NFL considering changes in playoff HFA, seeding

[Ring 6]

Lol this is just one big circular argument stated 3 times.

So the Green Bay Packers lost Aaron Rodgers for 7.5 games this year but lets all pretend that they're about on par with Miami because they have the same record and YOU ARE WHAT YOUR RECORD SAYS YOU ARE.

Sample size in the NFL renders records the least meaningful out of probably any sport on earth. It's not about "getting a trophy" for what Vegas says, it's the fact that the lines deviate so wildly from the records of the team that it's pretty clear records are not a good indication of how good teams are.

I have no clue what you are saying here.
Are you saying the goal of a football team is to be favored by Vegas?

The Packers are what there record says because they won the division with the worst division record so must play today vs the 5 seed.
Since when are injuries not part of what a team is?

Again, you seem to want to say a team should be judged by opinion rather than results, and I just disagree.

I don't know what your definition of good is. Mine is based on accomplishment.

 

[TyronePoole]

I have no clue what you are saying here.
Are you saying the goal of a football team is to be favored by Vegas?

The Packers are what there record says because they won the division with the worst division record so must play today vs the 5 seed.
Since when are injuries not part of what a team is?

Again, you seem to want to say a team should be judged by opinion rather than results, and I just disagree.

I don't know what your definition of good is. Mine is based on accomplishment.

Are you saying the goal of a football team is to be favored by Vegas?

You nailed it.

yikes dude

 

[Ring 6]

You nailed it.

yikes dude

That was kind of rhetorical but you keep dismissing accomplishments and citing Vegas lines, so I cannot figure out what you think the proper gauge of good is.

 

[Deus Irae]

Empty coaching platitudes that have no basis in reality and are only meant for players who get too up or too down based on their team's record.

Or are you seriously going to suggest that if a team played the Jacksonville Jaguars 16 times in a row and was 11-5 would be a better team than one that played the Denver Broncos 16 times in a row and ended up 10-6.

This will be of tremendous value once the NFL changes its scheduling to a 16 game season only against one other team.

Without that change, your post is meaningless, except when the basic idea is used in tiebreakers. At the end of the season, 8-8 is 8-8, no matter how you got there.

 

[TyronePoole]

This will be of tremendous value once the NFL changes its scheduling to a 16 game season only against one other team.

Without that change, your post is meaningless, except when the basic idea is used in tiebreakers. At the end of the season, 8-8 is 8-8, no matter how you got there.

Deus trolling again. Unless he seriously thinks that pointing out that an extreme example used to demonstrate the terrible logic of "8-8 is 8-8 no matter how you got there" as a measure of what your record says about you is unrealistic is at all meaningful and not completely asinine.

Hey guys lets pretend the Niners don't play in the same division as the Seahawks because 12-4 is 12-4 no matter how you got there derp.

 

[TyronePoole]

That was kind of rhetorical but you keep dismissing accomplishments and citing Vegas lines, so I cannot figure out what you think the proper gauge of good is.

I'm not dismissing accomplishments. I'm simply pointing out that the statement "you are what your record says you are" is dumb and wrong. Some 8-8 teams are clearly better than some 10-6 teams. Some 12-4 teams are clearly worse than others with the same record etc.

The idea that records are an infallible assessment of how good a team is is laughable. There aren't enough games played to form a meaningful sample, the divisions are wildly uneven and there's a tremendous amount of variance.

I'm not sure why people would even think this is controversial at all, is it because the Pats get a good record in a **** division every year that you feel the need to defend something that is clearly wrong?

 

[fnordcircle]

This will be of tremendous value once the NFL changes its scheduling to a 16 game season only against one other team.

Without that change, your post is meaningless, except when the basic idea is used in tiebreakers. At the end of the season, 8-8 is 8-8, no matter how you got there.

Cool, I love ignoring the point and focusing on minutiae.

An 11-5 team after playing the AFC East and NFC East is not guaranteed to be better than an 10-6 team that placed the AFC West and NFC West this year.

But it's easier to be glib and say 'better record equal better team' when it is convenient.

 

[josh24]

3 winners this weekend were road, WC teams.
49ers & Saints should have lost if they wanted to make this argument stronger

 

[jah]

All winners this weekend were road, WC teams.
49ers & Saints should have lost if they wanted to make this argument stronger

The Colts won their division and played at home.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not dismissing accomplishments. I'm simply pointing out that the statement "you are what your record says you are" is dumb and wrong.

