Why do I have to repeat myself three times in 4 posts?

 

Division winners will still be rewarded with a playoff spot. If there were just conferences, 10-6 Arizona would be in the playoffs while 8-7-1 Green Bay would be out. I am not advocating that. I do not want to completely do away with divisions, but a 12-4 playoff team shouldn't have to travel to an 8-7-1 team just because they were in the same division as the best team in the league. Also, division teams would still play each other twice a year as opposed to playing other teams on rotating schedules. There would still be division rivalries, there would still be something to play for, but less teams would be getting screwed over.

 

San Francisco had a much better regular season than Green Bay did and it isn't really arguable. "If SF wanted to play at home, they should of beat the Seahawks and won more games." So basically, what you are saying, is San Francisco is being punished for playing in the best division in football, right? Green Bay can get home-field advantage by going 8-7-1 and playing in the 2nd worst division in football, while San Francisco has to travel while going 12-4 in the best division in football? That makes zero sense.

---

You mean should have swept the Seahawks. San Francisco beat the Seahawks at home after falling flat in Seattle.

 

But if the 49ers had done that, they would be the #1 seed and get a bye week while the Packers played against Seattle. That would have been uglier for the Packers.

---

4 division winners make playoffs. From there, it is record based. Divisions still matter and teams that took care of business all season don't get shafted. I don't like rewarding a team because they played in a trash division and still struggled to finish .500 in it.

 

How are they getting shafted?  If they're good enough to win, they'll win.  Simple as that.  If a team wins their division at 6-10 they should be allowed to play at home. the #5 seed should be able to beat them out if the 6-10 team isn't good enough.  Having the game at home only gives them an advantage.  It doesn't shaft the other team.  

 

What about a team that goes 8-8 because they have a tough division, with 5 losses coming from the division.  Then you have a wild card team that went 11-5, because the only good team they play is their divisional winner.  They get 4 wins from the other conference (another weak division where the winner went 9-7 with 6 wins from the division, 2 from the other teams in the same division, and another win somewhere else), 4 wins from their awful sub-4 win teams in their division, 2 wins from their terrible sub-5 win teams in the other divisions, and then a win from the worst team in the other same-conference division they face.  Why does the 11-5 team deserve a home game here?

 

If a sub-.500 team can beat them, then they don't really deserve to go any further in the playoffs.  It's win or go home.  Teams shouldn't be babysat because they were in a tough division that they couldn't win.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

So you guys think the Packers had a more impressive regular season than the 49ers? Gotchya. Nothing more really needs to be said. I believe in rewarding teams that had the better regular season, and IMO that was the 49ers. If you believe the Packers had a better regular season then we can agree to disagree.

 

Home field advantage is a reward and the Packers were rewarded because they played in a crappy division. If the Packers were in ANY other division, they miss the playoffs completely. Since they were in the bad NFC North, they are rewarded with home-field advantage.

 

Lastly, you are seriously under-valuing how much of an advantage Lambeau Field is for Green Bay. In the past three seasons (before this one), Green Bay was 13-0 at home in November, December, and January. This season their starting QB was out so the number took a hit, but the point still remains. Lambeau Field is a huge advantage. Can the better team (49ers) still win? Well, obviously. What was the point of having a better regular season than the Packers, though, if they are just going to have to overcome more hurdles in the playoffs?

 

 

It's actually quite mind-boggling that you guys enjoy rewarding teams for BARELY winning a bad division. Liberal America, folks.

---

If a sub-.500 team can beat them, then they don't really deserve to go any further in the playoffs.  It's win or go home.  Teams shouldn't be babysat because they were in a tough division that they couldn't win.

 

Nope, instead teams should be rewarded for playing crap divisions and being the least crappy team of the 4. Makes perfect sense. Reward the bad teams (Green Bay).

---

How are they getting shafted? If they're good enough to win, they'll win. Simple as that.  If a team wins their division at 6-10 they should be allowed to play at home. The #5 seed should be able to beat them out if the 6-10 team isn't good enough. Having the game at home only gives them an advantage. It doesn't shaft the other team.  

 

What about a team that goes 8-8 because they have a tough division, with 5 losses coming from the division. Then you have a wild card team that went 11-5, because the only good team they play is their divisional winner. They get 4 wins from the other conference (another weak division where the winner went 9-7 with 6 wins from the division, 2 from the other teams in the same division, and another win somewhere else), 4 wins from their awful sub-4 win teams in their division, 2 wins from their terrible sub-5 win teams in the other divisions, and then a win from the worst team in the other same-conference division they face.  Why does the 11-5 team deserve a home game here?

