|
Fenrir posted:You know what, gently caress that. I know it sounds dumb but I still want winning the division to mean something. I don't care how you get in. Yeah, we made a lot of fun of the 7-9 seahawks and the 8-7-1 Packers but that's a part of the game. If you want a playoff spot, win your division.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
INSPECTAH DECK posted:Winning a division title has already lost some meaning when they went to 8 divisions of 4 teams each. Stuff like this year's NFC South or the NFC West of a few years ago are bound to pop up now and then because of this format. Saying "that's a part of the game" seems devoid of meaning, and since winning your division is a goal with a wide range of difficulty due to the differences in the divisions over the years. I'd be hard pressed to say a 5 win Panthers accomplished much of anything besides failing upward. I'm guessing you'd be pissed if the 2010 Packers missed the playoffs, despite the fact they didn't win their division and only made the playoffs on tiebreakers. I also wouldn't joke about how the 10-6 Cardinals deserved a playoff spot more than the Packers did, as that is a true statement. I have a counterpoint: The majesty that was the 2010 Seahawks playoff victory. Remember, I'm saying this as a Niners fan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
INSPECTAH DECK posted:Winning a division title has already lost some meaning when they went to 8 divisions of 4 teams each. Stuff like this year's NFC South or the NFC West of a few years ago are bound to pop up now and then because of this format. Saying "that's a part of the game" seems devoid of meaning, and since winning your division is a goal with a wide range of difficulty due to the differences in the divisions over the years. I'd be hard pressed to say a 5 win Panthers accomplished much of anything besides failing upward. I'm guessing you'd be pissed if the 2010 Packers missed the playoffs, despite the fact they didn't win their division and only made the playoffs on tiebreakers. I also wouldn't joke about how the 10-6 Cardinals deserved a playoff spot more than the Packers did, as that is a true statement. You're actually making my point for me there. Every division goes through ups and downs (this year's NFC South, last year's NFC North, 2011's NFC East, etc etc) but the whole point is that I still want every division winner to have a home playoff game. Maybe it isn't always the accomplishment it used to be (this year's AFC North would disagree!), but having the home playoff game GIVES it meaning. I'm not sure what the 2010 Packers have to do with that, they were a wild card team. Rodgers got knocked out of two games and welp, thankfully they got the wild card. Still, that's irrelevant to what I posted. As for the 2013 Cardinals, yeah, I wish they'd have gotten a wild card too. They probably would have won almost any other division but the one they're in happened to be really tough. Not so much this year apparently, since they look right now to be the best team in the NFL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
My method would give importance to winning it but also punish the truly woeful divisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:My method would give importance to winning it but also punish the truly woeful divisions. That would dull some division rivalries, because even when a division is lovely they hatefuck each other until someone goes to the playoffs. Then you laugh at the lovely division winner of your lovely division as they go one and done and get embarrassed because andy dalt
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
Sour Diesel posted:That would dull some division rivalries, because even when a division is lovely they hatefuck each other until someone goes to the playoffs. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Sour Diesel posted:That would dull some division rivalries, because even when a division is lovely they hatefuck each other until someone goes to the playoffs. Do you expect me to disagree with this? The Bengals have gone to 5 playoff games since the merger. Collectively they've been outscored 71 to 13 in the second half. They have never scored more than 7 or allowed less than 10. In the Marvin Lewis era the Bengals highest playoff game score was 17. The fewest points they've allowed is 19. That's right. If you took their best performance on offense (2005) and matched it against the fewest points they've allowed (2012) they would still lose by two. Yes, their best postseason offense was led by Jon Kitna. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:My method would give importance to winning it but also punish the truly woeful divisions. If you win your division with a losing record the playoff spot goes to the next best wild card team, if they have a winning record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
The system is loving fine. The 7-9 Seahawks beating the Saints completely justified it for eternity
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:The system is loving fine. The 7-9 Seahawks beating the Saints completely justified it for eternity 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:The system is loving fine. The 7-9 Seahawks beating the Saints completely justified it for eternity I can't wait for it to be validated again when the NFC South team beats the Seahawks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Roger Craig posted:If you win your division with a losing record the playoff spot goes to the next best wild card team, if they have a winning record. never losing teams in the playoffs is one of the best and only things fans have to cling on to. watching a team go 7-9 while a 10-6 team misses owns