Actually is as true as you can get.

Some 8-8 teams are clearly better than some 10-6 teams. Some 12-4 teams are clearly worse than others with the same record etc.

Better based on what? The purpose of the regular season is to determine standings, playoff berths and seeding. The 10-6 team by definition had a better regular season.
Perhaps you can give a definition of better.

The idea that records are an infallible assessment of how good a team is is laughable.

Again, perhaps you should define 'good' or 'better' in the context you are using it.
In mine, the Broncos and Seahawks were the best regular season teams, the Patriots and Panthers next. Its simple, the point of playing the regular season is to earn those distinctions. If you didn't earn them you couldn't have been better than the one that did. At least not at accomplishing the singular goal.

There aren't enough games played to form a meaningful sample, the divisions are wildly uneven and there's a tremendous amount of variance.

They all play 16 games vs NFL teams with the goal of achieving playoff berths and high seeds.

I'm not sure why people would even think this is controversial at all, is it because the Pats get a good record in a **** division every year that you feel the need to defend something that is clearly wrong?

Im not sure how it is debatable either. A team exists to achieve its goals. I find it ludicrous to say a team that performed worst at achieving its goals was better because of some kind of excuse.

It has nothing to do with the Patriots, it has to do with the understanding of why they play the games.
Can Cowboys argue they are really better than the Eagles and should have gotten their playoff spot because Romo was injured so it wasn't fair? That seems where you are heading.

 

[Ring 6]

Cool, I love ignoring the point and focusing on minutiae.

An 11-5 team after playing the AFC East and NFC East is not guaranteed to be better than an 10-6 team that placed the AFC West and NFC West this year.

But it's easier to be glib and say 'better record equal better team' when it is convenient.

Better in what regard?
Certainly the 11-5 team had a better regular season, as evidence by their achievement.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'guaranteed to be better'. The league has an established method to determine, and actually rank the best teams based upon the regular season, and then the playoffs.
Are you using a different definition of better than what they actually did on the football field in relation to the singular goal of all teams?

I'm really trying to understand. Are you defining better by who you think would win a hypothetical game?

 

[Deus Irae]

Cool, I love ignoring the point and focusing on minutiae.

An 11-5 team after playing the AFC East and NFC East is not guaranteed to be better than an 10-6 team that placed the AFC West and NFC West this year.

But it's easier to be glib and say 'better record equal better team' when it is convenient.

Who ignored the point? In the NFL, 8-8 is 8-8. It doesn't matter how you get your record, unless you're looking at things for tiebreaking purposes. It doesn't matter who you played. It doesn't matter how many players were out because of injuries.

What matters is your W/L totals. With only a 16 game schedule, the rest is just guesswork. Calling it a platitude doesn't make it any less true.

 

[MossWelkowski]

NFL is Adding another wildcard team to each conference

Per Dan patrick..

Ugh

 

[jmt57]

Dan Patrick Show: NFL considers adding more Wild Card teams | Y! Sports

According to Dan Patrick's sources, the NFL is considering adding two more Wild Card teams. Should that be the case, only one team would get a bye in each conference. Patrick follows this story in the footsteps on recent developments leading into Wild Card weekend. Based on comments Cowboys' owner Jerry Jones had said on Friday. If it were up to Cowboys owner and general manager, more than 12 teams would qualify for the playoffs.

“From the standpoint of looking at how exciting it is for a city or a community to be involved in the playoffs and the fact that you can have a team that might have literally operated at .500 or in that area ... you can have that team win the Super Bowl,” Jones said Friday during an appearance on 105.3 The Fan. “That makes a big case for adding a couple of more cities or communities that have NFL teams to the playoffs.​

The NFL quickly responded to the speculation that this is a done deal.

NFL says no decision made on playoff expansion - NFL.com

Responding to Dan Patrick's suggestion that the league plans to expand from 12 to 14 squads, a league spokesman told NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport on Monday that "no such decision" has been made about adding a wild-card team to each conference.

"It would require a vote of the clubs and it has not yet been taken up with them," the spokesman said.

