Off Topic ~ The NFC East

[Off The Grid]

Me, I love a Spectacle.

I'm sure that many would be horrified...But I've been looking at their Schedules...And even though it is certainly unlikely ~ some Team has always gone on some kind of a Surge in similar situations ~ it's actually genuinely realistic that one'f'm could go 6-10...and yet win that SinkHole of a Division!!

That would of course be an Atrocity...But it'd sure be funny!!

What are your Perspectives on this, Fellow Fans?

 

[Galeb]

I like eggs.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Are there still people here who haven't realized the Giants are going to win the Super Bowl after sneaking into the playoffs at 6-10?

 

[AzorianPats]

I see both sides.

I dont think losing teams should make the playoffs, esp over a team with a winning record, but i like that winning the divisions to should mean something.

So im indifferent

 

[tasmlab]

Are there still people here who haven't realized the Giants are going to win the Super Bowl after sneaking into the playoffs at 6-10?

Knock on Wood. Seriously.

 

[memento]

I like seeing the divisional winner get a playoff spot. It makes division games more important and division rivalries more exciting.

 

[Sicilian]

I've always thought the division format is outdated. A 6-10 team making the postseason is inexcusable in my eyes.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

I've always thought the division format is outdated. A 6-10 team making the postseason is inexcusable in my eyes.

Maybe in the other major sports that's the case, but how do you handle the NFL which has 32 teams and only 16 games? Two 16 team conferences where you play each team within your conference once and play one "power pairing" game against one team from the other conference?

 

[varjao]

My opinion over this important subject is that it's a shame, but these things happen occasionally. Overall, the System works pretty well. Can't eliminate the importance of winning the division and division rivalries.

Maybe they should just create an extra rule for this cases that won't happen every year, like creating another playoff game pre-wild card between this crappy division winner and a 9-7 team knocked out of the playoffs. It's an extra game that won't hurt imho, one team was out anyway and get another shot, the other can't complain, they had a losing season, if wants to play the playoffs prove you're worthy and deserves the spot instead of the team with a better season.

 

[Jackson 2]

The two luckiest wins in the 49 years of the Super Bowl have created in many Patriot fans' minds an illogical, false and ludicrous image of the New Jersey Giants as some some of football juggernaut. I understand their history of playing well against NE, but the fact is that they almost always absolutely suck against nearly everyone else. I said this recently to a friend of mine who is a Giant fan: "If I were a Giant fan myself, the question I would be asking is this: What does it say about their guts, fortitude and will to win that my coach, team and quarterback seemingly only put out a maximum effort for roughly one game every four years, or so? He had no response.

 

[1960Pats]

Me, I love a Spectacle.

I'm sure that many would be horrified...But I've been looking at their Schedules...And even though it is certainly unlikely ~ some Team has always gone on some kind of a Surge in similar situations ~ it's actually genuinely realistic that one'f'm could go 6-10...and yet win that SinkHole of a Division!!

That would of course be an Atrocity...But it'd sure be funny!!

What are your Perspectives on this, Fellow Fans?

Call it an abomination, because that's exactly what the current system is.

First. Calling a team a title winner because they beat out 3 teams out of the 15 others in their conference is hardly fair, or honorable, as it was comically called in another thread where this topic came up. If you want to make the playoffs then you should have to have one of the top 6 records in your conference. It's very simple.

Second. There's no way that a team with a worse record belongs in the playoffs over a more deserving team, who quite possibly has a victory over that undeserving team. The best example of that came last year when Carolina, with a 7-8-1 record, won their "vaunted" division title and the playoff berth over the 10-6 Eagles, who also happened to crush the Panthers on the field, where it should count, by a 45-21 score. The fact that Carolina ended up winning a game in the playoffs doesn't matter. They and their fans didn't deserve that game over the Eagles, simply because they played in a pancake 4 team division.

Third. Get used to this new form of "parity" that the NYJFL has shoved down our throats. After not seeing this abomination happen for the first few years of the 4 team "division" setup, it has happened with regularity the last few years. And this year it could happen with the AFCS also. My only hope is that if that does happen that it will be a more deserving Jets team that loses out this time. Maybe then the NYJFL will do something about it.

 

[1960Pats]

I've always thought the division format is outdated. A 6-10 team making the postseason is inexcusable in my eyes.

The teams with the best records belong in the playoffs. Plain. And. Simple. It's one thing to lose out to another team on a tiebreaker, but losing out to a team that played in a pancake division and had a worse record is downright disgraceful. The fans of the better teams deserve to have those playoff games.

 

[1960Pats]

The two luckiest wins in the 49 years of the Super Bowl have created in many Patriot fans' minds an illogical, false and ludicrous image of the New Jersey Giants as some some of football juggernaut. I understand their history of playing well against NE, but the fact is that they almost always absolutely suck against nearly everyone else. I said this recently to a friend of mine who is a Giant fan: "If I were a Giant fan myself, the question I would be asking is this: What does it say about their guts, fortitude and will to win that my coach, team and quarterback seemingly only put out a maximum effort for roughly one game every four years, or so? He had no response.

