Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Rumor Tuesday
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
make_it_rain
Per Dan Patrick, so take it for what its worth. Fucking pathetic if theres any substance to it.

Eat a dick Roger and the Owners

koolaidluke
Changed my mind. Don't like it.

Just re-seed the playoffs.
Zero
They need to get Dallas in the playoffs somehow. laugh.gif
Rick
Please don't!!!! The great thing about the NFL playoffs (and baseball for that matter) is the regular season means something. You've gotta WORK to get into the playoffs.

I also HATE the idea of reseeding. It's stupid as long as you're going to have different divisions.
Dreagon
They just need to leave it the way it is. Goodall and Co. have become way to comfortable with the idea of changing stuff up.
make_it_rain
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 7 2014, 11:07 AM) *
Please don't!!!! The great thing about the NFL playoffs (and baseball for that matter) is the regular season means something. You've gotta WORK to get into the playoffs.

I also HATE the idea of reseeding. It's stupid as long as you're going to have different divisions.


In the last hour the NFL released a statement saying nothing has been decided yet, and even if it were it wouldnt go into effect until 2015. The owners would still need to vote on it though.

I suppose its possible that DP has a sense of how the votes among the owners would shake out, but thats about as much as there is to this for now.

Hopefully thats all it is.
CT_Eagle
I like the format the way it is now. Division titles actually mean something. Also, towards the end of the season teams that already have their division locked still play towards securing a first round bye. Assuming that the 2 additional wild card teams would play the number 1 and 2 seeds, the incentive to get the first round bye disappears.
Phits
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Jan 7 2014, 11:43 AM) *
I like the format the way it is now. Division titles actually mean something. Also, towards the end of the season teams that already have their division locked still play towards securing a first round bye. Assuming that the 2 additional wild card teams would play the number 1 and 2 seeds, the incentive to get the first round bye disappears.

I never liked the idea of a "bye" round, especially for 2 teams. If you're going to be rewarded with an off week it should be limited to the top seed in each conference.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 05:05 PM) *
I never liked the idea of a "bye" round, especially for 2 teams. If you're going to be rewarded with an off week it should be limited to the top seed in each conference.


How would you schedule that? You currently have 6 playoff teams. 4 play during Wild Card weekend. If only the top seed has the week off, who does the 2 seed play? Would you add another wild card team for the 2 seed to play?
koolaidluke
When you blame Goodell you are playing the owner's game. They love it that Goodell has become the villain to the fanbase, he is a lightning rod that deflects anger away from them.

People hating Goodell has put 10's of million of dollars in Goodell's pocket.


p.s.: Goodell is a frickin' douche who is ruining football

Phits
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Jan 7 2014, 12:20 PM) *
How would you schedule that? You currently have 6 playoff teams. 4 play during Wild Card weekend. If only the top seed has the week off, who does the 2 seed play? Would you add another wild card team for the 2 seed to play?

Yes, add a 3rd wild card team and have the #2 play the lowest seed. I would also change the seeding format so the better records have the higher seeding. Winning your division gets you into the playoffs, but wouldn't guarantee you a home playoff game.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 05:46 PM) *
Yes, add a 3rd wild card team and have the #2 play the lowest seed. I would also change the seeding format so the better records have the higher seeding. Winning your division gets you into the playoffs, but wouldn't guarantee you a home playoff game.



Adding a 3rd WC would not bother me to much but I still prefer the current format. Wild Card weekend gets you 2 games on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. 3 on each day may be a bit much for watching.

Seeding the playoffs based on record alone is a no go for me. It makes the divisions and division titles meaningless. Does anyone care who wins the NBA's Eastern Conference - Atlantic division? Also, it has the potential to penalize good teams in strong divisions by allowing a lesser team from a weak division to get a higher seed. I know there is a bit of that now because a better team in strong division may miss out on the first week bye but seeding would probably make those situations more common.
Phits
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Jan 7 2014, 01:45 PM) *
Seeding the playoffs based on record alone is a no go for me. It makes the divisions and division titles meaningless. Does anyone care who wins the NBA's Eastern Conference - Atlantic division? Also, it has the potential to penalize good teams in strong divisions by allowing a lesser team from a weak division to get a higher seed. I know there is a bit of that now because a better team in strong division may miss out on the first week bye but seeding would probably make those situations more common.

In my scenariothe division winner isn't guaranteed a home game. GB 8-7-1 record wouldn't give them a home game in the first round, the same for Philly.

Using the current post season as an example:

NFC
1st Round
BYE - Seattle
#1 @Carolina vs. #6 GB
#2 @SF vs. #5 Arizona
#3 @Saints vs. #4 Philly

In my invented playoff seeding format winning the division does not give you a higher seed. Your record will reflect your position in the standings, with the existing tie breaker scenarios



CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 07:01 PM) *
In my scenariothe division winner isn't guaranteed a home game. GB 8-7-1 record wouldn't give them a home game in the first round, the same for Philly.


That is a problem for me. I think if you win your division, you should get a home game in the first round, whether that first round be a wild card game or the divisional round. That home game is your reward for winning your division. Some years that means that the better team has to play on the road in the first round. I can live with that in exchange for the division titles having value.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Jan 7 2014, 07:42 AM) *
Per Dan Patrick, so take it for what its worth. Fucking pathetic if theres any substance to it.

Eat a dick Roger and the Owners


It's inevitable. More will keep being added to baseball, to football, to the NCAA tourney, etc. It's all about the money, in a few years 8-8 will be the standard floor for making
the playoffs.
Phits
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Jan 7 2014, 02:08 PM) *
That is a problem for me. I think if you win your division, you should get a home game in the first round, whether that first round be a wild card game or the divisional round. That home game is your reward for winning your division. Some years that means that the better team has to play on the road in the first round. I can live with that in exchange for the division titles having value.

That's where we differ. I believe your "reward" for winning the division is a trip to the playoffs.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 07:37 PM) *
That's where we differ. I believe your "reward" for winning the division is a trip to the playoffs.


Under your scenario I don't see a difference in reward between winning your division or being the 5th best team in your conference. Both get to go to the playoffs. What does the division winner get that the 5th best team doesn't get?
Phits
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Jan 7 2014, 02:44 PM) *
Under your scenario I don't see a difference in reward between winning your division or being the 5th best team in your conference. Both get to go to the playoffs. What does the division winner get that the 5th best team doesn't get?

I don't feel that you should be provided any additional reward for winning your division. You get a trip to the post season. Anything additional should be earned.
Eyrie
Leave it as it is, with winning the division meaning that you get a home game. If the wild card teams are better than the division winners then they'll win on the road and make the divisional round, just as the Chargers, 49ers and Saints did at the weekend.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 09:23 PM) *
I don't feel that you should be provided any additional reward for winning your division. You get a trip to the post season. Anything additional should be earned.


So then you have reduced the value of winning the division. You might as well just get rid of them. There would no longer be any value in winning it.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 02:01 PM) *
In my scenariothe division winner isn't guaranteed a home game. GB 8-7-1 record wouldn't give them a home game in the first round, the same for Philly.

Using the current post season as an example:

NFC
1st Round
BYE - Seattle
#1 @Carolina vs. #6 GB
#2 @SF vs. #5 Arizona
#3 @Saints vs. #4 Philly

In my invented playoff seeding format winning the division does not give you a higher seed. Your record will reflect your position in the standings, with the existing tie breaker scenarios

Again, why have divisions then? Reseeding for the playoffs sucks in the NBA and NHL. It would suck in the NFL. Adding another playoff team would also suck. Enough already. It's all about them making more money with extra playoff teams.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 02:37 PM) *
That's where we differ. I believe your "reward" for winning the division is a trip to the playoffs.

Then do away with the Wildcard teams.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 03:23 PM) *
I don't feel that you should be provided any additional reward for winning your division. You get a trip to the post season. Anything additional should be earned.

Then get rid of the divisions since they would mean nothing...just like they do in the NBA currently. They mean nothing.
Phits
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 7 2014, 04:38 PM) *
Then get rid of the divisions since they would mean nothing...just like they do in the NBA currently. They mean nothing.

As i have stated, winning your division gets you into the playoffs...it just wouldn't guarantee you a home game.
Phits
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 7 2014, 04:35 PM) *
Again, why have divisions then? Reseeding for the playoffs sucks in the NBA and NHL. It would suck in the NFL. Adding another playoff team would also suck.

