View Full Version : Interesting on Playoffs/Schedule!
Funny! We've gotten into some debates lately about schedule and how some people seem to view it as inconsequential as to a measure of how good a team really is.
Here's what PFW has to say on the issue as it relates to the playoffs:
"NFL realignment causing playoff problems
Some claim that division realignment, which leaves both leagues with only two wildcard spots, will hurt a handful of teams in the strong AFC. The realignment has left the AFC East and West stronger than other divisions, leaving these teams to fight a battle of attrition. In the NFC, most criticism has been directed toward the makeup of the NFC North, which is composed of league-power Green Bay and hapless Minnesota, Detroit and Chicago.
Buchsbaum: Right now, the NFL’s new setup of four teams per division, and four divisions per conference, is not working out at all because it is creating huge disparities. Just look at the AFC: in the East and the West, you do not have a team with a losing record. They are obviously the two toughest divisions in football and the teams in those divisions beat each other up twice a year, so those teams will be closer to the .500 mark than the 10 or 11 wins normally needed to reach the playoffs. On the other hand, in the AFC North, there is only one team with a winning record — the Steelers at 5-4-1. In the AFC South, Indianapolis and Tennessee lead the way with 6-4 marks, but both have played relatively easy schedules.
In the NFC, there is one division with three good teams — the South. The West seems to feature pretty good balance, but there is only one decent team in the North division and the other three teams may be the worst teams in the league. In the East, with the Eagles’ injuries, there are no really strong teams and the Giants may cash in on their golden opportunity.
As a result, there is no way the NFL will have the best 12 teams in the playoffs and teams in the AFC East and West are bound to get the wrong end of the deal. Actually, you probably have six of the top 10 teams in the AFC in those divisions."
You're always asking for backup statements Judge. It does support my earlier points that you attempted to make seem totally ridiculous. Nevertheless, it seems to me that they are saying that strength of schedule is so impacting that it's almost unjust given the scenarios mentioned above! Just curious if you'd care to comment on this at all? Of course it's open to anyone else who hammered that viewpoint prior as well.
Earthquake Enyart
11-21-2002, 11:52 AM
Well, most of those teams don't have very many quality wins.
EricStratton
11-21-2002, 12:03 PM
Actually that seems to support the idea of "take any win you can". Since wildcard spots area at such a premium and division titles so important every win a team gets is vital. Simply saying a team has no quality wins on it's ledger is far less important than overall wins.
clumping platelets
11-21-2002, 12:37 PM
If thr Bills win all remaining games.........they win it all!!
:ontome:
Everything is screwy this season because it's the first year of realignment. People are saying there are weak divisions. One thing we have to remember is when you build a team your focus is to play well in the division. You really want to have a plan and talent that matches up well with other teams in the division. Well, when you change the divisions around there are bound to be some anomolies where teams are not mathing up well within their division. We also added an expansion team in the same year. Those people in the AFC south are just getting a feel for what it's like to play in the AFC south. It's going to take some time for the divisions to match up better.
Also, they will be adding two more wild card spots in the offseason. It's a no brainer IMHO.
TigerJ
11-21-2002, 12:48 PM
I think the playoff formula is going to get tinkered with in a year or two, if not sooner. I think the solution will end up being the addition of a couple more wild card teams in each conference. Fully half the league will make the playoffs. The playoff season, leading up to the Super Bowl would last 3 weeks like it does now, but all 16 teams in the playoffs would play in the first week of the playoffs. The first round would pair the division winner with the best record with the wild card winner with the worst record (tiebreakers apply). The second best division winner faces the second worst wild card record . . . I'll let the league figure out the formula for remaining weeks. Why would the league further dilute the playoffs by making half the league eligilble vs the 12 teams that will make the playoffs this year? In addition to letting in four of the teams that might be good but had the missfortune of being in a tough division, this will mean more games in the playoffs and that will mean both more gate revenue and TV revenue, and that is the most powerful incentive of all.
Judge
11-21-2002, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
Funny! We've gotten into some debates lately about schedule and how some people seem to view it as inconsequential as to a measure of how good a team really is.
Here's what PFW has to say on the issue as it relates to the playoffs:
"NFL realignment causing playoff problems
Some claim that division realignment, which leaves both leagues with only two wildcard spots, will hurt a handful of teams in the strong AFC. The realignment has left the AFC East and West stronger than other divisions, leaving these teams to fight a battle of attrition. In the NFC, most criticism has been directed toward the makeup of the NFC North, which is composed of league-power Green Bay and hapless Minnesota, Detroit and Chicago.
