* * * * The National Football League - 2011 * * * *

pureoc

polaris_x wrote:

Heisenberg wrote:

Mike Smith is an idiot

this is just awful ... it's like he doesn't want to win the game ... falcons don't deserve to win this game at all ...

Yes he is. Had no problem with him going for it on that 4th and inches, but for crying out loud, if you are going to go for it DON'T QB sneak it when you have a brusier in Michael Turner, and if you are going to QB sneak it, don't have an empty backfield so the D knows exactly whats comming. Just stupid. Disappointed ATL didn't win as GB would destroy them. Giants will be a tough game.

tybird

mickeyrat wrote:

Bullshit interference call.

Bullshit quick whistle on the lateral call :twisted:

polaris_x

is it really fair that pittsburgh with a 12-4 record has to go to mile high to play denver with an 8-8 record in the playoffs?

Indifference71

polaris_x wrote:

is it really fair that pittsburgh with a 12-4 record has to go to mile high to play denver with an 8-8 record in the playoffs?

Nope. Not at all. Same with Falcons at 10-6 going to NY who was 9-7. Too much credit is given for winning shitty divisions.

jimed14

I must be the only one that doesn't have a problem with the way the palyoff system is set up. Everyone is playing by the exact same rules ... so, everyone has the same advantage/disadvantage. Some years it helps you, some years it hurts you.

Want a home game? Win your division. Pretty simple.

... and yes, I'm a Pats fan who saw them miss the playoffs in 2008 with an 11-5 record while San Diego won their division at 8-8. Thems the breaks.

polaris_x

jimed14 wrote:

I must be the only one that doesn't have a problem with the way the palyoff system is set up. Everyone is playing by the exact same rules ... so, everyone has the same advantage/disadvantage. Some years it helps you, some years it hurts you.

Want a home game? Win your division. Pretty simple.

... and yes, I'm a Pats fan who saw them miss the playoffs in 2008 with an 11-5 record while San Diego won their division at 8-8. Thems the breaks.

well ... it isn't exactly the same rules ... there is a huge advantage for home field ... denver got rewarded for mediocrity not only in their play but in their division ...

jimed14

polaris_x wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

I must be the only one that doesn't have a problem with the way the palyoff system is set up. Everyone is playing by the exact same rules ... so, everyone has the same advantage/disadvantage. Some years it helps you, some years it hurts you.

Want a home game? Win your division. Pretty simple.

... and yes, I'm a Pats fan who saw them miss the playoffs in 2008 with an 11-5 record while San Diego won their division at 8-8. Thems the breaks.

well ... it isn't exactly the same rules ... there is a huge advantage for home field ... denver got rewarded for mediocrity not only in their play but in their division ...

You could make the arguement that a really tough division would knock a record down a win or two but playing 6 games in a shitty division would artificially inflate your record.

Heisenberg

awww...poor Pittsburgh. They had to play at Denver when they had a better record. They had a QB with a bum ankle that miraculously only seemed to hurt when the cameras were on him. They didn't have their starting RB, they forgot to play defense on the first play of overtime....WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Suck it up Pittsburgh. Despite the refs best attempt at keeping you in the game (that bullshit quick whistle on what was clearly a backward pass) you're still going home early. But look on the bright side, now Big Ben has an extra few weeks to molest unsuspecting college girls so it's not all bad news.

Indifference71

Heisenberg wrote:

awww...poor Pittsburgh. They had to play at Denver when they had a better record. They had a QB with a bum ankle that miraculously only seemed to hurt when the cameras were on him. They didn't have their starting RB, they forgot to play defense on the first play of overtime....WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Suck it up Pittsburgh. Despite the refs best attempt at keeping you in the game (that bullshit quick whistle on what was clearly a backward pass) you're still going home early. But look on the bright side, now Big Ben has an extra few weeks to molest unsuspecting college girls so it's not all bad news.

Sounds like someone does not like the Steelers.

cowboypjfan

Heisenberg wrote:

awww...poor Pittsburgh. They had to play at Denver when they had a better record. They had a QB with a bum ankle that miraculously only seemed to hurt when the cameras were on him. They didn't have their starting RB, they forgot to play defense on the first play of overtime....WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Suck it up Pittsburgh. Despite the refs best attempt at keeping you in the game (that bullshit quick whistle on what was clearly a backward pass) you're still going home early. But look on the bright side, now Big Ben has an extra few weeks to molest unsuspecting college girls so it's not all bad news.

polaris_x

jimed14 wrote:

You could make the arguement that a really tough division would knock a record down a win or two but playing 6 games in a shitty division would artificially inflate your record.

i dunno ... the thing is each team in each division plays the same schedule ... so, it should wash out ... their conference record points that out ...

jimed14

polaris_x wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

You could make the arguement that a really tough division would knock a record down a win or two but playing 6 games in a shitty division would artificially inflate your record.

i dunno ... the thing is each team in each division plays the same schedule ... so, it should wash out ... their conference record points that out ...

You bring up another point ...

No one can control which division you play in the interconference matchups. The teams within your division play the same schedule, but different divisions play different outside divsions both interconference and intraconference.

So, there's another chance for a team to get lucky and inflate their record if they get lucky and draw a shitty interconference division to play.

Using the aforementioned Giants and Falcons ...

The Giants had to play the AFC East while the Falcons got to play the AFC South. Not a huge difference, but I'd say the AFC East is a tougher division, the Falcons had the easier interconfernece schedule. Some times, the difference is much greater.

The more we discuss, the more I like rewarding a division winner with a home game.

pjsteelerfan

Heisenberg wrote:

awww...poor Pittsburgh. They had to play at Denver when they had a better record. They had a QB with a bum ankle that miraculously only seemed to hurt when the cameras were on him. They didn't have their starting RB, they forgot to play defense on the first play of overtime....WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Suck it up Pittsburgh. Despite the refs best attempt at keeping you in the game (that bullshit quick whistle on what was clearly a backward pass) you're still going home early. But look on the bright side, now Big Ben has an extra few weeks to molest unsuspecting college girls so it's not all bad news.

:roll:

They lost to the team that wanted to win more. Broncos also had calls go their way too.

polaris_x

jimed14 wrote:

You bring up another point ...

No one can control which division you play in the interconference matchups. The teams within your division play the same schedule, but different divisions play different outside divsions both interconference and intraconference.

So, there's another chance for a team to get lucky and inflate their record if they get lucky and draw a shitty interconference division to play.

Using the aforementioned Giants and Falcons ...

The Giants had to play the AFC East while the Falcons got to play the AFC South. Not a huge difference, but I'd say the AFC East is a tougher division, the Falcons had the easier interconfernece schedule. Some times, the difference is much greater.

The more we discuss, the more I like rewarding a division winner with a home game.

yeah ... but everything you say works in the inverse as well ... of the teams that both Pittsburgh and Denver played ... Pitt was 5-0 while Denver was 2-3 ... i don't see how someone can say Denver's 8-8 record is better than Pittsburgh's 12-4 ...

jimed14

polaris_x wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

You bring up another point ...

No one can control which division you play in the interconference matchups. The teams within your division play the same schedule, but different divisions play different outside divsions both interconference and intraconference.

So, there's another chance for a team to get lucky and inflate their record if they get lucky and draw a shitty interconference division to play.

Using the aforementioned Giants and Falcons ...

The Giants had to play the AFC East while the Falcons got to play the AFC South. Not a huge difference, but I'd say the AFC East is a tougher division, the Falcons had the easier interconfernece schedule. Some times, the difference is much greater.

The more we discuss, the more I like rewarding a division winner with a home game.

yeah ... but everything you say works in the inverse as well ... of the teams that both Pittsburgh and Denver played ... Pitt was 5-0 while Denver was 2-3 ... i don't see how someone can say Denver's 8-8 record is better than Pittsburgh's 12-4 ...

It doesn't take long to go back in history to see when Pittsburgh took advantage of this very same set up.

2007:

Pitt - 10 - 6 - won division and was the #4 seed.
Jax - 11 - 5 - wild card and was the #5 seed.

Jacksonville had to play in Pittsburgh.

Again, the rules are the same for everyone and in different years different teams will take advantage.

polaris_x

jimed14 wrote:

It doesn't take long to go back in history to see when Pittsburgh took advantage of this very same set up.

2007:

Pitt - 10 - 6 - won division and was the #4 seed.
Jax - 11 - 5 - wild card and was the #5 seed.

Jacksonville had to play in Pittsburgh.

Again, the rules are the same for everyone and in different years different teams will take advantage.

bringing up pittsburgh benefiting previously has absolute no bearing on my argument ...

just because it works the other way doesn't necessarily make it right ... the issue isn't whether pittsburgh gains or loses ... the issue here is whether or not winning a division should supersede record in determining home field advantage ...

even IF we go back to your other theory that sometimes playing in a tough division hurts your overall record ... you've already stated that sometimes it works in inverse ... so, why not just go with overall record because at the very least you will be correct in rewarding a team half the time if not more ...

jimed14

Agree to disagree.



I just feel you should be rewarded for winning your division against your most heated rivals ... you played the same competition as them (all but 2 games), you played each of them twice, the league should continue to promote rivalries like this and reward the winner with home game for that.

Everyone is playing by the same rules year in, year out.

polaris_x

jimed14 wrote:

Agree to disagree.



I just feel you should be rewarded for winning your division against your most heated rivals ... you played the same competition as them (all but 2 games), you played each of them twice, the league should continue to promote rivalries like this and reward the winner with home game for that.

Everyone is playing by the same rules year in, year out.

fair enough ...

all i'll say is in this case - they rewarded mediocrity ... they awarded denver this year for winning their division by allowing them to play in the post-season ... they probably didn't deserve to play ... they only made it to the playoffs because the other teams in their division were crap ...

Ledbetterman10

polaris_x wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

Agree to disagree.



I just feel you should be rewarded for winning your division against your most heated rivals ... you played the same competition as them (all but 2 games), you played each of them twice, the league should continue to promote rivalries like this and reward the winner with home game for that.

Everyone is playing by the same rules year in, year out.

fair enough ...

all i'll say is in this case - they rewarded mediocrity ... they awarded denver this year for winning their division by allowing them to play in the post-season ... they probably didn't deserve to play ... they only made it to the playoffs because the other teams in their division were crap ...

I totally agree and posted a few pages ago how I think division championships should be abolished and teams should be seeded 1-6 based only on regular season record (which would have Tennessee at #6 and Denver not even in the playoffs). That said, it's unfortunately not like that, the Steelers (or last year's Saints, or the 2008 Colts) have to deal with it, and they didn't.

Here's my rant on it:

Ledbetterman wrote:

Boy I'll say. I'm for the complete elimination of division champions. Keep the divisions the same for scheduling/rivalry reasons. But otherwise, seed them 1-6 based simply on record. So the AFC would look like this:

1. New England (13-3)
2. Baltimore (12-4)
3. Pittsburgh (12-4)
4. Houston (10-6)
5. Cincinnati (9-7)
6. Tennessee (9-7)

Wouldn't that make more sense than this?:

1. New England (13-3)
2. Baltimore (12-4)
3. Houston (10-6)
4. Denver (8-8)
5. Pittsburgh (12-4)
6. Cincinnati (9-7)

Since the league has gone to 4 divisions, the 2008 Patriots (11-5) missed the playoffs when the Chargers (8-8) won their division and the 2010 Giants and Bucs were each 10-6 and missed the playoffs while the Seahawks (7-9) made it winning their division. I just don't get it. Why should "Being the least crappy out of 4 crappy teams" be rewarded more than being 10-6 in a divsion that contains two other playoff teams (as the 2010 Bucs were). It's mind-numbing.

I mean...we all know it's just for ratings...but from a sporting aspect...it's not fair that geographical location of your team should mean so much. If Baltimore was in the NFC West, they'd have been to at least two Super Bowls in the past 8 years with how crappy that division has been.

jimed14

So, if they abolished the divisions, there should be no reason to play any team twice ... how would you realign the schedules?

How do you feel about the increase in travel on an already tight schedule?