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

[PatriotSeven]

Also, if San Fran did squeak by the Giants on Sunday, I'm not sure that the Pats-Niners would feel like a battle of titans given San Fran's ineptitude on offense.

But the Giant's offense weren't any freaking better. They won by 3 and it took 5 possessions and a fumble by the 49ers to make it happen. The 49ers beat them by 7 the first time they faced. The 49ers were not that inept on offense all season long. That was one of their worst games all around.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Not go 1-1? The 49ers actually still hold the point differential against them. Win decisively?

If they are good, then they shouldn't have a problem winning a playoff group. It would only add an extra week of games, but each team could play each other twice in the divisional round.

What's the fear of actually figuring out who is really the best teams and watching them in the finals? I wouldn't want to watch Brazil vs China in the World Cup, just because China would get lucky and win 2 games in the "playoffs" if the World Cup didn't have groups.

When they award Super Bowls based on point differential, let me know. In the mean time, wins are all that matter. Not to mention that the Patriots made it to the SB by the same exact margin that the Giants did, plus the Giants beat the Patriots already. And since strength of victory seems to matter to you, how about the fact that, until Sunday, the Patriots hadn't beaten a team that finished over .500 all season?

Out of curiosity, if the playoffs had happened in such a way that the Patriots advanced to the SB by beating Pittsburgh by 3 points, would you be arguing that they didn't deserve to be there on either on account of the regular season loss? If so, then please turn off your computer and throw it out the nearest window. They play the games for a reason.

 

[PatriotSeven]

This guy wants a BCS NFL, everybody run!!!

That is not what I am saying at all! Do you watch any other sports with REAL playoff systems? No other sport in the freaking world has this. It's the worst system ever designed to actually determine the best teams.

It was only created this way because initially there were very few teams. So the regular season was basically a group playoff system.

The 1966 NFL season was the 47th regular season of the National Football League, and the season after which was played Super Bowl I, though it was called the AFL-NFL World Championship Game. The league expanded to 15 teams with the addition of the Atlanta Falcons, thus an odd number of teams (making byes necessary). This was the last season that NFL teams where divided into just two groups called conferences, and only one round of playoffs was played, the NFL Championship game between the two conference champions.

This is why it exists. There are 32 teams now. Today it sucks. It's clearly no longer adequate.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Imagine how it is when you are in the Olympics. you get 1 chance every 4 years and if you have an off day, they it's sayonara.

Same principle applies here as the regular season gives you the right to try the post season. Part of the playoffs is the added stress. they give the "better" tesm all the advantages they can. Home Field and for the first/second seeds a week off to get rested and begin preparations.

Does the best team always win. Nope, not always and in 2001 we were that team and in 2007 we were the better team. Due tot he nature of the game you can't do best of 7 as its tough to complain you are the bettre team if you lose 4 of 7.

This is football...it's a gladator sport and a warrior only has to make 1 mistake for it to be fatal. Being the best or not.

 

[Satchboogie3]

That is not what I am saying at all! Do you watch any other sports with REAL playoff systems? No other sport in the freaking world has this. It's the worst system ever designed to actually determine the best teams.

It was only created this way because initially there were very few teams. So the regular season was basically a group playoff system.


This is why it exists. There are 32 teams now. Today it sucks. It's clearly no longer adequate.

The playoff structure has changed, there are 4 rounds now instead of 1....

People need to stop obsessing over the "best" team. The point of football isn't necessarily to be the best team, it's to win a championship. You have to win the games in front of you. What you do in the past is of no importance.

Anyways, what would be the point in watching the playoffs if the best team always won? Why bother play the games? Just hand them the trophy and move on....

 

[PatriotSeven]

When they award Super Bowls based on point differential, let me know. In the mean time, wins are all that matter. Not to mention that the Patriots made it to the SB by the same exact margin that the Giants did, plus the Giants beat the Patriots already. And since strength of victory seems to matter to you, how about the fact that, until Sunday, the Patriots hadn't beaten a team that finished over .500 all season?

Out of curiosity, if the playoffs had happened in such a way that the Patriots advanced to the SB by beating Pittsburgh by 3 points, would you be arguing that they didn't deserve to be there on either on account of the regular season loss? If so, then please turn off your computer and throw it out the nearest window. They play the games for a reason.

Again you didn't get at all what I am saying. What I'm saying is each division Champion or the Wild Card winner who beats the weaker division champion SHOULD and DESERVES to face the other division champion in the playoffs. The best of the playoff teams should advance after they all face each other.

A TRUE elimination system. This is not a true elimination system. The needed playoff system is already in place, it just only happens in the division among divisional rivals.

You know how the best team in the division advances? Well that's not who plays in the NFC or AFC Championship but that's how it should be.

From the Championship games you continue with single elimination, but right now it means nothing to play 16 games and win your division. You don't get to test yourself against other division champions.

You should either have to face each divisional rival twice, or face each divisional rival in each conference. In other words:

Giants must face Saints, 49ers, and Green Bay in the divisional round.
Green Bay faces 49ers, Giants and Saints in the divisional rounds.
The two teams with the best winning record(and a necessary tie breaker) moves on to the Championship game. The winner goes to the Super Bowl.

It's a simple concept the whole world agrees on. Nobody ever questions the winner of the World Cup because of the Groups in the playoffs.

 

[PittPatriot]

That is not what I am saying at all! Do you watch any other sports with REAL playoff systems? No other sport in the freaking world has this. It's the worst system ever designed to actually determine the best teams.

It was only created this way because initially there were very few teams. So the regular season was basically a group playoff system.


This is why it exists. There are 32 teams now. Today it sucks. It's clearly no longer adequate.

All of the sports have their drawbacks.
NBA: you can have a losing record and miss the playoffs
MLB: Winning your division matter little because the season starts all over and a Wild Card team may have greater advantage.
NHL: same probs as the NBA and MLB combined.
NCAA/March Madness: How often does the "best team" win? UNLV lost out in 1991…UNC in 1994…heck, Butler was the only thing in the way of a fluky Duke team to win in 2010?

Perhaps you DO subconsciously want the BCS in the NFL?

 

[Satchboogie3]

Again you didn't get at all what I am saying. What I'm saying is each division Champion or the Wild Card winner who beats the weaker division champion SHOULD and DESERVES to face the other division champion in the playoffs. The best of the playoff teams should advance after they all face each other.

A TRUE elimination system. This is not a true elimination system. The needed playoff system is already in place, it just only happens in the division among divisional rivals.

You know how the best team in the division advances? Well that's not who plays in the NFC or AFC Championship but that's how it should be.

From the Championship games you continue with single elimination, but right now it means nothing to play 16 games and win your division. You don't get to test yourself against other division champions.

You should either have to face each divisional rival twice, or face each divisional rival in each conference. In other words:

Giants must face Saints, 49ers, and Green Bay in the divisional round.
Green Bay faces 49ers, Giants and Saints in the divisional rounds.
The two teams with the best winning record(and a necessary tie breaker) moves on to the Championship game. The winner goes to the Super Bowl.

It's a simple concept the whole world agrees on. Nobody ever questions the winner of the World Cup because of the Groups in the playoffs.

Here's a HUGE flaw: People LIKE elimination games. I LOVE the fact that EVERY single game in the playoffs is win or go home. Keep your system to yourself, no else wants it.

 

[TPL]

That is not what I am saying at all! Do you watch any other sports with REAL playoff systems? No other sport in the freaking world has this. It's the worst system ever designed to actually determine the best teams.



This is why it exists. There are 32 teams now. Today it sucks. It's clearly no longer adequate.

Must be why NFL playoff and Superbowl ratings are so low.

You've got to be kidding. Really?
MLB, NHL, NBA regular season and playoffs all crap compared to the NFL.

 

[Satchboogie3]

All of the sports have their drawbacks.
NBA: you can have a losing record and miss the playoffs
MLB: Winning your division matter little because the season starts all over and a Wild Card team may have greater advantage.
NHL: same probs as the NBA and MLB combined.
NCAA/March Madness: How often does the "best team" win? UNLV lost out in 1991…UNC in 1994…heck, Butler was the only thing in the way of a fluky Duke team to win in 2010?

Perhaps you DO subconsciously want the BCS in the NFL?

I'd argue the worst problem with the MLB could be unbalanced divisions. You could have the 3rd best record in baseball and miss the playoffs because those other 2 teams are in your division. Still, I'm completely of the philosophy that you make your own destiny. I like MLBs structure as it is. Lack of a salary cap is a whole different problem though that kills the game.

