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

[Wolfpack]

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?

You know what? If an owner decided to take that idiotic approach to fielding a team, then he gets what he deserves.

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.

I can't tell if you keep making typos or you just don't know 2nd grade level math.

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?

A round robin format would be idiotic. And playing best 2-of-3 simply doesn't work due to the nature of the sport.

What's most ridiculous about your solution is it doesn't do anything to solve the problem you keep complaining about. The Giants beat the top 2 seeds in the playoffs this year, so it's safe to assume they would have beat GB and SF if it had been a round robin tournment. 4 years ago the Giants also beat the top 2 seeds in the playoffs. AZ beat the #2 seed and then they beat the team that beat the #1 seed.

So your ridiculous "solution" has done absolutely nothing to solve the very problem you are complaining about.

 

[PatriotSeven]

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.

I'm not even worried about those things. That's not even the argument. That was mainly to point out it has been brought up to the owners and the reason it wasn't really backed up before was because not enough owners were getting burnt to be bothered by it. This is clearly kind of becoming an issue now.

The bigger picture is the best teams aren't getting a fair shot at advancing. Sometimes it's the teams who get lucky on every given Sunday. Imagine if the Patriots had a bad day against the Broncos and Broncos made it past them and find themselves in the Super Bowl. Would the Broncos be the best team in the AFC this year? They had trouble selling out playoff tickets.

Luckily that didn't happen, but considering even the St. Louis Rams nailed the Saints by ~20 some points, it could have very well have happened. Even the Rams could very well make the Super Bowl, in the state they are, given a shot at the playoffs. They could just as easily do what the Giants did if they faced the playoff versions of that GB team and that 49ers team.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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?

OK, try to keep up. This really isn't complicated, I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble grasping it. Wild cards represent 33% of playoff teams. Wild cards also represent 30% of Super Bowl contestants over the past 5 years. Small sample size aside, I guess you could take that to indicate that a good wild card team has a pretty good shot at making the Super Bowl. And why shouldn't they? But that's just the start of it. Now you have to look at the other 70%.

Teams with byes (#1 and #2 seeds) also represent 33% of the playoff field. Over the past five years, six of them have made the Super Bowl, and we haven't had a single Super Bowl that did not feature at least one of them. In other words: teams that secure a #1 or #2 seed are twice as likely to make the Super Bowl as wild cards are, and 6 times more likely to make the Super Bowl than a division winner that does not secure a bye. Seeding appears, at least, to matter, although we can't be certain if that's correlation or causation at work. In either case, though, it demonstrates the system is working.

The only point where seeding stops correlating to winning is the difference between a #3/#4 seed and a wild card. The reason for this is obvious: the best teams that didn't win their division are consistently better than the teams that won the worst divisions. Being the #4 seed means, pretty much by definition, that you won a division that tended to lose its matchups against teams in other divisions. This, more than anything else, points out how fundamentally flawed your proposal is, since the eight division winners simply are not the eight best teams in the NFL.

All of that said, it's kind of a moot point since there are no wild cards playing in this SB. In fact, this year was the first time that I can remember where every wild card team was knocked out in the wild card round. This was the year that everything worked how you think it's supposed to. That's still not good enough for you, though, because you don't think that the right division winner made it to the Super Bowl, even though that team went on the road and beat both of the top NFC seeds to get here.

And to answer your question, no, it has nothing to do with fear of change. It's because your notion of who "deserves" a shot is demonstrably wrong. Most years, the second best team in the NFL's toughest division is simply better than the best team in the weakest one. And that's why the current system works: it gives the division winners an advantage that's directly proportionate to how good they actually are, then makes them earn it the rest of the way. Or, for the TL;DR: we don't dislike your idea because we're afraid of change; we dislike your idea because it's dumb and based on a faulty premise.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

In the history of the NFL there was no greater example than the 85 Patriots representing the AFC instead of the Dolphins. They didn't change it then, they won't change it now.

 

[TomPatriot]

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

Atlanta, Green Bay and San Francisco all say hello. They all lost to the Giants. That's why the Giants belong.

The Pittsburgh Steelers should agree with your analysis. Following your logic, the Steelers should be in the Super Bowl instead of the Pats because they beat the Pats during the season.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Atlanta, Green Bay and San Francisco all say hello. They all lost to the Giants. That's why the Giants belong.

The Pittsburgh Steelers should agree with your analysis. Following your logic, the Steelers should be in the Super Bowl instead of the Pats because they beat the Pats during the season.