Why does it suck? How does it affect the quality of the game?
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 10:15 PM) *
As i have stated, winning your division gets you into the playoffs.


So does having the 6th best record in your conference. No division title necessary and the 6th best team gets exactly what a division winner gets? The divisions would no longer means anything. I really enjoyed watching the Eagles beating Dallas in order to make the playoffs and host a playoff game via winning the division. Under your system that game would have been meaningless.

Under your system you could be the 3rd best team in your division and still host a divisional champ in the first round of the playoffs.
Phits
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Jan 7 2014, 06:35 PM) *
I really enjoyed watching the Eagles beating Dallas in order to make the playoffs and host a playoff game via winning the division. Under your system that game would have been meaningless.

How would it have been meaningless? They would still have made the playoffs, and eliminated Dallas.....they just wouldn't have hosted the game.

QUOTE
Under your system you could be the 3rd best team in your division and still host a divisional champ in the first round of the playoffs.

Correct. If a team was good enough to have the 3rd or 4th best conference record they would earn the right to host a playoff game.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 8 2014, 02:47 AM) *
How would it have been meaningless? They would still have made the playoffs, and eliminated Dallas.....they just wouldn't have hosted the game.


You answered your own question. If they were in the playoffs regardless of a win or loss much of the excitement going into that game disappears.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Jan 7 2014, 07:42 AM) *
Per Dan Patrick, so take it for what its worth. Fucking pathetic if theres any substance to it.

Eat a dick Roger and the Owners


Goodell the scumbag.

It's going to happen, only a matter of when.
Phits
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Jan 8 2014, 09:06 AM) *
You answered your own question. If they were in the playoffs regardless of a win or loss much of the excitement going into that game disappears.

You're mistaken. They would not have made the playoffs if they did not win the division, because their conference record wouldn't have qualified for a WC spot.

Again, the top record in the conference gets a BYE. Each division winner gets a playoff berth. The other playoff positions are determined by the rest of the conference's team records. The teams that host the playoff games will be the higher positioned team in the regular season standings.

Using this year as example, Philly would have made the playoffs because they won the division. They would not have qualified to host the playoff game because their overall record was not as good as the Saints. The Eagles would be division winners and receive a post season induction as a result.

It would result in teams less likely to rest starters after qualifying for the playoffs, because you would get seeded based on your overall record. A division winner may have the last seed (like GB this year) instead of hosting a game. For example, KC would have had a reason to play hard and not rest the majority of starters in the final game.
Phits
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Jan 8 2014, 10:15 AM) *
Goodell the scumbag.

It's going to happen, only a matter of when.

QUOTE
It'd be easy enough to tweak the current playoff format by taking away one of each conference's first-round byes, and having that 2-seed play the 7-seed.

It's a great idea. I hope that it happens.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 8 2014, 05:35 PM) *
You're mistaken. They would not have made the playoffs if they did not win the division, because their conference record wouldn't have qualified for a WC spot.

Again, the top record in the conference gets a BYE. Each division winner gets a playoff berth. The other playoff positions are determined by the rest of the conference's team records. The teams that host the playoff games will be the higher positioned team in the regular season standings.

Using this year as example, Philly would have made the playoffs because they won the division. They would not have qualified to host the playoff game because their overall record was not as good as the Saints. The Eagles would be division winners and receive a post season induction as a result.

It would result in teams less likely to rest starters after qualifying for the playoffs, because you would get seeded based on your overall record. A division winner may have the last seed (like GB this year) instead of hosting a game. For example, KC would have had a reason to play hard and not rest the majority of starters in the final game.


You don't have to keep repeating how you would like the playoffs to be seeded. I read it and understood it the first dozen times. biggrin.gif

I am just pointing out that your system cheapens the value of winning the division. I fully understand that winning the division gets you in the playoffs automatically under your system. What I don't like about your system, and I am trying to get across, is that I do not like the fact that a division winner no longer automatically gets a home game. That is why I keep saying it lessens the value of winning a division. Division titles mean less under your system than under the current system.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 8 2014, 12:37 PM) *
It's a great idea. I hope that it happens.