Rapoport noted that a vote on the matter might take place at the next owners meeting in March.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said last week that "multiple" adjustments to the playoff system are in play.

"Every scenario has been discussed, ranging from reseeding to one extra game, expanding from 12 to 14 teams," McCarthy said. "Think of a scenario, it's been discussed and remains in play."​

 

[Ring 6]

Dan Patrick Show: NFL considers adding more Wild Card teams | Y! Sports

According to Dan Patrick's sources, the NFL is considering adding two more Wild Card teams. Should that be the case, only one team would get a bye in each conference. Patrick follows this story in the footsteps on recent developments leading into Wild Card weekend. Based on comments Cowboys' owner Jerry Jones had said on Friday. If it were up to Cowboys owner and general manager, more than 12 teams would qualify for the playoffs.

“From the standpoint of looking at how exciting it is for a city or a community to be involved in the playoffs and the fact that you can have a team that might have literally operated at .500 or in that area ... you can have that team win the Super Bowl,” Jones said Friday during an appearance on 105.3 The Fan. “That makes a big case for adding a couple of more cities or communities that have NFL teams to the playoffs.
​

The NFL quickly responded to the speculation that this is a done deal.

NFL says no decision made on playoff expansion - NFL.com

Responding to Dan Patrick's suggestion that the league plans to expand from 12 to 14 squads, a league spokesman told NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport on Monday that "no such decision" has been made about adding a wild-card team to each conference.

"It would require a vote of the clubs and it has not yet been taken up with them," the spokesman said.

Rapoport noted that a vote on the matter might take place at the next owners meeting in March.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said last week that "multiple" adjustments to the playoff system are in play.

"Every scenario has been discussed, ranging from reseeding to one extra game, expanding from 12 to 14 teams," McCarthy said. "Think of a scenario, it's been discussed and remains in play."
​

Jerry Jones is figuring out how instead of getting better than 8-8 he can make 8-8 better.

 

[Tunescribe]

NFL to consider reseeding playoffs purely by record - NFL.com

Anybody else thinks this is a bad idea? IMO, if you don't win your division, you don't deserve to host a playoff game. If not, what's the point on having divisions? Let's just have 2 conferences, and the top 4-6 of each battling in the playoffs.

WC teams should be grateful to be in the PS, regardless of their record. Also, the last 3 SB champions played 8 out of 9 games (before the SB) on the road.

I think it's a bad idea. I also think it would be best to have two conferences and do away with divisions. Each team plays every team in its conference plus one team from the rival conference = 16-game schedule. That way nearly every game carries equal weight and you can have a "true" conference champion.

 

[Ring 6]

I think it's a bad idea. I also think it would be best to have two conferences and do away with divisions. Each team plays every team in its conference plus one team from the rival conference = 16-game schedule. That way nearly every game carries equal weight and you can have a "true" conference champion.

There is no perfect answer because your way eliminates the division rivalries.
Also if you have a 15 game schedule where everyone plays everyone, you won't necessarily have a true champion. What if 3 teams tie at 12-3? How do you break the tie? No wins are better or worse than others because everyone played everyone.
Personally I think people are searching for something that can't exist.
The NFL has set up its rules saying that the best team is the one that wins when it matters most and wins the SB.
It does not want teams who struggle during parts of the season to not be allowed to participate in that determination, therefore 12 make the post season.
First you must be one of the 12 best, based on a clearly defined crtieria, then you must be the best of those 12 when its time to go earn that.
I have no problem at all with that.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Maybe it's just me but I see the move to have only ONE team get a Bye as an attempt to help Peyton get another ring as he pretty much is THE in-season stat winner. With no other AFC threat equally well rested, the road for Peyton to the SB is easier.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

I think SF would be lobbying for the seeding change had they lost to the lucky Packers

 

[Patsrock]

I think it's a bad idea. I also think it would be best to have two conferences and do away with divisions. Each team plays every team in its conference plus one team from the rival conference = 16-game schedule. That way nearly every game carries equal weight and you can have a "true" conference champion.

So go to a rotating vs NFC schedule in 2015.

Say Pats would host in odd years, away even years

Ny Giants 2015 so the next time they would appear in New England would be 2047

And what ever team you would play in the rotation away in 2030 would not be in New England to 2046?

31 seasons between visits? Thats insane