Buchsbaum: Right now, the NFL’s new setup of four teams per division, and four divisions per conference, is not working out at all because it is creating huge disparities. Just look at the AFC: in the East and the West, you do not have a team with a losing record. They are obviously the two toughest divisions in football and the teams in those divisions beat each other up twice a year, so those teams will be closer to the .500 mark than the 10 or 11 wins normally needed to reach the playoffs. On the other hand, in the AFC North, there is only one team with a winning record — the Steelers at 5-4-1. In the AFC South, Indianapolis and Tennessee lead the way with 6-4 marks, but both have played relatively easy schedules.
In the NFC, there is one division with three good teams — the South. The West seems to feature pretty good balance, but there is only one decent team in the North division and the other three teams may be the worst teams in the league. In the East, with the Eagles’ injuries, there are no really strong teams and the Giants may cash in on their golden opportunity.
As a result, there is no way the NFL will have the best 12 teams in the playoffs and teams in the AFC East and West are bound to get the wrong end of the deal. Actually, you probably have six of the top 10 teams in the AFC in those divisions."
You're always asking for backup statements Judge. It does support my earlier points that you attempted to make seem totally ridiculous. Nevertheless, it seems to me that they are saying that strength of schedule is so impacting that it's almost unjust given the scenarios mentioned above! Just curious if you'd care to comment on this at all? Of course it's open to anyone else who hammered that viewpoint prior as well.
Nonsense, Wys-
He isn't saying what you're saying at all. You're comparing apples to oranges. People who don't understand what they're talking about typically resort to such trickery to cover up their lack of knowledge.
In your perfect world, the playoffs would be decided by the Sagarin ratings or a BCS system. Thankfully, in the real world games are played so fans can watch and enjoy FOOTBALL, not look for meaning that doesn't exist in nonsensical numbers.
Judge
11-21-2002, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by EricStratton
Actually that seems to support the idea of "take any win you can". Since wildcard spots area at such a premium and division titles so important every win a team gets is vital. Simply saying a team has no quality wins on it's ledger is far less important than overall wins.
EXACTLY!
Expanding the playoffs to accommodate 4 more teams will render the regular season useless just as it has in the NBA and NHL. Every team at 8-8 or for sure 9-7 will make it. I think that at the end of the year we'll see that it really won't be as bad as some suspect. Sure, a poor division winner will get in at some point. But hey, nothin's perfect.
It'll ruin the league, especially when an 8-8 or 9-7 team finally wins the SB.
If they had let in 8 teams last season, then 9-7 Seattle and 8-8 Denver would have made it. No other teams were .500 in the AFC. In the NFC, 9-7 T.B. and 8-8 Washington would have made it, and then it would have been a 7-9 team probably Arizona.
I know that having 4 divisions will change things by a bit, but not that much. As of right now, the only two teams in the AFC that deserve playoff spots as teams that have demonstrated an overall dominance generally speaking are Denver and S.D.
In the NFC, it's only G.B. regardless of their soft schedule, T.B., N.O., S.F., and Philly prior to McNabb getting injured. They'll be mediocre w/o him.
I have a hunch that a bunch of teams are gonna fall by the wayside here. I see Miami and N.E. dominating the AFCE from here on out, especially w/ N.E.'s 3 remaining div. games at home.
In the NFC, other than Atlanta who's also played a cheap schedule, the only other team that may even be worthy of playoffs is St. Louis.
If the format were 8 teams, then one of the following would have to make it in the NFC: NYG, Ariz, Dallas, Minn, Det, Chi, Car, Was, Sea. Not one of those teams has any business being in the POs this season. Heck, that's w/ St. Louis and Atlanta in too.
You crack me up Judge. You could get run over by a semi and you'd say it was a deer. :D
He plainly stated that schedule has a lot to do with wins and as he used G.B. as an example for. In total contrast to your assertions that strength-of-schedule is meaningless. You're not arguing against me Judge. Read it for yourself.
Then again, forget it....
;)
BTW, you never did answer that question;
Are you saying that a team's record is more important in terms of how good a team really is even if they play mostly weak teams?
B/c that's what I read earlier. For someone who's constantly criticising my use of stats, you sure put a lot of credence in the most basic of stats w/o any insight at all into them. ;)
Earthquake Enyart
11-21-2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Judge
Nonsense, Wys-
He isn't saying what you're saying at all. You're comparing apples to oranges. People who don't understand what they're talking about typically resort to such trickery to cover up their lack of knowledge.
In your perfect world, the playoffs would be decided by the Sagarin ratings or a BCS system. Thankfully, in the real world games are played so fans can watch and enjoy FOOTBALL, not look for meaning that doesn't exist in nonsensical numbers.
The LAST thing we need is a BCS for the NFL. What a trainwreck that would be.
I said they would add two wildcard spots not four. That is one for each conference and it won't dillute the league. It's just a factor of their being more divisions. I don't see a problem if a division winner gets in the playoffs at 9-7 because they fought it out in a very tough division but that spot should not exclude another team that is clearly in the top dozen in the league because there is no space for them.
Judge
11-21-2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
BTW, you never did answer that question;
Are you saying that a team's record is more important in terms of how good a team really is even if they play mostly weak teams?
B/c that's what I read earlier. For someone who's constantly criticising my use of stats, you sure put a lot of credence in the most basic of stats w/o any insight at all into them. ;)
I did answer your question, and you acknowledged my answer by acknowledging that we plain disagree. Time to lay off that hot sauce a little- it's affecting your memory.
Yes I do say that. I say a win is a win is a win. I asked you a stats question because I used it to prove once again that stats are meaningless, as even by your relative statistical analysis (my title for your work, and I don't mean it as a complimentary description at all, so don't take credit for it) the Bills are a better team than last year.
I have provided all the insight necessary, and Stratton has as well: Just win baby. That's all the insight necessary. Anything else is BS.
don137
11-21-2002, 03:12 PM
Unfortunately with 4 divisions you will get weak division champions as average teams look better than they really are because they beat powder puff teams. It happened last year with 3 divisions. Pittsburgh seems to luck out by being in a really bad division as a result has had and will have a really good record. This year is no different. Pittsburgh remaining schedule is against Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Houston, Carolina, Tampa Bay and Baltimore. That's one team with a winning record on there schedule and that is a non conference game. These "pretender" teams will lose in the playoffs just like last year.
There is no perfect system unfortunately but with parity due to free agency the AFC East and West may be the benefactors someday of being in a weak division.
lunatic_bills_fan
11-21-2002, 05:28 PM
I think if they are gonna stay with 4 didvisions, they have to be realingned. Have to give the east and west a team like the bengals, houston, or cleveland. That artical was right about beatin the crap outta one another in the east and west.
Judge
11-21-2002, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by lunatic_bills_fan
I think if they are gonna stay with 4 didvisions, they have to be realingned. Have to give the east and west a team like the bengals, houston, or cleveland. That artical was right about beatin the crap outta one another in the east and west.
Realignment won't help that. It's all cyclical. That means teams will rise up to be good and fall back to the pack all the time. The AFC East may be solid top to bottom right now, but in 2 or 3 years it may be just like the AFC North is now. What are you going to do, realign every year?
WooHoo!
I'd better jump on this opportunity while I can...
I agree w/ Judge!!!!
:D
Sabre Ally
11-21-2002, 11:44 PM
Very true, Judge. Look at where the Vikings were at just a few seasons ago. It will all work itself out, since teams change every year.
Ingtar33
11-21-2002, 11:55 PM
All you'd need to do is add ONE wildcard spot to fix the coming playoff fiasco, eliminate ONE first round bye, and the playoffs would last just as long as they always do, only with Wildcard weekend showing 6 games instead of 4 (they could run 12, 3:30, and 8 on Saturday and Sunday). Problem solved.
What the hell is this? The CFL? ...where every team save 1 makes the playoffs :D
Ingtar can I ask which conference is going to get this ONE wildcard spot? I don't think it's fair to add a wildcard spot to one conference and not the other. Call me crazy it's just my opinion.
don137
11-22-2002, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Judge
Realignment won't help that. It's all cyclical. That means teams will rise up to be good and fall back to the pack all the time. The AFC East may be solid top to bottom right now, but in 2 or 3 years it may be just like the AFC North is now. What are you going to do, realign every year?
Judge, I think you are giving the Bengals way too much credit when you state teams are cyclical. I would say most teams are but not the Bengals. They have never been cyclical. The Steelers, Titans and Ravens have been very fortunate the last 10 years or so based on their division. They have had two expansion teams (Jaguars and Browns) and to top it off they get the Bengals. It's not a surprise that teams from that division get's homefield advantage in the playoffs.
I think Cincinnati should rotate divisions every year so every division gets a chance to play in a weak division once every four years.:D
Judge
11-22-2002, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
WooHoo!
I'd better jump on this opportunity while I can...
I agree w/ Judge!!!!
:D
It happens every once in a while!!!!
Judge :cheers: Wys
Judge
11-22-2002, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by don137
Judge, I think you are giving the Bengals way too much credit when you state teams are cyclical. I would say most teams are but not the Bengals. They have never been cyclical. The Steelers, Titans and Ravens have been very fortunate the last 10 years or so based on their division. They have had two expansion teams (Jaguars and Browns) and to top it off they get the Bengals. It's not a surprise that teams from that division get's homefield advantage in the playoffs.
I think Cincinnati should rotate divisions every year so every division gets a chance to play in a weak division once every four years.:D
Great post! Funny!
I know you're kidding, but how bizarre is it that the Bengals have stayed bad for so long in this era? It isn't easy to stay bad so consistently.
Even the Arizona Cardinals have made the playoffs since 1990!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.