretty much count on a top 5 seed biting the dust early and killing everyone's brackets.

This guy did the research, so any congratulations or insults should go to him. It's outdated, but the point remains:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Y6kMvrEe1oYJ:www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/1/10_49_kr.pdf+%231+seeds+make+final+four&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I don't know about you, but I don't watch the tournament praying that all the seeding will hold so we get to see the supposed best 4 teams battling it out in the final four.