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:The system is loving fine. The 7-9 Seahawks beating the Saints completely justified it for eternity Also the 8-8 Chargers owning 12-4 Peyton Manning with a midget and a punter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Man, it'd be really awesome if the Orton-led Bills and the Cowboys made it to the Super Bowl 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:The system is loving fine. The 7-9 Seahawks beating the Saints completely justified it for eternity I agree, I like how the worst division winner gets to host the best runner-up in round 1. It puts a lot of pressure on both teams to win the game and I'd hate to see it undone. That said, I always liked the idea of having two AFC or NFC teams in the Superbowl. Lots of possibilities there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Back when the Seahawks got into the playoffs at 7-9, I thought about what the worst possible team that qualifies for the playoffs would be. My conclusion was the winner of an ultra-horrible division where none of the teams won against anybody outside of it, and each head-to-head series within it was tied. Thus each team had a 0.1875 win percentage (3-13 or 0-10-6) with the champion being determined by at least the fifth tiebreaker. Can anybody think of some way to get an even worse team in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Kawalimus posted:I agree, I like how the worst division winner gets to host the best runner-up in round 1. It puts a lot of pressure on both teams to win the game and I'd hate to see it undone. A same-conference Super Bowl wouldn't be too bad but a same-division Super Bowl would be absolutely horrible
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Alpha3KV posted:Back when the Seahawks got into the playoffs at 7-9, I thought about what the worst possible team that qualifies for the playoffs would be. My conclusion was the winner of an ultra-horrible division where none of the teams won against anybody outside of it, and each head-to-head series within it was tied. Thus each team had a 0.1875 win percentage (3-13 or 0-10-6) with the champion being determined by at least the fifth tiebreaker. Can anybody think of some way to get an even worse team in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Big Ol Marsh Pussy posted:A same-conference Super Bowl wouldn't be too bad but a same-division Super Bowl would be absolutely horrible I think it sounds great, personally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Kawalimus posted:I think it sounds great, personally. It sounds horrific and if we got a loving Broncos/Chiefs superbowl I might kill myself
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Kawalimus posted:I think it sounds great, personally. Ravens-Steelers Super Bowl Final Score 13-7 Steelers god gently caress no
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Sour Diesel posted:Ravens-Steelers Super Bowl
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
I can't believe the Seahawks are probably going to miss the playoffs at 10-6, losing the tie breaker against Dallas. That's a bummer. But yeah, the division system is great still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Eliminate all divisions. Teams play a 15 game complete round robin schedule against the other 15 teams in the conference. Top six from each conference make the playoffs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Sour Diesel posted:Ravens-Steelers Super Bowl There's no guarantee we'd lose. And it would undo all the bad losses we've had to Pittsburgh in the postseason if we won. Plus imagine Ravens vs Browns. If it were just one seed that "floated" it would be so rare for this to ever happen but just having the possibility would be really cool. "Actually it wouldn't be so bad because" we've lost so many times to Pittsburgh how much worse could it get
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
I believe (in that AFC and 5-10-1 Carolina) 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Cowboys just may have saved their season. I was doing some back of the envelope math during the game and figured out that if the Cowboys had lost this game and the game against the Eagles they would've: -Been 2 games behind the Eagles -Had no possible H2H tiebreaker -Had no possible division wins tiebreaker (as the loss would give Dallas their third division loss and Philly their third division win) -Slim chance of gaining the common opponents tiebreaker as they would be 7-4 with 2 to play (Indy and @Was) and Philly at 7-3 with 3 to play (Seattle, @Was, @NYG). Dallas would have to run the table while Philly lost 2 out of 3 or win 1 while Philly lost all 3. And Philly would have to lose both divisional games for this tiebreaker to matter anyway. With such poor tiebreakers they'd need to gain 3 games on the Eagles in 4 weeks to have a realistic shot at winning the division. Not impossible, but very, very unlikely especially with how tough their schedule is. Basically a loss this week and next week would've given the division to the Eagles barring a 2013 Lions-esque collapse. However, since they won this week: A win against the Eagles and they are a game up with the H2H tiebreaker and a chance to take the divisional tiebreaker if Philly drops another divisional game. Dallas can ensure this by beating Philly two weeks later. A loss against the Eagles and they are a game back with no H2H tiebreaker but with a chance to still take the divisional tiebreaker if they beat Philly again two weeks later and get some help. Either way the division itself won't be decided on Thanksgiving this week; the game will only give the winner advantage going into the 2nd game. Since I'm pretty sure Philly and Dallas are going to split it all comes down to the divisional games. So long as Philly wins at least one of their other divisional games Dallas can't take the divisional tie breaker (assuming a series split with Dallas). If you're an Eagles fan and you think they're gonna split: a combo of any two (Philly wins @Was, Philly wins @NYG, Dallas loses @Was) would give Philly control of the tiebreakers. Getting only one of those moves it to common games record (currently Dallas 8-3, Philly 7-3). If you're a Cowboys fan and you think they're gonna split: you'll need all three of (Philly loses @Was, Philly loses @NYG, Dallas wins @Was) to control the tiebreakers. Getting only two moves it to common games record (currently Dallas 8-3, Philly 7-3). I didn't write out the logic for a sweep because if either team sweeps they're almost certainly winning the division. I also kept the logic concerned only to tiebreakers since it's fairly easy to figure out the actual wins/losses with both teams currently tied: just win 1 more than the other team. That win was absolutely crucial for the Cowboys even though it didn't look like it to most people. Thanks for nothing Giants 
