-
Welcome to Elio Owners! Join today, registration is easy!
You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.
Jeff Porter's Football Talk
- Thread starter LockMD
- Start date
Jeff Porter
Elio Addict
Jeff Porter
Elio Addict
It was the Saints with a 4-6 record, but the Falcons have a better division record. Has there ever been a team with less then 500% in the playoffs?
I believe there has been, not sure what year and team.
Subject change: found an article on ESPN, very interesting, to me anyway:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page...yron-smith-gets-control-battling-family-money
A quote from it: "Studies indicate that 78 percent of NFL players are bankrupt within two years of retirement." It really is as bad as they say, either the player gets drained from family/friends, or they have no idea how to manage their money, or they get taken advantage of. Or all three I suppose. Really unfortunate.
Jeff Porter
Elio Addict
Looks like Seattle was in at 7-9 for the 2010 season, 2011 playoffs. In a strike-shortened 9-game season in 1982, two teams were 4-5 and made the playoffs. That's it.
So, does the current NFL playoff system need to change? Yes, we will have a team most likely this year with a losing record win a division, so that would be twice in 5 years. That's two too many times to me. (Just wanted to use "two, too, to" all in the same sentence.)
Yep, time to change the format. It's primarily who will host. Yes, perhaps the Falcons win the division this year at 7-9, for example. Both NFC wildcard teams most likely will have a better record than that, so the Falcons under the current system would host that wildcard game.
System needs to change, so that the team with the best record hosts the wildcard game. There could be other changes made too, but I'm certain that is the change that needs to happen, to avoid what will happen this year.
So, does the current NFL playoff system need to change? Yes, we will have a team most likely this year with a losing record win a division, so that would be twice in 5 years. That's two too many times to me. (Just wanted to use "two, too, to" all in the same sentence.)
Yep, time to change the format. It's primarily who will host. Yes, perhaps the Falcons win the division this year at 7-9, for example. Both NFC wildcard teams most likely will have a better record than that, so the Falcons under the current system would host that wildcard game.
System needs to change, so that the team with the best record hosts the wildcard game. There could be other changes made too, but I'm certain that is the change that needs to happen, to avoid what will happen this year.
Neal
Elio Addict
I think it's safe to say the wildcard team will not be coming from that division...It was the Saints with a 4-6 record, but the Falcons have a better division record. Has there ever been a team with less then 500% in the playoffs?
Ty
Elio Addict
I agree that perhaps the best record should host but the winner of each division should still get in regardless. Hypothetical voyage ahead:
The NFC South is playing every team in the NFC North AND every team in the AFC North. The AFC North is the best conference in football right now and the NFC North is the 3rd best (based on total number of wins the division has). This means that the NFC South as a whole has the toughest schedule of any division this year. It would stand to reason that even good teams would struggle more than normal. Now, couple that with the fact that both the Saints and Falcons are struggling with injuries more than normal and the Buccs and Panthers... well, they are who they are... It stands to reason that the number of wins would be low in the NFC South compared to other divisions.
On the flip side, the AFC North looks good but is that mostly because they have 4 wins against the weak NFC South?
There are 11 teams who have fewer net points than the Falcons, the Falcons have outscored 20 teams, and have fewer points against them than 10 teams, are ranked 12th in total points, 12th in total yards, 7th in total passing yards, but only 26th in rushing yards.
No, they aren't a "good" team but to say they don't deserve to host a playoff game because they are in a division stuck playing only good teams isn't really fair either.
(outside of our division, 4 out of 7 games were against teams that are 3 games over .500)
I'll cry a little about our remaining schedule...
New Orleans, okay
Carolina, Okay
Arizona??? they have the best record in the NFL
Green Bay??? they are leading their division
Pittsburgh??? aren't they in like a 4 way tie for first in their division?
Holy mother of god. Those three have a combined record of 24-9!
At best, I can hope to beat the Saints and the Panthers...
Enough crying... thanks for sticking around this long. I hope you laughed at my sad, sad attempt at irony/humor/pity.
Jeff Porter
Elio Addict
Big thumbs up Ty, I liked it! Great job getting into the stats. I get where you are coming from.
Using a division's teams' win totals to determine if that division overall is better than another, yeah it is a useful stat but one could make an argument for the NFC North vs. the AFC West. Total wins? NFC North teams have 24, AFC West have 23. Is the NFC North division better than the AFC West? I'd make a case for the AFC West being better. Den, KC and SD up against GB, Det and Chi. Yes, Minn has a better record than Oak, but I'd argue that if the NFC North played the AFC West this year, the AFC West would win more games.
In a 4-year stretch, each division plays the other conference's 4 divisions, one division per year. This year it so happens the NFC South plays the AFC North. Also, the AFC West plays the NFC West.
If you look at SF/Sea/AZ/Rams playing Den/KC/SD/Oak, those 16 games are very interesting. Twelve have been played, and it's even right now at 6-6.
KC lost to SF and beat Sea and Rams, Den lost to Sea and Rams, and beat SF and AZ. SD has lost to AZ but beat Rams and Sea. Oak has lost to AZ and Sea. If these two divisions beat up on each other, does that make the AFC North better, or the NFC South worse, since those two divisions play each other? Tough to say. One can grab any set of stats to support a theory. :-)
For the AFC North vs. NFC South, it's 10-1 for the AFC North. When comparing those two divisions, the AFC North is better this year. But on that alone, you can't say the NFC South is "bad".
For hosting a playoff game, in general it is an advantage for the home team. Would be interesting to look only at just the Wildcard playoff games over the past 20 yrs and see how often the home team wins. It's gotta be around 65%, just a guess though.
So is it fair, in 2014, for Atlanta to have to play Pitt/Cinc/Clev/Balt AND GB/Det/Chi/Minn? Who knows, but they do get to play NO/TB/Car twice each! LOL, j/k. But maybe in 2015, the AFC division that Atlanta plays will be less-than-avg, and Falcons will win 10 games and make the playoffs. :-)
Anyway, under the current rules, those 6 games you play against your division opponents are SO important. You win your division, you get to host a playoff game (I think that's true in any situation for your first playoff game, not sure though). In any given year, you can make a case that if a team is 8-8 or 7-9 and wins their division, and their schedule was tough, that team should still get to host a playoff game against a wildcard team that DIDN'T win a division. But the important stat is wins and losses.
If team A wins 10 games, should they have to be the away team to play team B that won 8 games, since team A happened to be in a division where another team won say 12 games to win team A's division? If it was a neutral field, I'd say yes, but that home-field advantage sort of tips the scales towards a vote from me for the wildcard games being played in the city with the team with the best record.
All this said, if the Falcons win their division, I will cheer for them in the playoffs! Unless they play my Packers. lol