Cardinals looking like this years team to get screwed out of playoffs
 

Currently 9-5


NFL playoff system.....you need work.



http://www.ninersnation.com/2013/12/...aints-wildcard


No. 1 Seattle Seahawks 12-2 (NFC West leader)
No. 2 New Orleans Saints 10-4 (NFC South leader)
No. 3 Philadelphia Eagles 8-6 (NFC East leader)
No. 4 Chicago Bears 8-6 (NFC North leader)
No. 5 Carolina Panthers 10-4 (Wild Card)
No. 6 San Francisco 49ers 10-4 (Wild Card)

On the outside looking in
1. Arizona Cardinals (9-5)
2. Detroit Lions (7-6)
3. Green Bay Packers (7-6-1)
4. Dallas Cowboys (7-7)

no team in the nfc east should be allowed in the playoffs

expand playoffs or ban playoffs

Sucks for them.
I remember the Chiefs going 10-6 and getting left out.

I can never feel too bad for a team missing the playoffs when they aren't even one of the two best in the division. That being said I definitely think the Cardinals are a better team than the Bears.

If you truly wanted just the best teams in the playoffs you could abolish divisions and just have a 1-6 seeding based on record. But that takes some of the fun out of the divisional races.

I don't really know the answer to this one because expanding the playoffs just dilutes the talent it takes to make it. I'm definitely not for expanding the playoff field.

We were on FIRE the last few weeks, too.

That made me mad too, yet a 7-9 team gets in when it wins its division.

Then the next year 9-7 gets us in.

New England went 11-5 and got left out.


That's probably the worst.

I think the cards get the 9ers in a week

espn from 2008

Era of two conferences, 16-game season and 12 playoff teams)
Ideally, playoff systems separate the wheat from the chaff. The more teams that are included, however, the more likely it is that some chaff will sneak in there. Conversely, the less likely it is that any wheat will be omitted. You know that bubble you always hear about when it comes time to pick the teams for the NCAA basketball tournament? The NFL pretty much eliminated its bubble in '92 when it started inviting 12 teams to the playoffs. Since then, only three teams with double-figure win totals have not made the playoffs. The 2003 Dolphins, 2005 Chiefs and 2007 Browns all went 10-6 but were aced out of the postseason by the presence of better teams in their divisions and better wild-card entries. Of the three, the '07 Browns barely outscored their opponents and went 1-3 against playoff-bound teams, while the '03 Dolphins were 2-4 versus playoff-bound teams. The '05 Chiefs had the best point differential and went 3-2 against playoff-bound teams. That list will grow by at least one and possibly by as many as three teams this season. The Patriots, Dolphins and Ravens already have 10 wins each, and either one or two of them won't make the playoffs, depending on whether the Jets beat or lose to Miami. In the NFC, the Bucs could win 10 games and be denied the wild card, while the Bears could go 10-6 and not win the North Division.


maybe this is better


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/5...n-the-playoffs

That was the worst.....when Seattle went 7-9, got a home game and won. All because they played in a crap division that year.

I actually like the playoff seeding as is.

Sucks for some teams sometimes but **** you if you can't make it.

That year pissed me off more than any in the past 15 years. We were on doing it all right at the right time. But that's life as a chiefs fan.

I'm fine with it the way it is. The current format emphasizes divisional rivalries, which I like a lot. Don't dilute that.

The only thing I'll say is that I kind of wish they're re-seed in the playoffs based on record. We're a good example of this - seems silly that we'll (likely) be going in as the 5 seed.

I don't remember this many playoff snubs in the era when the NFL had 3 divisions per conference.

I know that was when the NFL also had 30 teams, but still.

Sucks to be in that situation...

Going to 4 divisions definitely made a difference because you got three wild card teams in. And with 5-6 teams per division, it's hard to win your division without 10 or 11 wins.

We should have signed Carson Palmer.

Go back to 6 divisions and add four new teams. Problem solved.

The other thing about 3 divisions is the best wild card team got to host a first round home game. That happened in 99 when the Titans went 13-3 and got a wild card. They at least got a 1st round home game.

I don't really have any problems with the current system though. Like DaFace says it rewards you for beating your rivals... which makes rivalry games more exciting.

Dallas and Philly games ****ed us in the ass.


That was Vermeil's shit cherry on top. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

The problem is that with only 4 teams in each division, it's way way WAY easier for an entire division to field crap teams. You end up with one division nearly every year that barely etches out double digit wins and pushes out a good team that just happened to be in a division with the best team in the league.

Yeah, I'm sure Oakland would have traded him to a division rival.

On the flip side a team could lose all of it's division games, and still go 10-6 and win its division.

Or win them all yet not win the division.


:eek:

Kind of weird that it looks like the AFC #1/#2/#3 seed lost every game this week. It's 30 to 14 Steelers with under nine minutes to play.

Yup. Division games used to make up half of your schedule. Shit, add two more regular season games? It gets a bit ridiculous if you do that. It goes down to only one third.

I think the playoff system, schedule, divisions, etc. are as good as it can get.

It's also kind of BS that a team could finish with the best record in the league, lose the division by tiebreaker, and then be the 5th seed without a home game. Not as bad as being left out completely, but still kinda sucks.

Well it's 30-20 after a failed two pointer now. I think we're under five minutes now though? My feed is breaking up.

It would be really, really complicated to change it. Even simply adding teams is troublesome because you have to manage bye weeks and juggle it around.

Sucks for them.

The Raiders did this a few years ago.

The same year Seattle went 7-9 and won the NFCW

This playoff system is necessary. There are 8 divisions in the NFL. Each team only plays 3. There's no way to compare two teams side-to-side unless the division winner represents.

They were the best of the worst.

They kinda control their own destiny. If they win the next 2, then they're in. At that point wouldn't they hold the tie breaker over the 49ers? Their last 2 games are tough. But if they win, they're in I believe.

The system is about as good as it can get. After all, each team in a division plays 14 common opponents - that's 14 of their 16 total games, including games vs. each other. How much more fair could you make it?

It's a result of the wild card teams being really good.

They got the Seahawks and 49ers coming up. They will end at 9-7.

Not much. You can only do so much with the schedule because of stadium usage issues and it's just plain complicated. I'd like to see them go with three of your first eight games divisional, a universal bye week ending with the trade deadline, then three of your last eight games divisional.

I like this. I thnk it's the way the NBA does it ?

Not exactly. They have the tiebreaker on Carolina, but won't have the tiebreaker over San Fran. However, the Saints lost today and now have to go to Carolina... they might very well drop into the WC spot, and New Orleans already beat Arizona. Saints may have screwed them by losing to the Rams today.

Divisions are out dated. If you want the best teams then it should go by record only. That way a bs team would not get in.

Love it. You lose to an NFC East team, you shouldn't sniff the playoffs.

Yes!

7-9 Seahawks did some damage.

I don't think they actually re-seed. They still seed teams the same way... but the team with the better record always has home court.

So in this year's NFL, we'd still be the 5 seed, but we'd host the first round game since we have the better record over Indy. That way teams that win their division are still rewarded by getting in.

Scrap the divisions. Keep the.conferences. top 6 teams by record play. 1 and 2 get bye. 3-6 play. Problem solved. Right now chiefs would be the 2 seed

1 and 2 get home field. If both advance. 2 goes to 1 for afcc game. Higher seed always hosts game.

Yeah but it doesn't work that way. You get rid of divisions, we don't play Oakland, Denver and SD twice anymore... the schedules would be handled differently.

I like it the way it is. Sure some teams can get screwed. But a team can get screwed no matter what format is used. Unless you want to dilute the playoffs. No Thanks....We do not need to be like the NBA where half or more of the league gets in.
Winning a Division is important. Division rivalries are important.

I guess you don't like division rivalries. This would effectively end rivalries in the NFL. Stupid idea.

Why would anyone want to copy the NBA? The NBA sucks.

I'm not sure but I hope the 9ers and Panthers/Saints get in as the Wild Card. I think those teams, especially the 9ers and Panthers, have a much better chance at making a splash in the playoffs than the Cards.

The system right now sucks because it doesn't take into account two teams from the same division being better than most of the rest of the conference (Chiefs/Broncos, Seahawks/49ers).

But I am a fan of winning a division to make it. Makes having rivalries worth it. And it makes you bring your A game, because losing division games hurt bad.

It's a flawed system, and boy does it show this year, but I like it and I'll stick with it. I would not be surprised if they changed it to best 6 teams, though.

I know it's homerish to say it right now but I agree with this to an extent.

I would keep 6 teams but have the top two division winners by record get the byes week 1 of the playoffs, as well as being the 1 and 2 seeds. For wild card weekend it would be 3-6 based solely off record. Whoever was 3-4, regardless of whether they were division winners, would get a home game. This would virtually eliminate situations where division winners with worse records are playing at home vs WC teams with better records.

Sure there may be a situation where a 2 seed has a worse record and is playing at home against the 3 seed in the divisional week of playoffs, but the 3 seed already got to host a home game, AND gets to play the 2 seed instead of being a 5 and playing the 1 seed in all likelihood.

Meh, we should just be happy there are wild cards that let good teams get in when they have a better team in their division.

With teams like the Steelers that won as a 6 seed a few years ago, you can make the argument with there being so much parity that lesser teams should get their shot also, but it just creates 98% unnecessary games. If one out of 50 teams gets screwed out of their SB run...tough.

Baseball purists generally hate wild card formats. Back in the day, winning your pennant was a big deal. Now it just means you made the playoffs.

Then making it the next year in a miracle with a 9-7 record and a much worse team.

I don't remember a year in which a team that misses the playoffs has a better record than 2 division champions. Even the Matt Cassel 11-5 2008 Patriots would have only won one other division.

Win your division and quit your whining.

In the old days, there were two divisions and one playoff qualifier from each. Each division had 6 teams. If you wanted to be the champion, you darn well better win your division. Teams with one loss would sometimes miss the playoffs. The regular season had real meaning.

Football uses a single elimination playoff system. Under such a system there us a high chance that the SB champ will not be the best team in football. The more teams you invite to the playoff, the more likely you will have a non-best team win the SB and the less meaning the regular season will hold.

These days to win your division you only need to beat three other teams. Failing in that, you need to be in the top two of 12 losers. That is plenty of chanes to make the playoffs. If a team us unhappy about not making it, then win more games.

thread is a loser but OP earns gold star

They are only 1 game ahead of PHI and CHI, and there are still 2 games left. :shrug:

Now, if they get to 11-5 and miss out to two 8-8 teams, then I could see using the term "screwed".

I think 10 wins and you're automatically in.

I think the way you get INTO the playoffs is fine, 4 division winners and 2 wild cards. But seeding should be determined by overall record.

Carl Peterson tried to make this argument in 2005.

I thought the NFL was considering a new format where the seeding went by overall record. So that would mean the Chiefs would be the #2 seed, Broncos remain at #1. If you win your division you are still in, but it doesn't guarantee you will get home field. I think it was supposed to be a way of curtailing teams from resting players at the end of the season, which is always bad football to watch, and thus lower ratings... an NFL no-no.

If I were the God-king of everything, playoff seedings would be determined by overall record, and division winners are only guaranteed their spot if they have an above .500 record, otherwise they're eligible if:

a) team has a non-losing overall record AND
b) a non-losing divisional record OR
c) a winning record in conference play

otherwise that slot remains open for a third wildcard.

That's better than the way it currently is. But that kinda makes the current WC system obsolete with the way it is seeded. Might as well just do a system based off of record only and get rid of divisions and wild card standings.

It should be reseeded after the WC games have been played.

That would be awesome.

It still wouldn't help the Cards though...

A losing team should never be allowed a spot in the playoffs...

Problem is the Seahawks winning in 2010 proved that a "losing" team might actually belong..

But I agree, especially with the logic in which the playoffs are set up now.

Which is totally jacked up logic.

Two "conference" tournaments weighted toward eight "division" winners determined solely by "league" record.

Either make it a 12 team bracket based solely off of league record, or make it a true conference tournament.

Carl Peterson approves of expanding playoff format.....