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

[strngplyr]

get sent home because of one bad day.

You don't think the Giants had anything to do with those bad days? Giants went into their homes and kicked the **** out of them. By your logic, the Giants should have been absolutely demolished by all the playoff teams they face, instead, all 3 teams coincidentally have bad days when the Giants show up?

Maybe one. Not three.

 

[ausbacker]

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

I had considered that when the OP was put up but discounted it immediately given it serves no purpose given the system is already set up to reward higher seeds with home field advantage. The Packers laid and egg, the 49ers had their chances and simply lost out.

Furthermore, it completely nullifies the joy of winning the Championship round and going to the Superbowl as other results may not have determined who wins their respective conferences.

I applaud the out of the box thinking, I just don't like the rationale behind it.

 

[Ring 6]

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

What happens when all 4 teams are 2-2? Or when 2 are 3-1?
I don't understand the value of allowing teams to lose in the playoffs and still keep playing.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The regular season games are sometimes 3 or 4 months before. Teams change, injuries happen, game plans get figured out, tons of adjustments are made, things change. To say a team is better because they won a few weeks or months before doesn't make any sense.

You keep going on and on about the 2007 Cowboys, but did you look at anything besides their final record? They won every single game in their first 13 weeks except for a loss to NE, and no shame in that. But in the last 3 weeks, the offense that averaged over 28 points per game was held to 26 points TOTAL on their way to losing 2 of 3 games, scoring 6 points in each of those losses. The only win was a 7-point victory over a 7-9 Carolina team that got outscored by 80 points in the regular season. Clearly, the Cowboys were not playing well before they even got to the play-offs.

Those Cowboys played the Giants opening week, and anything can happen in the opening week, so that game doesn't really mean much. Heck, we lost to Buffalo 31-0 in the first week of a season and went on to win the Superbowl.

The next match-up was November 11, but then over two months would pass before they would meet up again. Teams change quite a bit over two months. The Bills won 5 games in the first two months of this season, then would take another two months to win their 6th game of the season.

Maybe the 13-3 Packers deserved it more. They were the better team. Then again, they lost both division games to the 7-9 Chicago Bears who didn't even make the play-offs. Does that mean Chicago deserved a shot instead? I mean they beat the #1 conference seed twice.

There is always the chance of someone having a bad day and losing, and the simplest way to eliminate luck would be to have more than one game, say best 2 of 3 advances. Yet we see it in other sports that do have those systems where the "best" team doesn't always win in a multi-game series.

There are always upsets. Life is filled with upsets. But while you seem obsessed with the outcome of that one Cowboys/Giants game in the play-offs, just remember the Giants still went 10-6 in a division that sent 3 teams to the play-offs. They had a better record than 9-7 Tampa, yet had to play there in the first round because Tampa won a weak division. They beat the top two seeds in the conference at their places. Then they beat an undefeated Patriots team. You can cry fluke all you want, but the overall record over the last 4 or 5 games is hard to argue.

 

[strngplyr]

What happens when all 4 teams are 2-2? Or when 2 are 3-1?
I don't understand the value of allowing teams to lose in the playoffs and still keep playing.

This basically, what makes the playoffs so thrilling is that you only get one chance. I don't want to face -every- team, I want to face the ones good enough to advance.

 

[PatriotSeven]

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.

But the team who loses 7 games in the regular season, gets thrashed by the Washington freaking Redskins, twice, barely gets past the Jets, gets passed a wobbled GB team where their OC was coaching a game a week after burying his son, and then plays a sloppy game against the 49ers deserve to be in it...

..meanwhile the Saints don't, even though the Saints trashed them? And the Saints didn't choke in the playoffs. They lost a hard fought game by 3 to a different team.

How does the Saints losing by 3 points to the 49ers automatically make the Giants the better team, when the Saints murdered them?

 

[Ring 6]

This basically, what makes the playoffs so thrilling is that you only get one chance. I don't want to face -every- team, I want to face the ones good enough to advance.

Right.
If you are going to play a 4 game mini-post season to figure out who is in the SB because we are now abandoning the idea that the best team is the one that steps up wins the game that is win or go home, do we have to have a best of 7 SB series?

 

[reflexblue]

But the team who loses 7 games in the regular season, gets thrashed by the Washington freaking Redskins, twice, barely gets past the Jets, gets passed a wobbled GB team where their OC was coaching a game a week after burying his son, and then plays a sloppy game against the 49ers deserve to be in it...

