Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

Its all about winning. I like the idea.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=chrisl4064;435497]Its all about winning. I like the idea.[/QUOTE]

Exactly

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=GhettoDogAllStars;435495]I doesn't seem fair to me.

11 wins for one team, might be easier than 9 wins for another -- based on their competition. Every team doesn't play the same schedule, so it's not really fair to do it based on record alone. It seems better to do it based on the value of wins (I'm sure there's a term for that, but I don't know it). I think it should factor in strength of schedule somehow.[/QUOTE]I think if the only point was to be fair, they probably shouldn't even do it by wins. Wins loosely correlate to how good a team is, but factors like strength of schedule do screw things up so that lesser teams get more wins (thanks, Giants) and throw the whole playoff system off.

IMO, fair is one thing, but the real goal of the league should be doing everything they can to make it more [B]competitive[/B]. We all have different definations of what fair would be, as this thread shows, but if a rule change made division winners try harder down the stretch to beat opponents, then we absolutely should make that change.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

Personally, I dont like it. I dont think this movement is so much about the playoffs as it is the end of the regular season, when a team like Tampa rested their starters for like 4 weeks...but I agree with everyone who stated that winning the division basically goes out the window and is worthless under this type of a system...I like it how it is, if a team is that much better and going to be a legit contender (ie; Giants vs Buccaneers) they'll win anyways...

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=angryssg;435365]I look at it this way. The Browns should have made the Playoffs. The Colts rested their starters against the TItans. The sorry assed Titans made the playoffs instead of the Browns. Had the Colts had a reason to play their starters they would have easily beaten the Titans.

The last couple games of the season would have been more interesting and the Playoff picture would have looked different.[/QUOTE]

I look at it this way, the Browns didn't deserve to make the playoffs because they had to rely on another team to help them.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;435350]So long as all division winners are automatically entered, I am okay with it. Of course, it penalizes teams that play in tough divisions.[/QUOTE]

Off the top, I am against the change, but if you favor this change, why then would winning your division matter? If the point is to reward the best records, then do it all the way or don’t do it at all. Is there any need for divisions at all? Don’t say for proximity regards to scheduling or Dallas wouldn’t be in the NFC East.

As for the Tampa/NY argument regarding resting players, each team has to make that decision and live with the results. Based on 2007, do you think teams in the future will “coast” in the final week like Tampa did and lose in their first game or play hard like the Giants did and carry the momentum all the way. I personally don’t believe you can prove either of the above scenarios really happened, but that certainly was the perception.

This is a copycat/knee-jerk league and the hysteria over this will die as long as they allow it to.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=chrisl4064;435496]I was actually hoping they would go to a BCS ranking system all together. It seems as if college football has it all figured out.[/QUOTE]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Sorry, but that's the worst thing the NFL could ever do. Heck, it doesn't even work in college.

I think people are ignoring what Schneed said a few posts ago. Winning your division would still mean something. Even if you won your division at 8-8 (must really be a sucky division) you're in the playoffs. That's quite an accomplishment. The only thing that would change is seeding position and I think it makes sense that a team with the better record should have the home game. Regardless the strength of schedule, you still have to go out there and play every one of those 16 games during the regular season. I like the idea of forcing teams to play their starters throughout the end of the season. It just makes for better football.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=chrisl4064;435496]I was actually hoping they would go to a BCS ranking system all together. It seems as if college football has it all figured out.[/quote]

LOL good one

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=skinsguy;435538]NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Sorry, but that's the worst thing the NFL could ever do. Heck, it doesn't even work in college.

