Freemanm Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Sorry to get a bit off topic here - I'm not being biased here since the Jets obviously aren't getting in, but I think it's going to be another year where a 10-6 team doesn't get in. I think it would be a travesty that Ravens or Steelers might not get in with a possible 10-6 record while a crappy team in the South gets in with an 8-8 record or worse. I think at this point there should be a rule that team must at least have a 9-7 record to get into the playoffs. .500 teams shouldn't be getting in. That way it won't diminish the excitement of the regular season as the team's in the South can still fight for that record, and better teams wouldn't be cheated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 I thought they would've added another seed in the playoffs by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Nah a 10 and 6 with a easier schedule like us last year as example can be misleading keep it win your division is always the goal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAR I Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 31 minutes ago, Freemanm said: Sorry to get a bit off topic here - I'm not being biased here since the Jets obviously aren't getting in, but I think it's going to be another year where a 10-6 team doesn't get in. I think it would be a travesty that Ravens or Steelers might not get in with a possible 10-6 record while a crappy team in the South gets in with an 8-8 record or worse. I think at this point there should be a rule that team must at least have a 9-7 record to get into the playoffs. .500 teams shouldn't be getting in. That way it won't diminish the excitement of the regular season as the team's in the South can still fight for that record, and better teams wouldn't be cheated. A few years from now when Belichick and Brady are retired it'll be the AFC East that's sending an 8-8 team to the playoffs. Don't lobby for a rules change that could rob us of a home playoff game. I've seen exactly 1 of those in the last 20 years. SAR I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike135 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, faba said: Nah a 10 and 6 with a easier schedule like us last year as example can be misleading keep it win your division is always the goal Right, and could you imagine the contract $hitz would've received if the Jets reached the playoffs last year? This playoff format saved our future. Didn't help us this season, but at least it's not 5+ years of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Division winners should matter. But one tweak; nobody should get in without at least a .500 record. We have had teams with 7 wins get in,and that's crap. New rule; any division winner with less than a .500 record is out, replaced by the next best record nonqualifying playoff team in the whole NFL. So you could have an AFC team qualify in the NFC or vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peebag Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 3 hours ago, August said: I thought they would've added another seed in the playoffs by now. This...it would solve the issue and bring in more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe W. Namath Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, Bugg said: Division winners should matter. But one tweak; nobody should get in without at least a .500 record. We have had teams with 7 wins get in,and that's crap. New rule; any division winner with less than a .500 record is out, replaced by the next best record nonqualifying playoff team in the whole NFL. So you could have an AFC team qualify in the NFC or vice versa. Seattle won 7 games a few years back and went on to beat a drew brees led saints team in the playoffs. So they definately deserved to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Joe W. Namath said: Seattle won 7 games a few years back and went on to beat a drew brees led saints team in the playoffs. So they definately deserved to be there. If a team does not have a winning record or at least a .500 one, they do not belong. It happens very rarely. And further because they were the division winner the Seahawks hosted that game. it was a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 I like that division winners get in even if it puts an 8-8 team in there instead of 10-6. That's why we have wildcards. A similar argument can be made for not having the playoffs at all (let the team w/ the best regular season record be considered the champs). How boring would that be though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 the only way to prevent that is to go to the NBA system, use 2 conferences, eliminate division status and just go best records, maybe use division record as first tie breaker to make it matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe W. Namath Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Bugg said: If a team does not have a winning record or at least a .500 one, they do not belong. It happens very rarely. And further because they were the division winner the Seahawks hosted that game. it was a disgrace. But your wrong. They did belong. They won the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lith Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 17 hours ago, Bugg said: And further because they were the division winner the Seahawks hosted that game. it was a disgrace. This is the issue I have -- don't mind seeing Division winners in the playoffs, but should a 7 or 8 win Division Champ automatically get a home game. Home field and playoff seeding should be based on record, but I don't have a problem with a Division winner getting in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerous Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 leave it alone. the divisions are created to build up rivalries. so division winners, no matter what their record, should go. the only place that maybe needs tweaking is the tie breaker but it works and if your team needs to use tie breakers they probably don't belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 23 hours ago, Freemanm said: Sorry to get a bit off topic here - I'm not being biased here since the Jets obviously aren't getting in, but I think it's going to be another year where a 10-6 team doesn't get in. I think it would be a travesty that Ravens or Steelers might not get in with a possible 10-6 record while a crappy team in the South gets in with an 8-8 record or worse. I think at this point there should be a rule that team must at least have a 9-7 record to get into the playoffs. .500 teams shouldn't be getting in. That way it won't diminish the excitement of the regular season as the team's in the South can still fight for that record, and better teams wouldn't be cheated. No. Win your division if you want in. Changing to some dipsh*t NBA or NHL-alike "Top X teams get in" makes divisions, and division rivalries, utterly meaningless. So no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljr Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 I like division winner having the importance it does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobraVerde Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 No. Win your damn division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.