 

[PatriotSeven]

All of the sports have their drawbacks.
NBA: you can have a losing record and miss the playoffs
MLB: Winning your division matter little because the season starts all over and a Wild Card team may have greater advantage.
NHL: same probs as the NBA and MLB combined.
NCAA/March Madness: How often does the "best team" win? UNLV lost out in 1991…UNC in 1994…heck, Butler was the only thing in the way of a fluky Duke team to win in 2010?

Perhaps you DO subconsciously want the BCS in the NFL?

No man that is horrible. I don't think you read a word of what I said. Go look at the World Cup structure. See if you ever have a team with a losing record make the semi-finals or a great team not make it. It's impossible. Losing teams don't advance to the World Cup semi finals.

It's not about having the absolute 2 best teams in the Super Bowl. It's about having the top 4 teams in each conference truly prove themselves and the two best advanced to their respective Championship games.

You could still end up with the #2 vs the #3 team or the #1 vs the #4 team but you will rarely, very rarely have a #10 team vs a #1 team in the Super Bowl. That would happen once in 20 years, not 3 times in 5 years.

This year we have the #2 team versus the #12 team in the league in the Super Bowl.

 

[jmt57]

I understand what PatriotSeven is trying to say, but there is a business aspect to this as well as the 'fairness' angle.

If you wanted to be completely fair then you would have two conferences with no divisions. Add two teams, one in each conference so you play every team in your conference once for a total of 16 games, 8 at home and 8 on the road. The two teams with the best record in each conference meet for the championship. If there's a tie in the standings then those two meet in a one game playoff for the right to continue rather than using a list of tiebreakers. Radical as this concept may sound today it is essentially the way professional football operated for nearly fifty years before the merger.

While that would be more fair, from a business perspective it is unreasonable. Four teams in each division mean everyone has a 25% chance of making the playoffs by winning the division. Add in a couple of wild card slots and 75% of the NFL's fans are still rooting for their team to make the playoffs with just a couple weeks to go. More fan interest equals higher attendance and ratings, even if it is sometimes less fair (e.g., Seattle making the playoffs with a 7-9 record.)

The relatively short season that the NFL has compared to other sports, coupled with the playoffs being single-game eliminations rather than playoff series means that there probably is a greater chance of a team being 'lucky' to advance or 'unlucky' to win a game against an opponent that they more often than not would defeat. That's just the way it is in the game of football.

Personally I think that is part of the mass appeal rather than a flaw in the system. Teams are crowned as the league's champions but it should be no surprise to any that follow the game that there is often a distinct difference between 'the league's best team this year' and 'the league's best team today', even if that is rarely, if ever mentioned by either the media or the league's fans.

 

[captain insano]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I always lived by the principle that if you wanna be the best you gotta beat the best not shy away from it. I know some are fond of the idea of the Patriots being able to get their revenge on the greatest stage of all, and I am too, but for me, there's just a bigger principle that goes unmentioned.

For the third time since 2007, 3 pretty average teams have found their way into the Super Bowl, with the Giants now twice and Arizona Cardinals a few years back. I don't have a problem with the Giants doing exactly what every other NFL team should be doing as a football team, which is fight tooth and nail to make their way into the Super Bowl when they get that opportunity. That part doesn't bother me and they should be commended for it

The part that does bother me about this whole deal is that this playoffs system cheats fans, football teams and other players out of seeing the best teams teams at the end and with a shot at the Super Bowl. This is a perfect example of where yes, the Giants were the better team on that day when they played the 49ers and Green Bay. Without a doubt. But there is no way both of those teams wouldn't beat the Giants 8 out of 10 times this year if they faced each other. In fact they both beat them earlier this year and so have the Saints. The Saints dominated the Giants. It wasn't even close. But they never got a chance to face each other in the playoffs.

GB and the 49ers went 1-1 with the Giants counting the playoffs. But the Saints were 1-0, and decisively thrashed the Giants. But because the Giants wins came in the playoffs, they get to advance and the other teams get to go home.

Those teams don't get an opportunity to try again, and prove that they are in fact better. No 2 out of 3, their initial wins mean nothing. They don't get a second shot. All their hard work in the regular season is for nothing. It's like it almost makes you not wanna try to go 13-3 or 15-1 when you know that in the past 5 years 3 teams that made the super bowl were just average and one of them went on to win it.

There is no possible way, after watching the playoffs this year, that you can convince me that this Giants team is the best team in the NFC. It wouldn't have bothered me nearly as bad if it was the 13-3 Cowboys that beat the Patriots in 2007. But the truth is any team can beat another team on any given Sunday, and that's exactly what we saw in the 2007 Super Bowl as well as the Divisional rounds and Championship games between the Giants and the 49ers and GB. That doesn't mean however that any team should get that chance.

