- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: could the saints realistically be 13-3...
Posted on 12/13/10 at 12:14 pm to TutHillTiger
Posted on 12/13/10 at 12:14 pm to TutHillTiger
It' like the Boise St. coach said. You can win a game with a field goal, but it takes more to lose a game with a missed field goal. Or something to that effect.
The Arizona/Cleveland losses are more glaring than the Atlanta game.
The Arizona/Cleveland losses are more glaring than the Atlanta game.
0
Posted on 12/13/10 at 12:23 pm to IlikeyouBetty
quote:
I disagree that this constitutes "sweeping changes". I'm not saying that division winners should not make playoffs with inferior records. That, to me, would be "sweeping changes". Why should a team with a better record not get homefield? And "because that's the way it's always been" is not a good answer.
It places a priority on winning your division, which means beating you rivals. These games are highlighted on the schedule by the league for financial reasons.
It also means that EVERY game is important, not just your division games. You want a home game, then win your division and beat the opponents you share with teams in you division.
Yeah, it might suck for us THIS YEAR, but everyone's up in arms over something that has happened twice.
Posted on 12/13/10 at 12:28 pm to Sophandros
quote:
It places a priority on winning your division, which means beating you rivals. These games are highlighted on the schedule by the league for financial reasons.
It also means that EVERY game is important, not just your division games. You want a home game, then win your division and beat the opponents you share with teams in you division.
Explain to me how my proposed change (i.e., keeping who gets into the playoffs exactly the same as it is now, but simply insuring the team with the best record gets home field) would change the level of importance of winning a division (and seeing to it that "EVERY game is important") one iota.
Thanks.
Posted on 12/13/10 at 12:56 pm to Sophandros
quote:
It places a priority on winning your division, which means beating you rivals. These games are highlighted on the schedule by the league for financial reasons.
It also means that EVERY game is important,
So every game is important to a team like the Saints but apparently not important to Arizona, St Louis, Seattle and San Fran?? Also the team with the best divisional record in the West is the 3rd place team.
I dont see why you cannot keep the teams who get in the exact same but then seed them based on record. By keeping it the same then winning the division is still very important to secure a playoff birth for teams that are in weak conferences and you dont penalize teams for being in strong conferences.
I dont think you can really fix the NE situation without the potential of making divisions meaningless though.
Posted on 12/13/10 at 12:59 pm to Catman88
Keeping the same qualifying format and seeding according to record makes the most sense.
Posted on 12/13/10 at 1:01 pm to Catman88
quote:
I dont think you can really fix the NE situation without the potential of making divisions meaningless though.
This is the aberration that I'm okay with. A team here (i.e., the New England team we're talking about) is only getting penalized because it didn't do what it needed to do.
I simply can't see any valid rationale, though, for saying an 8-8 division winner deserves a home field playoff game against a 13-3 wildcard team.
Is the prospect of getting home field against the Saints really going to make the difference in who wins the NFC West? I'm not getting soph's argument here at all. How exactly does the current set up make their games more important?
Posted on 12/13/10 at 1:14 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I simply can't see any valid rationale, though, for saying an 8-8 division winner deserves a home field playoff game against a 13-3 wildcard team.
What makes it worse is when the 13-3 team is from a division that dominated the 8-8 winners division.
Does anyone see the winner of the west being 8-8 though. I see it as 7-9.
Rams (6-7) play chiefs,9ers and hawks
Hawks (6-7) play Falcons, Bucks and Rams
9ers play Chargers, Rams and Cards but are 5-8 currently
Looks like a very good chance the winner of that div is 7-9 with the Rams maybe getting to 8-8
Posted on 12/13/10 at 1:23 pm to Catman88
No matter what happens between the saints and falcons the NFC West winner is f*cked in the playoffs
Posted on 12/13/10 at 1:26 pm to Smedium27
quote:
No matter what happens between the saints and falcons the NFC West winner is f*cked in the playoffs
Except for the revenue their team's owner and city get from hosting a home playoff game.
Posted on 12/13/10 at 1:29 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Except for the revenue their team's owner and city get from hosting a home playoff game.
Your glass is half full
Posted on 12/13/10 at 3:40 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Explain to me how my proposed change (i.e., keeping who gets into the playoffs exactly the same as it is now, but simply insuring the team with the best record gets home field) would change the level of importance of winning a division (and seeing to it that "EVERY game is important") one iota.
Thanks.
Right now, the Arizona and Cleveland games were VERY important to the Saints.
This post was edited on 12/13/10 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 12/13/10 at 3:44 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Right now, the Arizona and Cleveland games were VERY important to the Saints
And you think they'd want to win their division any less under mine? What would they be doing or have done different, if the NFL adopts what I propose?
Posted on 12/13/10 at 4:02 pm to Y.A. Tittle
In your system, those two games are rendered moot.
Posted on 12/13/10 at 4:17 pm to Sophandros
quote:
In your system, those two games are rendered moot.
Not really. They're the difference in not winning the division and getting homefield THROUGHOUT the playoffs. Still a pretty big deal.
In the current system, the winner of the NFC West will essentially have about 5 games (give or take a game) that could be considered as "rendered moot" (the difference between their losses and the Saints losses).
One scenario clearly creates a more ridiculous outcome than the other. It's beyond obvious.
Posted on 12/13/10 at 4:24 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Giving up 200 yards rushing and turning the ball over lost us that game.
And if Hartley makes a field goal that doesn't matter.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News