axeil fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Realistically the Bengals need 3 of 5 to play in January. With how top heavy the AFC is I'm not confidant 9-6-1 will be good enough. Precluding a meltdown I don't see them dropping three of at TB, vs PIT, At CLE, vs DEN, at PIT. Pit and Denver are at the same level of play, but two are home games and the Bengals match up very well against Denver. They could win four or all five, but I'll feel much, much better if and when they don't poo poo the bed against the Buccaneers. If they have a let down in Tampa then they will be in a huge hole. If they can win those first two they'll have pretty much stamped their ticket. Week 14 will decide the division. I expect Pittsburgh to win two of three against KC, ATL and NO. That said, I would really like the division to be secured before week 17. I'm OK with Pittsburgh trying to spoil our bye as a consolation for missing out again. My playoff sim has the following records: 14-2 13-3 12-4 12-4 12-4 11-4-1 11-5 11-5 11-5 11-5 11-5 6-10 Eifert Posting fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Realistically the Bengals need 3 of 5 to play in January. With how top heavy the AFC is I'm not confidant 9-6-1 will be good enough. Precluding a meltdown I don't see them dropping three of at TB, vs PIT, At CLE, vs DEN, at PIT. Pit and Denver are at the same level of play, but two are home games and the Bengals match up very well against Denver. They could win four or all five, but I'll feel much, much better if and when they don't poo poo the bed against the Buccaneers. If they have a let down in Tampa then they will be in a huge hole. If they can win those first two they'll have pretty much stamped their ticket. I'm not so sure I see 3 wins for the Bengals there. I'll give them TB and one of the Pitt games but that leaves the other Pitt game, @Cleveland and Denver. Those are all really tough games, especially since all three teams are fighting for playoff spots (or in Denver's case a bye). And I'm not even sure 10-5-1 will be enough. They might need 4 wins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'm not so sure I see 3 wins for the Bengals there. I'll give them TB and one of the Pitt games but that leaves the other Pitt game, @Cleveland and Denver. Those are all really tough games, especially since all three teams are fighting for playoff spots (or in Denver's case a bye). And I'm not even sure 10-5-1 will be enough. They might need 4 wins. Denver is a great match up for us. The Bengals have had excellent play from their secondary and their safeties have been great. Manning is still Manning but he can't put velocity on the ball so that helps us. I'm not sold on their defense at all, and I doubt their running game will outproduce ours. I was less confidant about @HOU and @CLE. It definitely is the toughest stretch of our season, though. Realistically if Tampa beats us we're hosed, though. It'd be time to start rooting for like 6 AFC teams to suddenly tank. Eifert Posting fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Denver is a great match up for us. The Bengals have had excellent play from their secondary and their safeties have been great. Manning is still Manning but he can't put velocity on the ball so that helps us. I'm not sold on their defense at all, and I doubt their running game will outproduce ours. I was less confidant about @HOU and @CLE. I'll take your word for it, as you know the Bengals way better than I do. Should be an exciting finish to the season for all the teams in the North. That tie is the  of the division though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
A thirtygoddamnfour yard field goal. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Denver is a great match up for us. The Bengals have had excellent play from their secondary and their safeties have been great. Manning is still Manning but he can't put velocity on the ball so that helps us. I'm not sold on their defense at all, and I doubt their running game will outproduce ours. I was less confidant about @HOU and @CLE. Did the Denver game get moved to 1:00pm Sunday and no one told me? Dalton will melt down and the Bengals are going to get embarrassed by the Broncos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
ChickenMedium posted:Did the Denver game get moved to 1:00pm Sunday and no one told me? Dalton will melt down and the Bengals are going to get embarrassed by the Broncos. To be fair if Eifert's still in Korea then it's like a 7am game or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
 Objectively the best possible result (I'd personally swap Seattle with Arizona by beating them Week 16, but I know what the people want).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
ChickenMedium posted:Did the Denver game get moved to 1:00pm Sunday and no one told me? Dalton will melt down and the Bengals are going to get embarrassed by the Broncos. By that logic I'm OK with that because it means the Bengals will finish 11-4-1 and win their division comfortably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:A thirtygoddamnfour yard field goal. now imagine it being the kick to tie a game in a conference championship against the loving pats
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:By that logic I'm OK with that because it means the Bengals will finish 11-4-1 and win their division comfortably. Come on, son. You know there's no logic to Andy Dalton. There is only the old gypsy's curse against him winning night games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
I can't get behind the idea of Week 14 deciding the AFC North with all the action there'll be afterward. I think it's going to be a clusterfuck all the way to the end, with 3 teams being able to win the division in Week 17. I'm giving the Steelers about a 50% shot to take it with the Browns just behind 'em. Of course I'm absolutely more critical of my own team than the others but I really don't see the Bengals beating the Broncos in an abnormal outdoor environment for Bad Andy. I get the matchups and everything but those sorts of swings are rarely a match for two or three interceptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
Sour Diesel posted:now imagine it being the kick to tie a game in a conference championship next, imagine winning the superbowl the very next season, including beating the pats and broncos at home along the way
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 09:26
|
|