Is the regular season now just mostly or completely meaningless? (1 Viewer)

[butcher boy]

The solution is simple. Extend the NFL playoffs to be best of 7 series which in turn would extend the season to July or so. Hold the draft in August and start pre-season the week after.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Your thread title reads this:

Is the regular season now just mostly or completely meaningless?

But the first actual questions you ask in your post are these:

Are we done seeing dominant teams win titles like in the 80's and 90's?Has the erosion of home field advantage made it so that truly you just need to qualify for the playoffs.. is home field advantage worth much?

You're conflating the issues of playoff / tournament structure and league parity, which have - well, maybe not "nothing", but relatively little to do with one another.Today's champions are generally "deeply flawed" compared to the dynasties of yesteryear because league parity in the NFL is at an all-time high - by design. Everything from the draft, to the salary cap rules, to the TV revenue sharing arrangement is set up to reinforce this. Personally, I love it and wouldn't change a thing about it.If the regular season seems meaningless, it's because of the way the playoffs are structured. Is 12 teams out of 32 qualifying for a one-and-done tournament too many? I don't know. Probably. But while I don't necessarily love it on a conceptual basis, I love it on a purely selfish basis ... because as an NFL TV watcher, not only does it give us two of the best weekends of the year back-to-back, but it lends meaning to many more games in the last couple weeks of the regular season as well.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't really care who the best team is. I only care about who wins. If a team with lesser talent wins, well, that's one more blow for mediocrity. Excellence has had plenty of chances and I'm sick of it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think many need to remember that the margin between winning and losing is often very narrow. It is not like the Ravens were some scrub team that lucked their way to 10-6, got hot and then won it all. I know someone will say, "If they don't convert that 4th and 29 against the Chargers, and if Justin Tucker's kick against NE was two more feet to the right, they go 8-8 and don't even make the playoffs," but I could turn around and say, "If not for a terrible offensive PI by the replacement refs against Philly, they win that game, and if the stop Cousins on the 2-point attempt, they go 12-4." See? There are tons of NFL games that if you change one or two plays, teams' records could dramatically change. And what if the Ravens played that week 17 game against the Bengals to win and did win? Would it suddenly not be as big a crime, then winning the Super Bowl, cause they were an 11-5 team? Oh, but they were a 10-6 team, so that shows again how easy for crappy teams to win it all these days, right? Wrong.

 

[roadkill1292]

I think many need to remember that the margin between winning and losing is often very narrow. It is not like the Ravens were some scrub team that lucked their way to 10-6, got hot and then won it all. I know someone will say, "If they don't convert that 4th and 29 against the Chargers, and if Justin Tucker's kick against NE was two more feet to the right, they go 8-8 and don't even make the playoffs," but I could turn around and say, "If not for a terrible offensive PI by the replacement refs against Philly, they win that game, and if the stop Cousins on the 2-point attempt, they go 12-4." See? There are tons of NFL games that if you change one or two plays, teams' records could dramatically change. And what if the Ravens played that week 17 game against the Bengals to win and did win? Would it suddenly not be as big a crime, then winning the Super Bowl, cause they were an 11-5 team? Oh, but they were a 10-6 team, so that shows again how easy for crappy teams to win it all these days, right? Wrong.

The margins of talent differential in the NFL are razor think and even Dentist's examples of "dominant" teams like the recent Patriots and Packers had flaws which can be exploited. Especially when the other guys are full of professionals with lifetimes of football experience and lots of time to dream up ways to beat you.Which, if you think about it, is one of the things we like about football. And if it isn't, it should be.

 

[Dentist]

I don't really care who the best team is. I only care about who wins. If a team with lesser talent wins, well, that's one more blow for mediocrity. Excellence has had plenty of chances and I'm sick of it.

that's fine, and that's the difference betweeen me and i guess most everyone else.ALL i care about is who's the best and finding a way to ensure that that team wins the title the vast majority of the time.currently the NBA and college football are the only league that accomplish this on a consistent basis.If you like the unpredictability, this era is great.

 

[Wingnut]

ALL i care about is who's the best and finding a way to ensure that that team wins the title

The problem with this is the whole "any given Sunday" thing. There's absolutely no way to ensure that the "best team" wins.Maybe they should just name a "best team" after 17 weeks and call it a season?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I don't really care who the best team is. I only care about who wins. If a team with lesser talent wins, well, that's one more blow for mediocrity. Excellence has had plenty of chances and I'm sick of it.

that's fine, and that's the difference betweeen me and i guess most everyone else.ALL i care about is who's the best and finding a way to ensure that that team wins the title the vast majority of the time.currently the NBA and college football are the only league that accomplish this on a consistent basis.If you like the unpredictability, this era is great.

how do you figure out who the best team is without playing football games?

 

[Ghost Rider]

ALL i care about is who's the best and finding a way to ensure that that team wins the title the vast majority of the time.

But who is to say who is the best team? It is not as simple as looking at regular season records, especially since some teams have tougher schedules and tougher divisions. To use the Ravens and Patriots in this example, it would be easy to say the Patriots were better since they were 12-4 and the Ravens were 10-6, but flip their divisions, let the Ravens have six games against Miami, NY Jets and Buffalo, while making New England play Cincinnati and Pittsburgh (and Cleveland) twice, and it's possible their records flip, too.

currently the NBA and college football are the only league that accomplish this on a consistent basis.

Only once in the last nine seasons has the the team that had the best record won the NBA championship ('08 Celtics). Even worse, three of the nine champions weren't even good enough to win their own division (see: wild card teams).

Oops.

 

[Whicker]

ALL i care about is who's the best and finding a way to ensure that that team wins the title the vast majority of the time.

But who is to say who is the best team? It is not as simple as looking at regular season records, especially since some teams have tougher schedules and tougher divisions. To use the Ravens and Patriots in this example, it would be easy to say the Patriots were better since they were 12-4 and the Ravens were 10-6, but flip their divisions, let the Ravens have six games against Miami, NY Jets and Buffalo, while making New England play Cincinnati and Pittsburgh (and Cleveland) twice, and it's possible their records flip, too.

This. Dentist, which team would you say was the best after the regular season? My eyes said the Broncos. DVOA said the Seahawks. The Falcons had the best record in the tougher conference. The Patriots were the Vegas favorites (I believe) before the playoffs began. The 49ers had changed to a dynamic QB and still had their elite D. The Packers had Rodgers and were getting healthier on D. I think naming a champion after the regular season would have way more controversy than anything. This isn't college where 1-2 teams go undefeated and are clearly better.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

ALL i care about is who's the best and finding a way to ensure that that team wins the title the vast majority of the time.

But who is to say who is the best team? It is not as simple as looking at regular season records, especially since some teams have tougher schedules and tougher divisions. To use the Ravens and Patriots in this example, it would be easy to say the Patriots were better since they were 12-4 and the Ravens were 10-6, but flip their divisions, let the Ravens have six games against Miami, NY Jets and Buffalo, while making New England play Cincinnati and Pittsburgh (and Cleveland) twice, and it's possible their records flip, too.

This. Dentist, which team would you say was the best after the regular season? My eyes said the Broncos. DVOA said the Seahawks. The Falcons had the best record in the tougher conference. The Patriots were the Vegas favorites (I believe) before the playoffs began. The 49ers had changed to a dynamic QB and still had their elite D. The Packers had Rodgers and were getting healthier on D. I think naming a champion after the regular season would have way more controversy than anything. This isn't college where 1-2 teams go undefeated and are clearly better.

I think that's what he's saying --- there isn't an elite 4 and a bunch of chumps, anymore.you don't have that single team outspending the league by 50%.what dentist basically wants is the globetrotters of the nfl.

 

[Novice2]

As someone pointed out, the only common thread in the last 4 super bowl champions is that they all beat the Eagles in the Eagles' home opener. So check the schedule when it comes out for the 2014 champion.

The Eagles beat the Ravens in Week 2.

Reverse that. Eagles played the last 4 Super Bowl Champions in their home opener. My mistake.

We all make 'em. In any event, it is indeed a remarkable coincidence.

When does the final schedule come out? Here are the possibleshiladelphia Eagles Schedule 2013

Home: Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, Washington Redskins, Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers, Detroit Lions, Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals

Mortgage the house and place your bets now!

 

[HughHoney]

I'm on the mobile site so I can't see who starts threads, before I opened this I was sure it was Dentist complaining, again, about something he doesn't like simply because sports aren't exactly the way he would have them.

 

[Whicker]

ALL i care about is who's the best and finding a way to ensure that that team wins the title the vast majority of the time.

But who is to say who is the best team? It is not as simple as looking at regular season records, especially since some teams have tougher schedules and tougher divisions. To use the Ravens and Patriots in this example, it would be easy to say the Patriots were better since they were 12-4 and the Ravens were 10-6, but flip their divisions, let the Ravens have six games against Miami, NY Jets and Buffalo, while making New England play Cincinnati and Pittsburgh (and Cleveland) twice, and it's possible their records flip, too.

This. Dentist, which team would you say was the best after the regular season? My eyes said the Broncos. DVOA said the Seahawks. The Falcons had the best record in the tougher conference. The Patriots were the Vegas favorites (I believe) before the playoffs began. The 49ers had changed to a dynamic QB and still had their elite D. The Packers had Rodgers and were getting healthier on D. I think naming a champion after the regular season would have way more controversy than anything. This isn't college where 1-2 teams go undefeated and are clearly better.

I think that's what he's saying --- there isn't an elite 4 and a bunch of chumps, anymore.you don't have that single team outspending the league by 50%.what dentist basically wants is the globetrotters of the nfl.

I read that he wants to find out who the best team is and ensure that team wins the championship. There is no "best team."

 

[Dentist]

ALL i care about is who's the best and finding a way to ensure that that team wins the title the vast majority of the time.

But who is to say who is the best team? It is not as simple as looking at regular season records, especially since some teams have tougher schedules and tougher divisions. To use the Ravens and Patriots in this example, it would be easy to say the Patriots were better since they were 12-4 and the Ravens were 10-6, but flip their divisions, let the Ravens have six games against Miami, NY Jets and Buffalo, while making New England play Cincinnati and Pittsburgh (and Cleveland) twice, and it's possible their records flip, too.

This. Dentist, which team would you say was the best after the regular season? My eyes said the Broncos. DVOA said the Seahawks. The Falcons had the best record in the tougher conference. The Patriots were the Vegas favorites (I believe) before the playoffs began. The 49ers had changed to a dynamic QB and still had their elite D. The Packers had Rodgers and were getting healthier on D. I think naming a champion after the regular season would have way more controversy than anything. This isn't college where 1-2 teams go undefeated and are clearly better.

I think that's what he's saying --- there isn't an elite 4 and a bunch of chumps, anymore.you don't have that single team outspending the league by 50%.what dentist basically wants is the globetrotters of the nfl.

I read that he wants to find out who the best team is and ensure that team wins the championship. There is no "best team."

Sometimes there is a best team. But then variance rears its ugly head at the wrong time and they don't win the championship.in 2012 i'll admit, i don't know who the best team was... if there was a year where you could've made an argument for MANY teams to have won the superbowl, arguably it was this year.in 2011 the best team was the Packers, they didn't win or even make the superbowl. But from the football i watched, they played the best.in 2007 the best team by a CONSIDERABLE margin was the Patriots. They didn't win the superbowl against a team they'd JUST BEATEN at home a few weeks ago because of some bad variance, some bad breaks on plays, and likely the fact that they'd just seen that team a few weeks ago.in 2001 the best team was the Rams... by a solid margin.. probably the 2nd best team was the Raiders, and that could've been a great superbowl. But because the Patriots spied on their practice and Tom Brady got a few lucky breaks... we got some crap champion that in no way was the best team that yearin 1998 the best team i saw play was the Vikings.. but admittedly i would've reserved judgement to see how they fared against the Broncos... instead a missed field goal (again, some bad variance) meant that didn't happen.I get that some years record can be misleading.. maybe they got a good schedule draw, a bad schedule draw... had injuries to a key player during some weeks, etc.Record isn't EVERYTHING.... but it should be a LOT of things.

 

[Dentist]

I'm on the mobile site so I can't see who starts threads, before I opened this I was sure it was Dentist complaining, again, about something he doesn't like simply because sports aren't exactly the way he would have them.

My problem are that sports are too much about the money and not the integrity of the game or best scenarios for fans.Examples of this:Super Bowl sunday instead of SaturdayThursday night football (terrible)large playoff formats not designed to ensure high quality champions (ncaa tournament, nfl football, nba basketball, tennis, even baseball now (they had it perfect!)

 

[Ghost Rider]

1998 is a terrible example. The Broncos were the best team that year. The Vikings only ended up with a better record cause they had to keep playing till the end to hold off the Falcons for home field (Vikes were 15-1, Falcons were 14-2), while the Broncos took it easy the last several weeks and finished 14-2 cause they had home field locked up several weeks early. But the Broncos WERE the best team that year, without a doubt.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

[currently the NBA and college football are the only league that accomplish this on a consistent basis.

Actually in college football, all we really know is that the winner of a game between two teams that some complicated computer program thinks are the two best, is named the champion.Almost every season some undefeated team that never got a chance to play one of the two "best" teams is left out in the cold. You really prefer that a poll determines the best team, rather than play on the field?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm on the mobile site so I can't see who starts threads, before I opened this I was sure it was Dentist complaining, again, about something he doesn't like simply because sports aren't exactly the way he would have them.

My problem are that sports are too much about the money and not the integrity of the game or best scenarios for fans.Examples of this:Super Bowl sunday instead of SaturdayThursday night football (terrible)large playoff formats not designed to ensure high quality champions (ncaa tournament, nfl football, nba basketball, tennis, even baseball now (they had it perfect!)

Which NCAA Men's Basketball champion going all the way back to 1985 seems underserving to you. The only "flukes" were probably Villanova (and that was one of the best college games I can remember) and Kansas in 88 (but they rode the back on a dominating player). Sure there are early round upsets but the Final Four is usually littered with No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 seeds. And unlike college football the champion is determined on the court.2012 Kentucky (38-2) 2011 Connecticut (32-9) 2010 Duke (35-5) 2009 North Carolina (34-4) 2008 Kansas (37-3) 2007 Florida (35-5) 2006 Florida (33-6) 2005 North Carolina (33-4) 2004 Connecticut (33-6) 2003 Syracuse (30-5) 2002 Maryland (32-4) 2001 Duke (35-4) 2000 Michigan State (32-7) 1999 Connecticut (34-2) 1998 Kentucky (35-4) 1997 Arizona (25-9) 1996 Kentucky (34-2) 1995 UCLA (31-2) 1994 Arkansas (31-3) 1993 North Carolina (34-4) 1992 Duke (34-2) 1991 Duke (32-7) 1990 UNLV (35-5) 1989 Michigan (30-7) 1988 Kansas (27-11) 1987 Indiana (30-4) 1986 Louisville (32-7) 1985 Villanova (25-10)

 

[gianmarco]

But then variance rears its ugly head at the wrong time and they don't win the championship.

Why do you hate variance so much?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

back in my day....................and you kids get off my lawn!!!!!

 

[Dentist]

Which NCAA Men's Basketball champion going all the way back to 1985 seems underserving to you.

2011 UConn is probably the best example.I realize a lot of 1's and 2's make it... but a fair number of 1's and 2's don't make it because they ran into some buzzsaw team that buried a ton of 3's when they were potentially a legit champion.You see, my main problem is that a lot of sports make these tournaments and include a ton of players/teams that have NO chance of winning the tournament.. why even bother?I'd much rather see an NCAA tournament that has 16-32 teams and best of 3's the whole way to cut down on variance that 68 teams, 50 of which really don't have any sort of shot of winning.Tennis, my favorite sport due to an almost total lack of variance, also schedules too many players in their tournaments.. 128 players enter a major, when 110 of them have almost a NILL shot at winning... that's dumb too.... but since a top 3-4 player almost always wins, i'll give them a pass.Having said that, it was pretty gross watching Nadal dump to some 100 ranked player in round 2 of Wimbledon last year... even if i have a burning hate for Nadal the player.

 

[Dentist]

But then variance rears its ugly head at the wrong time and they don't win the championship.

Why do you hate variance so much?

variance screws up too many of my days, has cost me thousands of dollars in poker, and has ruined a lot of potentially great sporting events.

 

[roadkill1292]

Think of a big tournament like the Kumite -- a gathering of qualified contestants prepared to battle to the death for the ultimate trophy. They've all made their reps against lesser opposition, and we might even think that some are unbeatable as a result of those earlier victories, but they all knew all along that it had to won here, on this mat, against the best of the best. And that along the way some psycho Frank Dux might be waiting to kick their groin in even with his eyes closed.

 

[gianmarco]

But then variance rears its ugly head at the wrong time and they don't win the championship.

Why do you hate variance so much?

variance screws up too many of my days, has cost me thousands of dollars in poker, and has ruined a lot of potentially great sporting events.

 

[wildbill]

1998 is a terrible example. The Broncos were the best team that year. The Vikings only ended up with a better record cause they had to keep playing till the end to hold off the Falcons for home field (Vikes were 15-1, Falcons were 14-2), while the Broncos took it easy the last several weeks and finished 14-2 cause they had home field locked up several weeks early. But the Broncos WERE the best team that year, without a doubt.

And do we really want to complain about a 15-1 team losing to a 14-2 team in overtime?

 

[Riversco]

What usually happens to threads like these is the Seahawks under Russell Wilson and that stud defense have another great draft and immediately win 3 super bowl routs in a row causing everyone to bump this thread for years and years.