My question is, if these teams faced each other twice, what are the chances the Giants would still be advancing? What does it say about all of these teams that excel throughout the season? It's meaningless? That teams should stop trying? Just be average and do good in the playoffs?

Doesn't it rob fans of the better match-ups possible like GB vs Patriots this year, or vs Saints or 49ers teams that truly to me, are much better overall than the Giants? Does anybody else feel like we should have some sort of group playoff system in the divisional rounds instead of one-and-done and you go home?

A group playoff system wouldn't stop good teams and underdogs from succeeding and advancing, but it would certainly filter out lucky teams that just honestly, haven't convinced me they should be where there are. A rematch like this, while great, is going to do one of two things: Either completely expose one team as fake and a joke and bring more criticism to their quarterback or tarnish the image of another.

It certainly doesn't feel like the Super Bowl is a battle of the best. Sometimes it's that, but it seems a lot of times it's a battle of the best vs the luckiest. And it certainly doesn't clarify who the best teams in the conference is.

Try to follow this along: The 9-7 Giants who got beat by the Perfect Green Bay Packers, 49ers and trumped by the Saints beat the Packers, who played pretty crappy in the playoffs, and completely knocked them out of Super Bowl contention on that one game. The 49ers beat the Saints in the playoffs, so the Saints who thrashed the Giants get to go home and then the Giants beat the 49ers, also in an unconvincing fashion, who beat Giants in the regular aseason and also beat the Saints in the playoffs who trashed the Giants earlier....therefore.......therefore what? What the hell does all that prove? That the Giants are the best team in the NFC?

Everyone got that? Is everyone clear why the Giants belong? Ok good! Then will you please explain it to me so I understand?

man im sorry i read this.

 

[PatriotSeven]

I understand what PatriotSeven is trying to say, but there is a business aspect to this as well as the 'fairness' angle.

If you wanted to be completely fair then you would have two conferences with no divisions. Add two teams, one in each conference so you play every team in your conference once for a total of 16 games, 8 at home and 8 on the road. The two teams with the best record in each conference meet for the championship. If there's a tie in the standings then those two meet in a one game playoff for the right to continue rather than using a list of tiebreakers. Radical as this concept may sound today it is essentially the way professional football operated for nearly fifty years before the merger.

While that would be more fair, from a business perspective it is unreasonable. Four teams in each division mean everyone has a 25% chance of making the playoffs by winning the division. Add in a couple of wild card slots and 75% of the NFL's fans are still rooting for their team to make the playoffs with just a couple weeks to go. More fan interest equals higher attendance and ratings, even if it is sometimes less fair (e.g., Seattle making the playoffs with a 7-9 record.)

The relatively short season that the NFL has compared to other sports, coupled with the playoffs being single-game eliminations rather than playoff series means that there probably is a greater chance of a team being 'lucky' to advance or 'unlucky' to win a game against an opponent that they more often than not would defeat. That's just the way it is in the game of football.

Personally I think that is part of the mass appeal rather than a flaw in the system. Teams are crowned as the league's champions but it should be no surprise to any that follow the game that there is often a distinct difference between 'the league's best team this year' and 'the league's best team today', even if that is rarely, if ever mentioned by either the media or the league's fans.

I would be fine with that too but you don't have to give away the business concept if you simply extend them one week and add an extra game. You can keep the same exact structure. You just have either 2 divisional round weeks and 1 wild card week, or better yet 3 divisional round weeks..

You can still have divisional champions. Each divisional rival faces the other once. You would add one extra game and do away with the wild card round. Or leave the wild card round and add two extra weeks. Cut two pre-season weeks.

It would bring MORE money. It would be much more exciting having the chance to watch GB and Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and the Saints guaranteed for 3 weeks in the playoffs facing each other IN the playoffs.

Again, I'm not saying the Giants didn't earn their right. I'm saying the other teams that certainly belonged didn't have a chance.

I don't see how the Saints who thrashed the Giants, lost a very close game to the 49ers and had to stay home while the Giants get to advance when they went 1-1 with the other two teams. How can anyone try to tell me the Giants proved they were better than the Saints?

 

[ausbacker]

I would be fine with that too but you don't have to give away the business concept if you simply extend them one week and add an extra game. You can keep the same exact structure. You just have either 2 divisional round weeks and 1 wild card week, or better yet 3 divisional round weeks..

