How would YOU repair the NFL playoffs? (1 Viewer)

[Sarnoff]

There should be some accounting for injuries, especially if we go to an extended season.

It's just not fair to the good teams that hit bad luck. I think that if a team loses a star player, and has to play his backup instead, their opponent should have a similar handicap to make things even. It's no fun to watch a strong team beat up on a team decimated by injuries, and it doesn't accurately account for who the better all-around "team" really is.

For example, say the salary cap for each team is $100 million. If the star QB goes down and his salary is $15 million, and he's replaced by a backup who earns $5 million, then in the playoffs, their opponent should only be allowed to field a roster who's total salary is $90 million. That evens up the $10 million the first team lost due to the QB injury. So the challenger team has to cut $10 million in salary for that playoff game.

 

[Sarnoff]

I like the idea of getting rid of the artificial Division designations. Would it make sense to eliminate "conferences" too? Just put all 32 teams into a big jumble, top 12 make the playoffs. They can then fight it out, survivor style, or go best 2-out-of-3 to advance. I like that a lot more than this current system, which doesn't properly reward the REAL best team.

 

[David Yudkin]

There should be some accounting for injuries, especially if we go to an extended season.It's just not fair to the good teams that hit bad luck. I think that if a team loses a star player, and has to play his backup instead, their opponent should have a similar handicap to make things even. It's no fun to watch a strong team beat up on a team decimated by injuries, and it doesn't accurately account for who the better all-around "team" really is.For example, say the salary cap for each team is $100 million. If the star QB goes down and his salary is $15 million, and he's replaced by a backup who earns $5 million, then in the playoffs, their opponent should only be allowed to field a roster who's total salary is $90 million. That evens up the $10 million the first team lost due to the QB injury. So the challenger team has to cut $10 million in salary for that playoff game.

So the team with no injuries gets penalized because the other team has guys banged up? That seems . . . ODD to say the least. Like it's their fault that the other team had guys that were hurt.

 

[Sarnoff]

There should be some accounting for injuries, especially if we go to an extended season.

It's just not fair to the good teams that hit bad luck. I think that if a team loses a star player, and has to play his backup instead, their opponent should have a similar handicap to make things even. It's no fun to watch a strong team beat up on a team decimated by injuries, and it doesn't accurately account for who the better all-around "team" really is.

For example, say the salary cap for each team is $100 million. If the star QB goes down and his salary is $15 million, and he's replaced by a backup who earns $5 million, then in the playoffs, their opponent should only be allowed to field a roster who's total salary is $90 million. That evens up the $10 million the first team lost due to the QB injury. So the challenger team has to cut $10 million in salary for that playoff game.

So the team with no injuries gets penalized because the other team has guys banged up? That seems . . . ODD to say the least. Like it's their fault that the other team had guys that were hurt.

If Team A loses embarrassingly to Tony Romo and the Cowboys in week 1, 45-3, then squeaks past them with Kitna at the helm 14-10 in week 14, no way should those two games cancel each other out, standings-wise, seedings-wise, rankings-wise, tiebreakers-wise, or whatever. That their "head-to-head record" is just reduced to "1-1" eliminates the context of what actually happened. If Team A also plays the Bengals twice, and wins the first one 21-14 and loses the second one 21-14, without any injuries affecting the outcome, then I'd say "Yeah, Team A is roughly equal to the Bengals" since their split was a truer split. I wouldn't say "they're also roughly equal to the Cowboys", even though the head-to-head record there is also 1-1, because they got lucky to face them without their star the second time. Taking advantage of a team's injuries distorts the measurement of who really deserves to advance.

Which is why earlier I brought up the "NASCAR has it's Super Bowl at the beginning of the season!" thing you always hear from the race-car fans... the "Super Bowl" maybe should start the season when everyone is healthy. Maybe some kind of pre-season power rankings of teams, with the top pairs facing off in week 1 at full strength, then as the season goes on, the power rankings adjust. Then we take the final measurement, and plug those matchups back into what would have happened in Week 1 had those teams met, and see who would have won the Championship.