I think people are ignoring what Schneed said a few posts ago. Winning your division would still mean something. Even if you won your division at 8-8 (must really be a sucky division) you're in the playoffs. That's quite an accomplishment. The only thing that would change is seeding position and I think it makes sense that a team with the better record should have the home game. Regardless the strength of schedule, you still have to go out there and play every one of those 16 games during the regular season. I like the idea of forcing teams to play their starters throughout the end of the season. It just makes for better football.[/quote]Even though a few teams have bucked the trend in recent history ('05 Steelers, '07 Giants), the main idea here is to prevent a very good wild card team, perhaps a team that is the second best in its conference, from having to play three straight road games to get to the Super Bowl. A majority of the wild card winners would still be seeded 6th and 5th, but this change benefits teams in strong divisions. Think Jacksonville. They play great football every year and haven't hosted a playoff game since the Coughlin-era. This would allow the Jaguars, if they go 12-4 but the Colts go 13-3, to be the third seed and host the Sixth seed.

Which is a lot more fair than being the 5th seed and having to go to Pittsburgh.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=lwiedy;435533]Off the top, I am against the change, but if you favor this change, why then would winning your division matter? If the point is to reward the best records, then do it all the way or don’t do it at all. Is there any need for divisions at all? Don’t say for proximity regards to scheduling or Dallas wouldn’t be in the NFC East.

As for the Tampa/NY argument regarding resting players, each team has to make that decision and live with the results. Based on 2007, do you think teams in the future will “coast” in the final week like Tampa did and lose in their first game or play hard like the Giants did and carry the momentum all the way. I personally don’t believe you can prove either of the above scenarios really happened, but that certainly was the perception.

This is a copycat/knee-jerk league and the hysteria over this will die as long as they allow it to.[/quote]Because the teams that win strong divisions (think Indianapolis) get to beat up on non-division opponents enough to win 13 games every year anyway. They still get first round byes.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=skinsguy;435538]NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Sorry, but that's the worst thing the NFL could ever do. Heck, it doesn't even work in college.

I think people are ignoring what Schneed said a few posts ago. Winning your division would still mean something. Even if you won your division at 8-8 (must really be a sucky division) you're in the playoffs. That's quite an accomplishment. The only thing that would change is seeding position and I think it makes sense that a team with the better record should have the home game. Regardless the strength of schedule, you still have to go out there and play every one of those 16 games during the regular season. I like the idea of forcing teams to play their starters throughout the end of the season. It just makes for better football.[/quote]

yeah ummm... this was (at least imo) an absolute joke.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=lwiedy;435532]I look at it this way, the Browns didn't deserve to make the playoffs because they had to rely on another team to help them.[/quote]
The Titans didn't exactly earn it either, hero.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[quote=angryssg;435580]The Titans didn't exactly earn it either, hero.[/quote]

Yea, I'll go with the if it ain't broke leave it alone.

On to the Titans, yes that was one boring you know what game! They didn't quite earn it, it was more along the lines of a free pass. At no fault of the Colts I don't blame them for resting some of there guys and when Peyton came out they just looked like dog crap.

As this showed up real quick when the Titans had to play SD and got there butt kicked! What was it like 27-6...? Or something like that, One and done!

We heard the same crap about the cowgirls not playing there starters in week 17 and that couldn't have been any further from the truth, as I was there.......and so where there starters until the middle of the 3rd quarter until they finally realized they had ZERO chance to do anything, I think MB had like 1 rushing yard all game. WE completely kicked the snot outta those cowgirls, it would not have mattered who was on the field for the opposing team that wet and cold day. We where on a mission. We earned our way in the old fashion way.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=chrisl4064;435544]yeah ummm... this was (at least imo) an absolute joke.[/QUOTE]

Yeah um...hard to tell with simple text. Maybe an emoticon next time.

Re: Competition Committee: Playoff reseeding thoughts?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;435541]Even though a few teams have bucked the trend in recent history ('05 Steelers, '07 Giants), the main idea here is to prevent a very good wild card team, perhaps a team that is the second best in its conference, from having to play three straight road games to get to the Super Bowl. A majority of the wild card winners would still be seeded 6th and 5th, but this change benefits teams in strong divisions. Think Jacksonville. They play great football every year and haven't hosted a playoff game since the Coughlin-era. This would allow the Jaguars, if they go 12-4 but the Colts go 13-3, to be the third seed and host the Sixth seed.

Which is a lot more fair than being the 5th seed and having to go to Pittsburgh.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! Which is why I'd support the change.