View Full Version : Mediocrity Rewarded
ngineer
December 30th, 2008, 08:46 PM
I heard a commentator make this remark yesterday and it struck me how right he was. The NFL entries into the Super Bowl Sweepstakes reflects what's happened in our corporate world. Arizona (9-7) and San Diego (8-8) go to the playoffs while New England sits at home with an 11-5 record. We need to make everyone feel good regardless if they have underperformed. Bonuses for everyone despite driving companies into the ditch. Does anyone see something wrong with this overall picture???xconfusedx xsmhx
UNHWildCats
December 30th, 2008, 08:52 PM
Why cant we let teams like San Diego and Arizona be division winners but deny them access to the playoffs.... heck the city of San Diego should already be used to that lol
nwFL Griz
December 30th, 2008, 08:59 PM
I am so sick of hearing this. Only when the Pats get shafted is this even discussed. Every year at least one team gets in the playoffs because they play in a weak division.
Let it go already.....or next time, win one more game. This year, New England did not deserve to be in the playoffs. End of story.
Go Lehigh TU Owl
December 30th, 2008, 09:09 PM
I don't think you can dispute the fact that New England is one of the top 12 teams in the league. However, even as a Patriot fan i except their fate without any bitterness. They knew what the rules were and the failed to due what was necessary to make the playoffs. I do feel they are a more "playoff" worthy team than the Dolphins. If the two teams played on a neutral field NE would be a 5-6 point favorite. With that said the Dolphins managed to split with NE and have a better record within the conference to earn the nod. The Patriots will be back next year and i'm guessing will be one of the favorites for the Super Bowl as long as Brady overcomes these set backs. They also need to get some youth along the DL and at LB. The secondary really came together by the end of the year. They went from the teams biggest question mark to one of it's strengths.
ngineer
December 30th, 2008, 09:16 PM
Hey, I carry no cross for the Chargers. I'm an Eagles fan and follow the NFC much more than I do the AFC. And, yes, my "Iggles" squeezed themselves in by underperforming this year, too, but they did have a better record by the skin of their teeth than their competition. For an 8-8 team to be in position for a shot to get to the Super Bowl is a mockery.
Franks Tanks
December 30th, 2008, 09:20 PM
Its just like these bowl games with teams barely over .500
JohnStOnge
December 30th, 2008, 09:34 PM
I don't have a problem with what you're describing. It's a system where they're broken up into conferences and divisions. Everybody knows what they have to do to get into the playoffs. Everybody controls their own destiny completely.
Sure, there can be situations in which the best 12 teams don't get in. But that's OK by me because every single team has the chance to do what it needs to do to win the championship and there's no opinion involved at all.
813Jag
December 30th, 2008, 09:37 PM
Thems the breaks. It's not San Diego's fault Denver slumped. All the Broncos had to do was beat San Diego and they were in. Everybdoy knew the NFC West was weak. I will admit 8-8 is bad but it is what it is.
chantster
December 30th, 2008, 09:37 PM
Why cant we let teams like San Diego and Arizona be division winners but deny them access to the playoffs.... heck the city of San Diego should already be used to that lol
Maybe if the Pats beat the Chargers this year they wouldn't be sitting at home. xlolx
Finally got a little competition in that traditionally weak AFC East and the Pat fans want to cry.
Chargers did something the Pats didn't do, and that was win their division. Granted the AFC West is weak this year, but we had alot of lean years when Denver, Oakland and KC dominated the AFC.
It happens.
UMass922
December 30th, 2008, 09:47 PM
I don't have a problem with what you're describing. It's a system where they're broken up into conferences and divisions. Everybody knows what they have to do to get into the playoffs. Everybody controls their own destiny completely.
Sure, there can be situations in which the best 12 teams don't get in. But that's OK by me because every single team has the chance to do what it needs to do to win the championship and there's no opinion involved at all.
Well said.
Hansel
December 30th, 2008, 10:00 PM
Sounds like the BCS and FCS autobids ;)
UNHWildCats
December 30th, 2008, 10:17 PM
Maybe if the Pats beat the Chargers this year they wouldn't be sitting at home. xlolx
Finally got a little competition in that traditionally weak AFC East and the Pat fans want to cry.
Chargers did something the Pats didn't do, and that was win their division. Granted the AFC West is weak this year, but we had alot of lean years when Denver, Oakland and KC dominated the AFC.
It happens.
i have no problem with the Pats missing the playoffs, sure it sucks, but there were rules and we failed to qualify based on those rules.
My previous comment was mostly intended as humor and taking a shot at the Torreros.
appmaj
December 31st, 2008, 10:02 AM
This is why there are wildcards!
FCS Preview
December 31st, 2008, 10:09 AM
If the Pats were so playoff deserving, they could have claimed one of the two wild card spots. Since when does being the third-best non-division winner deserve a shot in the playoffs?
The Jets also had a better record than San Diego but you don't hear their fans whining about it...
UNHWildCats
December 31st, 2008, 10:16 AM
If the Pats were so playoff deserving, they could have claimed one of the two wild card spots. Since when does being the third-best non-division winner deserve a shot in the playoffs?
The Jets also had a better record than San Diego but you don't hear their fans whining about it...
xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx Just a few years ago before they realigned to four 4 team divisions.
A few years back KC and NE actually proposed expanding the playoffs by 1 team to keep the three wildcards and only the top division winner would get a bye....
andy7171
December 31st, 2008, 10:26 AM
I have no problem with 8-8 getting in if they win their division. You can't avoid it with two 4 division conferences.
I do think the NFL should alter who gets homefield though. Once the 6 teams are in, they should get seeded according to their strength.
Indy at home vs SD, Baltimore at home vs Miami, Altlanta at home vs Arizona. That would make it fair.
UNHWildCats
December 31st, 2008, 10:30 AM
I have no problem with 8-8 getting in if they win their division. You can't avoid it with two 4 division conferences.
I do think the NFL should alter who gets homefield though. Once the 6 teams are in, they should get seeded according to their strength.
Indy at home vs SD, Baltimore at home vs Miami, Altlanta at home vs Arizona. That would make it fair.
xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx
813Jag
December 31st, 2008, 10:34 AM
I have no problem with 8-8 getting in if they win their division. You can't avoid it with two 4 division conferences.
I do think the NFL should alter who gets homefield though. Once the 6 teams are in, they should get seeded according to their strength.
Indy at home vs SD, Baltimore at home vs Miami, Altlanta at home vs Arizona. That would make it fair.
I agree, no way an 8-8 team should host. Arizona playing at home is their only hope of winning.
appfan2008
December 31st, 2008, 10:38 AM
I feel that division winners should be rewarded and the pats werent good enough this year... ok... what i do have a problem with is the cards and the chargers getting home games... i think the teams should be reranked once they get in...
mcveyrl
December 31st, 2008, 10:57 AM
Yea, I have no problem with the division winners getting in, but as others have said, the problem is those division winners are rewarded with home games at 8-8/9-7.
Maybe each team should bid on a playoff game and then...oh wait.
andy7171
December 31st, 2008, 11:06 AM
I feel that division winners should be rewarded and the pats werent good enough this year... ok... what i do have a problem with is the cards and the chargers getting home games... i think the teams should be reranked once they get in...
They get re-seeded after the first round anyway. This should be a no brainer.
T-Dog
December 31st, 2008, 11:23 AM
All I would change is after you have your six teams (4 division winners and two wild card), you seed them based on record so the teams with the better records host. Thus you have incentive for a division winner to win more games so they don't have to go on the road in the first round.
FCS Preview
December 31st, 2008, 11:23 AM
Baseball does the same thing though...often the Wild Card has a better record than a division winner, but the WC team gets only 2 of the 5 games at home.
In the NBA and NHL, don't the division winners automatically get the top seeds in the playoffs, regardless of their records?
813Jag
December 31st, 2008, 11:36 AM
Baseball does the same thing though...often the Wild Card has a better record than a division winner, but the WC team gets only 2 of the 5 games at home.
In the NBA and NHL, don't the division winners automatically get the top seeds in the playoffs, regardless of their records?
I think they reseed in the second round.
UNHWildCats
December 31st, 2008, 11:41 AM
Baseball does the same thing though...often the Wild Card has a better record than a division winner, but the WC team gets only 2 of the 5 games at home.