Yep, nothing will preserve the integrity of the game like having 8-8 be the standard for making the playoffs, and 7-9 giving you
a damn good shot. The 'playoff hunt' graphics going into week 16 will show 24 teams still in it, I can't wait!
Phits
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Jan 8 2014, 01:05 PM) *
Yep, nothing will preserve the integrity of the game like having 8-8 be the standard for making the playoffs, and 7-9 giving you
a damn good shot. The 'playoff hunt' graphics going into week 16 will show 24 teams still in it, I can't wait!

Just imagine having an 8-8 record and getting to host a playoff game....oh wait, that already happens.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 8 2014, 02:13 PM) *
Just imagine having an 8-8 record and getting to host a playoff game....oh wait, that already happens.


Great argument - having low quality division winners happens every now and then - so let's ensure even more mediocre-to-crappy
teams get in.
Phits
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Jan 8 2014, 02:20 PM) *
Great argument - having low quality division winners happens every now and then - so let's ensure even more mediocre-to-crappy
teams get in.

Do you mean a team like Arizona (10-6) would make the post season, after having a "crappy/mediocre" season?

By the way "low quality division winners" happen on a regular basis. You can usually find at least one every season.
samaroo
To ague against your point, Phits, I'll ask you if you caught the AdvoCare V100 Bowl or Famous Idaho Potato Bowl this year?

More does not equal better.
Phits
QUOTE (samaroo @ Jan 8 2014, 04:15 PM) *
To ague against your point, Phits, I'll ask you if you caught the AdvoCare V100 Bowl or Famous Idaho Potato Bowl this year?

More does not equal better.

Maybe if the winners of the bowl games played each other in a "Superbowl" to decide a champion.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 7 2014, 12:46 PM) *
Yes, add a 3rd wild card team and have the #2 play the lowest seed. I would also change the seeding format so the better records have the higher seeding. Winning your division gets you into the playoffs, but wouldn't guarantee you a home playoff game.

If u don't want to give the divisional winners the home game and devalue the importance of division play, screw it. Make each conference its own division, play each team once, then you can award home playoff games by record. For the 16th game, play the AFC team who finished in the same place as you the year before. The current system is fine and IMO, the best playoff system in sports.

Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 8 2014, 08:31 PM) *
..the best playoff system in sports.

Even the best system could use improvement.
Rick
So, again, my point is, if you want to re-seed the playoffs, why bother with divisions at all? Because, well, they would mean absolutely NOTHING.

In theory, if you want to TRULY seed the playoffs (e.g. division winners DON'T make the playoffs unless they have a record worthy of making it), a division winner could actually MISS the playoffs (assuming a REALLY weak division). It's theory, but it could happen.

And it absolutely cheapens the season. And yes, it would have cheapened the Eagles/Dallas game. Because, well, under your scenario, the winner of that game would NOT have gotten a home playoff game because SF and NO both had better records. Oh wait, you're talking about adding MORE teams as well. That makes it even worse. People complain about 8-8 division winners making the playoffs. What happens when 6-10 teams make it?

It's just plain stupid to re-seed the playoffs and even more stupid to add teams to the playoffs (unless you're the NFL or an owner who wants to make more money).
Phits
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 9 2014, 07:33 AM) *
So, again, my point is, if you want to re-seed the playoffs, why bother with divisions at all? Because, well, they would mean absolutely NOTHING.

If you win the division, you go to the playoffs....how does that mean nothing? You do make a valid point. The divisional format is an archaic layout. It helps to lessen the quality of football. There are poor performing teams in divisions that have a shot to make the playoffs just by stinking less than the other 3 teams in the division. Seed the top 8 in the conference, the best record (in each) gets a bye. Seedings will be determined by your record. Get rid of the divisions.

QUOTE
In theory, if you want to TRULY seed the playoffs (e.g. division winners DON'T make the playoffs unless they have a record worthy of making it), a division winner could actually MISS the playoffs (assuming a REALLY weak division). It's theory, but it could happen.

That is not my scenario.

QUOTE
And it absolutely cheapens the season. And yes, it would have cheapened the Eagles/Dallas game. Because, well, under your scenario, the winner of that game would NOT have gotten a home playoff game because SF and NO both had better records.

