This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Try reading the thread, totally impartial and objective here. As far as I'm concerned, they're Team A through Team Z. Just looking for the best system to pick the real "best" teams, not just the luckiest ones.let me guess, you're a Patriots fan?
Why are you still entertaining this clown?
Best of three leaves too much room for luck IMO. There should be at least two home games for the lower seeded team. Maybe best of five is the way to go...
Instead I think we should give more points besides just for TDs, FGs, etc. Kind of like fantasy football, also give a point for every 10 yards you gain, but subtract a point for every 10 yards you give up. Get a point for every sack, fumble recovery, interception, etc. and lose a point for every sack given up and every turnover committed.Of course the point totals could be changed around, but this would help reward a team like SD that ranked 1st in offense and defense but lost for whatever reasons...Sarnoff said:That's a great point, that's at totally valid way of measuring "best" that can be used to provide rankings/seedings. Take all 32 teams rankings, from 1-32, on offense and defense, average them (SD would average a 1 on offense and a 1 on defense to, obviously, 1), and take the 12 best teams and slot them in the playoffs.
Who's your uncle? (Sorry if you posted earlier, I didn't read the whole thread...)Good ideasI'll send these along to my uncle, he loves hearing what the fans think.
wont work according to the OP. If the #8 seeds make the finals they were lucky and OBVIOUSLY not deserving like the 4-12 Broncos are.
He says I can't use his name on the boards, but he works for the NFL in NYC. Never know which of these suggestions might make it in once the CBA is done.
Trying to strip luck out of the equation is asinine. Why? Because there really is no such thing as luck.When you roll a die in craps, the result isn't luck, it's the result of physics. If you could measure each variable in play...velocity and angle of release, orientation of the die, surface friction of the table, etc...you could then predict the outcome of every roll. So what we call luck is actually just an admission that we cannot predict the outcome with certainty because we cannot quantify each variable in play.What's silly about the idea of the computer simulation is the that computer can only process the data fed into it. And the model is still based upon certain premises and prejudices that color the way the computer uses the data. So our inability to predict real life outcomes because of luck necessarily means that the computer model which purports to eliminate luck merely makes a prediction by intentionally ignoring important, vital variables that DO affect the outcome of the contest. It's basically throwing up your hands in defeat and deciding that certain variables are not to be calculated even though we KNOW they affect the outcome of games.It's like trying to make a cake and because you don't know how much flour to put in, you just eliminate it altogether. Well, what you get isn't a cake.
I don't think fans have any problem with the current system.
Do you really wonder why it's only 5 months?
Because it hasn't been that popular for as long as baseball. It's already been increased from 12 to 14 to 16 games. And will soon be 18. Give it time...we'll eventually have 20+ game seasons.
Wow. Just awful. Yet another example of sho nuff showing why he's an awful addition to fbg's. I don't understand why being a homosexual is a bad thing but way to use it like an insult. You really are pathetic. Either have a discussion about fixing the playoff system in a mature fashion or just ignore the thread. Don't whine that it's fishing while still coming back and insulting people.AndYou have 4 posts in this thread...all 4 about me.I don't go your way...Im happily married.Take your crap about me elsewhere and grow up.Please take your crap with me elsewhere.2 posts in a row...again just trying to take shots at me.Grow up.The correct answer isC. That someone continually takes the bait
at everyone being called a Patriots homer if they think the system is flawed. Is there any doubt the Chargers would have been able to give the Packers a run for their money? And what of the Raiders going undeafeted in their division yet missing the playoffs? We don't need to overhaul everything but a few tweaks are needed.
Wow. Just awful. Yet another example of sho nuff showing why he's an awful addition to fbg's. I don't understand why being a homosexual is a bad thing but way to use it like an insult. You really are pathetic. Either have a discussion about fixing the playoff system in a mature fashion or just ignore the thread. Don't whine that it's fishing while still coming back and insulting people.AndYou have 4 posts in this thread...all 4 about me.I don't go your way...Im happily married.Take your crap about me elsewhere and grow up.Please take your crap with me elsewhere.2 posts in a row...again just trying to take shots at me.Grow up.The correct answer isC. That someone continually takes the bait
He was called out for taking the bait in this thread and he had a massive fit saying that was "taking shots" at him then he insults the person that called him out for taking the bait.
Ookie Pringle said:Dr. Awesome said:Wow. Just awful. Yet another example of sho nuff showing why he's an awful addition to fbg's. I don't understand why being a homosexual is a bad thing but way to use it like an insult. You really are pathetic. Either have a discussion about fixing the playoff system in a mature fashion or just ignore the thread.
Don't whine that it's fishing while still coming back and insulting people.
Andat everyone being called a Patriots homer if they think the system is flawed. Is there any doubt the Chargers would have been able to give the Packers a run for their money?
And what of the Raiders going undeafeted in their division yet missing the playoffs? We don't need to overhaul everything but a few tweaks are needed.
all around.Totally classless reactions by a lot of the "sharks", shows why this place is more like the Shart Pool sometimes.
Why didn't the "best teams" win when they had the chance?Try reading the thread, totally impartial and objective here. As far as I'm concerned, they're Team A through Team Z. Just looking for the best system to pick the real "best" teams, not just the luckiest ones.let me guess, you're a Patriots fan?
The Chargers had some fluke plays go against them and missed the playoffs.Why didn't the "best teams" win when they had the chance?Try reading the thread, totally impartial and objective here. As far as I'm concerned, they're Team A through Team Z. Just looking for the best system to pick the real "best" teams, not just the luckiest ones.let me guess, you're a Patriots fan?
Ookie Pringle said:Dr. Awesome said:Wow. Just awful. Yet another example of sho nuff showing why he's an awful addition to fbg's. I don't understand why being a homosexual is a bad thing but way to use it like an insult. You really are pathetic. Either have a discussion about fixing the playoff system in a mature fashion or just ignore the thread.
Don't whine that it's fishing while still coming back and insulting people.
And
And what of the Raiders going undeafeted in their division yet missing the playoffs? We don't need to overhaul everything but a few tweaks are needed.
Yeah, there's no controversy with the BCS every year.
You're kidding, right? That was one of the better Super Bowls in history. Only 11 times has the game been decided by less than 7 points. Pittsburgh came back from 18 down to get within 4, and from 11 down to get within 3. It was entertaining, both defenses played well, and the game was decided by turnovers. Sounds like football.Philo said:
Terrible posting and hopefully schtick. The game came down to the final 2 minutes so I'm not sure how we could have seen a "much better game". LOL @ the Colts...that would have been a massacre.Philo said:
The score was close because both teams kinda sucked. Pittsburgh just sucked more.If the Lions played the Redskins to a 24-20 victory, would that have proven both teams deserved to be in the Super Bowl?
Yeah, the Colts would have massacred either team, probably giving us another 55-10 SB blowout. Proving they would have been more deserving of the title.Sure, the game would have been "boring" but just because it's a close game doesn't mean both teams are excellent. Equally awful is more like it.
lol
I think you must have been watching the Puppy Bowl.
My point stands. Final score is no indication of the quality of the teams playing.
You just contradicted yourself.
How so? My statement was that neither team deserved to be there. CalBear said that because the final score was close, they were both excellent teams. I dispute that idea, that the final score being close does not indicate both teams were good, it's also possible that both teams are bad, which was my original assertion. CalBear cannot use the final score to prove both teams are good. No contradiction.You just contradicted yourself.
How so?"The score was close because both teams kinda sucked.""Final score is no indication of the quality of the teams playing."Any 3rd grader could see that those two comments are contradicting.
<_<
Sure, taken out of context. In the first comment, I was disputing the original statement that "the teams were good because the score was close". I'm not saying that "all close games are because of sucky teams", I'm saying "close games are an indication that both teams are about evenly matched". CalBear was the one who said the teams were both good because the score was close.ETA: The first comment relates the teams to each other. But the second comment is about how the teams compare to the rest of the league. If two teams play a close game, they are probably equally matched to each other. But you can't extrapolate from that how they relate to the other 30 teams, or if any of the other teams would be better.
When you made the statement that the Colts would beat the Packers 55-10, you lost any credibility that you may have had. Just give it up already. You're making no sense at all.Sure, taken out of context. In the first comment, I was disputing the original statement that "the teams were good because the score was close". I'm not saying that "all close games are because of sucky teams", I'm saying "close games are an indication that both teams are about evenly matched". CalBear was the one who said the teams were both good because the score was close.
No, I said it was "one of the better Super Bowls in history" because the score was close. I also said it was entertaining and both defenses played well.But really, I don't see any backing for your assertion that "Pittsburgh didn't play like they belonged there at all." They had three turnovers, one when Ben's arm got hit, one when a Green Bay defender made an excellent play on a reasonable throw, and one on a fumble on a good hit from Matthews (and recovery by Bishop, Go Bears.) Ben's TD pass to Matthews was beautiful, as was Rodgers' pass to Jennings down the seam. I really don't know what game you were watching if you thought this wasn't well-played.
Had so many Packers not been injured, Pittsburgh might not have scored a single touchdown. But both teams were very sloppy. Neither really played technically good football.Sure, the game had tension, and the game was "good" from that standpoint, but that doesn't imply both teams deserved to be in the Super Bowl. A better designed playoff system would have put two better teams in the game and we would have had just as exciting a game, only played with a lot fewer mistakes.
I'll send these along to my uncle, he loves hearing what the fans think.