I see, The Giants beat the pats in the regular season therefor the pats shouldn't be in the SB playing the giants

 

[Satchboogie3]

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

The problem is you could end up with 2 3-0 teams, etc. It would make the possible scenarios a nightmare, have to play extra games, etc. The other issue is that this whole structure because a mute point because of one simple fact: The #1 seed is awarded with getting to face the lowest seeds. You are arguing you want the best teams to advance, how is giving them homefield and the lowest seeds not enough? Seriously. If you can't beat a 6 seed at home after a bye, you don't deserve to go to the big game. Period. PERIOD.

 

[fair catch fryar]

If they could have a best out of three then you might be on to something, but the playoffs would be longer than the regular season. I like it just the way it is. Losing to the Giants in 2007 REALLY sucked balls and the Patriots might of beat them 8 out of 10 times, but when it counted the Giants were the better team and I'm okay with that.....or at least I've learned to live with it.

 

[Ring 6]

But the team who loses 7 games in the regular season, gets thrashed by the Washington freaking Redskins, twice, barely gets past the Jets, gets passed a wobbled GB team where their OC was coaching a game a week after burying his son, and then plays a sloppy game against the 49ers deserve to be in it...

..meanwhile the Saints don't, even though the Saints trashed them? And the Saints didn't choke in the playoffs. They lost a hard fought game by 3 to a different team.

How does the Saints losing by 3 points to the 49ers automatically make the Giants the better team, when the Saints murdered them?

Do we put the team you can make the most excuses for in the SB?

Here is what the NFL is about.
The best team is the one that wins the SB.
They have a regular season to eliminate 20 teams, and allow for the teams that have the best regular seasons to have an advantage (home field, bye) in the playoffs.
The regular season was played to determine the setup for the playoffs, which are win or go home.
To compare a regular season game to a playoff game is just ignoring what the league is about.
The 2003 Patriots lost to the awful Bills and Redskins. By your argument that should disqualify them. The 2004 Patriots lost to the Steelers in the reg season before beating them in the AFCC. By your standard they werent deserving either. You can do this with every team except the 72 Dolphins and 07 Patriots. Until you understand how best is defined, there is no system that makes sense.

 

[PatriotSeven]

What happens when all 4 teams are 2-2? Or when 2 are 3-1?
I don't understand the value of allowing teams to lose in the playoffs and still keep playing.

Because that's actually a true playoff system. And you don't allow losing teams to keep playing. You just allow everyone to play 3 games. The losing teams would get weeded out just the same.

But if you have 3 games you wouldn't be 2-2. And even if it came down to that, you would use tie breakers the same way we do now. You continue single elimination right after the group stage.

When you get past the group stage that's when you are one and done. It doesn't prevent great teams from advancing. It doesn't stop good underdogs from advancing. It prevents one great team being completely knocked out because of one crappy game out of the 16 they played all year. Or because of one bad call by a referee.

 

[jmt57]

What happens when all 4 teams are 2-2? Or when 2 are 3-1?
I don't understand the value of allowing teams to lose in the playoffs and still keep playing.

I'm not endorsing his concept; I was just responding to someone else by pointing out that doing well in the regular season still meant something.

The scenario you pointed out, for example two teams going 2-1, is to me the fatal flaw in this design. As I mentioned earlier it is bad enough that playoff spots are already determined by a series of tiebreaker options; to use tiebreakers to determine who would advance in the playoffs would be just plain wrong in my opinion.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Patriotseven, you keep talking about the regular season this, regular season that. The teams in the playoffs are NOT the same teams at the start of the season or even mid way through. Injuries, schedule, scheme, so and so forth play a big factor in how a team performs. Just follow Belichicks philosophy: You want to play your best football at the end of the season. It doesn't matter what you did in week 1,5,10, or 13. All that matters is what you are doing in december and on. How is that not exactly what the Gaints are? They get healthy and play their best ball when it matters? They made the playoffs, that ALONE gives them the right to fight for the Superbowl. Clearly they are playing well enough to deserve their spot. Give them their damned credit already. You don't just accidentally stumble into the Superbowl. It's f*cking hard to get their, regardless of who you play.

 

[ausbacker]

Because that's actually a true playoff system. And you don't allow losing teams to keep playing. You just allow everyone to play 3 games. The losing teams would get weeded out just the same.

