NFL Playoff Picture: How much respect should the NFC West get?
by Ryan Van Bibber on Dec 15, 2010 6:45 PM CST
in 2010 NFL Playoff Picture
Email
Print
The St. Louis Rams currently lead the NFC West with a record of 6-7. Seattle has the same record, and San Francisco is making a push at 5-8. In all likelihood, an 8-8 team will win the NFC West, possibly a 7-9. It ain't a pretty division this season, to be sure.
As the NFL playoff picture gets a little clearer, hating on the NFC West has become sport among the punditocracy.
"Change the rules," they cry. "Unfair." Some even call for changing the way it works to keep teams with sloppy records out of the playoffs. Ridiculous. Winning the division is an accomplishment, even one like the NFC West, and a team deserves a playoff berth for it.
Today, RIch McKay, the co-chair of the NFL Competition Committee and Atlanta Falcons president, joined the calls for reseeding the playoffs based on record, meaning that even division winners could potentially lose the guarantee of at least one home game.
It seems like a reasonable proposition at first glance. But I want to throw it out for more discussion. Thoughts?
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Division winners should always make the playoffs.
But I am not opposed to the idea of giving home games to Wildcard teams with superior records.
Sounds good to me
If you take away the automatic berth that comes with winning the divisions, why have a divisions at all?
It’s not like this happens every year either…
Number 8 is great
True
Seems like they need divisions too b/c of scheduling, rivalries, etc,.
by Ryan Van Bibber on Dec 15, 2010 7:50 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Regarding seeding based soley on record...
The one place I have a problem with a wild card team getting a higher seed than a division winner is with the bye. A wild card team shouldn’t get a bye; that should be reserved for teams that won their division battle.
And I wouldn’t want to see a wild card team hosting a 1st round game over a division winner with the same record… the first seeding tiebreaker should always be division winner status.
2010 NFC west= rare occurence
If they don’t have division winners make the playoffs, then just nix the divisions all together. Do the top six in the conference. But they won’t, because then they can’t sell rivalries like Baltimore and Pittsburgh, Dallas and Philadelphia, etc. Keep the divisions, just change home field rules
by Both Hawks Suck! on Dec 15, 2010 7:19 PM CST reply actions
Good point
To change the while system b/c of that seems absurd. Or maybe they only do that when a div winner has that low if a record
by Ryan Van Bibber on Dec 15, 2010 7:48 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Really?! possibly the first time it ever happens...(which it hasnt even happened yet)
and they are bringing it up for discussion? Why doesnt the NFL focus oh I dont know….HAVING ACTUAL GAMES TO PLAY NEXT YEAR!!! I mean shit it is kind of a moot point to worry about playoff seeding, records and fairness when there is a higher possibility of there not being a playoff next year than an nfc west team winning the division at 7-9.
If it does happen, then it is obviously such a rarity I think everyone can sleep at night knowing that there are some flaws in everything and that is ok.
Lastly, they are screwing up the game once again. Did the teams in question play the exact same opponents, at the exact same time, on the exact same fields with the exact same temperatures? Oh, No? Well shit that is so unfair, some team might be 9-7 playing a 14 -2 team that played a powderpuff schedule (of course the punditry will cry wolf only when some beloved NFC East team has the 9-7 record and the Rams have a 14-2 record). I mean the NFL cant even determine which teams are going to be good at the begining…lets have a way of determining who has a harder schedule to play and then get a big computer to calculate wins, strength of schedule, and margin of victory….
And now you have the BCS, no thanks college football licks balls as it is…
All I want for Christmas is a Pete Carroll scowl on week 17!
Man this Roger Goodell.....did he used to be a congressman before he came NFL commisioner?
Because it seems to be staffed with similar looking walking talking screwups that love to fill the airwaves with their non sequitur stupidity.
I mean the convoluted hitting rules that players get fined for buy are not clearly defined in the already titanic NFL rulebook. Letting the owners and players unions descend into political mud slinging even before the season is over. That pesky Spygate turd that just wont flush. Sure the New York Jets didnt coach the unpronounceable name to stand foot to foot with the rest of the trainers and stick his knee out…move along nothing to see here! LOL!
All I want for Christmas is a Pete Carroll scowl on week 17!
Sorry about that, I think I am done ranting...
All I want for Christmas is a Pete Carroll scowl on week 17!
LMAO...rant on Lead, i like it
I also like the current playoffs rules as they are. So rant on my fellow Rams fan, rant on ! Besides, I think you’re right.
The only thing comparable to a Rams win is a 49er loss!
by DevsLaRams on Dec 15, 2010 8:39 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Thanks I appreciate it...
It’s like as long as something creates controversy in the now, its all good! the media loves it cause they can whip up the easily influenced which creates a demand to change the game. Of course sports reporters and the like, most have never played the game, they are making bucks and keeping you tuned in so what do they care if the game is destroyed, its not their problem, they are just doing their job.
Ultimately nobody things 3 or 4 blocks down the road anymore.
This kind of stuff has happened before. Remember when Instant Replay was in its infancy? There was this small minority that was stating that it would change how the game was played and would make things more complicated. The majority thought this was all hyperbole…but look at the game today.
I vaguely remember when I was a kid there was only one rule that determined what was a fumble. If the ball came flopping out before the refs blew the whistle! That was it! It is very easy to determine WTF a fumble is and it is fair for both teams. Now because of instant replay, there are a whole host of situations that determine if the play resulted in a fumble…did the ball come out before the knee was down….or was he across the goal line. These things of course are impossible to determine with the speed of the game and the number of frothing beasts piled on the ball carrier trying to get possession of the football. These rules were developed for and because of Instant Replay.
A few weeks back I watched Ahmad Bradshaw fumble the football that was not ruled a fumble because his forearm made contact with the turf which caused the ball to come loose which falls under the “Ground cant cause a fumble” rule. Are you fing kidding me?! When they showed it on the replay, you had to mash your face up against the screen to watch the brown fleshy pixels make contact with the greenish brown grassy dirt pixels just as the ball came out LOL! Instant replay has changed the game of football.
Now all the stupid radio morons are calling for it in baseball. Yes please, lets make baseball longer than it already is! But it is starting the same way…lets just put it in to determine homeruns or fouls same way they introduced it into football…but our game with the richest tradition and history is going to be destroyed by it IMO. There is absolutely no way once Instant Replay is implemented that it wont expand to include reviews of balls and strikes.
Apparently I wasnt done ranting.
All I want for Christmas is a Pete Carroll scowl on week 17!
Hmmm turn the NFL into the BCS? No thank you
… so they want to take a division winner that is 8-8 and make them go on the road against a Wild Card team that could be 11-5. OK…
SOOOO let’s give the team with the better record an even better advantage… that would make a thrilling playoff game.
I don’t ge tit… since free agency, the system has been driven for every team to essentially be 8-8, competitve, etc.
NOW a division winner is 8-8 and it’s an issue lol
Pooch punts should be illegal inside an opponents 38 yard line.
I just wish
this had really been up for discussion because everybody in our division went 3-13. Oh well, guess that’s for another year.
THIS year's the year. I hope....
Out of 16 games only 6 are in the division
If we had 8-9 division games I’d say leave it alone. But with only 6, it is hard to justify home-field advantage as well as an automatic berth. This year it’s us, so wait till it’s not us, lol. But every year it seems like the playoffs have at least 1 team in, with a worse record than at least 1 team out. I think thats unavoidable unless you get rid of automatic berths, so I say, with an 18 game schedule, increase the playoff teams to 8 per conference, and reseed according to record after deciding who’s in and who’s out. Maybe play each team 3 times in the regular season. Either that or eliminate 1 division out of each conference and go with 3 like it used to be. Then stop changing it, leave it alone.
This is all just talk. It's not going to happen.
The owners know they don’t have the votes to make this change. It’s mostly just writers and broadcasters blathering away to fill their time slot. We can all just ignore it because it isn’t going to happen. Some of the smarter owners have already conceded as much.
none of this will happen, for reasons andyhawk has already presented
but i wouldn’t be opposed to reseeding the playoffs based solely on record in terms of a home game. i would have no problem with the rams getting in the playoffs yet being forced to go on the road for every game. that seems fair. however, i agree with speilman above that the first tiebreaker for seeding should be “division winner.”
follow me on twitter @nickg105
by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 16, 2010 12:53 AM CST reply actions
Wasting a playoff game on a crappy team!
I agree! Crappy 500 teams don’t deserve to go when there are teams with a better record and tougher game schedule. I believe crappy divisions only allow the owners to set the bar lower and save money. It’s definitely not fair that an organization in a tough division spends a lot of money and can’t make the playoffs because of the Rams or Seahawks. Hell, I’m a Rams fan but it ruins the true nature of what this sport is about and as I said before allows the owners to half ass it.
Yes, I like division rivalry but in the end it’s about the level of competition! Look how big the NCAA basketball tournament is. I don’t watch college ball until the tournament. It’s the high level of competition that make people watch it. Divisions are only diluting a pure sport!
Sure, a team can save money
But ultimately if they cheap out, they’ll only get worse. Let’s say a team can win a division at 8-8. There are plenty of other playoff teams that could easily beat them, and it get’s old real quick when a team can’t make it over the hump.
Just look at Wade Phillips. Ignoring this clusterf*** of a year for the Cowboys, he had a great regular season record. Did they think about firing him because he couldn’t win a playoff game? You betcha.
You don’t make money by being completely stagnant and having a un-improving product, and even the dumbest of owners knows this.
Number 8 is great
Drew, I don't think you get that
the aim of a team isn’t to just win a division, it’s to win the superbowl. I guarantee there is no owner in the league who say “oh hang I’ll save a bit of cash because I have an easy division”. I don’t think an owner who goes 8-8 and makes the playoffs thinks it’s fine not to try and improve. The whole setting the bar lower statement is ridiculous if you ask me.
In terms of division winners getting through, I think it’s fine the way it is. Changing seedings would require a revamp of the schedule and divisions.
Say you change the seeding system (without removing divisions), you could end up with a situation where a quality division is incredibly even, but say each team in it went 9-7, this because the division is really competitive. Does the leader of that division deserve to miss out to a wildcard who is 10-6 but that team has division rival 1-15 and 2-14 teams. Who it plays a total of four games against?
No it doesn’t, and the media would be crying about it then too. Rich McKay would complain again. It would just get changed back. And I would say “I told you so”.
plus, other things factor into 8-8 seasons
such as injuries… lets say brady is injured in week 1, pats go 1-6… he then returns, they finish 7-2 to go 8-8 and riding a massive hot streak and win their division.
Denver goes 10-6 and looks “so so”.
Too many things will trash the idea of changing the system.
Pooch punts should be illegal inside an opponents 38 yard line.
a dumb idea
You win your div. you host a PO game. Just leave it alone. With a 16 game schedule a few plays, out of what 2000(?) in a season is the differance between an 8-8 team going 10-6 & a 10-6 team going 8-8.
Doesn’t the NBA seed the div. winners higher than non div. winners?
There needs to be a penalty for not winning y our division
No one has said this yet. Why should a wild card team be equally as rewarded in that first round as the team who beat them? Winning your division, no matter how terrible your record, should entitle you to some perks. But similarly, there needs to be a downside to not winning your division.
Furthermore, imagine Atlanta and New Orleans finish up with the best records in the NFC at 14-2 and 13-3. If by week 17, they have the best records solidified, they can sit their starters and no one cares if division winners are not given advantage. That creates 2 boring week 17 games. The NFL should do all in it’s power to encourage competition every week. Home field advantage for division titles does just that.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
by BruinHalo on Dec 16, 2010 9:58 AM CST via mobile reply actions
The whole problem with this is that it's reactionary
And reactionary rule changes are almost always bad rule changes.
I get it. The league is concerned that the NFC West champion with a lower national profile is going to get a home playoff game against a team that is more profitable. You know what? That’s what you get for pimping out the Niners and ignoring the Rams. You wanna sell the Cowboys every year even when they suck? This is what you get. I’m praying that next year that when the Rams go 12-4, the wild card will come from our division at 11-5 or 10-6 and the NFC East champion will finish 8-8. That way, when McKay and Goodell and everyone else at the league office who wants to change everything every week based on what they just saw the previous weekend are silent because an 8-8 NFC East champion is more marketable than an 8-8 NFC West team, we can call them out for the hypocrisy.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
I agree with this.
The controversy is that a small profile team from NFC west is going to get a home playoff game. I say if the situation was flipped and either AFC north of NFC east has this problem no one talks about it. cough cough espn cough cough.
Football players, like prostitutes, are in the business of ruining their bodies for the pleasure of strangers. ~Merle Kessler
by mlkgandhiv2k on Dec 16, 2010 2:24 PM CST up reply actions
Hell
if it was the Vikes, Colts ,Saints or any other team but an NFC West team it would be ok especilly if it was Favre or Manning.
This is easy to fix
Have two divisions of eight teams in each conference – two division champs with bye weeks and then take the next four best teams based on the usual tie breakers. One could even realign to help the geography of the situation.
Playoff format would not change and it is highly unlikely all 8 teams in a division would be 8-8 or less. Possible but unlikely. The AFC has been qualitatively better for about 10 years or so – but does that mean they should have 8 playoff teams – no. There will always be a bit of unfairness – its the nature of things.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cover the web with Turf
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
- Having finally landed, Kellen Winslow looks for a fresh start in Seattle
