Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,417
    Quote Originally Posted by JW7 View Post
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I understand an 8-8 division winner hosting a 12-4 team should never happen but it's part of the current system. I wouldn't want to get rid of division rivals as well. It would also get incredibly repetitive having an identical schedule every year. I want to see the Broncos play more than one NFC team a year.
    But it is broke. Because of divisions, the Pats* have had smooth sailings into the playoffs and typically first round byes for almost 2 decades. If that isn't a broke system...

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    33,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Bates View Post
    But it is broke. Because of divisions, the Pats* have had smooth sailings into the playoffs and typically first round byes for almost 2 decades. If that isn't a broke system...
    Thank heaven for Buffalo next year.....I hope. Not putting my money on The Jets or Miami, yet again!

    I will say this, at some point organizations have to produce better teams. If you are not competitive for many years, someone/some group at the top is failing.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,724
    Quote Originally Posted by broncolee View Post
    Leave it as is or make the regular season more important.

    Donít add teams to the playoffs and donít reseed.

    Division winners should get a home game. Thatís the reward for winning the division.

    Thereís nothing unfair about the current system.

    As far as Iím concerned, too many teams make the playoffs as it is. If it were up to me, only division winners would be in the playoffs.
    That certainly wouldn't be leaving it as it is, it would shorten the postseason substantially and it would NOT guarantee a home game for division winners if only division winners can enter the playoffs --four of them would have to visit the other four, right?

    So you think it would have been best if the 12-4 Broncos in 1997 sat on the couch at home throughout the playoffs instead of getting their first Superbowl win as a wildcard contender?
    Superbowl 50 MVP Von Miller on February 7th, 2016

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    33,352
    Quote Originally Posted by broncolee View Post
    Leave it as is or make the regular season more important.

    Don’t add teams to the playoffs and don’t reseed.

    Division winners should get a home game. That’s the reward for winning the division.

    There’s nothing unfair about the current system.

    As far as I’m concerned, too many teams make the playoffs as it is. If it were up to me, only division winners would be in the playoffs.
    Quote Originally Posted by L.M. View Post
    That certainly wouldn't be leaving it as it is, it would shorten the postseason substantially and it would NOT guarantee a home game for division winners if only division winners can enter the playoffs --four of them would have to visit the other four, right?

    So you think it would have been best if the 12-4 Broncos in 1997 sat on the couch at home throughout the playoffs instead of getting their first Superbowl win as a wildcard contender?
    For what it's worth, count me out of that type of playoff ruling. Lets see, an average team or even two win their divisions, while a team that ties for the division lead in another, at 12 and 4, sits (because they lost the tie breaker). So, maybe two 8 and 8 teams, who both lost to the 12 and 4 team, go forward. Sounds like a recipe for a less than spectacular playoffs.

    The wild card has a solid purpose. It supports divisions with more than one good team, and prevents poor divisions from over representation.

    If divisions walls came down, I'd want the playoffs to be equated to best performance as can be hoped for within a conference structure.
    Last edited by CanDB; 12-13-2019 at 09:45 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,018
    I was listening to the radio where they proposed the idea of playing the opposite conference team that finishes as you do. So the 1 plays the 1 next season and the 16 gets the 16.

    It was an interesting thought as it would allow for some really good matchups the next season. For example right now we would have Ravens/Niners, Saints/Pats, Chiefs/Seahawks.........Broncos/Falcons etc.

    It got me thinking along that line and I think something like that could work even better if the teams finished in groups of four. This way the league could in theory continue some of these new "rivalries" that fans would like to see. I think of Balt vs SF as this very example. They played this year and there is a real chance these two could meet in the SB. It would be pretty cool to see this new rivalry continue for the next few years and the league could schedule something like this as long as the teams finish in the same group of 4 regularly. I think this would actually create some new ones when teams like Pitt and N.O. regularly finish as top four teams in their conference.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    15,944
    Iím just not sure how you could change the playoffs to exclude division champs. Sure maybe they won due to a weak division but I feel excluding them because of that would almost create a college playoff feel as the excluded division champ maybe finished a lot stronger than they started, maybe midseason acquisition had a huge impact, maybe a key injury hurt them early on.

    I do like the current system even if some teams shouldnít be in over a potential wild card in a tougher division. Divisional rivalries are usually hard fought games regardless of the record. If you go to 18 games then you could do an outer conference rival (us against the Seahawks perhaps) and then throw in the seeding thing where you play the other conferenceís team that finished the same spot as your team although that could potentially create situations where youíre playing a non division team twice in a season.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    13,451
    It isnít broke. Division rivalries have made it more interesting throughout the years. I love to hate the Raiders. That would be lost. Personally I think it should be about winning divisions first.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    315
    I like the idea. It gets rid of teams like the Patriots winning a terrible division year in year out.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anywhere I want on 18 wheels
    Posts
    8,512
    Quote Originally Posted by L.M. View Post
    That certainly wouldn't be leaving it as it is, it would shorten the postseason substantially and it would NOT guarantee a home game for division winners if only division winners can enter the playoffs --four of them would have to visit the other four, right?

    So you think it would have been best if the 12-4 Broncos in 1997 sat on the couch at home throughout the playoffs instead of getting their first Superbowl win as a wildcard contender?
    I said leave it as is or make the regular season more important.

    The regular season would be more important if you had to win your division.

    I donít have a big problem with allowing two wild card teams per conference. I just donít think itís necessary.

    If youíre going to have 4 divisions and two wildcard teams , the division winners should get a home game in the playoffs.

    I prefer Fangioís idea of eliminating the divisions. The thing I would change about his idea is that the interconference games would alternate based on the previous seasonís standings. 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, ....., so on and so forth.
    Negs are Cowardly Acts of Nonsense. I wonít Back Down.
    No Matter How Stupid Your Comments Are!
    Still Not Backing Down!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •