Do any other fans feel cheated by the playoffs and this Giants rematch?

[Off The Grid]

***********

 

[PatriotSeven]

This thread is actually getting FUNNIER as it goes ALONG!!

Page 32 is HILARIOUS!! :singing:







Dude, that is flat out SCARY!!

I'm obviously not referring to the majority of posters. Common sense should tell you people don't agree the playoffs aren't good enough to determine the best teams in the league and neither is the Super Bowl.

But if the Giants as well as any other playoff team, went through a round-robin tournament, before reaching the Championship game, most people would give them more credit and might decide to actually put their money on them.

Or just understanding different tournament structures and their main purpose. Single elimination structures are not designed to produce the best teams at the end. That's not their purpose. Its main purpose is simply to eliminate teams regardless of whether it might be the worst or best team you are getting rid of. It creates more lopsided competition, bigger upsets, and bigger bets.

As it stands though the Giants wins over teams which have already solidified themselves as strong teams was not enough to convince people they were better.

Why else do you think the Patriots are considered the favorites by Vegas? Do you believe most people are betting on the Patriots because they think the Patriots will lose?

That's the issue with the playoffs. The best teams, quite often, never actually face each other. Especially in a split conference structure. You're almost guaranteed to never have the best teams in the Super Bowl.

 

[PYPER]

The OP must be a soccer fan. Otherwise one of the dumbest posts of the year.

The Giants win over GB wasn't fluky. They DOMINATED the Packers. What was fluky was how a team as talented as the Gmen lost seven games during the regular season. They struggled with injuries most of the year and got healthy at the right time. Not only do they deserve to be here, I think they should be favored. This is a team that's proven they match up well against us. I'm not just talking about SB42, I'm talking about coming to Gillette and beating us on our home field despite missing key guys like Bradshaw and Nicks. We're going to have our hands full on Sunday. Don't get me wrong, I believe we'll find a way but to talk like the Giants don't deserve to be here is moronic. Threads like this one makes one reconsider the benefits of freedom of speech.

 

[PatriotSeven]

The OP must be a soccer fan. Otherwise one of the dumbest posts of the year.

The Giants win over GB wasn't fluky. They DOMINATED the Packers. What was fluky was how a team as talented as the Gmen lost seven games during the regular season. They struggled with injuries most of the year and got healthy at the right time. Not only do they deserve to be here, I think they should be favored. This is a team that's proven they match up well against us. I'm not just talking about SB42, I'm talking about coming to Gillette and beating us on our home field despite missing key guys like Bradshaw and Nicks. We're going to have our hands full on Sunday. Don't get me wrong, I believe we'll find a way but to talk like the Giants don't deserve to be here is moronic. Threads like this one makes one reconsider the benefits of freedom of speech.

LOL. Yeah they fluked out on 7 losses and dominated one of the worst games I have seen GB play... If my OP is dumb I don't know what to say about some of the responses like this one. What are we kindergarten kids?

They got freaking swept and beat down by Washington in December. Kept to 10 points. They got blown out by a bunch of teams, including the Saints. Although not even that is as bad as getting blown out by Washington twice. That's not a fluke. That's just a weak team. Good teams don't get destroyed in 25 % of their games. They didn't go through any transformation 2 weeks before the playoffs despite what a bunch of people think. They barely got by a sloppy 49ers team and the only reason they did is cause those guys were balling their eyes out over a playoff win the week before and forgot there were games left to play. This is going to be one of the weakest teams in a Super Bowl in some time and I'll be highly surprised, if Gronk plays, if this isn't a major blowout. I think the 2008 Cardinals were a tougher team.

I am a fan of soccer, and a lot of different sports, but that has nothing to do with a playoff format, other than they use a combination of round robin and head to head for the finals which would work wonders in the NFL as well, considering there are so few teams left. You must be a Tennis fan, cause that's the only major PRO level sport I know that uses single elimination and works effectively. And it works great for tennis if anyone was watching what just happened in Australia. But even then its mostly an individual sport, those guys play 7 sets most of the times which last 5 hours, and if its close they still have to win by 2.

There are many types of different playoff formats, and single elimination simply fails to produce the best teams at the end. Honestly, the only teams afraid of it would be teams afraid of being able to repeat a win against the best teams. No fan of football should be against seeing the best teams in the Super Bowl. They deserve it. All players fight too hard and work too hard to get knocked out in an early round by a bad team, because of a bad day.

Not to mention they all get at least 3 playoff games. I don't care what anybody says a Super Bowl loss is never going to take away the accomplishment of the Patriots going 18-0 nor will it convince me that the Giants beating the 15-1 team in Green Bay is actually a better team than the 15-1 Green Bay that played all season long because they won one game. When they get blown out in a week, that much will be clear.

Maybe they might be scared of it, cause they wouldn't want to have the chance to face any of those teams more than once, but I don't think any of the other teams would be. But if you are afraid to face top competition and test yourself against all of them, do you really deserve the Super Bowl?

 

[bigblue420]

LOL. Yeah they fluked out on 7 losses and dominated one of the worst games I have seen GB play... If my OP is dumb I don't know what to say about some of the responses like this one. What are we kindergarten kids?

They got freaking swept and beat down by Washington in December. Kept to 10 points. They got blown out by a bunch of teams, including the Saints. Although not even that is as bad as getting blown out by Washington twice. That's not a fluke. That's just a weak team. Good teams don't get destroyed in 25 % of their games. They didn't go through any transformation 2 weeks before the playoffs despite what a bunch of people think. They barely got by a sloppy 49ers team and the only reason they did is cause those guys were balling their eyes out over a playoff win the week before and forgot there were games left to play. This is going to be one of the weakest teams in a Super Bowl in some time and I'll be highly surprised, if Gronk plays, if this isn't a major blowout. I think the 2008 Cardinals were a tougher team.

I am a fan of soccer, and a lot of different sports, but that has nothing to do with a playoff format, other than they use a combination of round robin and head to head for the finals which would work wonders in the NFL as well, considering there are so few teams left. You must be a Tennis fan, cause that's the only major PRO level sport I know that uses single elimination and works effectively. And it works great for tennis if anyone was watching what just happened in Australia. But even then its mostly an individual sport, those guys play 7 sets most of the times which last 5 hours, and if its close they still have to win by 2.

There are many types of different playoff formats, and single elimination simply fails to produce the best teams at the end. Honestly, the only teams afraid of it would be teams afraid of being able to repeat a win against the best teams. No fan of football should be against seeing the best teams in the Super Bowl. They deserve it. All players fight too hard and work too hard to get knocked out in an early round by a bad team, because of a bad day.

Not to mention they all get at least 3 playoff games. I don't care what anybody says a Super Bowl loss is never going to take away the accomplishment of the Patriots going 18-0 nor will it convince me that the Giants beating the 15-1 team in Green Bay is actually a better team than the 15-1 Green Bay that played all season long because they won one game. When they get blown out in a week, that much will be clear.

Maybe they might be scared of it, cause they wouldn't want to have the chance to face any of those teams more than once, but I don't think any of the other teams would be. But if you are afraid to face top competition and test yourself against all of them, do you really deserve the Super Bowl?

 

[yoeddy]

LOL. Yeah they fluked out on 7 losses and dominated one of the worst games I have seen GB play... If my OP is dumb I don't know what to say about some of the responses like this one. What are we kindergarten kids?

They got freaking swept and beat down by Washington in December. Kept to 10 points. They got blown out by a bunch of teams, including the Saints. Although not even that is as bad as getting blown out by Washington twice. That's not a fluke. That's just a weak team. Good teams don't get destroyed in 25 % of their games. They didn't go through any transformation 2 weeks before the playoffs despite what a bunch of people think. They barely got by a sloppy 49ers team and the only reason they did is cause those guys were balling their eyes out over a playoff win the week before and forgot there were games left to play. This is going to be one of the weakest teams in a Super Bowl in some time and I'll be highly surprised, if Gronk plays, if this isn't a major blowout. I think the 2008 Cardinals were a tougher team.

