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

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Somebody please lock this thread up, before anyone else loses brain cells reading silly arguments about how cheated we should feel

 

[BradyFTW!]

Happy to help.

This unforced error led to seven points...which was greater than your margin of victory:



To clinch the MVP-of-the-game honors, Williams then coughed up the ball again which put you in range for the winning FG:



If Ted Ginn wasn't inactive I think the 49ers go to the Super Bowl. Their DL was abusing their OL and QB.

Oh, ok, so now we're also ignoring plays that someone thinks shouldn't have happened (but did). Makes sense.

On a similar note, if Lee Evans had just gone to the ground like he'd been coached to do, the Ravens would be in the Super Bowl. The margin for making the SB or sitting at home is razor-thin, in both the AFC and the NFC.

 

[ScottieC]

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?

Anyone wanna give us the 2 sentence cliff notes of this essay?

 

[Deus Irae]

Anyone wanna give us the 2 sentence cliff notes of this essay?

It can really be summed up with one sentence:

Poster has bad idea about changing the playoffs.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Like I said, I understand about me being in the minority. Most people only care about titles, while I happen to a part of the minority who still believes there's something about really being the best.

That's not it at all. It's not that we don't care about being the best. It's that the current system does determine who is best. The team that wins it all is the one and only team that beats every opponent in its path. Therefore, that team is the best. Any team that doesn't win it all has only itself to blame, because that team lost.

Clinging to this straw-man position that literally everybody else on this forum "doesn't care about really being the best" just makes you look childish.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It can really be summed up with one sentence:

Poster has bad idea about changing the playoffs.

The second sentence:

Implication is that poster doesn't think the Pats deserved to play in (let alone win) the 2001 Super Bowl.

 

[Catch42]

Read what you're saying though. The rest of the season games don't matter? You think those teams don't want to perform? The 49ers, Patriots, Green Bay and the Saints didn't bust their ass every single game of the season? Are you not supposed to perform for the other 16 games?

It happens. Even the best get beaten on a bad day, but the playoffs, and who gets to play in such a huge game shouldn't come down to one bad day. It really should be about the best teams. And right now, only one of them is playing in it.

And from where I am standing, it's a shame.

Haven't finished reading this thread yet, but the Pats didn't beat a team with a winning record all year till last week. How exactly did they bust their ass all season. From your logic if a team has some key injuries in the middle of the year they should be eliminated from playoff contention, since they would have lost some games they probably shouldn't have.

In your idea the Giants would have played the Saint, Packers, and 49ers. Well they beat 2 of those teams in the past 2 weeks on the road. I'll admit as a Giants fan I wanted no part of the saints. I was a little scared of that match up. From the sound of this thread you are even more scared of this match up.

 

[PatriotSeven]

That's not it at all. It's not that we don't care about being the best. It's that the current system does determine who is best. The team that wins it all is the one and only team that beats every opponent in its path. Therefore, that team is the best. Any team that doesn't win it all has only itself to blame, because that team lost.

Clinging to this straw-man position that literally everybody else on this forum "doesn't care about really being the best" just makes you look childish.

Are you seriously typing that with a straight face? Maybe if you repeat it enough times it will be true.

When the Patriots blow out the Giants by 20 points this year, I think Goodell will actually get his wish and do the right thing.

You know it's not the first time they have restructured it and they should have done it last year. This time it burnt 3 very major markets: Saints, Packers and 49ers.

Now they have to take a closer look at it. Nobody cared as long as crappy teams and small markets got shafted, but now that it's starting to take a chunk of the major owner's pockets who have spend more money than anyone on fielding top talent, they're going to re-consider.

 

[Catch42]

Are you seriously typing that with a straight face? Maybe if you repeat it enough times it will be true.

When the Patriots blow out the Giants by 20 points this year, I think Goodell will actually get his wish and do the right thing.

You know it's not the first time they have restructured it and they should have done it last year. This time it burnt 3 very major markets: Saints, Packers and 49ers.

Now they have to take a closer look at it. Nobody cared as long as crappy teams and small markets got shafted, but now that it's starting to take a chunk of the major owner's pockets who have spend more money than anyone on fielding top talent, they're going to re-consider.

LOL I never knew San Fran, Green Bay, and New Orleans were considered large markets.

 

[ScottieC]

It can really be summed up with one sentence:

Poster has bad idea about changing the playoffs.

Ah, Thank you for saving me the time Deus!

 

[ScottieC]

The second sentence:

Implication is that poster doesn't think the Pats deserved to play in (let alone win) the 2001 Super Bowl.

Oh sweet lord.

No wonder this thread is getting so large. I've been wondering that myself for over 10 years!

