New Scaratings

Okay, in one game my two biggest problems with the NFL were revealed:

1) Pittsburgh (12-4) has to play on the road to Denver (8-8). Really???????

2) Lose a coin flip and you don't even get to touch the ball on offense.......


I was glad to see Denver win by all means, but the above two things are stupid... Last year, Seattle should not have even made the playoffs either, it's a joke......

Well, the OT playoff rule was changed as an overreaction to Brett Favre losing the NFC title game in New Orleans.

Now that the current playoff format has seen host teams San Diego (8-8) knocking off Indianapolis (12-4), Seattle (7-9) knocking off New Orleans (11-5), and Denver (8-8) knocking off Pittsburgh (12-4), there will be probably be an overreaction to changing the host team rule too

So a division champion should go on the road playing a team that didn't win their division? Really?

You win your division, you host a playoff game. Period. Non-division winners shouldn't get to play at home, that's their penalty for not winning their division. Pretty simple and fair.

As far as OT rules go, they gave up an 80-yard TD pass on the first play. They deserved to lose and not get a chance to match.

Personally, I detest the college OT rules. It's totally different from play in regulation time, it's convoluted and silly. In the NFL at least they play the OT period(s) like the rest of the game.

And last year the Seahawks won their division, they deserved to be in the playoffs. Unlike the BCS where a team who didn't even play in their conference championship game, a team that didn't even win their division within their conference, gets a bye through the conference championship and a berth to play for all the marbles.

I always considered the "flip-of-the-coin" to be a stupid idea. I believe that in OT, the most "deserving" team should have first possession (ie: most yards during regulation time).

Pittsburgh wasn't good enough to win a bye and Tebow always wants to win. I'm good with the NFL, but the BCS should just be put down.

You are participating in a "Free For All" forum?!?!?

I'm not the most knowledgeable regarding the game of football. But in the Seahawks case in 2010, they were in a division with three other losing teams, finishing 7-9, 6-10, and 5-11, so the Seahawks must have had a really easy schedule. Yet they won the division with a record of 7-9. If that is all they would manage with the benefit of an easy schedule from a weak division, I really don't think they deserved to be in the playoffs! And in their first playoff game they got to host the 11-5 Saints who not only had to battle the 13-3 Falcons, but the 10-6 Buccaneers as well. (No, the fact that the Penthers were 2-14 doesn't help my argument much. But there were still three teams in the NFC South that were better than any team in the NFC West, as their records proved.)

Looking at the 2011 regular season standings, yes, I think that the Steelers at 12-4 should have been at home to play the 8-8 Broncos. The Steelers proved to be the overall better team by winning four more games, whereas the Broncos won their division due to an accident of geography, being in the same division as three other mediocre teams.

In a playoff game/series, regardless of the sport, and regardless of division standing, I believe the team with the better regular season record should always get home advantage.

-- RWM

_________________
"...It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED...."

Let me blow most of your case out of the water immediately by stating the Seahawks actually had a more difficult schedule than the Saints. Seattle played teams with a combined 124-132 record compared to New Orleans 120-136.

The problem with your logic is that the schedules are imbalanced when comparing teams in different divisions. Except within the division where each division team has 14 common opponents in 16 games. Only two different teams, pretty damn close to equal. So you've got all teams within a division playing basically the same schedule and the best team gets to host a playoff game.

You're trying to rank apples and oranges on the same scale and it just won't work. Understanding exactly how the nfl schedule is constructed makes understanding this concept much easier.

And so in the NFC West in 2010 or the AFC West in 2011, all these common opponents failed to produce a team better than 8-8. Yet, according to your logic, they "deserve" to host a team that had a far better W-L but had the misfortune of having one of the NFL's strongest teams in their own division.

I'm aware that schedules, in all sports, are unequal. But the better team should have the playoff advantage, and the best way of determining that would be the regular-season record, perhaps with a tiebreaker indicative of schedule strength.


No, I'm ranking football games with football games. It should work just fine.

As for the schedule strength of the Seahawks (124-132) vs. the Saints (120-136), I'm frankly surprised, but the records are very similar. If you exclude the Seahawks from their opponents records and exclude the Saints from their oppenents records, the oppenents would then be an identical 115-125. But the Saints still won four more games, most likely due to being a better team and should, in my opinion, have stayed home against the Seahawks.

-- RWM

_________________
"...It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED...."

Because the schedules are imbalanced, there is no way of knowing who the better team is. That's the whole point. And that's exactly why winning your division means something, as it should.

According to your logic, Iona and Middle Tennessee St. are currently better basketball teams than Kansas.