I am a fan of soccer, and a lot of different sports, but that has nothing to do with a playoff format, other than they use a combination of round robin and head to head for the finals which would work wonders in the NFL as well, considering there are so few teams left. You must be a Tennis fan, cause that's the only major PRO level sport I know that uses single elimination and works effectively. And it works great for tennis if anyone was watching what just happened in Australia. But even then its mostly an individual sport, those guys play 7 sets most of the times which last 5 hours, and if its close they still have to win by 2.

There are many types of different playoff formats, and single elimination simply fails to produce the best teams at the end. Honestly, the only teams afraid of it would be teams afraid of being able to repeat a win against the best teams. No fan of football should be against seeing the best teams in the Super Bowl. They deserve it. All players fight too hard and work too hard to get knocked out in an early round by a bad team, because of a bad day.

Not to mention they all get at least 3 playoff games. I don't care what anybody says a Super Bowl loss is never going to take away the accomplishment of the Patriots going 18-0 nor will it convince me that the Giants beating the 15-1 team in Green Bay is actually a better team than the 15-1 Green Bay that played all season long because they won one game. When they get blown out in a week, that much will be clear.

Maybe they might be scared of it, cause they wouldn't want to have the chance to face any of those teams more than once, but I don't think any of the other teams would be. But if you are afraid to face top competition and test yourself against all of them, do you really deserve the Super Bowl?

So it sounds like you'd be happier if they just eliminated the playoffs and made the Super Bowl a game between the NFC and AFC teams with the best regular season records...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Mr. PatriotSeven, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I asked him about 6,000 pages ago to use 100 words to summarize his position; otherwise, I asked him to use this season's standings to show how his "round robin" would play out.

He did neither because I suspect what he proposes, if indeed he proposes it, is impossible to do in five weeks after a 17 week season.

Of the many flaws in what I think he proposes, the most fundamental is modeling his "alternative" on a sport that determines its champion quadrennially after extended regional eliminations and is so rife with corruption that the outcomes are suspect anyway.

(I’ve wasted enough time here.)

 

[stash0000001]

Giants fan here. Not trolling, but I came to engage in conversation with fans of the other team. I am glad that the majority of the Pats fans on here dismissed the OP's premise as absurd.

But the one thing I have not seen mentioned (at least in the first 20+ pages) by Patriot Seven is why he separates the AFC teams and the NFC teams in terms of his grouping and round robin tournaments. If he really thinks that the SB should be about pitting the two best teams against each other, then mix up the conferences in the playoffs. I think that most would agree that the NFC was the stronger conference at the top, partly due to the cyclical nature of the NFL, and because preseason AFC contenders lost their QBs and other players for the season (IND, HOU, KC). (For the record, I like the playoffs just as they are, except I think that division winners shouldn't automatically get the Top 4 seeds, only guaranteed playoff berths).

And according to the OP's logic, what makes the Patriots so much worthier than the Giants under the current format? The only team they beat with a winning record was the Ravens last week. The Giants beat them in Foxboro and the Giants went 4-0 in the AFC East this season. The regular seasons results are due to matchups and timing because of injuries and it's all about getting to the playoffs. The better the regular season record, the more advantages that come along with it: first round bye, home field advantage, playing lower seeded teams, etc.

As to the Giants losing to the Packers. They lost in large part to a controversial Greg Jennings touchdown which was eerily similar to the ruled incomplete pass to Lee Evans that would have given the Ravens the win last Sunday (for the record, I think that Evans did NOT have a TD). Yes, the Giants lost @ San Francisco, but it came down to one play.

Yes, the Giants lost at New Orleans. Everyone lost at New Orleans. They were +186 at home (23.25 points was the average margin of victory) while only being +22 on the road. That's insane. The Patriots likely would have lost at home because they seemed unbeatable in that dome.

The Giants got healthy in Week 15, and have since won five games in a row against playoff teams or would-be playoff teams if they beat the Giants. The Patriots had an easier schedule, but they still beat all of the teams in front of them in order to make it to the SB (and many in convincing fashion).

Both teams deserve to be playing for the championship on Sunday. Good luck next Sunday. May the game be decided by the players and not by the refs.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Giants fan here. Not trolling, but I came to engage in conversation with fans of the other team. I am glad that the majority of the Pats fans on here dismissed the OP's premise as absurd.

But the one thing I have not seen mentioned (at least in the first 20+ pages) by Patriot Seven is why he separates the AFC teams and the NFC teams in terms of his grouping and round robin tournaments. If he really thinks that the SB should be about pitting the two best teams against each other, then mix up the conferences in the playoffs. I think that most would agree that the NFC was the stronger conference at the top, partly due to the cyclical nature of the NFL, and because preseason AFC contenders lost their QBs and other players for the season (IND, HOU, KC). (For the record, I like the playoffs just as they are, except I think that division winners shouldn't automatically get the Top 4 seeds, only guaranteed playoff berths).

And according to the OP's logic, what makes the Patriots so much worthier than the Giants under the current format? The only team they beat with a winning record was the Ravens last week. The Giants beat them in Foxboro and the Giants went 4-0 in the AFC East this season. The regular seasons results are due to matchups and timing because of injuries and it's all about getting to the playoffs. The better the regular season record, the more advantages that come along with it: first round bye, home field advantage, playing lower seeded teams, etc.

As to the Giants losing to the Packers. They lost in large part to a controversial Greg Jennings touchdown which was eerily similar to the ruled incomplete pass to Lee Evans that would have given the Ravens the win last Sunday (for the record, I think that Evans did NOT have a TD). Yes, the Giants lost @ San Francisco, but it came down to one play.

Yes, the Giants lost at New Orleans. Everyone lost at New Orleans. They were +186 at home (23.25 points was the average margin of victory) while only being +22 on the road. That's insane. The Patriots likely would have lost at home because they seemed unbeatable in that dome.

The Giants got healthy in Week 15, and have since won five games in a row against playoff teams or would-be playoff teams if they beat the Giants. The Patriots had an easier schedule, but they still beat all of the teams in front of them in order to make it to the SB (and many in convincing fashion).

Both teams deserve to be playing for the championship on Sunday. Good luck next Sunday. May the game be decided by the players and not by the refs.

That's fine with me too, honestly. But I think too many fans like the tradition of the AFC/NFC Championship games and Super Bowl being represented by their respective Conference.

The only issue is you would then have to do away with the Conferences, because you would end up with an 8 or 12 team round robin which would make the playoffs last 3 months and increase the amount of games beyond a reasonable amount.

But that's partly my point. Brady never really got a chance to face off against Rodgers or Brees this year with top teams, and I think people would have liked that. At least Eli and Brady, Peyton and Brady got to face each other in a Championship game or Super Bowl. So did Montana and Elway. But there are a lot of teams, not just the Patriots that have won Super Bowls against teams that may not have been the best at the time. Look at all the lob sided Super Bowls in history and this becomes evident. There were a lot of weak teams in Super Bowls. Now I could be wrong but I feel this year's Giants may be one of those.

Again I don't think doing what I am asking would do any team a disservice. Including the Giants. They would be able to solidify themselves and still likely be one of the two teams in the Championship game. Their opponent might be a different team though.

Just by your statement, "everyone lost at New Orleans". Well then maybe that's the toughest game in the NFC. Maybe that should be "The Championship game". They went out and played on the road in the playoffs, but didn't get a chance to face anyone in the divisional round at home. Maybe the Giants should have gone into New Orleans and tried to beat them there, and if both still advanced, faced on neutral territories in the NFC Championship game. Maybe the 49ers had an inflated record due to a weak division. Both GB and the Saints had playoff teams in their division.

Maybe the 49ers were the weakest team with an inflated record. The point is, we don't really know. The competition was far too tight in the NFC this year, which is why it's evident a round-robing style tournament would help tremendously. But that is the main reason I picked on the NFC, because of the level of competition and frankly because I don't buy that losing your first playoff game is enough to eliminate the top 3 teams decisively and say...they were all flukes. Giants are better.

PS: Not to mention the part in bold would be less of an issue in the divisional round. You would get screwed by a ref in one of your 3 playoff games, and still have a chance to continue, rather then get completely knocked out of the tournament.

 

[PatriotSeven]

I asked him about 6,000 pages ago to use 100 words to summarize his position; otherwise, I asked him to use this season's standings to show how his "round robin" would play out.

He did neither because I suspect what he proposes, if indeed he proposes it, is impossible to do in five weeks after a 17 week season.

Of the many flaws in what I think he proposes, the most fundamental is modeling his "alternative" on a sport that determines its champion quadrennially after extended regional eliminations and is so rife with corruption that the outcomes are suspect anyway.

(I’ve wasted enough time here.)

Yes I finally came across your post and I apologize Patsfan since it was derailed by a Mr. Andy with yards per point discussions thus I missed it. I'm not sure what you would want me to do because it's already in place.

Once you qualify for the divisional rounds each team faces each other. Seeds still decide home and away games.

So either each champion(or wildcard replacement) would face each other. I wouldn't have changed anything other than make the Giants face the Saints in New Orleans for the third game, and allow GB, 49ers, and Saints to also play against each other, with home/away games also decided by seeds. Then have the Championship games on neutral grounds.

In the NFC for example:
Week 1
Giants vs GB
Saints vs 49ers

Week 2
Giants vs 49ers
Saints vs GB

Week 3
Giants vs Saints
GB vs 49ers

Giants would have still likely moved on to the Championship game. Their opponent would be the second best team. Not sure if that would have still been the 49ers.

I would have added two divisional round games. We would get back the 3 games we are missing. That's all. If you wanted to avoid redundancy, then you could also go back to a 3 division conference, 3 Divisional Champions, and 1 wild card spot instead of 2. The #4 and #5 spot in each conference at the end of the regular season, would face each other for the 4th playoff spot.

Then put all 4 teams through a round-robin playoff structure, and resume head to head.

PS: I believe you are way off in mixing FIFA politics and financial corruption with the integrity of the actual tournament. The only time you may have a chance at corruption in FIFA is in the seeding of the initial group stages in FIFA qualifiers or group seedings. Not in the World Cup tournament. But round-robin protects small countries. If they didn't have round-robin, you would have likely never heard of Brazil. They may have won one Cup. You should know in the UK round-robin is commonly referred to as The American Tournament. It's not something they use just for soccer. They use it for just about every sport out there. The NFL uses it in the divisions actually. Double round-robin.

 

[reflexblue]

This thread ceased to be about football back around page five . No, its about the authors Deep seated need to be correct garner attention,which is almost pathalogical in nature. When the op posts that other people agree with him that is delusional, i haven't seen One other poster say they think hes right. He will respond using the same rationalizations and denials as long as others respond to his rantings. No one, no argument can convince P7 that he is wrong, this is almost troll like, wants people to respond, thats his goal. As long as people reply to this Steaming Turd of a thread will continue. Hes making fools out of those who keep trying to convince him hes wrong.

 

[PatriotSeven]

This thread ceased to be about football back around page five . No, its about the authors Deep seated need to be correct garner attention,which is almost pathalogical in nature. When the op posts that other people agree with him that is delusional, i haven't seen One other poster say they think hes right. He will respond using the same rationalizations and denials as long as others respond to his rantings. No one, no argument can convince P7 that he is wrong, this is almost troll like, wants people to respond, thats his goal. As long as people reply to this Steaming Turd of a thread will continue

Perhaps that's because you ignore those replies and are too busy personally attacking me, and constantly attacking the proposition for the simple fact of being brought up, rather then the argument.

But to point out your personal ignorance would you like seeing some of the personal mesages I'm getting? I will keep their identity private but this is what posters like you do. You scare other people from sharing their thoughts precisely because of the amount of heat I am taking.

Just for the record I wanted you to know I enjoyed your thread about possibly changing the playoff format. I know you got pummeled for suggesting it - people are very resistant to any type of change - and even though I didn't necessarily agree with it, I did like the idea of considering it and discussing it.

All replies like yours have done is successfully crapped on a valid discussion and removed a good topic off the front page.

Congratulations!