You can still have divisional champions. Each divisional rival faces the other once. You would add one extra game and do away with the wild card round. Or leave the wild card round and add two extra weeks. Cut two pre-season weeks.

It would bring MORE money. It would be much more exciting having the chance to watch GB and Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and the Saints guaranteed for 3 weeks in the playoffs facing each other IN the playoffs.

Again, I'm not saying the Giants didn't earn their right. I'm saying the other teams that certainly belonged didn't have a chance.

I don't see how the Saints who thrashed the Giants, lost a very close game to the 49ers and had to stay home while the Giants get to advance when they went 1-1 with the other two teams. How can anyone try to tell me the Giants proved they were better than the Saints?

There's plenty of leagues around the world that are better suited to your argument, for instance every major soccer league on the face of the planet.

 

[reflexblue]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I always lived by the principle that if you wanna be the best you gotta beat the best not shy away from it. I know some are fond of the idea of the Patriots being able to get their revenge on the greatest stage of all, and I am too, but for me, there's just a bigger principle that goes unmentioned.


Everyone got that? Is everyone clear why the Giants belong? Ok good! Then will you please explain it to me so I understand?

In the end NO ONE remembers how a team got to the SB, just that they won the Super Bowl. I don't care how we got here or how the Giants got here, or if there were teams with better records that are sitting at home. I just care if WE win the Super Bowl, and i don't care if we beat a team with a 9-7 record in the regular season. For what ever reason those other teams (the ones with the great regular season records) didn't make it, they weren't prepared, luck went against them. etc.etc.etc. All i care about is seeing TB, BB, and Mr Kraft holding the Super Bowl trophy over their heads

 

[BradyToAmendola]

Terrible thread.

 

[PatriotSeven]

In the end NO ONE remembers how a team got to the SB, just that they won the Super Bowl. I don't care how we got here or how the Giants got here, or if there were teams with better records that are sitting at home. I just care if WE win the Super Bowl, and i don't care if we beat a team with a 9-7 record in the regular season. For what ever reason those other teams (the ones with the great regular season records) didn't make it, they weren't prepared, luck went against them. etc.etc.etc. All i care about is seeing TB, BB, and Mr Kraft holding the Super Bowl trophy over their heads

So basically you don't care if you really were the best and beat the best, just that you get to wear the belt?

Yeah, that's basically my issue with it. That's exactly what it is right now.

Thank God the Patriots, Tom Brady and Bill Bellichick doesn't have this attitude or they would never be who they are.

 

[jmt57]

Again you didn't get at all what I am saying. What I'm saying is each division Champion or the Wild Card winner who beats the weaker division champion SHOULD and DESERVES to face the other division champion in the playoffs. The best of the playoff teams should advance after they all face each other.

A TRUE elimination system. This is not a true elimination system. The needed playoff system is already in place, it just only happens in the division among divisional rivals.

You know how the best team in the division advances? Well that's not who plays in the NFC or AFC Championship but that's how it should be.

From the Championship games you continue with single elimination, but right now it means nothing to play 16 games and win your division. You don't get to test yourself against other division champions.

You should either have to face each divisional rival twice, or face each divisional rival in each conference. In other words:

Giants must face Saints, 49ers, and Green Bay in the divisional round.
Green Bay faces 49ers, Giants and Saints in the divisional rounds.
The two teams with the best winning record(and a necessary tie breaker) moves on to the Championship game. The winner goes to the Super Bowl.

It's a simple concept the whole world agrees on. Nobody ever questions the winner of the World Cup because of the Groups in the playoffs.

While this would help eliminate the 'one bad game' syndrome and still take the same three weeks to complete, the potential downsides (and still unfair issues) are that teams like the Saints and Steelers would not even make the playoffs, since they were not division winners.

Again from a business perspective more teams would be eliminated from playoff contention earlier in the season, creating a lower overall level of interest, which means less money for the league and for their business partners, the networks.


edit: Exactly how many teams would you have make the playoffs, and how long would the playoffs be? How do you make it work with an odd number of teams to account for the wildcards, plus have the first round last for three games per team? Or did you simply not have wildcards like the Steelers and Falcons?

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

I guess the 2001 Patriots should give back their Super Bowl Rings then?

You beat me to it. I was thinking the same thing. That Rams team would have beaten us more often than losing, that I have no doubt of.