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

[stinebot]

So, OP, you want the NFL to be the BCS? Where it doesn't really matter what you do on the field because a select few coaches and writers and other know it alls have decided back at the start of the season who the good teams will be and come hell or high water the championship game will feature two teams from their very short list? Where actually playing through a season does not matter because "experts" decide that "the AFC Central is weak", so no matter what you do if that's where your team is you are not getting to the Super Bowl? Where the Packers are the defending champs, and Rodgers is great, so they will make the Super Bowl regardless of if they lose, because they ar so good a loss doesn't mean squat and besides, it was the Chiefs. They aren't good. That loss doesn't count? And that loss to the Giants, sure, the Giants did well that one game but we all know the Packers are better even though they got their butts handed to them. So the Packers it is. And the AFC? How about the Ravens? They have a great defense and to see that against the Packers offense would be really cool. So that's it. We have decided. The Super Bowl will be Packers/Ravens. It's all decided. The games themselves don't matter.

Is that what you want OP? Because to me that sounds pretty horrible.

 

[ausbacker]

Because they would have certainly lost to 2 of those teams if they played them again and the Patriots get shafted out of facing a worthy opponent. It's not the Giants that bothers me. It's the fact the other teams don't get the chances they have earned and the Patriots are in a situation to lose, while they have everything to gain.

It's like winning a boxing rematch by sucker punching someone after you got whooped the first time around, but then you chose not to play 2 out of 3 and keep the belt. Congratulations to them I guess.

Except it's nothing like that. You're honestly coming across like someone who is scared that the Patriots are going to lose to the NFC #4 seed whilst dismissing that the Giants just beat the Falcons #5 at home, the Packers #1 away and the 49ers #2 away on route to the Superbowl.

Please tell me how that is;

1. Not impressive,
2. Not cut throat, &
3. Broken.

I don't have a problem with the Giants in the Superbowl nor the Patriots. They both did what was required of them.

 

[BlueRumble]

That OP was priceless considering that the Patriots went 13-3 beating noone with a winning record. Soo if you want the 2 best teams to be in the Super bowl, wellll that means this year we would be watching 2 NFC teams going for it.

 

[Satchboogie3]

How is it not broken when average teams that get blown out and swept win a lucky game and make the finals while the best teams stay home?

The playoffs are not cut throat. If they were cut throat, all champions would have to go through the champions. Right now, three lucky bounces allows any 8-8 or 9-7 team to get through the Super Bowl, while tried and tested teams stay home for losing a 3 point game in a divisional round.

Sometimes it's even completely out of their hands, like a bad call. It's very broken and has been for some time now. Three out of the past 5 years you have had average teams make the Super Bowl.

Sorry, but that's pretty freaking broken.

Last time I checked, they don't award the champion until AFTER the Superbowl. How are you supposed to go through the 'champions' before that? Having the best regular season record doesn't make you the 'champion'. Anyways, suppose the best team in the NFC loses in the 2nd round at home. How can you argue that they were the 'best of the best' and should be represented in the Superbowl when they clearly lost at home with 2 weeks rest? They aren't a champion, they're a loser...

The logic is simple: The 2 best teams right now are the teams in the Superbowl. The Best team in 9 or something days will be the one holding the lombardi. It's as simple as that.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Except it's nothing like that. You're honestly coming across like someone who is scared that the Patriots are going to lose to the NFC #4 seed whilst dismissing that the Giants just beat the Falcons #5 at home, the Packers #1 away and the 49ers #2 away on route to the Superbowl.

Please tell me how that is;

1. Not impressive,
2. Not cut throat, &
3. Broken.

I don't have a problem with the Giants in the Superbowl nor the Patriots. They both did what was required of them.

Please tell me how the 2007 Giants were a better team then the Dallas Cowboys who swept them and blew them out twice in their division for beating them by 4 points in the playoffs?

How do you justify that?

And no I'm not scared the Patriots will lose. Pats will likely blow them out and should blow them out. My problem is teams who really belong, like GB, 49ers, and Saints, bust their ass to win every game, and get sent home because of one bad day.

Only one team in the history of the NFL has had a perfect season. Everyone can have a bad day. That doesn't mean they should be knocked out of the competition in the divisional round by some wild card team.

It's nonsense.

 

[Ring 6]

But both of those teams beat them too. The 49ers beat them by 7 points the first time.
The Saints destroyed them.

But in addition:
The Washington Redskins destroyed the Giants TWICE. The Redskins, who are sorry as hell kept them to only 10 points twice.
The Seahawks whooped them by 11 points.

Neither the Saints, 49ers or GB got beat that bad this season.

Honestly, to me it's bull. There's no finality to who is really the best in the NFC this year. I can't accept the Giants are even the best team in the NFC this year because of the two wins they got in the playoffs.

I guess I have to start viewing the Super Bowl as some kind of entertainment game. It's certainly no longer a representation of the best teams in the NFC vs AFC when the 3 best teams in the NFC are sitting at home.

You just need to learn the defition of best regarding NFL teams.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Last time I checked, they don't award the champion until AFTER the Superbowl. How are you supposed to go through the 'champions' before that? Having the best regular season record doesn't make you the 'champion'. Anyways, suppose the best team in the NFC loses in the 2nd round at home. How can you argue that they were the 'best of the best' and should be represented in the Superbowl when they clearly lost at home with 2 weeks rest? They aren't a champion, they're a loser...

The logic is simple: The 2 best teams right now are the teams in the Superbowl. The Best team in 9 or something days will be the one holding the lombardi. It's as simple as that.

I've already stated it.

Each division champion plays the other 3 divisional champions(wildcard replacement) once. Each team gets 3 divisional playoff games. Two best move forward to the Championship game.

What's wrong with that?

Your logic is flawed. The Giants are not the freaking NFC's best team. Not by a long shot. If they were they would have beat the Saints. They didn't they got blown out by them. And they went 1-1 with both the 49ers and GB. The only ones they beat decisively was GB. They never beat the Saints. And the 49ers beat them more decisively the first time around.

There was no tie breaker. Just because they won a freaking playoff game doesn't mean this team is all of a sudden a brand new team and they should be crowned the best.

If the Giants were the best why did the Redskins BLOW Them out TWICE? They got beat by 7 teams this year. They are nowhere near the best. 3 wins in the playoffs doesn't change that fact.

 

[ausbacker]

Please tell me how the 2007 Giants were a better team then the Dallas Cowboys who swept them and blew them out twice in their division for beating them by 4 points in the playoffs?

How do you justify that?

And no I'm not scared the Patriots will lose. Pats will likely blow them out and should blow them out. My problem is teams who really belong, like GB, 49ers, and Saints, bust their ass to win every game, and get sent home because of one bad day.

Only one team in the history of the NFL has had a perfect season. Everyone can have a bad day. That doesn't mean they should be knocked out of the competition in the divisional round by some wild card team.

It's nonsense.

It's simple, I happen to believe that the 2007 Patriots were better than the 2007 Giants much like the 2001 Rams were better than the 2001 Patriots. The beauty of the playoffs is that being considered better doesn't equate to being the Superbowl champion.

Your concept of who really belongs is misguided and ill advised. Having one bad day is exactly what makes the contest great. I understand you don't agree with that, which is fine. My disagreement with your commentary surrounds the issue of who belongs and being better. If you're in the Superbowl, you belong.

The 49ers didn't have a bad day. The game went to OT. They missed opportunities when presented with them and the Giants capitalized.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Please tell me how the 2007 Giants were a better team then the Dallas Cowboys who swept them and blew them out twice in their division for beating them by 4 points in the playoffs?

How do you justify that?

And no I'm not scared the Patriots will lose. Pats will likely blow them out and should blow them out. My problem is teams who really belong, like GB, 49ers, and Saints, bust their ass to win every game, and get sent home because of one bad day.

Only one team in the history of the NFL has had a perfect season. Everyone can have a bad day. That doesn't mean they should be knocked out of the competition in the divisional round by some wild card team.

It's nonsense.

Here is your massive FAIL: You can't compare regular season games to playoff games. Teams don't play them the same. You see upsets all the time in the regular season because it's just 1 game of 16 and too many teams play to the level of their competition (play unfocused and poorly against the worst teams because you don't respect them or care). You rarely see the intensity and focus.

So stop, just stop. The best team is the team that elevates itself in a pressure cooker and gets it done.

Anyways, way more often than not, the best teams DO win the Superbowl, so unless you never ever ever want to see anything but the teams with the 2 best records in the Superbowl, I don't see how you can have a problem with the current format.

 

[Ring 6]

Please tell me how the 2007 Giants were a better team then the Dallas Cowboys who swept them and blew them out twice in their division for beating them by 4 points in the playoffs?

How do you justify that?

And no I'm not scared the Patriots will lose. Pats will likely blow them out and should blow them out. My problem is teams who really belong, like GB, 49ers, and Saints, bust their ass to win every game, and get sent home because of one bad day.

Only one team in the history of the NFL has had a perfect season. Everyone can have a bad day. That doesn't mean they should be knocked out of the competition in the divisional round by some wild card team.

It's nonsense.

Seriously, is this your first year as an NFL fan?
Best is determined on the field. The Packers and Saints went out on the field with everything on the line and failed.
Are you telling me the 2010 Patriots got a raw deal because they lost to the Jets and should be considered the best team that year and deserved to win the SB?

 

[Satchboogie3]

I've already stated it.

Each division champion plays the other 3 divisional champions(wildcard replacement) once. Each team gets 3 divisional playoff games. Two best move forward to the Championship game.

What's wrong with that?

Your logic is flawed. The Giants are not the freaking NFC's best team. Not by a long shot. If they were they would have beat the Saints. They didn't they got blown out by them. And they went 1-1 with both the 49ers and GB. The only ones they beat decisively was GB. They never beat the Saints. And the 49ers beat them more decisively the first time around.

There was no tie breaker. Just because they won a freaking playoff game doesn't mean this team is all of a sudden a brand new team and they should be crowned the best.

If the Giants were the best why did the Redskins BLOW Them out TWICE? They got beat by 7 teams this year. They are nowhere near the best. 3 wins in the playoffs doesn't change that fact.

You are missing a HUGE piece of football: Matchups. There is no such thing as an "unbeatable" team. So what if NO matches up well with the Giants. How is it not enough that they beat the #1,#2, and #5 seeds to get to the Superbowl? They could have faced NO if NO took care of their own business.

You want to know why the Giants got blown out by the Redskins? They were unhealthy and probably didn't prepare well and took the game for granted and played to the level of the Skins. That doesn't diminish their accomplishment of beating the 2 best teams in the NFC when it mattered.

Are you going to argue the Pats don't belong because they lost to Buffalo, got beat bad by the Steelers, lost to the Giants, and got an easy playoff game with Denver? You could argue the Ravens are the only good team we beat all year. Why all the focus on the Giants?

 

[Ring 6]

Because they would have certainly lost to 2 of those teams if they played them again and the Patriots get shafted out of facing a worthy opponent. It's not the Giants that bothers me. It's the fact the other teams don't get the chances they have earned and the Patriots are in a situation to lose, while they have everything to gain.

How exactly did the Packers and Saints EARN the right to play in a SB?

It's like winning a boxing rematch by sucker punching someone after you got whooped the first time around, but then you chose not to play 2 out of 3 and keep the belt. Congratulations to them I guess.

Its more like losing a bunch of rounds then winning by knockout.

 

[jmt57]

So, OP, you want the NFL to be the BCS?

To you, and everyone else that keeps saying that, in the OP's defense he is not suggesting that at all.

His suggestion is something like this:
Week 1: NFCE vs NFCN, and NFCS vs NFCW
Week 2: NFCE vs NFCS, and NFCN vs NFCW
Week 3: NFCE vs NFCW, and NFCN vs NFCS
Now look and see who has the best W-L record, and they proceed to the Super Bowl. During the same three weeks do the same format with the AFC teams.

It is nothing at all like what the BCS is, nor is it anything at all like what a college playoff system would be like if one were to be instituted.


If I missed anything PatriotSeven I apologize; please go ahead and clarify if so.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Here is your massive FAIL: You can't compare regular season games to playoff games. Teams don't play them the same. You see upsets all the time in the regular season because it's just 1 game of 16 and too many teams play to the level of their competition (play unfocused and poorly against the worst teams because you don't respect them or care). You rarely see the intensity and focus.

So stop, just stop. The best team is the team that elevates itself in a pressure cooker and gets it done.

Anyways, way more often than not, the best teams DO win the Superbowl, so unless you never ever ever want to see anything but the teams with the 2 best records in the Superbowl, I don't see how you can have a problem with the current format.

You're right about that. Sometimes they play worse in the playoffs. The 49ers clearly played worse against the Giants and the Giants still stunk against them. Instead of having the two best team move forward we have the one that sucked the least.

Seriously I am surprised that so many people were unaware that the playoff structure in the NFL is not a true playoff structure and don't understand what one looks like. All the BCS comments make me laugh. That's going even further into a crap hole than what I am talking about.

 

[strngplyr]

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

The #12 team beat the #1 and #2-T teams on the road. What happened in the regular season doesn't matter once the playoffs start.

The ideas you're suggesting would have the season lasting until March, players barely survive a 20-25 game season the way it is, and some aren't even ready to play at the start of the next season with as long as the offseason is already, how is this going to work exactly?

Edit: BTW, our #2 team already lost to your #12 team.
Edit2: Regular season record also doesn't determine who the best team in the NFL is, NE and GB both feasted off of the AFC West, going 7-1. You can only play who the NFL places infront of you, meaning regular season records do very little to say how good you are. We went 1-2 vs playoff teams and are now sitting in the Super Bowl.

 

[supafly]

We discussed this last night.

The system is not 'flawed,' as you say. There is a ton of relevance and importance to the regular season, as it allows the top 4 out of 12 playoff teams the ability to play one less game, and have the possible homefield advantage.

Ask the 2011 Patriots if it was not beneficial to them to be able to continue their routine with practice, rest, staying in their own beds, not traveling etc for the last 6 weeks...AND being able to play within the confines of a stadium that they know well, excel playing at, and have the ability to have their home city's fans rooting for them etc.

There's a big difference between playing 2 games @ home, as opposed to playing 3 on the road!!

As far as the playoffs go---the 2011 NYG beat the #1 and #2 seeds, both on the road. How is that not earning their way?

 

[PatriotSeven]

To you, and everyone else that keeps saying that, in the OP's defense he is not suggesting that at all.

His suggestion is something like this:
Week 1: NFCE vs NFCN, and NFCS vs NFCW
Week 2: NFCE vs NFCS, and NFCN vs NFCW
Week 3: NFCE vs NFCW, and NFCN vs NFCS
Now look and see who has the best W-L record, and they proceed to the Super Bowl. During the same three weeks do the same format with the AFC teams.

It is nothing at all like what the BCS is, nor is it anything at all like what a college playoff system would be like if one were to be instituted.


If I missed anything PatriotSeven I apologize; please go ahead and clarify if so.

Nope, you didn't miss anything. You are 100% right. And doing that still probably wouldn't stop the Giants from still being in the Super Bowl.

But you might have ended up with the Saints vs Giants in the NFC game instead of the 49ers and the Giants, this year. Though they probably wouldn't have been there in 2007 if this was the structure. And neither would have the 2008 Arizona Cardinals.

Not to mention, everyone gets to watch the best of the best for a full month playing each other. How is that not freaking awesome!

Although they don't have to proceed straight to the Super Bowl. You can still have the AFC/NFC Championship game, and then the Super Bowl. You can take the best 2 of those groups and have them face each other one more time if you wanted to preserve the Championship games.

 

[ausbacker]

Nope, you didn't miss anything. You are 100% right. And doing that still probably wouldn't stop the Giants from still being in the Super Bowl.

But you might have ended up with the Saints vs Giants in the NFC game instead of the 49ers and the Giants, this year. Though they probably wouldn't have been there in 2007 if this was the structure. And neither would have the 2008 Arizona Cardinals.

Not to mention, everyone gets to watch the best of the best for a full month playing each other. How is that not freaking awesome!

Because it devalues the point of playoff seeding, the lynch pin of regular season success and reward.

 

[Satchboogie3]

You're right about that. Sometimes they play worse in the playoffs. The 49ers clearly played worse against the Giants and the Giants still stunk against them. Instead of having the two best team move forward we have the one that sucked the least.

Seriously I am surprised that so many people were unaware that the playoff structure in the NFL is not a true playoff structure and don't understand what one looks like. All the BCS comments make me laugh. That's going even further into a crap hole than what I am talking about.

I don't think you get it. The teams that FAIL and CHOKE and play poorly in the playoffs DONT DESERVE to make the Superbowl. I don't care what their damned record is. If you can't handle the pressure of the playoffs you don't belong playing in the Superbowl. Clearly the Giants play their best when it matters most and can stand up to pressure. Clearly GB and the 9ers can't.

Here's the other issue: The Giants would likely be going to the Superbowl in your suggested playoff format too. They would be 3-0 (with the wild card) so even if they did lose the NO, they would likely still have the best record or would have the head to head with GB/SF.
Wild card:
NYG beat Falcons
1: NYG beat Packers, 49ers beat NO
2: NYG lose to NO, GB beat 49ers
3. NYG beat 49ers, GB beats NO
so ignoring the wild card, you would have NYG advancing at 2-1 with the head to head tie breaker of beating the other 2-1 GB and 2-1 49ers.

So why exactly would that be better? The other problem would be if those teams end up in a 3-way tie. It could get messy.

 

[jmt57]

Because it devalues the point of playoff seeding, the lynch pin of regular season success and reward.

You could still use home field advantage based on the regular season.

#1 seed gets three home games
#2 seed gets two home games, one road game
#3 seed gets one home game, two road games
#4 seed gets no home games and three road games