PDA

View Full Version : Wild Card change?


The_WARDen
02-08-2008, 11:29 AM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022008/sports/giants/commish_considers_playoff_shakeup_615641.htm

Personally, I like the idea...you shouldn't be punished for finishing 2nd to a great team. I've always had issues with 9-7 teams getting a home game...didn't seem right.

atrus20
02-08-2008, 12:18 PM
Yeah but then the Steelers would have had to play at Jax this year with that format. It makes winning your division meaningless. If you want to make seedings based on records then the divisions would need to be reduced or completely removed.

Borski
02-08-2008, 12:43 PM
I disagree, Div winners should get their home game.

fansince'76
02-08-2008, 01:00 PM
I like the idea, personally, keeping in mind that the 1985 Denver Broncos (11-5 finish) were left out of the playoffs entirely while the Browns won the AFC Central that year and got to go to the playoffs with an 8-8 record (when there were still only 5 teams per conference that made it). Not right to reward teams with inferior records just because the rest of their division is a joke. I think they should take the six best teams record-wise using the normal tiebreakers, and a division championship shouldn't be the criteria for a home game in the WC round, or even a playoff berth, in the '85 Broncos/Browns scenario.

RoethlisBURGHer
02-08-2008, 01:31 PM
Very good point fansince76.

But if you wipe out the divisions, then the league loses money due to all the lost Division Championship gear sold every year...and you know the league doesn't wanna lose out on that.

The_WARDen
02-08-2008, 01:36 PM
Yeah but then the Steelers would have had to play at Jax this year with that format. It makes winning your division meaningless. If you want to make seedings based on records then the divisions would need to be reduced or completely removed.

divisions wouldn't be meaningless because you'd still be guaranteed a playoff spot...say there are 2 teams vying for the 6th seed at 10-6 and one wins because of a tie breaker. The other 10-6 team would be out even if there is a 9-7 division winner.

How did the home game vs. Jags work out for the Steelers?

Steeler in Carolina
02-08-2008, 08:32 PM
I don't like this. Like Dan Rooney said, if you win your division, you should have a home game.

Stlrs4Life
02-08-2008, 09:00 PM
Goodell shows another reason why he is so stupid.

Galax Steeler
02-09-2008, 07:19 AM
Goodell shows another reason why he is so stupid.

Agreed that is pretty stupid to even consider.

Atlanta Dan
02-09-2008, 08:57 AM
If you cannot win your division then you should not get a home playoff game.

While Goodell is at it, why not abolish the divisions, have teams play the other 15 teams in their conference + 1 team in the other conference and just seed the playoffs with the 12 teams in the league with the best records?

Edman
02-09-2008, 09:06 AM
That's too bleeping bad.

If you want a home game, how about taking care of business within your division. I don't care how good the top team is. You must beat them.

The Colts were hot and cold in the AFC South this year, and plenty of opportunities for the Jaguars and Titans to overtake them.

Rhee Rhee
02-09-2008, 12:46 PM
Goodell shows another reason why he is so stupid.

i second that :cheers:

stlrtruck
02-12-2008, 09:39 AM
Why try to fix what isn't broken? Maybe Commissioner Good Deal is trying to move on past SPYGATE!!!

fansince'76
02-12-2008, 09:42 AM
The Colts were hot and cold in the AFC South this year, and plenty of opportunities for the Jaguars and Titans to overtake them.

13-3 is hot and cold? Well, I guess compared to 16-0* it is.

lilyoder6
02-12-2008, 09:49 AM
it's with goodell trying to move the superbowl out of the states.. he has some very stupid ideas, that is the centerfold of the league, maybe he should spend his time actually lookin ginto spygate whether than asking brady and the coach if they cheated..

HometownGal
02-12-2008, 09:56 AM
I'm not for Goodell's plan at all for many of the reasons already stated in this thread. If a team wins its division, it should get the home game - period.

rbryan
02-12-2008, 10:24 AM
I like this guy less and less everyday. It wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't last more than a few years as the commish.

SteelCityMan786
02-12-2008, 12:46 PM
Goodell's plan blows. Let the division champions host the games. If you can't win your division, that sucks to be you then.

fansince'76
02-12-2008, 01:47 PM
I don't know. Every year, you have a couple of crappy teams from the NFC making the playoffs at the same time a 10-6 AFC team gets told to suck a dick and go home.

It was the reverse of that in the 1980s and 90s: One year, the Steve Young 49ers and the Eagles both missed the playoffs at 10-6, but two AFC teams made it at 8-8. The same things is happening right now with the NBA Eastern Conference.

Yep, and if memory serves, the idea of reseeding the playoffs as a whole, regardless of conference, due to NFC teams winning 13 straight SBs in mostly blowout fashion was kicked around more than once during that time as well. Let's face it, the NFCCGs between the Niners and Cowboys in the early '90s were better games than the SBs in which the Bills generally imploded against the Cowboys. NINE turnovers in one SB? Come on. The '06 AFCCG between the Colts and Pats* was a far better game than the anticlimactic Colts/Bears snoozefest in SB XLI. I would like to see the two best teams in the SB every year personally, and more years than not, the two best teams are usually in the same conference, unfortunately.

Elvis
02-13-2008, 03:57 PM
Here is an idea for ya..
1 and 2 gets byes' week 1 of playoffs
3 vs 6
4 vs 5 Play each other..
:banging:
Ooopppsss..
Thats the way it is now isnt it?.... Seems like it is just fine the way it is to me..
:thumbsup:

Elvis
02-13-2008, 03:58 PM
Goodell's plan blows. Let the division champions host the games. If you can't win your division, that sucks to be you then.
Agreed!!! :tt02:

Dino 6 Rings
02-14-2008, 12:42 PM
Get rid of the bi-week, add two teams per conference. 8 per side, Div winners get home games. Go.