Following his logic, the Steelers shouldn't have even been in the playoffs since they didn't win their division. This guy's all over the place, using records in one post and then division winners vs. wild cards in the next. I don't even think that he knows what he's trying to argue at this point.

 

[Garbanza]

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?

Is this a joke?

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not even worried about those things. That's not even the argument. That was mainly to point out it has been brought up to the owners and the reason it wasn't really backed up before was because not enough owners were getting burnt to be bothered by it. This is clearly kind of becoming an issue now.

The bigger picture is the best teams aren't getting a fair shot at advancing. Sometimes it's the teams who get lucky on every given Sunday. Imagine if the Patriots had a bad day against the Broncos and Broncos made it past them and find themselves in the Super Bowl. Would the Broncos be the best team in the AFC this year? They had trouble selling out playoff tickets.

Luckily that didn't happen, but considering even the St. Louis Rams nailed the Saints by ~20 some points, it could have very well have happened. Even the Rams could very well make the Super Bowl, in the state they are, given a shot at the playoffs. They could just as easily do what the Giants did if they faced the playoff versions of that GB team and that 49ers team.

Those "things" go directly to the heart of your gripe. At this point, you're either trolling or just clueless.

 

[PatriotSeven]

OK, try to keep up. This really isn't complicated, I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble grasping it. Wild cards represent 33% of playoff teams. Wild cards also represent 30% of Super Bowl contestants over the past 5 years. Small sample size aside, I guess you could take that to indicate that a good wild card team has a pretty good shot at making the Super Bowl. And why shouldn't they? But that's just the start of it. Now you have to look at the other 70%.

Teams with byes (#1 and #2 seeds) also represent 33% of the playoff field. Over the past five years, six of them have made the Super Bowl, and we haven't had a single Super Bowl that did not feature at least one of them. In other words: teams that secure a #1 or #2 seed are twice as likely to make the Super Bowl as wild cards are, and 6 times more likely to make the Super Bowl than a division winner that does not secure a bye. Seeding appears, at least, to matter, although we can't be certain if that's correlation or causation at work. In either case, though, it demonstrates the system is working.

The only point where seeding stops correlating to winning is the difference between a #3/#4 seed and a wild card. The reason for this is obvious: the best teams that didn't win their division are consistently better than the teams that won the worst divisions. Being the #4 seed means, pretty much by definition, that you won a division that tended to lose its matchups against teams in other divisions. This, more than anything else, points out how fundamentally flawed your proposal is, since the eight division winners simply are not the eight best teams in the NFL.

All of that said, it's kind of a moot point since there are no wild cards playing in this SB. In fact, this year was the first time that I can remember where every wild card team was knocked out in the wild card round. This was the year that everything worked how you think it's supposed to.

And to answer your question, no, it has nothing to do with fear of change. It's because your notion of who "deserves" a shot is demonstrably wrong. I'll take the second best team in the NFL's toughest division over the best team in the weakest one any day of the week. And that's why the current system works: it gives the division winners an advantage that's directly proportionate to how good they actually are, then makes them earn it the rest of the way. Or, for the TL;DR: we don't dislike your idea because we're afraid of change; we dislike your idea because it's dumb and based on a faulty premise.

You didn't demonstrate anything wrong. You are choosing a subjective method and faulty one when presenting your numbers. It's typical number fudging and that's not even how it freaking works.

First, you can't correlate wild card teams directly to Super Bowl contenders because NFC wild cards can't represent the AFC in the Super Bowl and vice versa. I've already presented to you my counter argument. Look at the % of wild card or average teams vs NFC representatives as well as % of wild card teams or average teams vs AFC representatives. Because that's how the playoffs work.

Your numbers would ONLY makes sense if any wild card could represent any conference. You aren't even talking reality. The only way your percentages would could have two teams from the same conference in the Super Bowl.

If you want to use TOTAL figures, then go on and compare it to history. 33% might make sense to you if you conveniently chose your sample size, and keep it out of context, but in reality, that's way too freaking high! Since 1970 only 10 wild card teams have made the Super Bowl. 10 wild card teams in 41 Super Bowls. There's been 2 wild card teams and 2 9-7 teams in the past 5 years.

To use faulty logic like yours that would be:
24% in history
21% from 1970 to 2007 < 40% from 2008 to 2012

So by your logic, the chances of making the Super Bowl as a wild card has DOUBLED in the past 5 years. But the idea that since 30% of the teams are wild card teams means that they should make the Super Bowl 30% is complete nonsense and you are confusing yourself with numbers and percentages.

