Patsfan74, I read both of your posts and will respond to both of them here. You make a lot of good points and you are right. I
am defining who is the best in different terms than what the playoffs are telling us the best teams are. I mean that was my whole point. I don't agree that we're always getting the best teams even in the Championship games, let alone the Super Bowl.
But I think you are a bit confused still in what I am asking judging by your comments of computer systems and W/L records. I wouldn't agree that just because the Patriots or GB have the best records that they are the best teams. That's silly too. There are plenty of weak divisions in the NFL which can create artificial #1 records. Which is the entire point of a round-robin style playoff system. A round-robin playoff structure doesn't care about your W/L record. In fact it cares less about that because regardless of your "seed" you
still have to face
all of the other champions. Something that's not currently taking place. So it doesn't care that you go 16-0, if you can't
also pass through all 3 champions and come out with one of the two best
playoff records to advance to the Championship game. A playoff record wouldn't just be something used for records comparisons, but it would actually be something meaningful and of value each and every year. You have to beat the best, and go through the best, to be the best.
Currently, at the end of a regular season we do assign the #1-6 teams in the playoffs by seeds as if they really were the best teams going into the playoffs. It is in fact, currently, more like the BCS games, and it does in fact favor the #1 seed. Just not the best team. What round-robin would do, is re-arrange them
before the Championship game to make sure they
really are the real #1 and #2 teams in their respective conferences. So in other words, just because GB finished 15-1 and Pats 13-3, it wouldn't mean they would have an easier time if they really, truly were not as good as their records suggest. Round-robin actually weeds out the "artificial" #1 seeds which, though a rare occurrence, might not really be as good as a wild card team, though they would benefit from that schedule.
But it also weeds out the inconsistent and "opportunistic" teams that find their way in the playoffs that thrive on...luck and an opportunistic win or perhaps an
ideal combination of opponents. A team that might never actually even need to face a #1 or even a #2 team, not because of something they did, but because of something some
other team accomplished. Currently, someone else can take out the best teams so you don't even have to worry about them. This year, the 49ers played a great game to take out the one team the Giants never even got close to beating, the Saints.
A hypothetical example of the issue with the current playoff format:
Assume for a second the best team in a conference is actually the #3 seed. If a #6 seed somehow manages to take down the best team(seed #3) in the wildcard round by chance or luck, then not only is the best team gone, but all the other teams have less to worry about. They made it easier for everyone else while not really improving their own chances. They weakened the entire playoff competition while their task remains just as hard.
In addition it makes it very easy for the #1 seed, who might not even be the second best team, to end up in the Championship game and the Super bowl. The #1 seed would still get to face that weak #6 team in the divisional round while the better teams are knocking each other silly trying to get into the NFC Championship. They never get tested and they also get to stay nice and healthy and face middle of the road competition all the way to the Super Bowl. Check the Giants injury report versus the Patriots injury report and see if there's any kind of logic behind the argument that more games would result in more injuries. It's not the number of games that cause injuries, it's the toughest games, that produce the most injuries.
A round robin also "protects" that overachieving #6 seed from getting beat up by a #1 seed and getting knocked out because they would register one of the 2 or 3 W's they would need to advance. But that "best team", seed #3, would still be left in the tournament and all the other teams would still have to get through them if they want to advance. Likewise, if they were as good as their record suggest they would also get another chance to continue and redeem themselves. Right now if the best teams happens to be the #3 or #4 spot, and the second best team is the #5 or #6 seed, then there's a good chance the best teams will not reach the super bowl.
Currently, the seeding systems give opportunities and chances to mediocre teams who don't perform well in the regular season by allowing wild cards to advance. However, it doesn't extend this level of generosity to teams who win consistently every single week, not just in the playoffs, and completely dismisses their hard work, accomplishments, and everything they put into season if they simply happen to get sucker punched in the playoffs in one game. No do-over for them. No second chances. In fact if you're already really good, you basically need to be perfect the entire season to make the Super Bowl, something the Patriots already know. Mediocre teams, don't have to worry about the first part.
A round robin style playoff format, while not perfect either, doesn't benefit the team with the best winning record, it doesn't benefit the team with the worst winning record. It benefits the true best teams by forcing all teams to take the
same road to get to the Championship. It's purpose is to spit out the two best teams, indifferent of their W/L records or seeding going into the playoffs and almost completely eliminate chance and bad teams from getting through. Right now, not all teams race the same race. Some get
shortcuts reserved only for them by sheer seed placement or pre-determined schedule. So basically it tests all teams against the
same standard. Once you get out of this phase, chance, luck, and opportunity is right back in the game for the major Championships. So if the Giants were that team, they'd have nothing to worry about.
The NFL originally did in fact start off with a playoff system that more frequently produced the top 4 teams in the Championship games. When they had 3 divisions in each conference, there were still only 8 teams in the playoffs, 4 in each conference, and it wasn't yet necessary to add a round-robin playoff structure because you almost always ended up with the best 4 teams in the playoffs. And that's what you want. But as more teams joined the league, and more teams needed money to survive and stay in business the playoff format was slightly adjusted to create more playoff spots, in the form of wild card teams, but chose NOT to restructure the playoff format. They let it be decided by seeds and single elimination. The main motive behind it, was not competition. It was certainly not player safety(teams could care less about NFL players getting hurt up until about the late 80's). And it was none of the things you want to believe. It was money! So I disagree with the statement that what I am asking for is a Cyber Bowl, but rather, getting rid of the "Money Bowl", and bring back the real Super Bowl.
And as far as this part goes:
The NFL has devised a system that identifies the toughest, most well-coached and, here is a very important point, deepest and hungriest and guttiest teams in the league. Not the best teams as measured by output, but the best teams as measured by their ability to keep getting it done over and over against the worst odds and, sometimes, that can take advantage of a lucky break or two...see Tucks and Velcro helmets and Wide Rights and Wide Lefts...
You've just described the New England Patriots over the past 10 years. The Giants simply don't fit into that description. And the only way the Giants would have the worst odds, is if they really had to go through the best
playing teams in the playoffs this year. And that can easily be debated. They simply went through the best "seeds", nothing more. And if you have such a big issue with regular season winning records, then how can you sit there and repeatedly state they beat
the best teams? The best teams according to what? The regular season records so many are eager to discount as being unimportant? That's an obvious two sided argument. People either need to make up their minds or come to the conclusion, like I have come to the conclusion, that we will
never know. And that's just a shame.
But they do certainly fit the second portion of that, or more correctly this definition:
op·por·tun·is·tic/ˌäpərt(y)o͞oˈnistik/
Adjective:
Exploiting chances offered by immediate circumstances without reference to moral principle.
(of a plant or animal) Able to spread quickly in a previously unexploited habitat.
They certainly have gotten very good at figuring out how to be very opportunistic and take advantages of the NFL playoff structure. Twice in 5 years. And they should be credited for it because they have gotten even better at it, no longer needing a double digit winning record, but can now end up in the Super Bowl with only 9 regular season wins. Perhaps next year, they can do it with 6 because apparently now that Tim Tebow's here, who can almost do it with 8, playing only 11 games a season, they have some serious competition
But that's not going to earn them my credit though for being the best team.
PS: Round-robin also doesn't eliminate or assure Goliath wins every year. The perceived underachiever and underdog still has the same chances to succeed or come through. In fact, probably even more.