But if you have 3 games you wouldn't be 2-2. And even if it came down to that, you would use tie breakers the same way we do now. You continue single elimination right after the group stage.

When you get past the group stage that's when you are one and done. It doesn't prevent great teams from advancing. It doesn't stop good underdogs from advancing. It prevents one great team being completely knocked out because of one crappy game out of the 16 they played all year. Or because of one bad call by a referee.

Pardon me for correcting you but it's not any truer than an elimination playoff system, it's an elongated playoff system. It appears you are not able to make the differentiation.

As I said, the concept is interesting, the rationale behind it not so much.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Playing up to 7 games in the playoffs is just ridiculous. It's hard enough for teams to play a 19 or 20 game season as it is and you want to add more? Give me a break. The system works perfectly right now.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Do we put the team you can make the most excuses for in the SB?

Here is what the NFL is about.
The best team is the one that wins the SB.
They have a regular season to eliminate 20 teams, and allow for the teams that have the best regular seasons to have an advantage (home field, bye) in the playoffs.
The regular season was played to determine the setup for the playoffs, which are win or go home.
To compare a regular season game to a playoff game is just ignoring what the league is about.
The 2003 Patriots lost to the awful Bills and Redskins. By your argument that should disqualify them. The 2004 Patriots lost to the Steelers in the reg season before beating them in the AFCC. By your standard they werent deserving either. You can do this with every team except the 72 Dolphins and 07 Patriots. Until you understand how best is defined, there is no system that makes sense.

I don't agree with that. You can't convince me the 9-7 Giants are a better team than the 15-1 GB this year no matter how many Super Bowl wins they get. They beat them once, GB beat them once.

But GB won 15 freaking games. They beat 15 different opponents, including the ones that beat them. There is no way in hell you can convince me the Giants are better just because they won a freaking playoff game on a day when GB forgot who they were.

That's like trying to convince me Muhamad Ali really sucked as a boxer because he lost a few matches at the end of his career when his head wasn't all there.

Blasphemy.

Point blank? The Giants suck and they're going down! Pats have a bigger purpose now. This team has stolen the thunders of one too many teams that busted their ass to get there. It's the Patriots duty to absolutely demolish them and send them back into the crap hole that is currently the NFC West never to return again until they can figure out how to put together a string of 13 wins.

Bunch of freaking underachievers. I don't wanna hear anymore about the artificial greatness of the stinky Giants.

 

[strngplyr]

Because that's actually a true playoff system. And you don't allow losing teams to keep playing. You just allow everyone to play 3 games. The losing teams would get weeded out just the same.

But if you have 3 games you wouldn't be 2-2. And even if it came down to that, you would use tie breakers the same way we do now. You continue single elimination right after the group stage.

When you get past the group stage that's when you are one and done. It doesn't prevent great teams from advancing. It doesn't stop good underdogs from advancing. It prevents one great team being completely knocked out because of one crappy game out of the 16 they played all year. Or because of one bad call by a referee.

Many players can't even survive the regular season and need full length of the already 6 month long off season to recover. You want to shorten the off season and lengthen the playoffs simultaneously. Some teams can already play up to 25 games in a season (HoF game -> SB).

You also have a potential floating SB date, what happens when one conference finishes its seeding in the group section and the other conference needs more time to play? One team gets a lot of extra rest while others are out there killing each other, the SB would potentially be played in March, etc. The SB is the biggest sporting event on American soil, and takes a very long time to prepare the venue, the city has to prepare for tourists, etc.

Your idea is awful, no offence. The playoffs are fine the way they are, they aren't perfect, but they are far superior than your system.

 

[doesntmatter1]

I like the system as is, but can you imagine the amount of injuries that would pile up with seven's idea. He feels robbed of watching great teams in the superbowl but how would you feel if a crap load of third stringers is what you get in the end. Pollard, ray lewis, and steeler players beating up every team physically.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Patriotseven, why are you having such a difficult time understanding this: It isn't about who has the best record, it's about who can win the games come January and February. NO coach or player agree's with your view point. The game is PLAYED the way it's structured. Just get in the playoffs and then it's a new season, any given sunday. That's whats fun. I DONT want the best teams always winning because then whats the f8cking point. Why not just skip all the games and hand the trophy to what ever team looks the best on paper come September 1st. Jesus....

I bet your secretly a New York Yankee fan who's upset that the #1 payroll in baseball can't win a championship every single year. I have the best team or most money so I should win! :scream: