Tux of Borg Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I was wondering how many of you think a below .500 team should be banned from the playoffs? A third wildcard alternative would then be chosen moving the first wildcard team into the division that would lack a represenitive slot due to it's poor performance. In my opinon a below .500 team doesn't deserve a shot. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 every team understands the rules when the season starts. you win your division, you're in. i don't have a problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I also dont have a problem with it. If you are going to take that approach, then what is the point of even having divisions? Just take the top 6 teams in each conference and send them to the playoffs. Its something you have to deal with. You cant change the rules during the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I was wondering how many of you think a below .500 team should be banned from the playoffs? A third wildcard alternative would then be chosen moving the first wildcard team into the division that would lack a represenitive slot due to it's poor performance. In my opinon a below .500 team doesn't deserve a shot. What do you think? 482382[/snapback] I agree that if the division winner is below .500 then a third wild card should be awarded, and the below .500 winner should not go. Consider the NFL North this year, and ask yourself if any of this team deserve the playoffs if they come in at 7-9. You have Detroit 2-3, Chicago 2-3, Vikings 1-4, and Green Bay 1-4. The Vikings have been about as bad as it gets this year and yet they sit 1 game out of first place and a home playoff game. If the division winners can't meet this minimal requirement then fug em, let a team that deserves it more go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Not sure why you have chosen .500 as your benchmark here, but if anything, .625 (10-6) should be the line in the sand if the NFL were to institute one. Still, I think it's a lame idea because the owners have all agreed to this and they were the ones who also agreed to the current divisional alignment. Some knew they were in weak divisions, some knew they were in powerhouse divisions. Suck it up and deal with it. I would root like hell for a sub-.500 team. Man that would be great to watch a team $20M under the cap sneak in and run the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 If the NFL was only about (or even primarily about) promoting excellence in performance over the course of a full season then there would be a comsiderably higher cut-off for winning percentage for making the playoffs (the .625 suggested above or a more arbitrarily cut-off of .666). Baseball has shown (and educated a traditionalist like me) that allowing at least one second place team into the playoffs as a wild card has some value to the product as a whole) but overall, the NFL is about providing an entertinment product rsther than promoting a meritocracy or excellence in play. Under the framework of reality where what used to be a sport that also happened to be a business is now a business that happens to be a sport, the rule is and is likely to be in perpetuity that the randomness of "any given Sunday" applies and rivalries will be promoted and a division winner makes the playoffs where anything can happen regardless of the quality of play of individual teams. The L in NFL stands for Lotto in many ways and part of the American way will always be if you don't play you can't win and underdogs being redeemed and getting a chance at winning it all even if they do not deserve it will be part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 The arguement has its merits. We'll see it happen this year when the team who wins the NFC north becomes the first 10 loss team to qualify for the playoffs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I was wondering how many of you think a below .500 team should be banned from the playoffs? A third wildcard alternative would then be chosen moving the first wildcard team into the division that would lack a represenitive slot due to it's poor performance. In my opinon a below .500 team doesn't deserve a shot. What do you think? 482382[/snapback] I think that's a good idea, but only for Wildcards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 It's a bad idea on many counts. First, the NFL is steeped in tradition with the divisional format. If it went to a top 6 in conference format, ala the nhl or nba (top 8 in their cases) you'd still have a team who might be at .500 and then there'd really be nothing you can do about it, plus it eliminates the divisions. Second, since the nfl is all about the $$, they'd lose some with the loss in merchandise regarding the "division champs". Owners and teams take a lot of pride in being division champs... hell, we just had a debate on the best jets game ever, and the 9-6 Fandemonium game was the clear cut winner. That was the game that the bills win the AFC East. Without divisions, Fandemonium (or the second round of Fandemonium with reich leading the bills to victory over the dolphins in 1990 to win the division) would have never happened. I can honestly see your point about kicking out a .500 division winner for another wildcard team whom finished better than .500. However, making this change would radically change the playoff format and eliminate conference divisions. This is the reason why your idea will never happen. If the 8-8 nfc north champs packers, 7-9 nfc north champs detroit lions or the 6-10 division champ chicago bears make it to the wildcard round, do you honestly think that they'll make it past the eagles, [here's where i insert more dominant teams, but since the nfc sucks i can't do that]? In summary, you have a valid argument, however it won't get any legitimate backing till a .500 or less team wins the super bowl. After all, on any given sunday anything can happen. [berman imitation] THAT'S WHY THEY PLAY THE GAME!! [/berman imitation] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 No. You would diminish intra-division rivalries, and perhaps hurt the gate. Some folks have already posted words to the effect that the AFC East might not prove as strong as early predictions implied, but the Bills currently own the division tiebreakers, etc. I would hate to see that intrigue go by the wayside... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 In my opinon a below .500 team doesn't deserve a shot. What do you think? 482382[/snapback] You must hate hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 In my opinon a below .500 team doesn't deserve a shot. What do you think? 482382[/snapback] i agree. sub-.500 teams in the playoffs are a disgrace in any sport, imo. and that is why i hate 4-team divisions. i'd rather see 8-team divisions where you play each team ONCE, and you'd just alternate homefield on a yearly basis. maybe you'd do a home-and-home with one or team in your division per season (different team every year, of course), but that's it. then you'd have four division champs and eight wildcard teams (four in each conference), who would have to play each other for the right to take on the division champs the following week. if they adopted this system, you'd still have an ample number of teams in the playoff chase, but you wouldn't have 8-8 or 7-9 teams making it. also, it would have the added benefit of having division titles actually MEAN something. furthermore, it would set up some nice annual rivalries- imagine if we had a game (some years two!) every season with pitt and cleveland to look forward to, in addition to the rivalries we've come to enjoy already. of course, it will never happen, because it makes too much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I would still allow the division winners into the playoffs, but I would prefer though to have a sort of penalty system for division winners that aren't over .500. I would not allow a team without a winning record to host a playoff game, unless their opponent were also .500 or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Not this year! AFC East Team W L T PCT PF PA Home Road AFC NFC DIV Streak Buffalo 3 3 0 .500 95 100 3-1 0-2 3-0 0-3 2-0 Won 2 New England 3 3 0 .500 138 164 1-1 2-2 2-2 1-1 0-0 Lost 1 Miami 2 4 0 .333 115 128 2-1 0-3 1-3 1-1 0-2 Lost 3 N.Y. Jets 2 4 0 .333 78 112 2-1 0-3 1-4 1-0 1-1 Lost 1 .500 leads our division as you know. Additionally, all 4 teams have give up more points than they have scored. The Bills have been playing in a tough division for quite a few years. If we can squeak into the playoffs this season with 8-8 or 9-7, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I would still allow the division winners into the playoffs, but I would prefer though to have a sort of penalty system for division winners that aren't over .500. I would not allow a team without a winning record to host a playoff game, unless their opponent were also .500 or worse. 482716[/snapback] This is exactly what I thought of: Division winners get in, but whoever has the better record hosts the game. I think it would be great to incent the second-place team in a hot division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 i agree. sub-.500 teams in the playoffs are a disgrace in any sport, imo. and that is why i hate 4-team divisions. i'd rather see 8-team divisions where you play each team ONCE, and you'd just alternate homefield on a yearly basis. maybe you'd do a home-and-home with one or team in your division per season (different team every year, of course), but that's it. then you'd have four division champs and eight wildcard teams (four in each conference), who would have to play each other for the right to take on the division champs the following week. if they adopted this system, you'd still have an ample number of teams in the playoff chase, but you wouldn't have 8-8 or 7-9 teams making it. also, it would have the added benefit of having division titles actually MEAN something. furthermore, it would set up some nice annual rivalries- imagine if we had a game (some years two!) every season with pitt and cleveland to look forward to, in addition to the rivalries we've come to enjoy already. of course, it will never happen, because it makes too much sense. 482572[/snapback] That's a damn good thought and post. So what you're saying is not twice, but only ONCE would we have to give up on our team two weeks before we play in Foxboro. That would certainly save some bandwidth. Seriously, good thoughts. The only thing needed to improve these thoughts is appropriate use of upper-cased letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 i do not have a problem with it.sometimes a good division can make teams records lower than they should be because they are knocking each other off.and i remember a yankees team in the 70's going to the world series with a below 80 win team.you have to win your division is what it comes down to.go bills in"05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 In my opinon a below .500 team doesn't deserve a shot. What do you think? 482382[/snapback] Neither does a 3d WC team. It's not ideal, but if it happens once in a while, so be it. That's whats going to happen with smaller divisions. The only way to avoid it is to go back to the old days of 3 division and one WC in each conference, and that's never going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 In my opinon a below .500 team doesn't deserve a shot. What do you think? I agree and like the idea of a more deserving + .500 wildcard replacing them. I don't think it would ahve any effect whatosever on divisional rivlaries or that it is a top 6 format because it would only come into play on the very rare occasion that a division winner is 7-9 or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Why not just take the top 12 teams, no matter what conference/division they are in if you want to change things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts