Oh, wow. I guess it's somewhat related. I just checked out to see the final standings and the Eagles were the only team with at least 5 division wins to not make the playoffs. Their shitty first half of the season and going 3-7 against non-divisional opponents ruined their season.
About 2 or 3 of their non-divisional opponents were shit teams too. Gotta beat those types of teams, if you're gonna dominate your division.
Broncos were 12-4, had the 2nd best record in the AFC, and were the #4 seed in 1997 since they didn't win their division. The Chiefs won that division and were 13-3, and keep in mind that back then there were only 3 divisions in each conference, not 4.
Well the Broncos ended up winning the Superbowl that season and in that playoff run. It is just the way it is. It's only bogus if a team that finishes like 11-5 or 12-4 and misses the playoffs because they didn't win their division. The Patriots in 2008 like someone mentioned earlier is the perfect example. It's not bogus if you are the #5 seed because you didn't win the division though.
Last edited by StateOfMind12 : 01-02-2012 at 06:40 PM.
Clearly you don't watch as much football as you used to, this sounds like one of those ideas that sportswriters who don't like the games come up with. It works perfectly every year. BUT BUT, it wasn't totally fair to this one team one time. LETS CHANGE IT ALL!
Makes no sense.
WTF are you talking about? It doesn't work perfectly at all. It worked fine when there were only 3, but not 4. It was highlighted last season when a team with a losing record made the playoffs while two teams at 10-6 sat home. Even though the Seahawks won a playoff game last year, they had no business being in there. Records should be more important than stupid divisions. Divisional races are just window dressing. If your division sucks, then your divisonal games shouldn't mean much anyways and you shouldn't get a playoff spot. Why reward a team for being the least sucky of a sucky division? It's stupid, it's like the Big East still getting an AQ for a BCS bowl game. Hell, simply putting a qualifier that your division has to have at least 1 team without a losing record for it to qualify would be an improvement.
WTF are you talking about? It doesn't work perfectly at all. It worked fine when there were only 3, but not 4. It was highlighted last season when a team with a losing record made the playoffs while two teams at 10-6 sat home. Even though the Seahawks won a playoff game last year, they had no business being in there. Records should be more important than stupid divisions. Divisional races are just window dressing. If your division sucks, then your divisonal games shouldn't mean much anyways and you shouldn't get a playoff spot. Why reward a team for being the least sucky of a sucky division? It's stupid, it's like the Big East still getting an AQ for a BCS bowl game. Hell, simply putting a qualifier that your division has to have at least 1 team without a losing record for it to qualify would be an improvement.
I mean, I don't even go that far, simply because.....What if all four teams in division are very good? You might have a worse record because of that....but I understand your point.
For me, I like it the same way it is....same 6 teams make playoffs. I just hate the seedings. There's no reason an 8 - 8 team could have a better seed than potentially a 15 - 1 team. That's the situation we currently have. That, to me, is ridiculous.
And for those saying "Well, if you are really a good team, seeding doesn't matter." That is just retarded, I'm sorry. It's ridiculous logic. The reason a team plays hard for 16 games is to make easier on themselves in the playoffs. That's the whole point. To earn yourself a better seed. "If you're a REAL man, seeding doesn't matter." Retarded. Yes we realize a team CAN get to Super Bowl on a bad seed, but if you earned a higher seed and an easier path, you should get it.