 

[Shawnky]

Let's be honest, the Steelers and the Packers have no business playing for the Championship this year.

Wut?

You spelled it wrong.

 

[flapgreen]

Anyone bring up a punt, pass and kick contest yet?

 

[daveR]

What we have now produces a championship. That is, a Super Bowl winner. Just like the BCS, it doesn't guarantee that the best team is the champion.

If you just want to determine the "best" team, there's no need to play the game. Just use the same criteria you would use to select participants.

 

[ttiger72]

I suppose we should just plug the Patriots into the Super Bowl and let the other 11 teams fight it out

I like this. Maybe a ladder-style bracket. #12 and #11 play, the winner plays #10, etc.

 

[DoubleG]

There should be some accounting for injuries, especially if we go to an extended season.

It's just not fair to the good teams that hit bad luck. I think that if a team loses a star player, and has to play his backup instead, their opponent should have a similar handicap to make things even. It's no fun to watch a strong team beat up on a team decimated by injuries, and it doesn't accurately account for who the better all-around "team" really is.

For example, say the salary cap for each team is $100 million. If the star QB goes down and his salary is $15 million, and he's replaced by a backup who earns $5 million, then in the playoffs, their opponent should only be allowed to field a roster who's total salary is $90 million. That evens up the $10 million the first team lost due to the QB injury. So the challenger team has to cut $10 million in salary for that playoff game.

So the team with no injuries gets penalized because the other team has guys banged up? That seems . . . ODD to say the least. Like it's their fault that the other team had guys that were hurt.

If Team A loses embarrassingly to Tony Romo and the Cowboys in week 1, 45-3, then squeaks past them with Kitna at the helm 14-10 in week 14, no way should those two games cancel each other out, standings-wise, seedings-wise, rankings-wise, tiebreakers-wise, or whatever. That their "head-to-head record" is just reduced to "1-1" eliminates the context of what actually happened. If Team A also plays the Bengals twice, and wins the first one 21-14 and loses the second one 21-14, without any injuries affecting the outcome, then I'd say "Yeah, Team A is roughly equal to the Bengals" since their split was a truer split. I wouldn't say "they're also roughly equal to the Cowboys", even though the head-to-head record there is also 1-1, because they got lucky to face them without their star the second time. Taking advantage of a team's injuries distorts the measurement of who really deserves to advance.

Which is why earlier I brought up the "NASCAR has it's Super Bowl at the beginning of the season!" thing you always hear from the race-car fans... the "Super Bowl" maybe should start the season when everyone is healthy. Maybe some kind of pre-season power rankings of teams, with the top pairs facing off in week 1 at full strength, then as the season goes on, the power rankings adjust. Then we take the final measurement, and plug those matchups back into what would have happened in Week 1 had those teams met, and see who would have won the Championship.

Oh...

 

[DoubleG]

There should be some accounting for injuries, especially if we go to an extended season.

It's just not fair to the good teams that hit bad luck. I think that if a team loses a star player, and has to play his backup instead, their opponent should have a similar handicap to make things even. It's no fun to watch a strong team beat up on a team decimated by injuries, and it doesn't accurately account for who the better all-around "team" really is.

For example, say the salary cap for each team is $100 million. If the star QB goes down and his salary is $15 million, and he's replaced by a backup who earns $5 million, then in the playoffs, their opponent should only be allowed to field a roster who's total salary is $90 million. That evens up the $10 million the first team lost due to the QB injury. So the challenger team has to cut $10 million in salary for that playoff game.

So the team with no injuries gets penalized because the other team has guys banged up? That seems . . . ODD to say the least. Like it's their fault that the other team had guys that were hurt.

If Team A loses embarrassingly to Tony Romo and the Cowboys in week 1, 45-3, then squeaks past them with Kitna at the helm 14-10 in week 14, no way should those two games cancel each other out, standings-wise, seedings-wise, rankings-wise, tiebreakers-wise, or whatever. That their "head-to-head record" is just reduced to "1-1" eliminates the context of what actually happened. If Team A also plays the Bengals twice, and wins the first one 21-14 and loses the second one 21-14, without any injuries affecting the outcome, then I'd say "Yeah, Team A is roughly equal to the Bengals" since their split was a truer split. I wouldn't say "they're also roughly equal to the Cowboys", even though the head-to-head record there is also 1-1, because they got lucky to face them without their star the second time. Taking advantage of a team's injuries distorts the measurement of who really deserves to advance.

Which is why earlier I brought up the "NASCAR has it's Super Bowl at the beginning of the season!" thing you always hear from the race-car fans... the "Super Bowl" maybe should start the season when everyone is healthy. Maybe some kind of pre-season power rankings of teams, with the top pairs facing off in week 1 at full strength, then as the season goes on, the power rankings adjust. Then we take the final measurement, and plug those matchups back into what would have happened in Week 1 had those teams met, and see who would have won the Championship.

Oh...

My...

 

[DoubleG]

There should be some accounting for injuries, especially if we go to an extended season.

It's just not fair to the good teams that hit bad luck. I think that if a team loses a star player, and has to play his backup instead, their opponent should have a similar handicap to make things even. It's no fun to watch a strong team beat up on a team decimated by injuries, and it doesn't accurately account for who the better all-around "team" really is.

For example, say the salary cap for each team is $100 million. If the star QB goes down and his salary is $15 million, and he's replaced by a backup who earns $5 million, then in the playoffs, their opponent should only be allowed to field a roster who's total salary is $90 million. That evens up the $10 million the first team lost due to the QB injury. So the challenger team has to cut $10 million in salary for that playoff game.

So the team with no injuries gets penalized because the other team has guys banged up? That seems . . . ODD to say the least. Like it's their fault that the other team had guys that were hurt.

If Team A loses embarrassingly to Tony Romo and the Cowboys in week 1, 45-3, then squeaks past them with Kitna at the helm 14-10 in week 14, no way should those two games cancel each other out, standings-wise, seedings-wise, rankings-wise, tiebreakers-wise, or whatever. That their "head-to-head record" is just reduced to "1-1" eliminates the context of what actually happened. If Team A also plays the Bengals twice, and wins the first one 21-14 and loses the second one 21-14, without any injuries affecting the outcome, then I'd say "Yeah, Team A is roughly equal to the Bengals" since their split was a truer split. I wouldn't say "they're also roughly equal to the Cowboys", even though the head-to-head record there is also 1-1, because they got lucky to face them without their star the second time. Taking advantage of a team's injuries distorts the measurement of who really deserves to advance.

Which is why earlier I brought up the "NASCAR has it's Super Bowl at the beginning of the season!" thing you always hear from the race-car fans... the "Super Bowl" maybe should start the season when everyone is healthy. Maybe some kind of pre-season power rankings of teams, with the top pairs facing off in week 1 at full strength, then as the season goes on, the power rankings adjust. Then we take the final measurement, and plug those matchups back into what would have happened in Week 1 had those teams met, and see who would have won the Championship.

Oh...

My...

GOD! Seriously? No. This "NASCAR" thought is insane. First off, the NFL is struggling to get two extra games - let alone flip the entire post season upside down, scrap the whole thing and start over. This won't work on so many levels it's not even funny.

Secondly, NASCAR and football are nothing alike, so the comparison pretty much ends with the fact that both start with the letter "n" - after that, forget it.

I think part of my brain died when I read this.

Part of football is having a team deep enough to play through injury. One of the amazing things about the Packers this season is the fact that they have done exactly that. Heck, one of the bonuses for having a big lead in your playoff seeding is being able to rest guys and possibly getting a first round bye for the same reason. Any system that artificially penalizes a team for staying healthy is ludicrous.

 

[VTjkru]

What's going on here?

 

[Sabertooth]

There should be some accounting for injuries, especially if we go to an extended season.

It's just not fair to the good teams that hit bad luck. I think that if a team loses a star player, and has to play his backup instead, their opponent should have a similar handicap to make things even. It's no fun to watch a strong team beat up on a team decimated by injuries, and it doesn't accurately account for who the better all-around "team" really is.

For example, say the salary cap for each team is $100 million. If the star QB goes down and his salary is $15 million, and he's replaced by a backup who earns $5 million, then in the playoffs, their opponent should only be allowed to field a roster who's total salary is $90 million. That evens up the $10 million the first team lost due to the QB injury. So the challenger team has to cut $10 million in salary for that playoff game.

If the Packers had Grant and Finley, they probably don't lose any games this year. They never trailed by more than a touchdown all season long.

 

[sho nuff]

There should be some accounting for injuries, especially if we go to an extended season.It's just not fair to the good teams that hit bad luck. I think that if a team loses a star player, and has to play his backup instead, their opponent should have a similar handicap to make things even. It's no fun to watch a strong team beat up on a team decimated by injuries, and it doesn't accurately account for who the better all-around "team" really is.For example, say the salary cap for each team is $100 million. If the star QB goes down and his salary is $15 million, and he's replaced by a backup who earns $5 million, then in the playoffs, their opponent should only be allowed to field a roster who's total salary is $90 million. That evens up the $10 million the first team lost due to the QB injury. So the challenger team has to cut $10 million in salary for that playoff game.

The Packers lost a ton of guys to injury, yet they are still there.Your ideas seem ridiculous.

 

[Godsbrother]

The Packers beat the top 3 seeds on the road. How dare they win the NFC.

I guess no one told the Packers they were supposed to lose so a more deserving team would win the NFC.

 

[Godsbrother]

If the Packers had Grant and Finley, they probably don't lose any games this year.

And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

There's no reason the Seahawks should have had homefield advantage. That's absurd.

 

[DoubleG]

There's no reason the Seahawks should have had homefield advantage. That's absurd.

Well, except for that whole "rules" thing...

 

[jasvic]

This was my idea when Seattle made the playoffs. Eliminate the long regular season. Just play 3-4 games against random opponents for a tune-up and to determine seeding, then have a 32 team playoff bracket, each round is best of 3.

Also, this is all ridiculous but fun.

 

[DoubleG]

This was my idea when Seattle made the playoffs. Eliminate the long regular season. Just play 3-4 games against random opponents for a tune-up and to determine seeding, then have a 32 team playoff bracket, each round is best of 3.

Also, this is all ridiculous but fun.

 

[Rovers]

How about total points scored?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Imagine if Hanie had led the Bears to a comeback win on Sunday...

"Congratulations, Mr. Roethlisberger, on getting to your third Super Bowl, but the Bears will be starting their 3rd string QB, so you can't play in the game."

 

[Dr. Awesome]

There's no reason the Seahawks should have had homefield advantage. That's absurd.

Well, except for that whole "rules" thing...

Which is why we're discussing rules that should be tweaked. So this nonsense doesn't happen again.

 

[bostonfred]

NASCAR and football are nothing alike, so the comparison pretty much ends with the fact that both start with the letter "n"

 

[DoubleG]

Imagine if Hanie had led the Bears to a comeback win on Sunday..."Congratulations, Mr. Roethlisberger, on getting to your third Super Bowl, but the Bears will be starting their 3rd string QB, so you can't play in the game."

The QBs for the Superbowl: Caleb Hanie vs. Byron Leftwhich...must see TV!!!! The NFL will love stuff like that!!Hines Ward might be dinged, so the Bears #1 WR might have to sit out....wait...

 

[Runningman]

I don't know the personalities around here but it sounds like some one is "stirring the pot". Or smoking it. either way it is pretty funny.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The Packers beat the top 3 seeds on the road. How dare they win the NFC.

I guess no one told the Packers they were supposed to lose so a more deserving team would win the NFC.

If only the BCS ran the NFL none of this would have happened.

 

[Sarnoff]

If only the BCS ran the NFL none of this would have happened.

Exactly. Look, the Packers and Steelers are good teams, but never, not one week, would anyone have ever considered them the "best team in the NFL" this year. They're strong, but they're not worthy of Champions.After adjusting for injuries, salaries, etc., we're probably looking at a much better Super Bowl under my system: the Colts vs. the Broncos. The veteran Peyton Manning vs. the upstart Tim Tebow. Tell me that's not the game America and the real NFL fans really want & deserve.

 

[sho nuff]

If only the BCS ran the NFL none of this would have happened.

Exactly. Look, the Packers and Steelers are good teams, but never, not one week, would anyone have ever considered them the "best team in the NFL" this year. They're strong, but they're not worthy of Champions.After adjusting for injuries, salaries, etc., we're probably looking at a much better Super Bowl under my system: the Colts vs. the Broncos. The veteran Peyton Manning vs. the upstart Tim Tebow. Tell me that's not the game America and the real NFL fans really want & deserve.

Colts vs. the Broncos?At no time during this season were either of those teams even close to being worthy of champions.Your system blows goats.or you are trying too hard to fish here,.

 

[Sarnoff]

Unless I did my math wrong, I have both the Colts and Broncos retroactively adjusted records at 14-2. Pats would have made the playoffs but gone 13-3.

Still waiting to hear other systems. Perhaps a computer ranking model would be best, but I'm no programmer.

 

[Sabertooth]

If the Packers had Grant and Finley, they probably don't lose any games this year.

And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

I'm not the one suggesting we make allowances for injuries. I'm perfectly fine with how it all ended up.

 

[fred_1_15301]

If only the BCS ran the NFL none of this would have happened.

Exactly. Look, the Packers and Steelers are good teams, but never, not one week, would anyone have ever considered them the "best team in the NFL" this year. They're strong, but they're not worthy of Champions.After adjusting for injuries, salaries, etc., we're probably looking at a much better Super Bowl under my system: the Colts vs. the Broncos. The veteran Peyton Manning vs. the upstart Tim Tebow. Tell me that's not the game America and the real NFL fans really want & deserve.

Colts vs. the Broncos?At no time during this season were either of those teams even close to being worthy of champions.Your system blows goats.or you are trying too hard to fish here,.

He's fishing and doing a pretty good job at it I must say. Any sane and objective fan would agree that the Packers and Steelers are very worthy of playing in the superbowl. One of the few years where we probably are watching the 2 best teams in the superbowl.

 

[sho nuff]

Unless I did my math wrong, I have both the Colts and Broncos retroactively adjusted records at 14-2. Pats would have made the playoffs but gone 13-3. Still waiting to hear other systems. Perhaps a computer ranking model would be best, but I'm no programmer.

Time to put up that awfully stinky bait. Youve crossed into the complete and total ludicrous zone.

 

[DoubleG]

Unless I did my math wrong, I have both the Colts and Broncos retroactively adjusted records at 14-2. Pats would have made the playoffs but gone 13-3. Still waiting to hear other systems. Perhaps a computer ranking model would be best, but I'm no programmer.

Time to put up that awfully stinky bait. Youve crossed into the complete and total ludicrous zone.

It was clear with the Nascar example that this was a fishing trip now it's simply confirmed every time he posts.

 

[sho nuff]

Unless I did my math wrong, I have both the Colts and Broncos retroactively adjusted records at 14-2. Pats would have made the playoffs but gone 13-3. Still waiting to hear other systems. Perhaps a computer ranking model would be best, but I'm no programmer.

Time to put up that awfully stinky bait. Youve crossed into the complete and total ludicrous zone.

It was clear with the Nascar example that this was a fishing trip now it's simply confirmed every time he posts.

Though, I am interested in a system that awards the broncos a 14-2 record...or the amount of drugs it takes to come up with that system.

 

[lynx4ben]

Wow the stupidest thread and responses I've ever read on FBguys.

 

[Philo]

Best of three

This is interesting. I don't think it could work, practically, because of the amount of time it would take... at least to play 3 full games.

But they could modify it slightly to shoehorn in a best-of-three without going too late into the calendar.

First, two teams play a normal game. Say the home team wins 24-10. And say the time of possession favored the home team 40-20 minutes. That normal game would be the big event game that even chicks would watch. So home team goes up 1-0.

Then, like, maybe 4/5 days later... Thursday? The two teams meet again. But this time, it's just offense vs. defense. Home team's offense vs. visitor's defense. If the home team can score within a field goal of what they scored last time (21 points) in 40 minutes of playing time (just offense, remember, no kicking the ball to the other team) they win, and then win the round 2-0. If the visiting defense can hold them under 21, then the visiting offense takes the field for their time of possession, 20 minutes. Now they have to score 21 points or more in 20 minutes. If they can do that, they're truly the better team, and would move on despite losing the first game, since the visitor's offense was proven to be superior and their defense was proven to be superior, and that first game would have been exposed as a fluke.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Rank them by height.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Rank them by height.

No wonder the Jags aren't in the Super Bowl. Maurice Jones-Drew is holding them back.

 

[GoodLloydHaveMercy]

look man, the Patriots were overrated, had no deep threat, and had an average defenseget over it

I'm not a pats fan. I'm coming at this as an impartial observer, looking to find the best possible way to crown the real champion of the season.

u are being sarcastic with this entire topic right?I'll play along...how bout we just draw straws to re-seed the teams prior to the playoffs!! or how about we just line up Tom Brady & Peyton Manning for a good ole QB competition (without a pass rush of course) for the right to represent the AFC and lineup Aaron Rodgers & Drew Brees for the NFC!!That would be awesome!!

 

[GoodLloydHaveMercy]

There should be some accounting for injuries, especially if we go to an extended season.It's just not fair to the good teams that hit bad luck. I think that if a team loses a star player, and has to play his backup instead, their opponent should have a similar handicap to make things even. It's no fun to watch a strong team beat up on a team decimated by injuries, and it doesn't accurately account for who the better all-around "team" really is.For example, say the salary cap for each team is $100 million. If the star QB goes down and his salary is $15 million, and he's replaced by a backup who earns $5 million, then in the playoffs, their opponent should only be allowed to field a roster who's total salary is $90 million. That evens up the $10 million the first team lost due to the QB injury. So the challenger team has to cut $10 million in salary for that playoff game.

but seriously the "better team" should be able to overcome a few of those types of injuries.

 

[onlyseventeenpoints?]

Unless I did my math wrong, I have both the Colts and Broncos retroactively adjusted records at 14-2. Pats would have made the playoffs but gone 13-3. Still waiting to hear other systems. Perhaps a computer ranking model would be best, but I'm no programmer.

Time to put up that awfully stinky bait. Youve crossed into the complete and total ludicrous zone.

He's past ludicrous. He's gone to plaid.

 

[Chreesto]

look man, the Patriots were overrated, had no deep threat, and had an average defenseget over it

I'm not a pats fan. I'm coming at this as an impartial observer, looking to find the best possible way to crown the real champion of the season.

Really? I liked this thread a lot when I thought it was a joke, very tongue-in-cheek and clever. Now that I find out you're serious I'm dismayed. The regular season determines who gets into the cage, the champion is the one who walks out alive. The system is great.

 

[B Maverick]

look man, the Patriots were overrated, had no deep threat, and had an average defenseget over it

I'm not a pats fan. I'm coming at this as an impartial observer, looking to find the best possible way to crown the real champion of the season.

Really? I liked this thread a lot when I thought it was a joke, very tongue-in-cheek and clever. Now that I find out you're serious I'm dismayed. The regular season determines who gets into the cage, the champion is the one who walks out alive. The system is great.

He/She is obviously a sad Broncos fan or Tebow lover trying to find a way to get his team somewhere they wont get while Tebow is at the helm.