There's nothing lucky about holding the 2007 Pats to 14 points and the 2011 Pats to 17 points.

The big difference with the Giants is their play in the regular season compared to their play in the playoffs. To say that they step it up is a huge understatement. It might have a lot to do with Coughlin and his coaching staff.

 

[Jackson 2]

There's nothing lucky about holding the 2007 Pats to 14 points and the 2011 Pats to 17 points.

The big difference with the Giants is their play in the regular season compared to their play in the playoffs. To say that they step it up is a huge understatement. It might have a lot to do with Coughlin and his coaching staff.

I wasn't referring to their luck on defense, although not having Gronk to worry about in 2011 didn't hurt. And having Welker defecate in his pants helped, as well. You know what I'm referring to. What does it say about Coughlin and his staff that they haven't made the playoffs in four years in a terrible division?

 

[1960Pats]

I wasn't referring to their luck on defense, although not having Gronk to worry about in 2011 didn't hurt. And having Welker defecate in his pants helped, as well. You know what I'm referring to. What does it say about Coughlin and his staff that they haven't made the playoffs in four years in a terrible division?

In 2011 it was the Pats refusal to use the running game that did them in, especially considering that the Giants were woeful vs the run that year.

As for the weakness of the NFCE, IMHO they aren't even in the top two in the last few years. That would be the two Souths, although Carolina upped it's game this year.

 

[Two Eight]

I'm just pissed that we got the lucky draw of facing the NFC LEast this year and didn't sweep them!

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Taking the overall top six in each conference isn't fair either, as long as there's an unbalanced schedule.

Team A plays in a piece of crap division and wins all its divisional games. Team B plays in a murderer's row division and loses all its divisional games. A goes 5-5 outside its division while B goes 10-0 outside its division. Team A will finish 11-5. Team B will finish 10-6. How is it fair that A is ranked ahead of B? A got more than half its wins against cupcakes and was mediocre when it had to play non-cupcake teams.

If you want to take the top six teams in each conference I think you have to do one of the following two things:
1) Get rid of divisions completely and have each team in the conference play each of the other 15, playing one of them twice to get to 16 games.
2) Or keep the existing schedule format and instead of ranking teams by winning %age, rank them by adjusted winning %age, which would be (winning percentage from team's record) times (combined winning percentage of all teams you played -- i.e. the current number used in the SoS tiebreaker). Colloquially, you'd be ranking teams by the combined "quality" of their wins. A win against a team with a bad record would count less than a win against a team with a good record. (EDITED: You should probably adjust losses similarly -- a loss against a good team shouldn't count as much as a loss against a bad team).

Personally, I'd just leave things the way they are and live with the occasional weirdness.

 

[IllegalContact]

you are correct.....the NFC East is an off topic

 

[lurker1965]

I checked to see if Miami, Buffalo, or the Jets won all 4 games vs. the NFC East and could claim they won the division. All have 1 loss. Did the same check for the AFC South with same result. Pity, it'd be a decent joke.

 

[1960Pats]

Taking the overall top six in each conference isn't fair either, as long as there's an unbalanced schedule.

Team A plays in a piece of crap division and wins all its divisional games. Team B plays in a murderer's row division and loses all its divisional games. A goes 5-5 outside its division while B goes 10-0 outside its division. Team A will finish 11-5. Team B will finish 10-6. How is it fair that A is ranked ahead of B? A got more than half its wins against cupcakes and was mediocre when it had to play non-cupcake teams.

If you want to take the top six teams in each conference I think you have to do one of the following two things:
1) Get rid of divisions completely and have each team in the conference play each of the other 15, playing one of them twice to get to 16 games.
2) Or keep the existing schedule format and instead of ranking teams by winning %age, rank them by adjusted winning %age, which would be (winning percentage from team's record) times (combined winning percentage of all teams you played -- i.e. the current number used in the SoS tiebreaker). Colloquially, you'd be ranking teams by the combined "quality" of their wins. A win against a team with a bad record would count less than a win against a team with a good record. (EDITED: You should probably adjust losses similarly -- a loss against a good team shouldn't count as much as a loss against a bad team).

Personally, I'd just leave things the way they are and live with the occasional weirdness.

Taking the top six is much more fair than what we have now.

The unbalanced schedule is a direct result of the 4 team divisions. I can't remember if it ever happened that a team with a worse record made the playoffs before we came up with the idiotic 4 team divisions. Even when we had 3 divisions it was much better.

The "occasional" weirdness is actually 7 or 8 teams with better records losing out on the playoffs in the last 5 or 6 years, sometimes to teams that they beat during the season.

1) That works great to fix the problem and would be my first choice, but then we wouldn't have the phony parity the NYJFL is striving for.
2) Wouldn't solve the problem because we would still have the unbalanced schedule and the strength of each teams wins would be uneven if they played different teams. Maybe a better method would be to use common opponents only to determine the winners.
3) This could be a solution also. Add two more teams to each conference and make three 8 team divisions. Then we would have only 3 division winners and the chances of a team with a worse record getting in would be much less. It probably wouldn't happen at all.

Anything would be better than what we have now.