The DAL/PHI game had drama not because the winner got a home playoff game, but because the winner would have eliminated a divisional opponent and earned a berth to the post season. Do you really feel that the game would have been less dramatic if the ONLY thing at stake was a playoff berth? I think it cheapens the season when a team with a superior record has to suffer the indignation of a lower seed to a lesser team. "You've just won 12 games, congratulations! Now hit the road to play a team that barely finished .500".

QUOTE
Oh wait, you're talking about adding MORE teams as well. That makes it even worse. People complain about 8-8 division winners making the playoffs.

In the current scenario, the GB Packers finished the season with an 8-7-1 record. That "earned" them the right to host a playoff game against the 49ers who finished with a 12-4 record. People don't complain about an 8-8 team making the playoffs as much as they complain about a 8-8 team hosting a playoff game.

QUOTE
What happens when 6-10 teams make it?

If a 6-10 team is the 8th best team in the conference, then it was bad season overall. What happens if a 6-10 team wins their division?

QUOTE
It's just plain stupid to re-seed the playoffs and even more stupid to add teams to the playoffs (unless you're the NFL or an owner who wants to make more money).

It isn't stupid. It makes sense. The problem most people have is that it breaks tradition.
Eyrie
Reductio ad absurdum

Let's keep the regular season the same as at present, but allow all 32 teams to make the playoffs. Seed the sixteen teams in each conference according to their record and have #1 host #16, #2 host #15 etc, then in the next round the highest remaining seed hosts the lowest remaining seed etc and keep going until the conference winner goes to the SuperBowl. Gives every team an incentive to play hard in week 17.
Zero
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Jan 9 2014, 02:37 PM) *
Reductio ad absurdum

... allow all 32 teams to make the playoffs.
Absurdum is the operative word.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 9 2014, 01:07 PM) *
If you win the division, you go to the playoffs....how does that mean nothing? You do make a valid point. The divisional format is an archaic layout. It helps to lessen the quality of football. There are poor performing teams in divisions that have a shot to make the playoffs just by stinking less than the other 3 teams in the division. Seed the top 8 in the conference, the best record (in each) gets a bye. Seedings will be determined by your record. Get rid of the divisions.

If you were to get rid of the divisions it would make much more sense.

QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 9 2014, 01:07 PM) *
The DAL/PHI game had drama not because the winner got a home playoff game, but because the winner would have eliminated a divisional opponent and earned a berth to the post season. Do you really feel that the game would have been less dramatic if the ONLY thing at stake was a playoff berth? I think it cheapens the season when a team with a superior record has to suffer the indignation of a lower seed to a lesser team. "You've just won 12 games, congratulations! Now hit the road to play a team that barely finished .500".

Yes, it wouldn't have been less dramatic. Sure, it would have been dramatic but not as much. A home playoff game is (historically) exponentially better than an away playoff game.

QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 9 2014, 01:07 PM) *
In the current scenario, the GB Packers finished the season with an 8-7-1 record. That "earned" them the right to host a playoff game against the 49ers who finished with a 12-4 record. People don't complain about an 8-8 team making the playoffs as much as they complain about a 8-8 team hosting a playoff game.

Quite frankly, I don't hear a lot of people complaining about someone with a better record being seeded lower except for people who want to do away with it all.

QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 9 2014, 01:07 PM) *
If a 6-10 team is the 8th best team in the conference, then it was bad season overall. What happens if a 6-10 team wins their division?

My point is, you're a lot less likely to win your division at 6-10 than you are to get in after they add 2 more wild card teams.

QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 9 2014, 01:07 PM) *
It isn't stupid. It makes sense. The problem most people have is that it breaks tradition.

It's got nothing to do with tradition to many people--like myself. I like the divisional setup as it has great rivalries and makes it much easier for the casual football fan to understand. I win my division. I get to play at home. Those of us around here are not the casual fan but the BULK of whom the NFL makes money off are just casual fans. The more confusing it is, the less people will care. Most fans only care about THEIR team and don't know anything about wildcards, seeding, etc. They just know, if their team wins their division, they're playing at home.

It is more of an, "if it's not broken, then don't fix it." The current setup is not broken and is about perfect. Obviously, we disagree on this.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.