A wild card team or an average team shouldn't have the same chance to make the Super Bowl as a divisional champion. That's what your numbers show and they basically prove my argument correct.

It's gotten out of hand.

 

[jp03]

You didn't demonstrate anything wrong. You are choosing a subjective method and faulty one when presenting your numbers. It's typical number fudging and that's not even how it freaking works.

First, you can't correlate wild card teams directly to Super Bowl contenders because NFC wild cards can't represent the AFC in the Super Bowl and vice versa. I've already presented to you my counter argument. Look at the % of wild card or average teams vs NFC representatives as well as % of wild card teams or average teams vs AFC representatives. Because that's how the playoffs work.

Your numbers would ONLY makes sense if any wild card could represent any conference. You aren't even talking reality. The only way your percentages would could have two teams from the same conference in the Super Bowl.

If you want to use TOTAL figures, then go on and compare it to history. 33% might make sense to you if you conveniently chose your sample size, and keep it out of context, but in reality, that way to freaking high! Since 1970 only 10 wild card teams have made the Super Bowl. 10 wild card teams in 41 Super Bowls. There's been 2 wild card teams and 2 9-7 teams in the past 5 years.

To use faulty logic like yours that would be:
24% in history
21% from 1970 to 2007 < 40% from 2008 to 2012

So by your logic, the chances of making the Super Bowl as a wild card has DOUBLED in the past 5 years. But the idea that since 30% of the teams are wild card teams means that they should make the Super Bowl 30% is complete nonsense and you are confusing yourself with numbers and percentages.

A wild card team shouldn't have the same chance to make the Super Bowl as a divisional champion. That's what your numbers show and they basically prove my argument correct.

It's gotten out of hand.

Keep digging! We are going to officially change your handle name to "THE SHOVEL"

 

[BradyFTW!]

You didn't demonstrate anything wrong. You are choosing a subjective method and faulty one when presenting your numbers. It's typical number fudging and that's not even how it freaking works.

First, you can't correlate wild card teams directly to Super Bowl contenders because NFC wild cards can't represent the AFC in the Super Bowl and vice versa. I've already presented to you my counter argument. Look at the % of wild card or average teams vs NFC representatives as well as % of wild card teams or average teams vs AFC representatives. Because that's how the playoffs work.

Your numbers would ONLY makes sense if any wild card could represent any conference. You aren't even talking reality. The only way your percentages would could have two teams from the same conference in the Super Bowl.

If you want to use TOTAL figures, then go on and compare it to history. 33% might make sense to you if you conveniently chose your sample size, and keep it out of context, but in reality, that's way too freaking high! Since 1970 only 10 wild card teams have made the Super Bowl. 10 wild card teams in 41 Super Bowls. There's been 2 wild card teams and 2 9-7 teams in the past 5 years.

To use faulty logic like yours that would be:
24% in history
21% from 1970 to 2007 < 40% from 2008 to 2012

So by your logic, the chances of making the Super Bowl as a wild card has DOUBLED in the past 5 years. But the idea that since 30% of the teams are wild card teams means that they should make the Super Bowl 30% is complete nonsense and you are confusing yourself with numbers and percentages.

A wild card team or an average team shouldn't have the same chance to make the Super Bowl as a divisional champion. That's what your numbers show and they basically prove my argument correct.

It's gotten out of hand.

They're not my numbers. I'm using the parameters that you started with. And no, the numbers show that a 1-2 seed has a far better shot than anyone else, followed by a 5-6 seed, and then a 3-4 seed. The winners of crappy divisions tend not to be all that good, while the second-best teams in elite divisions tend to be a lot better. Who could have guessed?

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[PatriotSeven]

They're not my numbers. I'm using the parameters that you started with. And no, the numbers show that a 1-2 seed has a far better shot than anyone else, followed by a 5-6 seed, and then a 3-4 seed. The winners of crappy divisions tend not to be all that good, while the second-best teams in elite divisions tend to be a lot better. Who could have guessed?

You can lead a horse to water...

I agree with that, and that's what it was initially designed to do. That's why it was ok to have single elimination. Because typically, it produced the correct outcome. But not the past 5 years.

In the NFC it's now 60% in favor of the wild card or worst seed. Think about it!

I don't wanna see the best versus the worst of the best. That's what we've had the past 5 years. You can't tell me that in all 3 years, 2007, 2008 and now 2011 we missed the true best teams and they were really the Giants twice and Arizona Cardinals.

Those other 16 games proved nothing. 16 weeks worth of football got it wrong but the 3 playoff games got it right? They were just playing with us for 16 games? They didn't really wanna show us what they were about huh?

 

[BradyFTW!]

I agree with that, and that's what it was initially designed to do. That's why it was ok to have single elimination. Because typically, it produced the correct outcome. But not the past 5 years.

In the NFC it's now 60% in favor of the wild card or worst seed. Think about it!

I don't wanna see the best versus the worst of the best. That's what we've had the past 5 years. You can't tell me that in all 3 years, 2007, 2008 and now 2011 we missed the true best teams and they were really the Giants twice and Arizona Cardinals.

Those other 16 games proved nothing. 16 weeks worth of football got it wrong but the 3 playoff games got it right? They were just playing with us for 16 games? They didn't really wanna show us what they were about huh?

the 2011 Giants won their division. Even if the round robin that you're proposing existed, and even if we assume that they would have lost to the Saints had they played them (which I doubt would have happened), the Giants already beat the Packers and 49ers. Even in a round robin scenario, they're still most likely in the Super Bowl.

Meanwhile, in your round robin scenario, the 2010 Packers shouldn't have even been in the playoffs. How does this make more sense than whatever nonsense you're proposing now?

 

[ausbacker]

The longer this progresses the funnier it seems.

 

[PatriotSeven]

the 2011 Giants won their division. Even if the round robin that you're proposing existed, and even if we assume that they would have lost to the Saints had they played them (which I doubt would have happened), the Giants already beat the Packers and 49ers. Even in a round robin scenario, they're still most likely in the Super Bowl.

Meanwhile, in your round robin scenario, the 2010 Packers shouldn't have even been in the playoffs. How does this make more sense than whatever nonsense you're proposing now?

And that's fine, they might have. But there is one team that absolutely murdered them they didn't get a chance to face. The Saints. And it doesn't mean GB or 49ers can't win 2 games too.

That's exactly why we don't actually really know, do we? That's exactly my point. There is no possible way you can make a logical argument that the Giants proved they are the best team in the NFC and better than the Saints, because they won a 3 point game over a poor playing 49ers.

This is team A beat team B and team C beat team A so team C is better than team B. It doesn't fly. This flawed logic doesn't work in the regular season, and it certainly doesn't work for me in the playoffs either.

Let them all play each other.

 

[Gumby]

incredible that a post trying to hijack the nfl and turn it into some rinky-dink soccer league could get so much play.

The OP seems to be a frustrated soccernut who doesnt truly understand football. so he wants to take some of the best aspects of nfl away and impose some awkward playoff that wont even solve his issue.

1. football teams MORPH more than any other sport over the course of the season. 17 wks regualr + 5 wks playoffs. A team that lost to the Saints say in wk1 is not the same team by wk 17. Just look at IR lists etc.

2. The reg season and being a div winner DOES MATTER. Did you notice where these games were played. ALL DIV WINNERS GET at least ONE HOME GAME. Home field counts. Do you think we pull out that Ravens game IN BALTIMORE????

3. Nfl coined the phrase - any given sunday. One of the reasons the NFL is so intense and beloved is that upset potential. I'm sorry but you just don't get that in soccer. One loss and you're done in playoffs raises the ante and makes it exciting.

SO at the end of the day we impose your round robin and first time out the gate this happens:
A beats B/C loses D (2-1) B- beats C/D loses A (2-1) C-loses all 3, D beats C/A loses B (2-1).
You have a 3 way tie in your playoff. HOW YOU GONNA SOLVE THAT? What point differential? Most yards? How is whatever team you pick to go to the SB going to go without it forever being in dispute that they were the best (the BCS argument).

On the other hand The single elimination playoff is FINAL AND DECISIVE.
And maybe you can argue that the winner wasn't the best team that whole season; BUT THEY WERE THE BEST TEAM THAT DAY!!!


(Note: in any event; the whole round-robin playoff BS is inappropriate for football.
You can play 7 baseball games in a week, 4 soccer games, but only 1 football game. You just dont institute some playoff system that was designed for a game with entirely different fundamentals. )

 

[BradyFTW!]

And that's fine, they might have. But there is one team that absolutely murdered them they didn't get a chance to face. The Saints. And it doesn't mean GB or 49ers can't win 2 games too.

That's exactly why we don't actually really know, do we? That's exactly my point. There is no possible way you can make a logical argument that the Giants proved they are the best team in the NFC and better than the Saints, because they won a 3 point game over a poor playing 49ers.

This is team A beat team B and team C beat team A so team C is better than team B. It doesn't fly. This flawed logic doesn't work in the regular season, and it certainly doesn't work for me in the playoffs either.

Let them all play each other.

In the event of a tie, I would assume that the team that won the head-to-head matchup would advance. Are you proposing something else? Because if you're being at all sensible, even in a round robin format the only way for the Giants not to advance to the SB is if the Saints beat everyone. Which would be unlikely, since the Saints were 0-2 against those two teams this year.

The system, as it almost always does, worked exactly as intended this year. The Giants beat the best teams to get to where they are.

 

[PatriotSeven]

In the event of a tie, I would assume that the team that won the head-to-head matchup would advance. Are you proposing something else? Because if you're being at all sensible, even in a round robin format the only way for the Giants not to advance to the SB is if the Saints beat everyone. Which would be unlikely, since the Saints were 0-2 against those two teams this year.

The system, as it almost always does, worked exactly as intended this year. The Giants beat the best teams to get to where they are.

Oh it's unlikely for the Saints, but the Giants who were 0-3 against all of them....

lol.

And no that's not the only way. The Saints could beat the Giants and GB and still advance. The 49ers could beat the Saints and GB and still advance. Because at that point something great would happen, strength of victory would come into place. Point differential.

And then TV shows like ESPN would all of a sudden begin teaching the general public the difference between a giveaway, and a takeaway, bad defense or good offense, etc.

Something that's all just bunched up together today as one and the same.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Oh it's unlikely for the Saints, but the Giants who were 0-3 against all of them....

lol.

And no that's not the only way. The Saints could beat the Giants and GB and still advance. The 49ers could beat the Saints and GB and still advance. Because at that point something great would happen, strength of victory would come into place. Point differential.

And then TV shows like ESPN would all of a sudden begin teaching the general public the difference between a giveaway, and a takeaway, bad defense or good offense, etc.

Something that's all just bunched up together today as one and the same.

If you consider the Super Bowl contenders being decided based on point differential to be "something great", then I suggest you find a new sport to follow.

 

[PatriotSeven]

incredible that a post trying to hijack the nfl and turn it into some rinky-dink soccer league could get so much play.

The OP seems to be a frustrated soccernut who doesnt truly understand football. so he wants to take some of the best aspects of nfl away and impose some awkward playoff that wont even solve his issue.

1. football teams MORPH more than any other sport over the course of the season. 17 wks regualr + 5 wks playoffs. A team that lost to the Saints say in wk1 is not the same team by wk 17. Just look at IR lists etc.

2. The reg season and being a div winner DOES MATTER. Did you notice where these games were played. ALL DIV WINNERS GET at least ONE HOME GAME. Home field counts. Do you think we pull out that Ravens game IN BALTIMORE????

3. Nfl coined the phrase - any given sunday. One of the reasons the NFL is so intense and beloved is that upset potential. I'm sorry but you just don't get that in soccer. One loss and you're done in playoffs raises the ante and makes it exciting.

SO at the end of the day we impose your round robin and first time out the gate this happens:
A beats B/C loses D (2-1) B- beats C/D loses A (2-1) C-loses all 3, D beats C/A loses B (2-1).
You have a 3 way tie in your playoff. HOW YOU GONNA SOLVE THAT? What point differential? Most yards? How is whatever team you pick to go to the SB going to go without it forever being in dispute that they were the best (the BCS argument).

On the other hand The single elimination playoff is FINAL AND DECISIVE.
And maybe you can argue that the winner wasn't the best team that whole season; BUT THEY WERE THE BEST TEAM THAT DAY!!!


(Note: in any event; the whole round-robin playoff BS is inappropriate for football.
You can play 7 baseball games in a week, 4 soccer games, but only 1 football game. You just dont institute some playoff system that was designed for a game with entirely different fundamentals. )

I love how because I'm not pleased with the current playoff format it must mean I don't understand football and I'm a frustrated soccernut. I think they have the most common playoff format that's been proven to constantly produce the top teams competing at the highest level.

What exactly is so great about not being able to see the best competition facing each other decisively at the end of a season? Sometimes the easiest road to the Super Bowl is simply by avoiding the best teams in your path because of seeding that may not always dictate the best teams.

You got one thing right. The playoffs are final. But they are NOT decisive.

And maybe you don't like tie breakers but we actually do already have them in place for making the playoffs, as it is. They were used this year for the Broncos for example. It's sure as hell better than trying to convince me the Giants are better than the Saints even though the Saints blew them out the only time they faced each other.