 

If a sub-.500 team can beat them, then they don't really deserve to go any further in the playoffs. It's win or go home. Teams shouldn't be babysat because they were in a tough division that they couldn't win.

 

You are making it too complicated. Eleven wins is 11 wins no matter where they come from. As the only team in the division without a losing record, the Colts swept every AFCS opponent. How do you not reward a team that won all six divisional games and beat the best teams in the toughest division (who are #1 and #5 in the playoffs)? All of those accomplishments certainly are worth playing at home.

---

JaguarsWoman, who had a better season. 12-4 San Francisco (in a loaded division) or 8-7-1 Green Bay (in a bad division)? It doesn't get much simpler than that. You reward the team who had the better season, not the team who lucked out by being in a bad division. If Green Bay was in ANY other division, they miss the playoffs completely.

 

Rewarding teams for being in a bad division....... come on, man.

---

I don't like much change usually. But, I could stomach a change to the sites of games during a wildcard teams participation.


1. Division winners automatically qualify for playoffs (divisions would still be important). Seeding stays the same way.


2. Then, the site of the game gets determined by overall record (it is already this way for all 4 division winners facing each other).


3. Head to Head: if a wildcard team has a better record than their division winning opponent, wildcard team gets the home game UNLESS the wildcard team got defeated by the division winner Head to Head in the regular season.

i.e.

Colts vs Chiefs: Colts defeated Chiefs in regular season, although Chiefs finished with a better record. This one worked out right.


49ers vs Packers: 49ers defeated Packers in regular season, plus had the better overall record. 49ers should've gotten the home game.


A change something like this could be done.

---

Regarding this week:


49ers and Panthers @ Carolina


Both teams 12-4

Panthers a Division Winner

Panthers won Head to Head regular season matchup.


Now, if 49ers had a better record, but they lost Head to Head regular season, game still in Carolina.


Hypothetical scenario:

If 49ers had better record, and won Head to Head (or didn't play each other in season), game would be in San Fran.


In that scenario, Panthers still benefitted from Division winning by 1.getting in playoffs 2. Getting the bye week.

But, if their next opponent happened to be a wildcard team with better record, and head to head advantage, the game would be at the wildcards home.

---

I don't like much change usually. But, I could stomach a change to the sites of games during a wildcard teams participation.


1. Division winners automatically qualify for playoffs (divisions would still be important). Seeding stays the same way.


2. Then, the site of the game gets determined by overall record (it is already this way for all 4 division winners facing each other).


3. Head to Head: if a wildcard team has a better record than their division winning opponent, wildcard team gets the home game UNLESS the wildcard team got defeated by the division winner Head to Head in the regular season.

i.e.

Colts vs Chiefs: Colts defeated Chiefs in regular season, although Chiefs finished with a better record. This one worked out right.


49ers vs Packers: 49ers defeated Packers in regular season, plus had the better overall record. 49ers should've gotten the home game.


A change something like this could be done.

 

Boom. Much better system than what we have now.

 

-Divisions still important.

-Rivalries stay in tact.

-Head 2 Head becomes even more important.

-Teams aren't screwed by playing in good divisions.

---

You keep saying "If the Packers were in ANY OTHER division".  Which is basically saying DIVISIONS SHOULD NOT MATTER.  You keep going back on "But they still make the playoffs"  but then make the argument that they wouldn't have been in if they weren't in any other division in order to back up your argument.

 

This has absolutely no momentum to it for a reason.  Changing the way seeding is done is stupid.  You might as well get rid of divisions altogether if you do it.  "Rivalries" is a dumb reason to keep divisions.  

 

Having a better season shouldn't be rewarded at all, and I have no idea why you think it should.  That'd be like giving the 1st pick of the draft to the NFL team who had the best record, but missed the playoffs.  Because they should be rewarded for having a better record!

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You keep saying "If the Packers were in ANY OTHER division".  Which is basically saying DIVISIONS SHOULD NOT MATTER.  You keep going back on "But they still make the playoffs"  but then make the argument that they wouldn't have been in if they weren't in any other division in order to back up your argument.

 

This has absolutely no momentum to it for a reason.  Changing the way seeding is done is stupid.  You might as well get rid of divisions altogether if you do it.  "Rivalries" is a dumb reason to keep divisions.  

 

Having a better season shouldn't be rewarded at all, and I have no idea why you think it should.  That'd be like giving the 1st pick of the draft to the NFL team who had the best record, but missed the playoffs.  Because they should be rewarded for having a better record!

 

That's how I feel, if your going to devalue divisions, then just do away with them and take the top six teams from each conference.  It would make expansion a lot easier too. 

---

"Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football" - John Heisman

JaguarsWoman, who had a better season. 12-4 San Francisco (in a loaded division) or 8-7-1 Green Bay (in a bad division)? It doesn't get much simpler than that. You reward the team who had the better season, not the team who lucked out by being in a bad division. If Green Bay was in ANY other division, they miss the playoffs completely.

 

Rewarding teams for being in a bad division....... come on, woman.

 

I guess you missed my last post. I said if the 49ers swept the Seahawks, they would have had a bye week as the #1 seed. They were "punished" (in your words) for losing in Seattle. Simple as that: all they had to do was win in Seattle and they would have a home playoff game. Then you would not be complaining about them going to Green Bay.

---

That's how I feel. If your going to devalue divisions, then just do away with them and take the top six teams from each conference.  It would make expansion a lot easier too. 

 

If you are going to devalue divisions, why even have conferences?

---

There wouldn't be a purpose. I am not fond of that though.

All in all, the way it is now is probably best. Every now and then it is an issue when a far superior team visits an 8-8. But it's not that big of a deal to me.

 

I certainly hope the current league structure and playoff formats remains in effect for a very long time to come.  Yet,  if for discussion sake if the NFL got rid of divisions ( I don't see this happening anytime soon )  and just had two conferences,  it would be imperative the league had a large enough of an unbalanced schedule that it separated the playoffs from the regular season:

 

 In other words,  lets say the NFL had every team in each conference playing each other once.  With one game against a team from the other conference completing the 16 game schedule.   From my point of view,   this would defeat the purpose of having intraconference playoffs in seasons that the team with the best record was 1 1/2 games or more ahead of the team with the 2nd best record.    If for example under this formula the Seahawks were 14-2 and the next best NFC team the Panthers were 12-4,  it wouldn't make sense for the Seahawks to have to compete in the Conference playoffs.   Based on logic,  they would automatically earn a Super Bowl berth.

---

I guess you missed my last post. I said if the 49ers swept the Seahawks, they would have had a bye week as the #1 seed. They were "punished" (in your words) for losing in Seattle. Simple as that: all they had to do was win in Seattle and they would have a home playoff game. Then you would not be complaining about them going to Green Bay.

 

Green Bay can get homefield advantage for going 8-7-1, but San Francisco needs to go 13-3 to get homefield advantage. Makes perfect sense.

 

To win the NFC West, a team would have to finish above TWO teams that are over .500. Green Bay didn't have to finished above a single team better than .500.

---

If you are going to devalue divisions, why even have conferences?

 

How can you be so slow?

 

Are divisions devalued in the NBA? Yes. Do conferences still have a huge role? Obviously.

Are divisions devalued in the NHL? Yes. Do conferences still have a huge role? Obviously.

 

The plan proposed by jagherd still puts way more value on divisions than either the NBA or NHL, so what makes you think conferences would be meaningless?

 

 

No really, how slow can you be?

---

How can you be so slow?

 

Are divisions devalued in the NBA? Yes. Do conferences still have a huge role? Obviously.

Are divisions devalued in the NHL? Yes. Do conferences still have a huge role? Obviously.

 

The plan proposed by jagherd still puts way more value on divisions than either the NBA or NHL, so what makes you think conferences would be meaningless?

 

 

No really, how slow can you be?

 

 

dude, ease up....hah?....

 

Is it really that big of a deal that you need to be insulting peoples intellect? 

---

I am not slow at all. I only know one professional sports league's playoff format because it is the only one I care about. Don't call me slow for having absolutely no interest in hockey or basketball.

---

She has already asked the same "why would conferences matter then?" question and I've already steered her in the right direction. She's asked the same question time after time and ignores answers.

 

I'm not calling her slow because she disagrees with me, I don't think there is a "right or wrong" opinion, I'm calling her slow for repeatedly forcing the same ridiculous question when the answers are right there for her.

---