 

[DoubleG]

look man, the Patriots were overrated, had no deep threat, and had an average defenseget over it

I'm not a pats fan. I'm coming at this as an impartial observer, looking to find the best possible way to crown the real champion of the season.

Really? I liked this thread a lot when I thought it was a joke, very tongue-in-cheek and clever. Now that I find out you're serious I'm dismayed. The regular season determines who gets into the cage, the champion is the one who walks out alive. The system is great.

He/She is obviously a sad Broncos fan or Tebow lover trying to find a way to get his team somewhere they wont get while Tebow is at the helm.

I thought s/he was a closet Saints fan mad about the whole injured RBs and having to play in Seattle thing.

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm not a Pats fan, Broncos fan, Colts fan, Saints fan, whatever. Why is it if someone sees a better way to do things, they're obviously biased?

The system is broken. Packers and Steelers, while good, aren't "the BEST!!!" this season. Neither are worthy of being Super Bowl Champions, with the rich history involved. Let's stop thinking that either of these teams could hold a candle to the 49ers dynasties, the great Cowboys teams, heck, even the Steelers of the 70s. The 2010 teams aren't worthy of hoisting the same trophy those old guys did, and it's the NFL's shoddy, haphazard playoff system that allows such travesties to happen.

So stop complaining and start coming up with real solutions. It's the 21st century. Computerized power rankings. Statistical simulations. Retrograde analysis. There has to be a better way.

 

[B Maverick]

that made sense until this post:

Unless I did my math wrong, I have both the Colts and Broncos retroactively adjusted records at 14-2. Pats would have made the playoffs but gone 13-3. Still waiting to hear other systems. Perhaps a computer ranking model would be best, but I'm no programmer.

a system that makes the Broncos 14-2? must be a broncos/tebow fan.And also the one saying America wants to see and deserves to see P Manning vs Tim Tebow

 

[elcohiba]

My wife says all field goals longer than 50 yards should be 4 points. HTH with this fishing trip. Keep bumping it though, it's very sophisticated.

 

[B Maverick]

I'm not a Pats fan, Broncos fan, Colts fan, Saints fan, whatever. Why is it if someone sees a better way to do things, they're obviously biased?

The system is broken. Packers and Steelers, while good, aren't "the BEST!!!" this season. Neither are worthy of being Super Bowl Champions, with the rich history involved. Let's stop thinking that either of these teams could hold a candle to the 49ers dynasties, the great Cowboys teams, heck, even the Steelers of the 70s. The 2010 teams aren't worthy of hoisting the same trophy those old guys did, and it's the NFL's shoddy, haphazard playoff system that allows such travesties to happen.

So stop complaining and start coming up with real solutions. It's the 21st century. Computerized power rankings. Statistical simulations. Retrograde analysis. There has to be a better way.

It makes perfect sense now. You want the NFL to adopt the college system. Which is funny since most fans want the BCS to go to the NFL system!

You know what made those teams you mention great? Over comming adversity, injuries and rivalries to be the best. Under your system we may not have had those dynasties. The only team worthy of being a CHAMPION would be the '72 dolphins.

Unless you adopt a European soccer style league set up and remove all divisions, you are going to have a team get hot and make a run at the SB. Its what makes for great drama and storylines. Its what urges teams to compete and get better. Get to the playoffs and see what happens. We are all bigtime fans of the game, we have our teams, but Americans like storylines and underdogs.

And for the record, IMO Seattle deserved a home game. They WON their division. If you are not going to honor that, why have divisions? What difference does it make if they had a losing record? what if they were 12-4 yet NO was 2nd in their div at 13-3? Should Sea travel? NO didnt win their division.

 

[DoubleG]

I'm not a Pats fan, Broncos fan, Colts fan, Saints fan, whatever. Why is it if someone sees a better way to do things...

Ooops. Nope. See? That's where the train flew off the track. Just be careful their sparky. When it comes time to get a job you have to pass drug tests. Just put it down and go have some Cheetos.