Remember Eagle Fan

[ajcardfan]

Prior to 1975, and for the first five decades of the NFL, there was no seeding. The NFL alternated home field sites without regard to regular season record. So, it hasn't always been this way -- seeding is simply a fairer way of doing things.

One way to make it even fairer would be to seed based on record. I have no problem granting automatic placement for division winners, but what did the Chargers (to use a less incendiary example) do to deserve hosting the Colts this year? They won in a very weak division, while the Colts finished runner-up to the top seed in the conference. Should the Colts be penalized simply because they played in a tougher division? I don't think so.

I'll tell you why. Because the NFL gives more hope to it's fans that their team could make the playoffs, no matter how bad the year before, than any other sports league. And, now examples are abounding, once in, anything can happen. Let's take the Lions for example. They don't have to think about hopping over 10 teams to get a home playoff game next year. They only have to hop over 3. Much more doable. Which makes the division games paramount.

They'd be nuts to get rid of the current format.

 

[cardsloco]

Nowhere do you find me using the current system as an excuse for the Eagles losing. I am arguing the merits of the change on fairness, and I have always supported this change. Record would have the same meaning that it already has when it comes to seeding the top four seeds, so I find it odd that you would find it stupid.


I posted this on the EMB -- here are some other changes I advocate:

1) It seems absurd for the league to require a home team to keep its roof open or closed. How is the home field advantage that Arizona enjoyed any different than the one that Minnesota enjoyed?

2) I agree with scrapping the current seeding system in favor of one that seeds playoff teams based soley on record, and not whether they won their division. Why should the 12-4 Colts be forced to play at the 8-8 Chargers simply because the Chargers won a crappy division?

3) Maybe we do need a "10 win" rule to avoid situations like the one the Patriots ran into this year. If a division winner wins fewer than 10 games during the regular season, then they are not automatically qualified for the playoffs, and must make the playoffs only if they win tiebreakers with other conference teams.

4) I am against expanding the 12-team playoff format to 14 teams. It will just dilute the quality of teams reaching the playoffs in most years. This year (with the Patriots and Jets) was an exception.

5) Let's get rid of sudden-death overtime. Each team must have the same number of offensive series in OT. The team that is ahead at the end of a completed series pair is the winner. If no team is ahead, the teams keep playing until the OT period ends. If no team is ahead at the end of the OT period, then the game ends in a tie.

With the variables that involve players, coaching, and match ups the only way record is a fair way to do it is if each team has played each other. This could be done with each team playing each team once and the 16th game being based on the past years record. Other wise you have to keep the present system.

 

[SECTION 11]

We should enable a system that gets us in more than once every ten years.

 

[Sandan]

But once you establish the playoff teams, the purpose of divisions has been served, and I don't see any reason to seed playoff teams based on anything other than record.

Of course not as that would ahve given you a home game. I suspect were the roles reversed so would you opinion be reversed

 

[BCEagle]

I'll tell you why. Because the NFL gives more hope to it's fans that their team could make the playoffs, no matter how bad the year before, than any other sports league. And, now examples are abounding, once in, anything can happen. Let's take the Lions for example. They don't have to think about hopping over 10 teams to get a home playoff game next year. They only have to hop over 3. Much more doable. Which makes the division games paramount.

They'd be nuts to get rid of the current format.

That might be an argument for automatically qualifying division winners for the playoffs, but not for automatically seeding them higher than wildcard teams. Why should fans of a team that has done very well, say the Colts, be penalized and deprived a home game simply because they happened to live in the wrong region of the country? Not only does it give an inferior team an advantage on the field, it deprives the city of Indianapolis revenue.

I'm sorry, I just don't get this, and I never have.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Nowhere do you find me using the current format as an excuse for the Eagles losing. I am arguing the merits of the change on fairness, and I have always supported this change. Record would have the same meaning that it already has when it comes to seeding the top four seeds, so I find it odd that you would find it stupid.


I posted this on the EMB -- here are some other changes I advocate:

1) It seems absurd for the league to require a home team to keep its roof open or closed. How is the home field advantage that Arizona enjoyed any different than the one that Minnesota enjoyed?

2) I agree with scrapping the current seeding system in favor of one that seeds playoff teams based soley on record, and not whether they won their division. Why should the 12-4 Colts be forced to play at the 8-8 Chargers simply because the Chargers won a crappy division?

3) Maybe we do need a "10 win" rule to avoid situations like the one the Patriots ran into this year. If a division winner wins fewer than 10 games during the regular season, then they are not automatically qualified for the playoffs, and must make the playoffs only if they win tiebreakers with other conference teams.

4) I am against expanding the 12-team playoff format to 14 teams. It will just dilute the quality of teams reaching the playoffs in most years. This year (with the Patriots and Jets) was an exception.

5) Let's get rid of sudden-death overtime. Each team must have the same number of offensive series in OT. The team that is ahead at the end of a completed series pair is the winner. If no team is ahead, the teams keep playing until the OT period ends. If no team is ahead at the end of the OT period, then the game ends in a tie.

#3 has to be about one of the stupidest things i have ever read. Why don't you also make that a rule that the win doesn't count unless the winning scores at least 28 points. If you score less than that it really wasn't a win because it wasn't pretty enough.

Also, people need to get off the Patriots. If they can't win their division,or make a wild card, by playing,by far, the easiest schedule, then they don't deserve to be in the playoffs. Say what you want about the Cards division, they took advantage of it and are now in the Super Bowl. That right there discredits all the bologna about seeding. In your scenario, the Cards may not have even have been in the playoffs.Myabe the Giants wouldn't have been last year. The whoe argument is pointless. Win your division, win your playoff games and the rest takes of it itself. You complain about the Cards weak division but fail to include that they probaly had the toughest non-division schedule in the NFL. Miami 11-5, NE 11-5, Jets 9-7, Buff 7-9, Carolina 12-4, Giants 12-4, Minnesota 10-6,Dall 9-7, Was 8-8, Phi 9-6-1.

 

[BCEagle]

With the variables that involve players, coaching, and match ups the only way record is a fair way to do it is if each team has played each other. This could be done with each team playing each team once and the 16th game being based on the past years record. Other wise you have to keep the present system.

What? The present system is almost entirely based on regular season record with this one exception. The reason why the Eagles, and not the Bucs, were the 6th seed was because they had a better season record -- even though they hadn't faced each other in the regular season. It worked out that each of the NFC division winners played each other during the regular season, but that is pretty rare. In most years, that is not the case, and it comes down to overall record.

 

[BCEagle]

#3 has to be about one of the stupidest things i have ever read. Why don't you also make that a rule that the win doesn't count unless the winning scores at least 28 points. If you score less than that it really wasn't a win because it wasn't pretty enough.

Also, people need to get off the Patriots. If they can't win their division,or make a wild card, by playing,by far, the easiest schedule, then they don't deserve to be in the playoffs. Say what you want about the Cards division, they took advantage of it and are now in the Super Bowl. That right there discredits all the bologna about seeding. In your scenario, the Cards may not have even have been in the playoffs.Myabe the Giants wouldn't have been last year. The whoe argument is pointless. Win your division, win your playoff games and the rest takes of it itself. You complain about the Cards weak division but fail to include that they probaly had the toughest non-division schedule in the NFL. Miami 11-5, NE 11-5, Jets 9-7, Buff 7-9, Carolina 12-4, Giants 12-4, Minnesota 10-6,Dall 9-7, Was 8-8, Phi 9-6-1.

I don't follow. Everything else in the NFL, from playoff qualification, to seeding, to the draft, is based on regular season record. Why should this be an exception? How does it advance the game when an 8-8 team gets in and an 11-5 team doesn't? They beat the Patriots 30-10 during the regular season, fair enough, but the Patriots were the better regular season team. By far.

In my scenario, the Giants would most definitely have made the playoffs. They were seeded 5th based on .... regular season record. As would, for that matter, the 2008 Cardinals. They held the tiebreakers over the Cowboys and Bucs.

BTW: 47-7 in the head-to-head matchup against the Cardinals, and you are arguing that the Patriots don't deserve to be in the playoffs because they had an easier schedule??!?

 

[Nash2Amare]

I don't follow. Everything else in the NFL, from playoff qualification, to seeding, to the draft, is based on regular season record. Why should this be an exception? How does it advance the game when an 8-8 team gets in and an 11-5 team doesn't?

BTW: 47-7 in the head-to-head matchup against the Cardinals, and you are arguing that the Patriots don't deserve to be in the playoffs because they had an easier schedule??!?

Their schedule was slightly easier...
http://www.stampedeblue.com/2009/1/1/706808/final-strength-of-schedule

and in that 47-7 game it was 1 team who was jogging to the finish line while the other was sprinting...plus it was in the snow...where we havent played in for like 30 years, if i recall correctly..

 

[Sandan]

Because it makes the division mean something.

It makes division games really important and winning division really important.

All you need to do to host a playoff game is WIN your division, where is the problem with that ?

 

[BCEagle]

Because it makes the division mean something.

It makes division games really important and winning division really important.

All you need to do to host a playoff game is WIN your division, where is the problem with that ?

The problem is one of fairness ... and what is best for the game. And I think that what is best for the game is that fans of the winningest teams get to host playoff games. Where is the problem with that?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

The problem is one of fairness ... and what is best for the game. And I think that what is best for the game is that fans of the winningest teams get to host playoff games. Where is the problem with that?

you get to sit at home during the superbowl. so there's no problem with that!

 

[Sandan]

The problem is that if you mess with the seeding process then divisions start to mean much less.

The next logical step is to diminish the role of the conferences.

The way it is now generates excitement at several stages in the process.

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

The problem is one of fairness ... and what is best for the game. And I think that what is best for the game is that fans of the winningest teams get to host playoff games. Where is the problem with that?

Fairness? wtf are you talking about?
You win your division, you host a playoff game, it's as simple as that.

The formula has been working great for decades, but because we closed the roof and Philly missed the SB the whole ******** rule book and playoff structure needs to be totally overhauled?

 

[ajcardfan]

The problem is one of fairness ... and what is best for the game. And I think that what is best for the game is that fans of the winningest teams get to host playoff games. Where is the problem with that?

Because then you can have the Red Sox and Yankees of the NFL hosting games almost every year while the Royals and Pirates of the NFL have longer shots at ever hoping to do so.

The 4 team division system is awesome. The division games are huge. If you seed based only on record, or even worse, institute your ******** "at least 10 wins rule" before you automatically qualify you screw that up. The Lions game would be just as important as your game at Dallas. That would be a bad move.

 

[conraddobler]

The problem is one of fairness ... and what is best for the game. And I think that what is best for the game is that fans of the winningest teams get to host playoff games. Where is the problem with that?

Carolina hosted us and that worked out well for them.

In fact the record for the home teams this year wasn't that good.

It dosen't matter, there should be kudos for winning your division you can't control how good or bad it is, it is what it is.

 

[Dback Jon]

Philly and New england fans/owners/sportswriters are turning into the whiniest 2 year olds in the world.

Did New England apologize for playing a crappier division for the past 4 years than the NFC West this year? NOPE.

Win your division. Stop whining. You didn't want the Cards in your division because you had to keep your precious rivalries with the Giants, Redskins and Cowpukes, and shipped Arizona off to the West. Now you are bitching about that. Well guess what, jokes on you...

 

[BCEagle]

The problem is that if you mess with the seeding process then divisions start to mean much less.

The next logical step is to diminish the role of the conferences.

The way it is now generates excitement at several stages in the process.

OK, so let's say the the league wants to ensure that two markets in every region have a home playoff game. They want to share the wealth and make sure that fans everywhere are close to at least one of the playoff games. Give every division winner a home game. Fine. Perhaps even borderline laudable. But why not re-seed the remaining teams at the divisional round based on regular season record? At that point, divisions mean nothing, since there is no guarantee in the current model that every region is even represented in the divisional playoffs. And certainly the conference championships should be hosted by the team with the better record.

Also, how do you feel about the top two seeds getting a bye week based on record?

 

[O]

Here is the bottom line!

The NFC CHAPMIONS!
ARIZONA CARINALS!!!!!!!!!


WON !


How hard is that to figure out?

Get over it and move on!\

 

[BCEagle]

Fairness? wtf are you talking about?
You win your division, you host a playoff game, it's as simple as that.

The formula has been working great for decades, but because we closed the roof and Philly missed the SB the whole ******** rule book and playoff structure needs to be totally overhauled?

Simple, but not fair. They are not one and the same. During segregation, many towns in the South had a rule that African-Americans had to sit at the back of the bus. A simple rule, but not a fair one. Do you now see the difference?

Fair would be letting the team with the better record during the regular season host the playoff.

 

[BCEagle]

Here is the bottom line!

The NFC CHAPMIONS!
ARIZONA CARINALS!!!!!!!!!


WON !


How hard is that to figure out?

Get over it and move on!\

The better team won, yes. But how would this relate to anything I wrote? Your post, replete with its poor spelling, grammar, and reasoning ability, does make me wonder about the quality of secondary education in the greater Phoenix area, though. So I guess it has got that going for it.

 

[O]

The better team won, yes. But how would this relate to anything I wrote? Your post, replete with its poor spelling, grammar, and reasoning ability, does make me wonder about the quality of secondary education in the greater Phoenix area, though. So I guess it has got that going for it.

Who the hell do you think you are?
Reasoning ability?
The quality of secondary education?

Let me make this very, very, simple for you!

PISS OFF!

This is our home, we live here!
You don't!

You want to represent something?
Represent to the fact that you and your team lost to the;

ARIZONA CARDINALS!

That being said, we have other fish to fry and you and your team aren't one of them.

So, thanks for stopping by.

In the meantime;
Wallow in the fact that you were so close.................

YET!!!!!!!!!!



So far.

 

[Osbern61]

The better team won, yes. But how would this relate to anything I wrote? Your post, replete with its poor spelling, grammar, and reasoning ability, does make me wonder about the quality of secondary education in the greater Phoenix area, though. So I guess it has got that going for it.

What happened? After some respectable posts, you're now stooping to personal insults?

 

[Spielman]

What happened? After some respectable posts, you're now stooping to personal insults?

True colors.

 

[WildBB]

It's called HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE!! According to all your fans it was a NON-FACTOR in this game. That your team EATS THIS STUFF UP!

#1