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

[Northbound Train]

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

What would you do to fix the playoff system? Additional byes? Re-seeding each round? Bonus points added to the score?

Probably a NCAA-like poll system would be good, too. Have sportswriters & journalists vote and seed that way? Computer models & simulations, like a super-intense Madden-style simulator, for another poll, then average the two together?

Whatcha got?

You missed the boat right there. The Steelers were among the league's best most of the year. The Packers struggled at points but also had more injuries than most. By year's end, they were playing better football than any other team in the NFC. While neither was an overwhelming favorite to make it...neither was a long-shot either.The playoff system is NOT broken. We could argue about changing the meaning of a division title (change the seeding rules to let wildcards seed higher if appropriate), but the basic constructs of the system are sound.

 

[Sarnoff]

Just because the current system is the way it's being done doesn't mean it's the best way it could be done. Saying the current way is the "best" solely because of inertia is pretty shortsighted reasoning.

 

[B Maverick]

I think we should probably add a journalist's poll, like the AP poll, to the coaches poll, the fan poll, the computer poll, and the computer simulated seasons. Somehow average them all together to get the rankings for seedings in the playoffs.

Oh i get it now... BCS lover from FLA trying to find away to get Tebow more awards? Cmon man, you have to let this go. System aint broke! Any given sunday... thats why they play the games... make sense? How is your "arbitrary and artificial" mathematical system any better then the playoff system we have now? How is the NFL system arbitrary? Win and you get the higher seeds and home games. Dont play your best and have to go on the road to win. Its not like you have a group of people voting for who they think should play for the title? Whats more arbitrary then that? Maybe the schedule is arbitrary? Well, you play your division twice, play two teams from your same finish from last year, play a dvision from the other conference.... Maybe the first year it was arbitrary but since its been this way for awhile, i think it loses that distinction.So aside from your dislike for the Packers and Steelers, not sure why you think the system is broken....

 

[Sarnoff]

SD should be in the SB since they had one of the top rated offenses and defenses consistently throughout the season.

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.

 

[B Maverick]

SD should be in the SB since they had one of the top rated offenses and defenses consistently throughout the season.

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.

seems pretty arbitrary to me since they had the easiest schedule in the NFL. Do you deduct for SOS?

 

[Sarnoff]

Do you deduct for SOS?

That's the kind of detail that would have to be modeled and back-tested significantly before implementing, and is beyond the scope of this thread. I'd like to keep it to generalities before we delve into the specific components of each individual model. "Big picture" view.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Just because the current system is the way it's being done doesn't mean it's the best way it could be done. Saying the current way is the "best" solely because of inertia is pretty shortsighted reasoning.

to answer your question honestly, there are only really 4 changes that could be made that have any remote possibility of making things better, and even they aren't garunteed.1. seed the teams with no thought for division wins (read: best record and second best record get byes regardless of divisions)

2. division winners not garunteed spot in playoff unless they have a top 6 record

3. eliminate conferences altogether and have a 12 team tournament with 12 seeds

4. add teams (either 2 and lower # of byes to 2, or 4 and eliminate byes altogether)

that's it.

any other changes would HARM the system, and even these might harm it (but at least have a remote chance of making it better)...

 

[larry_boy_44]

SD should be in the SB since they had one of the top rated offenses and defenses consistently throughout the season.

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.

yes, and instead of judging the winner of the playoff games by score (like touchdowns, field goals, etc.) we'd create complicated metrics of effeciency for every position (not just QB) and whatever team had the highest "rating" combination of all its players wins!ITS GENIUS!I mean, who wants to win the game based upon who scored the most points? We should just decide winners based on cold, hard math of who "played better", not who got lucky and put a few points on a board more than the other team... Score doesn't tell us who the real best team on the field is...

 

[CalBear]

It might help to point out that it's impossible to develop a system which always chooses the best team, per Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. The only thing you can do is decide which ways you prefer the system to fail.

 

[sho nuff]

Just because the current system is the way it's being done doesn't mean it's the best way it could be done. Saying the current way is the "best" solely because of inertia is pretty shortsighted reasoning.

And anyone who claims the Broncos or Colts (much less both) were more deserving does not have the first clue about football to be criticizing the current system.

 

[sho nuff]

SD should be in the SB since they had one of the top rated offenses and defenses consistently throughout the season.

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.

So less arbitrary than playing the game...is to not take the results of games, but judge by how many total yards they gained or gave up?

 

[Sarnoff]

So less arbitrary than playing the game...is to not take the results of games, but judge by how many total yards they gained or gave up?

Again, you're picking apart particulars that haven't been decided. We're not at the point where we need to discuss details, but instead, broad, "big picture" ideas are what's needed. Sure, we can adjust the formula to include W/L. So now that satisfies your concerns. Great!

The point is whether or not a different scenario would better select the best teams, and how that scenario would work in general, not to dissect the minutiae that aren't relevant to the discussion.

 

[larry_boy_44]

So less arbitrary than playing the game...is to not take the results of games, but judge by how many total yards they gained or gave up?

Again, you're picking apart particulars that haven't been decided. We're not at the point where we need to discuss details, but instead, broad, "big picture" ideas are what's needed. Sure, we can adjust the formula to include W/L. So now that satisfies your concerns. Great!

The point is whether or not a different scenario would better select the best teams, and how that scenario would work in general, not to dissect the minutiae that aren't relevant to the discussion.

the only way that is better than the system we have now is one where every team plays each other team twice (once home and once away).

Outside of that happening which is impossible) there is no perfect system, but there also isn't a better one than the one we have now, and including meaningless things like stats and removing final score from being the only real qualifier is just ridiculous...

 

[Sarnoff]

the only way that is better than the system we have now is one where every team plays each other team twice (once home and once away).

Surely an accurate enough computer model can simulate over tens of thousands of times the matchups that didn't happen by using information from matchups that did. Throw those into the computer poll, mix it up with the coaches' poll and the fan poll, and then we've got something.

 

[B Maverick]

the only way that is better than the system we have now is one where every team plays each other team twice (once home and once away).

Surely an accurate enough computer model can simulate over tens of thousands of times the matchups that didn't happen by using information from matchups that did. Throw those into the computer poll, mix it up with the coaches' poll and the fan poll, and then we've got something.

Yeah, the BCS which, as we have seen time and time again, is HORRIBLE and why fans everywhere call for a PLAYOFF

 

[larry_boy_44]

the only way that is better than the system we have now is one where every team plays each other team twice (once home and once away).

Surely an accurate enough computer model can simulate over tens of thousands of times the matchups that didn't happen by using information from matchups that did. Throw those into the computer poll, mix it up with the coaches' poll and the fan poll, and then we've got something.

don't you think that if virtual worlds were good enough to actually replace actual reality, they already would have?there is no computer model that could ever come close to replacing reality or games actually played on the field.

 

[Sarnoff]

there is no computer model that could ever come close to replacing reality or games actually played on the field.

Sure they can, they just can't replicate the luck/randomness factor, which is exactly the thing we're trying to eliminate.

 

[sho nuff]

So less arbitrary than playing the game...is to not take the results of games, but judge by how many total yards they gained or gave up?

Again, you're picking apart particulars that haven't been decided. We're not at the point where we need to discuss details, but instead, broad, "big picture" ideas are what's needed. Sure, we can adjust the formula to include W/L. So now that satisfies your concerns. Great!

The point is whether or not a different scenario would better select the best teams, and how that scenario would work in general, not to dissect the minutiae that aren't relevant to the discussion.

Im picking them apart because everything you have come up with has been basically things that aren't really part of the game. They are laughable.Big picture, there are maybe 1% of people out there who worry about this and don't think the current system is the best.

I am pretty confident any system you would come up with would be far worse given your thoughts on the Colts and Denver being the best and Pitt and GB not being deserving.

 

[sho nuff]

the only way that is better than the system we have now is one where every team plays each other team twice (once home and once away).

Surely an accurate enough computer model can simulate over tens of thousands of times the matchups that didn't happen by using information from matchups that did. Throw those into the computer poll, mix it up with the coaches' poll and the fan poll, and then we've got something.

Seriously now...you have done a mighty job fishing in here...but enough is enough.Simulations?

If its not fishing...oof.

 

[Sarnoff]

Simulations?

"Simulations", in one way or another, are part of any decent computerized poll system. Otherwise, what's the point of using a computer? Somehow two teams that haven't played against each other have to be compared objectively. Any sort of comparison that aims to place one above the other is a simulation of sorts.

 

[sho nuff]

Simulations?

"Simulations", in one way or another, are part of any decent computerized poll system. Otherwise, what's the point of using a computer? Somehow two teams that haven't played against each other have to be compared objectively. Any sort of comparison that aims to place one above the other is a simulation of sorts.

And any simulations are far inferior to actually playing the games.Those things you call random and luck are part of the game of football. Good teams overcome them and make their own luck.Bad teams go 4-12 and have to rely on math to be considered contenders.

 

[larry_boy_44]

there is no computer model that could ever come close to replacing reality or games actually played on the field.

Sure they can, they just can't replicate the luck/randomness factor, which is exactly the thing we're trying to eliminate.

ok, than how about this:Go load up Madden '11 and play your own championship and mail your "Real World Champion" award to whatever team wins the most out of 10,000 sim-seasons...The rest of us will continue to enjoy REAL football played by REAL players with a REAL score deciding the winner...

 

[Sarnoff]

Those things you call random and luck are part of the game of football. Good teams overcome them and make their own luck.

Parity has increased to the point that the difference between a 1-15 team and a 15-1 team are really, when viewed objectively, razor-thin. "Luck" can't always be overcome. Plenty of teams have been robbed of a playoff berth because of "bad luck" at the wrong time, and nothing more--like the Giants in '02 being eliminated because the head ref didn't consult with the sideline ref on why a flag was thrown (ref assumed it was for illegal man downfield, ending the Giants' offensive drive, when the flag was really for pass interference, meaning the Giants still had one more down to work with--a mistake the NFL admitted and apologized for, but didn't restore their place in the playoffs over). What I'm trying to do is view the teams completely and totally objectively, on the merits of what they objectively are.

 

[sho nuff]

Those things you call random and luck are part of the game of football. Good teams overcome them and make their own luck.

Parity has increased to the point that the difference between a 1-15 team and a 15-1 team are really, when viewed objectively, razor-thin. "Luck" can't always be overcome. Plenty of teams have been robbed of a playoff berth because of "bad luck" at the wrong time, and nothing more--like the Giants in '02 being eliminated because the head ref didn't consult with the sideline ref on why a flag was thrown (ref assumed it was for illegal man downfield, ending the Giants' offensive drive, when the flag was really for pass interference, meaning the Giants still had one more down to work with--a mistake the NFL admitted and apologized for, but didn't restore their place in the playoffs over). What I'm trying to do is view the teams completely and totally objectively, on the merits of what they objectively are.

No, the difference between the Broncos and Packers or Steelers are much more than razor thin.Your not doing anything but fishing or speaking completely illogically and trying not to change the playoff formula...but actually the game of football.

 

[Sarnoff]

Read the post by CalBear above, every system has flaws, and we just have to decide what flaws we're OK with living with. So, yeah, you can point to one part of one hypothetical system and say it's flawed--so what? To assert that the current system is "perfect" is ludicrous. So let's see some other systems and see what flaws they have, then decide if they're better or worse than the current system.

I don't know why you're so hung up on the "Broncos", that was tossed out as one of a hundred possible scenarios. It's just Team X since the system is fair and blind to the particulars. All I'm looking for is better ways to pick Team X.

 

[CalBear]

Read the post by CalBear above, every system has flaws, and we just have to decide what flaws we're OK with living with. So, yeah, you can point to one part of one hypothetical system and say it's flawed--so what? To assert that the current system is "perfect" is ludicrous. So let's see some other systems and see what flaws they have, then decide if they're better or worse than the current system.

I am 100% confident that any system which replaces actual football games with simulated football games is worse than the current system.

 

[GoodLloydHaveMercy]

the only way that is better than the system we have now is one where every team plays each other team twice (once home and once away).

Surely an accurate enough computer model can simulate over tens of thousands of times the matchups that didn't happen by using information from matchups that did. Throw those into the computer poll, mix it up with the coaches' poll and the fan poll, and then we've got something.

yeah but would that really be able to predict how many times Phillip Rivers or Peyton Manning would choke in the playoffs and how many times pulls a game out of his butt to win it in the end?

 

[GoodLloydHaveMercy]

Those things you call random and luck are part of the game of football. Good teams overcome them and make their own luck.

Parity has increased to the point that the difference between a 1-15 team and a 15-1 team are really, when viewed objectively, razor-thin. "Luck" can't always be overcome. Plenty of teams have been robbed of a playoff berth because of "bad luck" at the wrong time, and nothing more--like the Giants in '02 being eliminated because the head ref didn't consult with the sideline ref on why a flag was thrown (ref assumed it was for illegal man downfield, ending the Giants' offensive drive, when the flag was really for pass interference, meaning the Giants still had one more down to work with--a mistake the NFL admitted and apologized for, but didn't restore their place in the playoffs over). What I'm trying to do is view the teams completely and totally objectively, on the merits of what they objectively are.

yeah but in all actuality with things being razor-thin it often comes down to the "better" teams making something happen at those "critical" points in the game. Denver and Indy didn't do that this year (for the most part) but the Steelers and Packers did. The differences in talent in the NFL between teams is, for the most part, as you say razor-thin. The reason we watch is because we want to see how the teams do (or don't) accomplish their goals when tested against a worthy foe. Sure there are gonna be anomalies along the way but that is part of the fun.... its a mix of all these things that keep us coming back for more. To rely on computers is to minimize the roles that the players play... factors such as "swagger", "attitude", "composure", these things CAN'T be truly measured despite what Madden says. How about how hard 1 team decides to play for a certain coach where a more talented team on paper doesn't "buy-in" to a coach's philosophy and under achieves year in and year out.

 

[ookook]

You folks know that rewarding him this way just makes it more likely he wastes bandwidth, tackle, and bait again in the future, right?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Who posted in: How would YOU repair the NFL playoffs?

Poster Posts

sho nuff 33

Sarnoff 28

Dr. Awesome 13

B Maverick 12

DoubleG 11

How does sho nuff have a mouth left after biting on the hook as often as he does?

 

[Stinger Ray]

The correct answer isC. That someone continually takes the bait

Please take your crap with me elsewhere.2 posts in a row...again just trying to take shots at me.Grow up.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Those things you call random and luck are part of the game of football. Good teams overcome them and make their own luck.

Parity has increased to the point that the difference between a 1-15 team and a 15-1 team are really, when viewed objectively, razor-thin. "Luck" can't always be overcome. Plenty of teams have been robbed of a playoff berth because of "bad luck" at the wrong time, and nothing more--like the Giants in '02 being eliminated because the head ref didn't consult with the sideline ref on why a flag was thrown (ref assumed it was for illegal man downfield, ending the Giants' offensive drive, when the flag was really for pass interference, meaning the Giants still had one more down to work with--a mistake the NFL admitted and apologized for, but didn't restore their place in the playoffs over). What I'm trying to do is view the teams completely and totally objectively, on the merits of what they objectively are.

No, the difference between the Broncos and Packers or Steelers are much more than razor thin.Your not doing anything but fishing or speaking completely illogically and trying not to change the playoff formula...but actually the game of football.

Seriously dude.....why do you continue to take the bait? You will never learn.

 

[sho nuff]

Read the post by CalBear above, every system has flaws, and we just have to decide what flaws we're OK with living with. So, yeah, you can point to one part of one hypothetical system and say it's flawed--so what? To assert that the current system is "perfect" is ludicrous. So let's see some other systems and see what flaws they have, then decide if they're better or worse than the current system.

I don't know why you're so hung up on the "Broncos", that was tossed out as one of a hundred possible scenarios. It's just Team X since the system is fair and blind to the particulars. All I'm looking for is better ways to pick Team X.

Any system that doesn't use the actual game played and score is flawed 1000x more than the current system.In the end, no system you will come up with that uses any kind of poll or simulation will be superior to how the teams fare on the field of play.

Im hung up on the Broncos because its so utterly ridiculous that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[sho nuff]

The correct answer isC. That someone continually takes the bait

Please take your crap with me elsewhere.2 posts in a row...again just trying to take shots at me.Grow up.

You 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.

 

[Sarnoff]

Any system that doesn't use the actual game played and score is flawed 1000x more than the current system.

Obviously, a team's statistics would be inputs into any formula. Wins, losses, points, whatever. You can't do a ranking system without stats. I've never posted otherwise. I'm not suggesting we draw names out of a hat. I'm suggesting we look at the actual games to derive the "best" team.

 

[sho nuff]

Any system that doesn't use the actual game played and score is flawed 1000x more than the current system.

Obviously, a team's statistics would be inputs into any formula. Wins, losses, points, whatever. You can't do a ranking system without stats. I've never posted otherwise. I'm not suggesting we draw names out of a hat. I'm suggesting we look at the actual games to derive the "best" team.

I suggest you just start enjoying the BCS...but most will agree it sucks...but it does seem to be what you are looking for.The rest of us will enjoy actual football games that are played and the winners are those who score more points...not those who win some formula.

 

[Sarnoff]

I suggest you just start enjoying the BCS

There you go, the "BCS" is just yet another system. It tries to capture the "best" based on its internal criteria, and is a system with exposed flaws. The NFL uses a different system, one that also has exposed flaws. All we're discussing is whether a hybrid, third option between the two might be able to remove some flaws by taking the best parts from each system. How is that so hard to understand?

 

[Stinger Ray]

The correct answer isC. That someone continually takes the bait

Please take your crap with me elsewhere.2 posts in a row...again just trying to take shots at me.Grow up.

You 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.

Nothing like a classic sho meltdown. He is now mentioning others posts counts and trying to call me gay while telling me to grow up.

 

[sho nuff]

I suggest you just start enjoying the BCS

There you go, the "BCS" is just yet another system. It tries to capture the "best" based on its internal criteria, and is a system with exposed flaws. The NFL uses a different system, one that also has exposed flaws. All we're discussing is whether a hybrid, third option between the two might be able to remove some flaws by taking the best parts from each system. How is that so hard to understand?

Its not hard to understand.Whats so hard for you to understand that any system that uses polls or simulations or computer models is flawed beyond belief and would pale in comparison to the game that is actually played on the field.

That I doubt you would find one single NFL player or former player to agree that such a system is good for the game or the league.

 

[sho nuff]

The correct answer isC. That someone continually takes the bait

Please take your crap with me elsewhere.2 posts in a row...again just trying to take shots at me.Grow up.

You 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.

Nothing like a classic sho meltdown. He is now mentioning others posts counts and trying to call me gay while telling me to grow up.

Again, take your crap elsewhere.As for post counts...its not hard to see how many you posted...and not one on topic (which is typical for you in these little pissing matches).You have been warned before...and despite your talk of meltdowns, I remain calm and civil with you.Take the personal stuff elsewhere and yes...grow up.

 

[Sarnoff]

Whats so hard for you to understand that any system that uses polls or simulations or computer models is flawed beyond belief and would pale in comparison to the game that is actually played on the field.

Short of having all 32 teams play every one of the other 32 teams, on the same weekend, on a neutral field, all models are flawed. Everything else is an artificial construct.So let's find the one with the least flaws.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Again, take your crap elsewhere.As for post counts...its not hard to see how many you posted...and not one on topic (which is typical for you in these little pissing matches).You have been warned before...and despite your talk of meltdowns, I remain calm and civil with you.Take the personal stuff elsewhere and yes...grow up.

You tell him to grow up. Then you try to say he is a homosexual and yet you think you are being calm and civil while telling him to take the personal stuff elsewhere.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Again, take your crap elsewhere.As for post counts...its not hard to see how many you posted...and not one on topic (which is typical for you in these little pissing matches).You have been warned before...and despite your talk of meltdowns, I remain calm and civil with you.Take the personal stuff elsewhere and yes...grow up.

Calm and civil? I was pointing out how you continually take the bait and you throw out insults at me including trying to call me gay. You should be banned for that!

 

[Reepicheep]

I secretly suspect sho nuff is undercover reverse fishing by biting on so many hooks he gets others to join and yell at him to stop. That is some serious right there!

 

[sho nuff]

Again, take your crap elsewhere.As for post counts...its not hard to see how many you posted...and not one on topic (which is typical for you in these little pissing matches).You have been warned before...and despite your talk of meltdowns, I remain calm and civil with you.Take the personal stuff elsewhere and yes...grow up.

You tell him to grow up. Then you try to say he is a homosexual and yet you think you are being calm and civil while telling him to take the personal stuff elsewhere.

And I will tell you. the same...grow up and take this crap elsewhere.

 

[sho nuff]

Again, take your crap elsewhere.As for post counts...its not hard to see how many you posted...and not one on topic (which is typical for you in these little pissing matches).You have been warned before...and despite your talk of meltdowns, I remain calm and civil with you.Take the personal stuff elsewhere and yes...grow up.

Calm and civil? I was pointing out how you continually take the bait and you throw out insults at me including trying to call me gay. You should be banned for that!

It was a joke based on your stalking. Banned? Hah...says the giy who jumps in these threads to do nothing but bash me. Again I say take the personal crap elsewhere as you have been told to do by the mods here.

 

[Sarnoff]

That I doubt you would find one single NFL player or former player to agree that such a system is good for the game or the league.

If we let the players vote in a "players poll", they might be all for it.

 

[sho nuff]

That I doubt you would find one single NFL player or former player to agree that such a system is good for the game or the league.

If we let the players vote in a "players poll", they might be all for it.

Good luck with that.

 

[Sarnoff]

That I doubt you would find one single NFL player or former player to agree that such a system is good for the game or the league.

If we let the players vote in a "players poll", they might be all for it.

Good luck with that.

It'd fit in nicely with the coaches' poll and the fans' poll I think.

 

[Tanner9919]

Let's be honest, the Steelers and the Packers have no business playing for the Championship this year. What would you do to fix the playoff system? Additional byes? Re-seeding each round? Bonus points added to the score?Probably a NCAA-like poll system would be good, too. Have sportswriters & journalists vote and seed that way? Computer models & simulations, like a super-intense Madden-style simulator, for another poll, then average the two together?Whatcha got?

let me guess, you're a Patriots fan? Seattle proved their worth by beating the defending Champs...not sure why we'd need to chane the current system, if N.O. was good at all,they would have beaten the 'lowly' Seahawks.I think the current system is just fine....if we didn't have upsets in the playoffs, what's the point of having the playoffs in the first place??I love seeing a NE team go 14-2 and earn the bye and homefield advantage throughout the playoffs, only to lose in their first game coming off the bye...loved watching Tenn lose a few years ago,when they had a 13-3 record and homefield advantage..it makes watching playoff football more exciting!