Post by hifigator on Dec 23, 2010 14:58:31 GMT -5
What do you all think about the way the NFL does its playoffs?
As we all know, there are now four 4-team divisions in each conference. The winner of each division as well as the two "next-best" teams from each conference make the playoffs. That seems fairly straight forward, and fair. But is it really?
Arguments FOR the system in place:
Even though all sports claim that "every" team starts the year with hopes and dreams that they can win it all, that's really not true. But with the NFL system, all you have to do is make the playoffs and then it's a series of independent, 1 game, winner-take-all elimination games. And at that point, anyone can win. So unlike baseball, basketball and hockey, where you must win a 7 game series and the cream will normally rise to the top, there is a legitimate argument for and historical examples of "lesser" teams during the regular season getting it together in the post season. Just a couple of years ago, the Az. Cardinals were 9-7 and hosted the 11-5 Falcons to begin the playoffs. The Cardinals didn't "deserve" to host etc ... But as we remember, they damn near won the Super Bowl. So the argument that the current system is more inclusive to all teams at the beginning of the year has some merit.
Additionally, the general nature of football encourages each team to believe they are still in the very next game right up until kickoff. So using that argument, all playoff teams are given that same belief.
Essentially, you don't need to be the best of 16 teams or the best of12 teams. All every team needs to know is that they only need to be the best of 4 teams. If so, they are guaranteed to win their division and host at least their first playoff game -- and they might get a bye and then host a playoff game.
BUT ...
Divisions aren't the same strength. I know this argument will approach the modern-day BCS/Strength of Schedule issue that pops up daily during the fall, but the point is that certain divisions are clearly stronger than others while others are clearly weaker. This factor is only made worse by the fact that each team plays each divsion foe twice every year. So more than a third of your season is against your 3 division opponents. If they are cumulatively weak, then your potential for success is much greater. Conversely, if you are sitting there looking at the Giants and Eagles or the Falcons and the Saints, then you already have one foot in the grave.
Look at this year: the Giants play the Packers in what is very close to an elimination match. The winner is in the playoffs or very, very close to being in. Now look at another game this weekend: the Rams host the Niners. The winner of this game has a good or really good shot at making the playoffs. And if neither does, it could only be because the Seahawks best them. But none of those teams are any good.
I am neither a Giant nor a Packer fan, but I am a football fan. My eyes tell me that either the Giants or Packers are better than the Seahawks, Rams or Niners. (although the Giants are giving me plenty of reasons to question that view)
So the bottom line is do you like/agree with the system we have? If not, how would you change it? Would you modify the divisions? Would you have random scheduling? Would you seed after the regular season?
Lastly, what about reseeding? Do you like the way each weeks opponents are paired based on who is left standing as determined by the regular season or do you think it is more fair to set up the brackets as we do with March Madness and the NBA for that matter?
Just curious what everyone thinks on this.
As we all know, there are now four 4-team divisions in each conference. The winner of each division as well as the two "next-best" teams from each conference make the playoffs. That seems fairly straight forward, and fair. But is it really?
Arguments FOR the system in place:
Even though all sports claim that "every" team starts the year with hopes and dreams that they can win it all, that's really not true. But with the NFL system, all you have to do is make the playoffs and then it's a series of independent, 1 game, winner-take-all elimination games. And at that point, anyone can win. So unlike baseball, basketball and hockey, where you must win a 7 game series and the cream will normally rise to the top, there is a legitimate argument for and historical examples of "lesser" teams during the regular season getting it together in the post season. Just a couple of years ago, the Az. Cardinals were 9-7 and hosted the 11-5 Falcons to begin the playoffs. The Cardinals didn't "deserve" to host etc ... But as we remember, they damn near won the Super Bowl. So the argument that the current system is more inclusive to all teams at the beginning of the year has some merit.
Additionally, the general nature of football encourages each team to believe they are still in the very next game right up until kickoff. So using that argument, all playoff teams are given that same belief.
Essentially, you don't need to be the best of 16 teams or the best of12 teams. All every team needs to know is that they only need to be the best of 4 teams. If so, they are guaranteed to win their division and host at least their first playoff game -- and they might get a bye and then host a playoff game.
BUT ...
Divisions aren't the same strength. I know this argument will approach the modern-day BCS/Strength of Schedule issue that pops up daily during the fall, but the point is that certain divisions are clearly stronger than others while others are clearly weaker. This factor is only made worse by the fact that each team plays each divsion foe twice every year. So more than a third of your season is against your 3 division opponents. If they are cumulatively weak, then your potential for success is much greater. Conversely, if you are sitting there looking at the Giants and Eagles or the Falcons and the Saints, then you already have one foot in the grave.
Look at this year: the Giants play the Packers in what is very close to an elimination match. The winner is in the playoffs or very, very close to being in. Now look at another game this weekend: the Rams host the Niners. The winner of this game has a good or really good shot at making the playoffs. And if neither does, it could only be because the Seahawks best them. But none of those teams are any good.
I am neither a Giant nor a Packer fan, but I am a football fan. My eyes tell me that either the Giants or Packers are better than the Seahawks, Rams or Niners. (although the Giants are giving me plenty of reasons to question that view)
So the bottom line is do you like/agree with the system we have? If not, how would you change it? Would you modify the divisions? Would you have random scheduling? Would you seed after the regular season?
Lastly, what about reseeding? Do you like the way each weeks opponents are paired based on who is left standing as determined by the regular season or do you think it is more fair to set up the brackets as we do with March Madness and the NBA for that matter?
Just curious what everyone thinks on this.