Thanks! Carry on.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Are you seriously typing that with a straight face? Maybe if you repeat it enough times it will be true.

It already is true. It's the entire premise of the NFL playoffs

When the Patriots blow out the Giants by 20 points this year, I think Goodell will actually get his wish and do the right thing.

There have been plenty of Super Bowls that were decided by >20 points, and no change was forthcoming because it wasn't needed.

You know it's not the first time they have restructured it and they should have done it last year. This time it burnt 3 very major markets: Saints, Packers and 49ers.

Green Bay and New Orleans are major markets, now? By what standard? Here are teams that are much larger markets than either of those that have been knocked out of the playoffs by a lower seed just over the past three years:

2010: #1 seed New England knocked out in divisional round by a lower seed, #3 seed Philly knocked out in Wild Card round by a lower seed, #2 seed Chicago knocked out in NFCCG by a lower seed. #1 seed Atlanta knocked out in divisional round by a lower seed.

2009: #3 seed new England knocked out in wild card round by a lower seed, #2 seed San Diego (major market if you consider that it is the only SoCal team) knocked out by lower seed in divisional round.

2008: #3 seed Miami knocked out in wild card round by a lower seed, #1 seed New York knocked out in divisional round by a lower seed, #2 seed Carolina knocked out in divisional round by a lower seed.

There are a lot of examples in there of comparably sized markets that I left out- I only went with the ones that are clearly larger.

Now they have to take a closer look at it. Nobody cared as long as crappy teams and small markets got shafted, but now that it's starting to take a chunk of the major owner's pockets who have spend more money than anyone on fielding top talent, they're going to re-consider.

Look: the facts don't back you up, the spirit of competition doesn't back you up, history doesn't back you up, practicality doesn't back you up... nothing does. It's a stupid idea. Sorry to be blunt about it, but this is one of the worst ideas that I've ever heard seriously proposed on this forum, and the longer that you flail around making up pretend facts to suit your argument (lol, Green Bay is a major market), the worse it reflects on you. Just give it up, already.

Anyways, sorry in advance, I don't mean to be a jerk about this, but threads like this just don't do anyone any good. You made your point, and literally nobody agrees with it. It's not because you're some misunderstood football savant- it's because your opinions do not in any way reflect reality or common sense. It is what it is.

 

[PatriotSeven]

They're a lot larger than when this happened for example with the Arizona Cardinals in 2008 when they beat the Panthers at home due to Jake Delhomme throwing 6 interceptions after getting past Atlanta in the wild card round.

The NFL didn't really see a problem considering the NFC South weren't exactly killing it in jersey sales. Or maybe it was because the Cardinals really were the best team in the NFC in 2008...

Now it's 3 wild card teams times in 5 years though, with 2 of them being the Giants. And out of only 3 9-7 teams that have done this in history, 2 of them happened in the past 4 years. Yeah that's a problem. That's not what the playoffs were designed to produce in the Super Bowl.

 

[Catch42]

They're a lot larger than when this happened for example with the Arizona Cardinals in 2008 when they beat the Panthers at home due to Jake Delhomme throwing 6 interceptions after getting past Atlanta in the wild card round.

The NFL didn't really see a problem considering the NFC South weren't exactly killing it in jersey sales. Or maybe it was because the Cardinals really were the best team in the NFC in 2008...

Now it's 3 wild card teams times in 5 years though, with 2 of them being the Giants. And out of only 3 9-7 teams that have done this in history, 2 of them happened in the past 4 years. Yeah that's a problem. That's not what the playoffs were designed to produce in the Super Bowl.

Maybe those other teams should stop letting the Giants beat them?

 

[Wolfpack]

You know it's not the first time they have restructured it and they should have done it last year. This time it burnt 3 very major markets: Saints, Packers and 49ers.

Now they have to take a closer look at it. Nobody cared as long as crappy teams and small markets got shafted, but now that it's starting to take a chunk of the major owner's pockets who have spend more money than anyone on fielding top talent, they're going to re-consider.

Well, to quote you, are you seriously typing that with a straight face? Maybe if you repeat it enough times it will be true.

You're conspiracy theory is ridiculous and absurd. The funny thing is that even if ownership was willing to behave in the way you think, why in the world would they be upset that NEW YORK replaced Green Bay or New Orleans or San Francisco?

 

[BradyFTW!]

They're a lot larger than when this happened for example with the Arizona Cardinals in 2008 when they beat the Panthers at home due to Jake Delhomme throwing 6 interceptions after getting past Atlanta in the wild card round.

The NFL didn't really see a problem considering the NFC South weren't exactly killing it in jersey sales. Or maybe it was because the Cardinals really were the best team in the NFC in 2008...

