Listening to sports radio heading to the gym this morning, the topic was the East, and is it fair a team with such a bad record makes the playoffs AND would host in Week 1. Merriman said it’s completely unfair, especially when you look at the West and several teams looking good.
I know we may be biased given our current standing and what some of us believe looks like an uptick in play/performance. But even said that, regardless of the year or a division being down, I think that’s the beauty of the league: that even if a team under performs or has a record that is 500 or even a bit lower, they can still make the playoffs because of how their division looks.
I don’t think it’s a slam dunk, either, to say that a team from the East would be a walkover in a playoff home game, all things considered.
What’s BBI think? With Merriman and it’s time to revamp the playoff configuration? Or leave it as is?
if we win the East i see us winning a playoff game.
In 2010 the Giants went 10-6 and missed the playoffs, the Seahawks went 7-9 and won a playoff game. It happens.
The Giants went 11-5 in 2016 and did not win the division.
Regardless, sports shows cry about this EVERY YEAR.
If you don't want to play a road playoff game then WIN your division. It's pretty simple. Not sure what all the crying is about.
With added talent and a good draft, we certainly can be a force to be reckoned with moving forward, Continued patience is a must. We’re not THAT far off, imv.
Serious, first thing I thought of. Who cares what this walking steroid thinks
Teams should be licking their chops that a mediocre team gets into the playoffs, not bitching about it
Is that Home game still the case, or did the NFL change that with some of the other recent changes?
1988 or 2010? Both sucked!
What is nice about NFL....is the balance in league....and the ebbs and flow of strength and weaknesses
Going 10-6, tied with the Eagles for first, but their 6-2 conference was one better than the Giants 5-3.
2010, yeah - Giants 10-6 and Seattle got in at 7-9.
Playoffs are supposed to represent the leagues best teams. Sub-500 doesn't cut it.
Exactly. If there are divisions, the winner gets a reward. If you disagree with that, then you have to be a proponent of the league going to a Conference format where there are no divisions, no games twice against opponents and a strict ranking from 1 to the number of teams who qualify.
I'd hate that format, but if you want equality - that's what has to happen. I'm fine with divisions.
What I would not be opposed to is following the current seeding , but then having the team with the better record host the game. So if the Giants won the East and had to play a wild card team like Arizona with a better record, the game would be in Arizona. That way winning the division matters, but being a better team (record-wise) in a tougher division also matters.
If the NFL deems after this season, the NFC East scenario is a bad look for the league, change it going forward, there is certainly precedent for the league overreacting to a perceived inequity and doing that.
Personally it happens so rarely that I believe it would be a bad decision to diminish the benefit of winning your division.
And part of the reason they added another playoff team. You should get a home playoff game if you win division, but you also shouldn’t be left home of you finish 10-6. Which theoretically could still happen, but will be a pretty rare occurrence.
Assclown.
Quote:
if you are not going to award a playoff spot to the winner?
Exactly. If there are divisions, the winner gets a reward. If you disagree with that, then you have to be a proponent of the league going to a Conference format where there are no divisions, no games twice against opponents and a strict ranking from 1 to the number of teams who qualify.
If they did that it would make almost every Thursday night game unwatchable. Usually the only good ones are division games, so no shot of that happening
I personally believe this stuff is cyclical. The NFC South has had years when it has been terrible. Same with the AFC South and the NFC West
Merriman is not speaking on behalf of the NFL, but the NFL doesn't seem to mind as it will dilute its product adding an extra wildcard team to increase revenue.
Now this year who cares because of the crowds will not be there but I do not like 7-9 team getting home field on a 10-6 team who had to get a wild card spot.
If it were my Decision I would have each division winner get in plus the wildcards and then seed the tourney based on Records and strength of schedule.
There is no home field advantage for the Giants if they win the division because there aren't any fans in the stadium.
Good point. The Patriots never had to worry about winning their division after 2002. The AFCE was/is so weak for so long. Even this season, the Patriots are still in contention because the Dolphins and Bills are gaff prone.
there's NOTHING anyone can do about this. Every now n then, a division struggles and the winner of that division loses 7-8-9 games. You can't change shit on the fly so people need to fucking deal with it. Once in a blue moon an average or below average team wins a division. you can't go changing the entire playoff dynamic because of a freak season like this.
These talking meatballs have nothing else to discuss so why not stir shit up and generate attn. It's all they have at this point.
Quote:
if you are not going to award a playoff spot to the winner?
Exactly. If there are divisions, the winner gets a reward. If you disagree with that, then you have to be a proponent of the league going to a Conference format where there are no divisions, no games twice against opponents and a strict ranking from 1 to the number of teams who qualify.
Good point - I sort of agree it's bullshit a 6-10 team might make the playoffs, but the alternatives are worse.
I do think they should just seed playoff teams by record, though. I don't think home games should be a given.
Quote:
has been a disaster beyond the Pats..
Good point. The Patriots never had to worry about winning their division after 2002. The AFCE was/is so weak for so long. Even this season, the Patriots are still in contention because the Dolphins and Bills are gaff prone.
This isn't true - the teams in that division were roughly average the past 20 years outside of games played against the Patriots.
Doesn't change the fact that the 2020 winner of the NFC east gets the #4 seed and a home game.
Quote:
has been a disaster beyond the Pats..
Good point. The Patriots never had to worry about winning their division after 2002. The AFCE was/is so weak for so long. Even this season, the Patriots are still in contention because the Dolphins and Bills are gaff prone.
Never had to worry. This is the first year The AFC East has been competitive to the point where someone like Buffalo is probably better..The 11-5 Dolphins (during the 2008 Brady injury year, yet they still finished 11-5 but lost out for playoffs by losing to the 11-5 Dolphins who won division tiebreaker) and the 2 years of Sanchez/Ryan are basically the only competitive AFC East years in the last 20..
Quote:
In comment 15054660 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
has been a disaster beyond the Pats..
Good point. The Patriots never had to worry about winning their division after 2002. The AFCE was/is so weak for so long. Even this season, the Patriots are still in contention because the Dolphins and Bills are gaff prone.
This isn't true - the teams in that division were roughly average the past 20 years outside of games played against the Patriots.
Don't bother. The AFC East stinks narrative during the Patriots dominance is all that some people have left to cling to.
Two things people fail to realize - 1 - the Patriots made those other teams so bad. Look at the Patriots inter-conference and inter-division records- they are/were more dominant outside of their division and conference than in it and 2 - the AFC East teams (as a whole) weren't as horrific as people say - at least not the entire time there was usually at least one other competitive team - and many times two AFC East teams in the playoffs.
This year, with no, or little home crowd, it doesn’t make as much of a difference, but in normal years it does. I think any division winner under .500 should forfeit home field (unless, of course, the WC is somehow under .500).
The NFC East for many years was the best division in football while other divisions like the NFC West was an annual joke. It’s cyclical. Let’s not act like we have always been in a position to benefit, we have absolutely been on the other end and I don’t remember the NFL changing the rules and I don’t remember Giants fans overwhelmingly suggesting that they should. I’m sure there were some, but I don’t think it was really discussed much while the Giants had to go through a gauntlet each season. I’m sorry, I don’t feel bad that the shoe is on the other foot for a few seasons
When the 7-8-1 Panthers hosted the 11-5 Cardinals, the Panthers were favored, and they were facing Ryan Lindley at QB. Each year, there are things that happen, whether injuries, weather or records that impact the playoffs.
Haha...too bad!
i think thats a good idea..
also my 2c on this topic is that current format at least keeps interest in several more races around the league and helps promote rivalries which is an important factor.
Quote:
In comment 15054706 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
In comment 15054660 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
has been a disaster beyond the Pats..
Good point. The Patriots never had to worry about winning their division after 2002. The AFCE was/is so weak for so long. Even this season, the Patriots are still in contention because the Dolphins and Bills are gaff prone.
This isn't true - the teams in that division were roughly average the past 20 years outside of games played against the Patriots.
Don't bother. The AFC East stinks narrative during the Patriots dominance is all that some people have left to cling to.
Two things people fail to realize - 1 - the Patriots made those other teams so bad. Look at the Patriots inter-conference and inter-division records- they are/were more dominant outside of their division and conference than in it and 2 - the AFC East teams (as a whole) weren't as horrific as people say - at least not the entire time there was usually at least one other competitive team - and many times two AFC East teams in the playoffs.
I bought into the narrative and then ran the numbers myself. I was surprised.
It's definitely fair to say there was no Steelers/Raven-esque team in the division. But they weren't facing this year's NFC East every year.
In 2010 the Giants went 10-6 and missed the playoffs, the Seahawks went 7-9 and won a playoff game. It happens.
The Giants went 11-5 in 2016 and did not win the division.
Devil's Advocate, that's only because the system is set up that way. If it was set up for the 6 (I think 7 this year) best records in the conference making it, then the first job would be to have a record that gets you into the playoffs.
I don't think his argument will get much traction here, but I also think it's a fair argument. If the Giants were 10-6 and missed the playoffs to a 6-10 division winner, something that could theoretically happen to a team like the Cardinals, I am pretty sure this board would have tons of opinions that agree with Merriman.
In fact, this team already knows what's that like, when the Giants went 10-6 and missed the playoffs. They lost a tie breaker to the Eagles that year for the division, lost a tie breaker to the Packers for a wild-card. Funny enough, the Buccaneers also went 10-6 that year and missed the playoffs. The Seahawks made the playoffs as a division winner at 7-9, so I wonder what BBI had to say back in 2010?
This year, with no, or little home crowd, it doesn’t make as much of a difference, but in normal years it does. I think any division winner under .500 should forfeit home field (unless, of course, the WC is somehow under .500).
One change I think the NFL should make is to just make the team with the better record get the home game, division winner or not.
It adds importance to the divisional win.
It's too subjective, Shawn. Every year theres a wildcard team with a better record than divisional winners. What would be the criteria in which to measure this?
If you win the division with a losing record, and host a playoff game versus a wild card team with a winning record, I could buy giving the wild card the home game.
If you win the division with a losing record, and host a playoff game versus a wild card team with a winning record, I could buy giving the wild card the home game.
And why no one listens to you..😎
If you win the division with a losing record, and host a playoff game versus a wild card team with a winning record, I could buy giving the wild card the home game.
While I understand the logic, this seems so gimmicky.
I could see the argument for a wild card team with a better overall record getting the home playoff game versus a division winner though. Not a "must-have" change but wouldn't bother me either way.
Quote:
In comment 15054590 EricJ said:
Quote:
if you are not going to award a playoff spot to the winner?
Exactly. If there are divisions, the winner gets a reward. If you disagree with that, then you have to be a proponent of the league going to a Conference format where there are no divisions, no games twice against opponents and a strict ranking from 1 to the number of teams who qualify.
Good point - I sort of agree it's bullshit a 6-10 team might make the playoffs, but the alternatives are worse.
I do think they should just seed playoff teams by record, though. I don't think home games should be a given.
this I could get behind but even then, who cares, just let the average team get lucky once a decade and move on. Everything doesn't always have to fit in just perfectly, but we like to analyze and bitch about everything these days. And really, when the Hawks got in in 2010 they then went out and smacked the Saints in the mouth and won a playoff game. The Hawks were well on their way to earning their stripes. MAybe the 2020 Giants can mimic that 2010 team.
This year, with no, or little home crowd, it doesn’t make as much of a difference, but in normal years it does. I think any division winner under .500 should forfeit home field (unless, of course, the WC is somehow under .500).
this is neither here or there, and maybe this is a ridiculous take, but how come no one gives the NFC East a break since you know, it's literally the most successful division in PRO Sports. Any team residing in this division over the last 50 years has had to earn it like no other team in any other sport.
Is the NFL throwing any breaks to these NFC East teams when decade after decade other divisions underperform the East? Don't the Giants have the toughest fucking schedule going YET AGAIN? But no one cares about that.
The AFC East is finally not terrible. Good for them. It only took 20 years.
The only divisions that are clearly better to me are the AFC North and the NFC West. The rest ? We're splitting hairs. I know record is the end all be all, but my point remains that that these teams are all so close, records be damned.
Quote:
In comment 15054592 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
In comment 15054590 EricJ said:
Quote:
if you are not going to award a playoff spot to the winner?
Exactly. If there are divisions, the winner gets a reward. If you disagree with that, then you have to be a proponent of the league going to a Conference format where there are no divisions, no games twice against opponents and a strict ranking from 1 to the number of teams who qualify.
Good point - I sort of agree it's bullshit a 6-10 team might make the playoffs, but the alternatives are worse.
I do think they should just seed playoff teams by record, though. I don't think home games should be a given.
this I could get behind but even then, who cares, just let the average team get lucky once a decade and move on. Everything doesn't always have to fit in just perfectly, but we like to analyze and bitch about everything these days. And really, when the Hawks got in in 2010 they then went out and smacked the Saints in the mouth and won a playoff game. The Hawks were well on their way to earning their stripes. MAybe the 2020 Giants can mimic that 2010 team.
I agree, it's a minor thing I'd like to see changed but I really don't care that much.
People bitch about everything and if something is done to change this, people will bitch about the change.
Quote:
To use performance enhancing drugs in professional sports.
Perfectly stated to show the hypocrisy of this idiot claiming anything is unfair
NFL players do not view steroids the way the general public does. Getting caught is generally a career killer because then you get put in the program and you can't do the things everyone else is. We got lucky Big Dex didn't have to enter the NFL's program.
People bitch about everything and if something is done to change this, people will bitch about the change.
I'd bitch if they changed it. We missed the playoffs one year because of it and I thought it was completely fair. Beat the ohter teams in your division period.
Quote:
they should reconsider the home game part of this instead.
If you win the division with a losing record, and host a playoff game versus a wild card team with a winning record, I could buy giving the wild card the home game.
While I understand the logic, this seems so gimmicky.
Really? Pretty straightforward solution, and probably one that is only exercised every few years.
You're not giving the division "winner" with a losing record the death penalty by excluding from the playoffs. So it's a reasonable compromise.
The only divisions that are clearly better to me are the AFC North and the NFC West. The rest ? We're splitting hairs. I know record is the end all be all, but my point remains that that these teams are all so close, records be damned.
Convenient that the only divisions that are clearly better to you are the two that you won't be able to use a hypothetical/imaginary possibility on, because those divisions will have steamrolled the NFC East this year.
You're kidding yourself if you don't think the NFC South, AFC South, and AFC West are all better. Could the Giants (or any NFCE team) possibly hang with those divisions' respective cellar dwellers? Yeah, maybe. But all of those divisions have a top end that the NFCE does not have. The best team in any of those divisions, and probably the second best team in those divisions also, would clinch the NFC East title by the second week in December.
Even with the Jets in it, the AFC East is probably better than the NFC East, too. The NFC North isn't especially impressive, except that Green Bay would win our division going away.
It's not just that the NFC East is bad. It's that all four teams are bad enough that they'd contend for last place in almost any other division, or at best 3rd place. I'm not sure why this is even really debatable - we all know the NFC East is putrid this year. There's no need to be in denial about it.
Rules are rules ... they should not start adjusting the rules because something seems a little unfair in any particular season.
Let the system prevail ... regardless of any record. That's it. Are they going to start re-writing the rules of the play-off system every year to suit the records of the teams ...? huh?
Rules are rules ... they should not start adjusting the rules because something seems a little unfair in any particular season.
Let the system prevail ... regardless of any record. That's it. Are they going to start re-writing the rules of the play-off system every year to suit the records of the teams ...? huh?
This x1000.
This is like changing the pass interference rules. An overreaction to an outlier.
How about the fans of wild card teams grow a fucking sack?
Quote:
(more money) .... now the league is presented with a situation where 1 division may finish with 5 wins as the division victor. They get the week off and will have to host the victor of the wildcard weekend?
Rules are rules ... they should not start adjusting the rules because something seems a little unfair in any particular season.
Let the system prevail ... regardless of any record. That's it. Are they going to start re-writing the rules of the play-off system every year to suit the records of the teams ...? huh?
This x1000.
This is like changing the pass interference rules. An overreaction to an outlier.
How about the fans of wild card teams grow a fucking sack?
: )