Remember Eagle Fan

[Redrage]

I don't care how weak a division is, it is quite a feat to win all of your divisional games. Fairness also depends on your point of view. Lets say for example your team plays in the toughest division in Football, then plays the toughest non-divisional schedule conceivable. Would it be fair for a team who runs that gauntlet and wins their division to travel to play against the 2nd place team in a weak division with a weak schedule? No, it wouldn't.

There is no way to ensure fairness. I'm fine with the system as it is.
Hell, there were years when the Cards went 7 - 9 playing in a competetive NFC East; when teams in the NFC Central got into the playofs playing a cup cake schedule. It sucked that teams with easier schedules got mnore respect than ours, but we dealt with it. That's the breaks.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

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

And that my friends is the point. Eagle fan wanted to come in here running their big Philly mouth like they were going to walk all over us and that it was laughable that Arizona's homefield was going to be a factor.

I am thinking your whiny owner proved you wrong on that one with this interview. Talk about Sour Grapes.

And here is the bottom line. Why are we getting into this argument over seeding and hosting? If the Eagles record suffered from playing in such a tough division then they should have come to AZ and beat us right? Its obvious they were the superior team right? right? right?

Eagle fan - you there?

 

[BCEagle]

BTW -- this was first time since playoff seeding began in 1975 that the team with the better record did not host the conference championship game. Just sayin'.

 

[BCEagle]

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

Yes, I went over the line and I am sorry. I went for funny, and I ended up with obnoxious. Sorry.

 

[earthsci]

BTW -- this was first time since playoff seeding began in 1975 that the team with the better record did not host the conference championship game. Just sayin'.

So it happens once in 33 years and it needs to be changed? Just sayin'.

 

[cardsloco]

BTW -- this was first time since playoff seeding began in 1975 that the team with the better record did not host the conference championship game. Just sayin'.

The tie that you had with the Bengals was worse then any of our losses. So the situation played out right any way.

 

[BCEagle]

And that my friends is the point. Eagle fan wanted to come in here running their big Philly mouth like they were going to walk all over us and that it was laughable that Arizona's homefield was going to be a factor.

I am thinking your whiny owner proved you wrong on that one with this interview. Talk about Sour Grapes.

And here is the bottom line. Why are we getting into this argument over seeding and hosting? If the Eagles record suffered from playing in such a tough division then they should have come to AZ and beat us right? Its obvious they were the superior team right? right? right?

Eagle fan - you there?

No argument. Along with agreeing with the original poster that the Cardinals should have the right to keep their roof closed (something that all of you seemed to have missed), I shared my opinion that the team with the best record should host the playoff game, and many took umbrage to that point of view. I have no problems defending my position with verifiable facts and sound reasoning, which is why I am still here.

 

[Dback Jon]

BTW -- this was first time since playoff seeding began in 1975 that the team with the better record did not host the conference championship game. Just sayin'.

Yes, that difference with you tying the pathetic Bengals makes ALL the difference.

The NFL should have awarded you a loss for that game. Makes as much sense as any of the other crap you and your owner have been driveling on about.

 

[BCEagle]

So it happens once in 33 years and it needs to be changed? Just sayin'.

Conversely, if we change the rule to make it fair to everyone, then divisional winners will only be affected once in 33 years. See how that line of reasoning cuts both ways?

 

[Cheesebeef]

BTW -- this was first time since playoff seeding began in 1975 that the team with the better record did not host the conference championship game. Just sayin'.

wrong. In 1998 the Broncos had a better record than the Steelers the year that the Broncos won their first title. What happened? They went into Three Rivers and kicked their ass. Why? Because they were the better team. Got any more incorrect stats or insults you want to hurl at us?

 

[BCEagle]

The tie that you had with the Bengals was worse then any of our losses. So the situation played out right any way.

I don't know. No champion has ever lost to a team by 40 points during the regular season. Ever. In the 85 years of the league, that has never, never happened. That was a pretty large and foul-smelling egg, there.

 

[Renz]

I don't care how weak a division is, it is quite a feat to win all of your divisional games. Fairness also depends on your point of view. Lets say for example your team plays in the toughest division in Football, then plays the toughest non-divisional schedule conceivable. Would it be fair for a team who runs that gauntlet and wins their division to travel to play against the 2nd place team in a weak division with a weak schedule? No, it wouldn't.

There is no way to ensure fairness. I'm fine with the system as it is.
Hell, there were years when the Cards went 7 - 9 playing in a competetive NFC East; when teams in the NFC Central got into the playofs playing a cup cake schedule. It sucked that teams with easier schedules got mnore respect than ours, but we dealt with it. That's the breaks.

That's what a lot of people are missing in this argument, IMO. Even if the NFL completely eliminated divisions, conferences etc., some team that missed the playoffs or weren't awarded a home playoff game would complain that some team that did make it had an easier schedule or whatever.

There's no magic bullet to satisfy everyone. Leave it alone.

 

[BCEagle]

wrong. In 1998 the Broncos had a better record than the Steelers the year that the Broncos won their first title. What happened? They went into Three Rivers and kicked their ass. Why? Because they were the better team. Got any more incorrect stats or insults you want to hurl at us?

The fact that it has happened twice makes the case for changing the seeding rules all that more compelling. Thanks for helping me out, there.

 

[Cheesebeef]

again, I didn't see anyone bitching when the 11-5 Steelers hosted the AFC title game against the 13-3 Denver Broncos in 1998. If it was fine then, it's fine now. always has been, always will be. the better team wins the game, period. Denver did back then and we did two weeks ago. get over it and stop using bogus stats to try to rationalize why you lost.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The fact that it has happened twice makes the case for changing the seeding rules all that more compelling. Thanks for helping me out, there.

were you complaining then? no and neither was anyone else. it's the way it is. deal with your loss and move on.

 

[cardsloco]

Conversely, if we change the rule to make it fair to everyone, then divisional winners will only be affected once in 33 years. See how that line of reasoning cuts both ways?

Ok, let me put this way. Lets say the East is the toughest division and the redskins, eagles, giants, and cowboys beat each other up all season, resulting in a poorer record. The winner of the division is by far the best team in the league, but by virtue of record has to go on the road because of their record. How is that any more fair? The division winner must keep the home game. The funny part is the eagles lucked their way into the playoffs in the first place, so I don't understand the hurt feelings.

 

[cardsloco]

I don't know. No champion has ever lost to a team by 40 points during the regular season. Ever. In the 85 years of the league, that has never, never happened. That was a pretty large and foul-smelling egg, there.

Yes the effort was bad, but no one mentions that we started to work on our run game and experimented in play-calling during that game. We also rested some players which seems to have worked out very well for us. So you can discount the game, but maybe it was everything we needed to get to the Superbowl. Also we already had our division sewed up when we lost, the eagles were fighting for their playoff life when they tied that miserable team.

 

[BCEagle]

again, I didn't see anyone bitching when the 11-5 Steelers hosted the AFC title game against the 13-3 Denver Broncos in 1998. If it was fine then, it's fine now. always has been, always will be. the better team wins the game, period. Denver did back then and we did two weeks ago. get over it and stop using bogus stats to try to rationalize why you lost.

Well, it was the 12-4 Broncos and the 1997 AFCCG, but had I remembered it, I wouldn't have liked it then either.

 

[Renz]

Well, it was the 12-4 Broncos and the 1997 AFCCG, but had I remembered it, I wouldn't have liked it then either.

That's the point, isn't it?

 

[WisconsinCard]

Well, it was the 12-4 Broncos and the 1997 AFCCG, but had I remembered it, I wouldn't have liked it then either.

Can we talk about this next year...ya know when you are actually have a game to play.

 

[BCEagle]

Ok, let me put this way. Lets say the East is the toughest division and the redskins, eagles, giants, and cowboys beat each other up all season, resulting in a poorer record. The winner of the division is by far the best team in the league, but by virtue of record has to go on the road because of their record. How is that any more fair? The division winner must keep the home game. The funny part is the eagles lucked their way into the playoffs in the first place, so I don't understand the hurt feelings.

No hurt feelings, I just think that it is better for the game and the league that the better teams host the bigger games.

 

[WisconsinCard]

No hurt feelings, I just think that it is better for the game and the league that the better teams host the bigger games.

They did as both home teams won last week.

 

[Sandan]

I don't know. No champion has ever lost to a team by 40 points during the regular season. Ever. In the 85 years of the league, that has never, never happened. That was a pretty large and foul-smelling egg, there.

So what ?

Meaningless games have no meaning

 

[BCEagle]

So what ?

Meaningless games have no meaning

It would not have been meaningless if teams were seeded according to record. The Cardinals would have had something to play for. Perhaps they give the Patriots a ballgame if the game has meaning to them. I don't think that the Patriots are really 40 points better than the NFC Champions. Few do.

With seeding by record, every game has meaning. As I wrote, it is better for the game and for the league. Best wishes -- I'm pulling for the Cards. It's been real.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

No argument. Along with agreeing with the original poster that the Cardinals should have the right to keep their roof closed (something that all of you seemed to have missed), I shared my opinion that the team with the best record should host the playoff game, and many took umbrage to that point of view. I have no problems defending my position with verifiable facts and sound reasoning, which is why I am still here.

No worries. I happen to think you are a good poster and repesent your team and points well.