Now it's 3 wild card teams times in 5 years though, with 2 of them being the Giants. And out of only 3 9-7 teams that have done this in history, 2 of them happened in the past 4 years. Yeah that's a problem. That's not what the playoffs were designed to produce in the Super Bowl.

In those very same playoffs, the #1 seeded New York Giants were knocked off by a 9-6-1 wild card that barely made the playoffs. I'm sure that the NFL didn't do anything then because New York is a small market that doesn't sell any jerseys, though, right?

 

[PatriotSeven]

Well, to quote you, are you seriously typing that with a straight face? Maybe if you repeat it enough times it will be true.

You're conspiracy theory is ridiculous and absurd. The funny thing is that even if ownership was willing to behave in the way you think, why in the world would they be upset that NEW YORK replaced Green Bay or New Orleans or San Francisco?

What conspiracy theory? There's no conspiracy theory. 3 wild card teams made the super bowl in the past 5 years. That's a fact. When the hottest teams get knocked out after one game in the playoffs, they lose money. Some owners spend more money to field great coaches, players and teams.

They shouldn't be getting screwed over by a flawed playoff system because they're not cheap. They deserve to recoup on their investment by having additional playoff games.

And it's in the spirit of competition. This playoff system eliminates good competition quickly rather than reward it.

 

[Wolfpack]

What conspiracy theory? There's no conspiracy theory. 3 wild card teams made the super bowl in the past 5 years. That's a fact. When the hottest teams get knocked out after one game in the playoffs, they lose money.

Wait, who's "they"? Yes, the GB Packers lose money by not hosting the NFCCG, money which went to San Francisco instead. But if you mean "the league" somehow loses money when a hot team gets knocked out, that's absolutely absurd.

Some owners spend more money to field great coaches, players and teams.

They shouldn't be getting screwed over by a flawed playoff system because they're not cheap. They deserve to recoup on their investment by having additional playoff games.

And it's in the spirit of competition. This playoff system eliminates good competition quickly rather than reward it.

Nobody's being screwed because the system doesn't inherantly favor any one franchise over any other. It's perfectly fair and everything is decided on the field of play. If GB and NO are pissed, they have only themselves to blame. They knew they had to win against NY and SF but they lost, fair and square. Nobody's been screwed just because they had great regular seasons.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Wild card teams comprise 33% of the playoff teams in the NFL. They also comprise 33% of the Super Bowl representatives over the past 5 years.

What that says, to me, is that a good wild card team has just as good of a shot at making the SB as a good division winner. Why is that a bad thing?

Because it means they have an equal shot. So you can be a mediocre team and make the Super Bowl?


And those total numbers may not look so bad but when you consider 60% of the NFC representatives in the Super Bowl in the past 4 years were teams with the worst records, that's the issue. Where is the incentive for an owner or a team to put together a 16 win team if they have less of a chance to make the Super Bowl than an average team? Why pay free agents and solid veterans? Why not just put together and average team if you are in the NFC because you have a better chance of making the Super Bowl, thus a better chance of winning one?

When 60% of the NFC teams in the Super Bowl are average teams in the past 4 years, you have a flawed playoff system. That's NOT what it's supposed to produce. It failed. The average teams are now, at least statistically, on equal footing or the favorites to make the Super Bowl in the NFC. It's ******ed.

Read that comment 5 times and see if that makes any sense. I honestly don't see why so many people have an issue with the division champion having to play each champion before being called the freaking champion and moving on. What are you afraid of? Change?

 

[Deus Irae]

Because it means they have an equal shot. So you can be a mediocre team and make the Super Bowl?


And those total numbers may not look so bad but when you consider 60% of the NFC representatives in the Super Bowl in the past 4 years were wild card teams, that's the issue. Where is the incentive for an owner or a team to put together a 16 win team if they have less of a chance to make the Super Bowl than an average team? Why pay free agents and solid veterans? Why not just put together and average team if you are in the NFC because you have a better chance of making the Super Bowl, thus a better chance of winning one?

When 60% of the NFC teams in the Super Bowl are wild card teams in the past 4 years, you have a flawed playoff system. That's NOT what it's supposed to produce. It failed. The wildcards are now, at least statistically, the favorites to make the Super Bowl in the NFC. It's ******ed.

Read that comment 5 times and see if that makes any sense. I honestly don't see why so many people have an issue with the division champion having to play each champion before being called the freaking champion and moving on. What are you afraid of? Change?

1.) You don't seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

2.) You don't seem to understand the notion of sample size.

3.) You don't seem to understand the difference between small market and large market.

There are other issues, but those are pretty big misses on your part.