Winning the division means that your team makes the playoffs. The better team is usually the one with the better record, even with the NFL's imbalanced schedule. And my logic applies to pro sports, not to college basketball, and would only apply once the regular season is over.

-- RWM

_________________
"...It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED...."

Broncos won their division plain and simple.

All the uproar everywhere about the Broncos shouldn't be there (I think they suck anyway and they are my team), the better record should have a home game, blah blah blah. Why has nothing been mentioned about the Falcons (10-6) having to travel and play the Giants (9-7), really????? Or, is this the same East Coast bias bullshit just like in every other sport?

_________________
Buzztime is a company full of dumbshits.

Amen

Okay. The Giants should have played in Atlanta. At least I am being consistent. But then, I'm not a Giants fan!

Upon review of this thread, nobody even mentioned an East Coast team prior to your post. So when you mention "East Coast bias bullshit", just exactly what are you talking about?

_________________
"...It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED...."

It is said on every sports outlet in the country, the four lettered network has been harping on it all week, along with NFL network broadcasts, several of those former players that are commentators, etc..). They mentioned Seattle and Denver specifically, but failed to even once mention the Giants (saying the playoff format needs to change). It wasn't necessarily anyone here, it was just a comment in general.

_________________
Buzztime is a company full of dumbshits.

Well, let's see.

The Steelers were favored by 8.5 at Denver.

The Saints are favored by 3 at San Francisco.

The Patriots are favored by 14 over Denver.

There definitely appears to be an East coast bias (at least in the eyes of the gamblers )

The Steelers got beat by the Ravens twice and didn't win their division and then proved they didn't belong by getting beat by the "awful" Broncos. Why even have divisions if there is no reward for winning them? Why even have conferences? Why don't we just have some writers and computers pick who they think are the best two teams are and call it the BCS?

When the Colts lost in San Diego a few years ago despite having four more wins, I said they deserved to get knocked out of the playoffs if they can't even beat a team like that on the road.
I see no reason to think differently about it now.
There's no excuses, folks.
Steeler fans need to cowboy up and hope the team is healthier next year at playoff time.
For once, BO finally said something which I've been saying for years.
OT should have regular "NON-sudden death" 15 minute periods.
Repeat as needed until one of these periods ends untied.
That's how they do it in soccer. And if those flopping pansies can do it, I see no reason NFL guys can't.

Wrong. The giants are a division winner regardless of record...the Falcons were not. the Giants have a #4 seed and the Falcons #5. Falcons go on the road. And really as badly as they played, I don't think it would've mattered where the game was played.

Yes, I am aware that is how the NFL playoff structure is, and it's similar to the playoff structure in the other pro sports. I just don't think it is a very fair structure. I have seen my share of weak versus strong divisions in all sports over the years, and I simply do not concur that a division winner should have a higher seed than a non-division winner. But that is how it is. In my opinion, the sole perquisite for a division winner should be that they make the playoffs.

-- RWM

_________________
"...It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED...."

I realized that and changed it but not before your post.
Cheers!

I will agree on one thing, with four whole teams per division, no matter how mediocre their regular seasons are, someone will win it...The 80-yard comment has merit, as Pittsburgh had the ball last in regulation and didn't get it done.

I can understand the new overtime rule change implemented to avoid sudden death and I know they've been at it for years to get those rules changed. What I don't get is that if the first team scores a field goal, then the other team gets their downs but if they get a touchdown, the game is over. With all these rule changes, the same effect happened regardless. If you're truly wanting to avoid sudden death, it shouldn't matter if the first team gets a FG or a TD. You get your downs and if you can't get it done then the game is over.

Cheers,
--Tony

I think soccer should be sudden death as well. The purpose of OT is to break the tie. Yet in soccer, if a team actually breaks the tie before penalty kicks, the other team can actually tie the game, force another OT, and they can end up playing forever. That defeats the purpose of OT.

I still don't think the NFL should've changed their OT rules for the playoffs, and this is coming from someone whose favorite team has lost the coin toss and lost without getting a possession in two of their last three OT playoff games. (The other one, they lost the toss on that one, too, but each team ended up with two possessions in OT, IIRC). If you lose the toss, play defense. If you can't stop the other team, then you deserve to lose. My position is you didn't lose the game because you lost the coin toss. You lost the game because you failed to play defense.

No, no, no.
The purpose of overtime is to air more commercials during the broadcast and sell more food and merchandise at the venue.
Silly goose...

Once again, our lil friend spotes nails it.

_________________

/```\
(o\_!_/o)