In the NBA and NHL, don't the division winners automatically get the top seeds in the playoffs, regardless of their records?
I believe in the NHL now a division winner is guaranteed a top 4 spot, but can be passed by a non division winner for the third or even second spot .
FCS Preview
December 31st, 2008, 12:15 PM
Well, it's been years since I followed the NBA...and the Islanders have been so bad for so long, I don't have to worry about how the NHL does things either. xlolx
LacesOut
December 31st, 2008, 12:39 PM
Agree with most views expressed so far. Win your division, you deserve to make the playoffs. But re-seed the six teams based upon their Wins and Losses.
Colts and Falcons playing on the road is ridiculous.
nwFL Griz
December 31st, 2008, 01:35 PM
I believe in the NHL now a division winner is guaranteed a top 4 spot, but can be passed by a non division winner for the third or even second spot .
Nope. Division winners are guaranteed top 3 spots. Reference Washington Capitals last year, actually finished 6th in Eastern Conference, but seeded third by winning Southeast Division.
TheValleyRaider
December 31st, 2008, 01:41 PM
I believe in the NHL now a division winner is guaranteed a top 4 spot, but can be passed by a non division winner for the third or even second spot .
I think that's actually the NBA's rule xchinscratchx
Hammerhead
December 31st, 2008, 02:36 PM
Why not quit making division rivals play each other twice every year? That would help even out the strength of schedule and provide more variety for fans.
Franks Tanks
December 31st, 2008, 04:47 PM
Why not quit making division rivals play each other twice every year? That would help even out the strength of schedule and provide more variety for fans.
No-- the divisions should play each other twice. I woulnt want to see the Eagles two battles with the Skins, Boys, and Gianys be replaced for a game with the Seahawks. In all sports Division teams play each other more often, hence the reason for Divisions. If you dont like the twice a year thing then just get rid of divisions and have the top 12 teams make the playoffs.
813Jag
December 31st, 2008, 05:53 PM
Why not quit making division rivals play each other twice every year? That would help even out the strength of schedule and provide more variety for fans.
A season with out 6 games against the Giants, Eagles, and Skins is useless to me.
NoCoDanny
December 31st, 2008, 09:14 PM
Don't you all get it, the rules need to be changed if a Ny or Boston team gets the shaft.
But seriously, **** the Gaytriots, they had their chance to do it on the field and failed.
93henfan
January 1st, 2009, 09:49 AM
A season with out 6 games against the Giants, Eagles, and Skins is useless to me.
xbowx xbowx xbowx
Those games are irreplaceable. Remember the year the Cowboys went 1-15 and their only victory was against the Redskins? Remember Tom Landry running up the score on the Eagles' scabs during the three-week 1987 players' strike and it pissed Buddy Ryan off so bad that when he got his regulars back for the next Cowboys game he had Randall Cunningham fake a kneel-down at the end of a game and throw an extra TD pass? xlolx I won't even get into bodybags and bounties.xwhistlex
813Jag
January 1st, 2009, 01:36 PM
xbowx xbowx xbowx
Those games are irreplaceable. Remember the year the Cowboys went 1-15 and their only victory was against the Redskins? Remember Tom Landry running up the score on the Eagles' scabs during the three-week 1987 players' strike and it pissed Buddy Ryan off so bad that when he got his regulars back for the next Cowboys game he had Randall Cunningham fake a kneel-down at the end of a game and throw an extra TD pass? xlolx I won't even get into bodybags and bounties.xwhistlex
I agree, imagine if the teams only played once, there would be no week 17 massacre. (on second thought that sounds good. xlolx) We won't touch on bounties. xreadx You'd also miss on Emmitt playing with a separated shoulder in 93 against the Giants.
T-Dog
January 1st, 2009, 02:35 PM
Nope. Division winners are guaranteed top 3 spots. Reference Washington Capitals last year, actually finished 6th in Eastern Conference, but seeded third by winning Southeast Division.
The Southeastern Division has gotten ripped for being below-average. The Hurricanes got the 3 seed in 2002 by winning the division despite having only the 8th best record in the East and were picked against in every series. A little thanks to the 1 and 2 seeds both losing in the first round, and the Canes had home ice all the way to the finals before losing to Detriot.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.