The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The first losing franchise to go to the playoffs. 

How funny would it be if they advance?

^^^ I will be rooting for them over the Saints next weekend. 

It's pretty crazy that 2 teams in their conference had 3 more wins than they did.  That's substantial.  I think that this is an anomaly.  If it were to continue happening, the league would have to do something about it.  You can't have crap teams making the playoffs, while good teams miss out.

the biggest waste of a playoff spot ever.  The only way this is a good thing is if it gets that asshole Pete Carroll one more step into the hall of shame.

I don't have problem with it.  Nor did I have a problem with the 8-8 Chargers hosting the 12-4 Colts (2nd best record in the NFL) while the 11-5 NEP sat it out (3 more wins than the Chargers)

Changing the system would make the divisional rivalries much less meaningful.  And the divisional rivalries are an important part of the fun.   

I'm with Hoodie on this. I was rooting for the Seahawks just for the shear fun of watching the talking heads explode, but the bottom line is that if you want DIVISIONS to stay meaningful, division winners should not only make the playoffs, they should host in the WC round.

Right now, teams are proud of division titles. Only one team wins the Super Bowl each year, so it's not a realistic expectation / goal for most teams. Winning your division, however, is.

The only thing that bothers me about this is Pete. It really bothers me to se him accomplish anything. 

Yeah, I don't have a problem with it either, because I think it's a weird, rare case.  The salary cap helps with this, because teams get good or bad pretty quickly.  I could see where you might have dynasty situations otherwise, where a few good teams are in one division and one keeps getting screwed over and over.

Divisions make so many games more interesting and builds rivalries.  If that means that a 7-9 team makes the playoffs every 40 years, I'm okay with it.

ESPN had some guy saying in the offseason the NFL will be discussing going to only 2 divisions and having the playoff seeds based totally on record in the future.

Obviously with fewer division champs, stuff like this won't ever happen again.

If you want to increase the number of franchises, the current 2x4x4 alignment has to go. Personally, I really like it, but it does limit the league to 32 teams (great number).

Yeah, they'll discuss it all right:

"Hey, do you think we should go to a 2-division format and wreck our perfectly formatted schedule?"
"No."
"OK, then."

IMO "the guy" doesn't realize,it goes against one of the reasons for the current format,So you don't get "Well these teams have only played each other once in the past 10 years"....2 divisions means 16 out of the 18 game schedule goes to division games,that only leaves two "non divisional games"  and you go back to a long wait between playing every team in the league...

Fixed typo,made it tad bit more readable....for me atleast :D

Personally I don't have a problem with Seattle being in the playoffs.  What I DO have a problem with is them hosting a playoff game.  There's a pretty simple solution that is a bit of a compromise.

Shuffle the playoff positions once you get the teams.  Best record is #1 seed, worst record is #6 seed.  That way Seattle is still in the playoffs, but they are headed to New Orleans rather than hosting the game.

^ I like it the way it is.

What's wrong with Seattle hosting a game?  They won their division.  It's pretty cut and dry.  If they're so bad, like everyone says, they'll lose anyway.

It's also a reward for the team owner - if their team wins their division, they are guaranteed one more home game (ticket sales, concessions, etc...)

Well actually 15 out of the 18 games.  But I agree with your point. 

Because they don't deserve it more than some other teams.

Winning your division isn't more important than wins and losses.  You only play 6 games within your division.  You play 10 outside your division.  You should have to play well both within your division and outside your division to earn hosting a playoff game, that's fair across the board.

I don't really care about the game itself, I don't think home field advantage is a big factor in the outcome of the game.  However it IS a big deal to the city.  Hosting a playoff game is huge for a number of factors.  It brings in a ton of revenue to businesses and such in the area.  It brings media coverage to the city.  It allows the fans to come to their own stadium to watch their team play as opposed to having to travel.  I think the team that has earned it more deserves it more. Granted that this doesn't happen every year and most years it probably wouldn't change things much, but for years like this one, I think it makes sense.

I disagree.  That's why you have divisions.  (This is an extreme case, but under normal circumstances:) I'd rather win the division at 10-6, than get a wildcard spot at 11-5.

Also, having divisions (and giving incentive to winning them) is what makes a game against the Jets more important than a game against the Titans.  All wins are not created equal.  It makes for more interesting matchups throughout the season.

Does it suck that a crappy team is making the playoffs and hosting a game?  Maybe.  I actually think it's kinda cool to see such an underdog, but I could understand why you'd think that.  But it's probably not going to happen again in your lifetime.  It's not worth making changes until you see an upsetting trend. 

I for one, hope the Seahawks shake things up a little bit in the playoffs.

Well it's not really about which you would prefer because if the 2 teams played in the same division you'd certainly rather be 11-5 than 10-6.  We are talking about 2 teams playing in different divisions, if they are in the same division than my suggestion doesn't matter in the slightest, whomever has the better record is going to win the division, be in the playoffs and have a better chance at hosting a game than the other team who isn't even guaranteed a playoff spot.

But, I'm not taking that away in the slightest.  Win your division and you're in the playoffs.  Isn't that quite a bit of incentive?  Do you really need to host a playoff game to maintain that incentive?  I don't believe so.

Drop the first part of your question, we are only talking about hosting the game.  Winning the divsion would still get you into the playoffs.

^^^ Pappy, 

Here is the difference.  (I might have some personal bias in picking the game)

Pats - Jets MNF.  Going into that game it was perceived that the winner would be the number one seed; loser would be the #5 seed.  It was big fucking game. 

If we adopt your system the game would have been no more significant than Pats-Steelers or Jets-Steelers. 

Not really.  It's a big game because #1 seed gets a bye and #5 seed doesn't, but #3 seed doesn't get a bye either.

In my system it would be the difference between #1 seed and #3 seed, but the #1 seed still gets a bye and the #3 seed doesn't.  It's STILL a big fucking game.

All I'm really suggesting changing is the wild card games.  That's it.  Nothing else is changed.  The top 2 division winners are still gonna be the #1 and #2 seeds and get the byes, but the rest of the seeds are determined by record rather than arbitrarily assigning division winners as a higher seed than a wild card.

By the way, in the current system, once the Jets lost, they realistically could do no better than get the 5th seed, what incentive is there for them to keep playing hard?  They could basically coast down the stretch because there was little chance someone would catch them and at worst they would be the 6th seed and would still have to go on the road in their first game. The same could have been potentially true for say Kansas City.  Suppose they had already wrapped up the division in week 16 no matter what, but could not become one of the top 2 seeds.  Effectively there's no reason for them to even try that last game, since they are locked into the #3 or #4 seed and will host a game, the only difference being which team they host.   My system would make the final games of the year matter more to wild card teams and division winners looking to still have a shot at hosting a playoff game.  It's more important to win your last game rather than simply back into the playoffs knowing you have already clinched hosting a playoff spot.

Pappy,

Question about your system, end of the season records....

Patriots 15-1
Dolphins 14-2
Colts 12-4
Titans 11-5
Steelers 11-5
KC 11-5

Nobody else is better than 10-5.

Who gets the number 2 seed and bye Dolphins or Colts?

Colts.  It's not a straight seeding from 1 to 6 like I said originally.  Top 2 division winners are #1 and #2, they get byes and host a 2nd round game, just like today.  The next 4 are seeded according to record, so the Dolphins would be the #3 seed and host a wild-card game.  That's the only change I'm suggesting.

You should not be rewarded with a home playoff game because you managed to eek out a division title with a losing record.
The NFC West should be dissolved and the teams moved into the other divisions so they would actually have to have a winning record to win the division.
The AFC West is getting to that stage too.

I think the Seahawks justified their playoff spot today. 

Yeah, Seattle's win dumps a bucket of ice water on the whole playoff realignment talk.   They beat the defending champions.

In 2008 the whole playoff realignment talk because the 12-4 Colts were traveling to the 8-8 Chargers and a 9-7 division was going pretty strong until Chargers won and the division champs became the conference champs. 

The Seattle win didn't even surprise me, honestly.  I thought the 10 point+ spread was pretty crazy.

Considering the Saints have NEVER won a road playoff game in franchise history, I wasn't shocked either. A little surprised...yes. Shocked, no! They are the Aint's!! And forever will be!

Exremely shocked. Damn N.O., Seattle  just put 41 on ya? Hang your heads, Saints, hang your heads.

And the Chiefs didn't.

Irrelevant. 

Kinda like saying the Colts, Eagles and Saints didn't deserve to make the playoffs either.  Nobody was bitching about three 10-6 teams being a division winners. 

All I'm saying is that simply winning your division doesn't make you a better football team than a wild card team.  Seattle proved they belonged and Kansas City proved they didn't.  I never said that Seattle shouldn't be in the playoffs, just that I didn't think they deserved to host a wild card game.

^^^ I think Seattle and Kansas City both just supported something that was proven a long time ago...that on any given day, most teams in the NFL can beat most other teams in the NFL if they, protect the ball and catch a few breaks.