Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 12:16:00 PM (view original):
I don't think we should rank playoff teams based on record alone.  Winning the division should mean something, unless you lose most of the games you play.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 12:16:00 PM (view original):
I don't think we should rank playoff teams based on record alone.  Winning the division should mean something, unless you lose most of the games you play.

So two 16 team conferences would work for you?   Seems like there is 0% chance that a sub .500 team would make the playoffs. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 12:16:00 PM (view original):
I don't think we should rank playoff teams based on record alone.  Winning the division should mean something, unless you lose most of the games you play.

So two 16 team conferences would work for you?   Seems like there is 0% chance that a sub .500 team would make the playoffs. 

No, I like the divisions. Just make sure you have a winning record if you want a shot at making the playoffs.

This shouldn't be so hard to understand.

What do you like about divisions?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 12:16:00 PM (view original):
I don't think we should rank playoff teams based on record alone.  Winning the division should mean something, unless you lose most of the games you play.

So two 16 team conferences would work for you?   Seems like there is 0% chance that a sub .500 team would make the playoffs. 

No, I like the divisions. Just make sure you have a winning record if you want a shot at making the playoffs.

This shouldn't be so hard to understand.

What do you like about divisions?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Aren't rivals created when two teams/people are fighting for the same turf?

When that turf means nothing, who wants to fight?

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Aren't rivals created when two teams/people are fighting for the same turf?

When that turf means nothing, who wants to fight?

I don't think anyone would care to fight, ordinarily, between two ****** teams.

You expect the Giants and Skins to be ready for war on Sunday? You think fans are excited?

WINNING YOUR DIVISION MEANS SOMETHING!!!!  EXCEPT WHEN IT DOESN'T!!!!
DIVISIONS ARE  IMPORTANT!!!!  EXCEPT WHEN THEY AREN'T!!!!


Yeah, that makes sense. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Miami, Buffalo, Cleveland, Houston and KC are all 7-6 in the AFC.    Are they all equally "deserving" of that record?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 1:34:00 PM (view original):

WINNING YOUR DIVISION MEANS SOMETHING!!!!  EXCEPT WHEN IT DOESN'T!!!!
DIVISIONS ARE  IMPORTANT!!!!  EXCEPT WHEN THEY AREN'T!!!!


Yeah, that makes sense. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/11/2014 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Miami, Buffalo, Cleveland, Houston and KC are all 7-6 in the AFC.    Are they all equally "deserving" of that record?

Do you want me to break down each game to find which games were lucky wins, etc? I don't know, probably not, some are probably lucky/unlucky wins. But they each won 7 games on their schedule, and you are what your record says you are. Unless you're 6-10 and you're a playoff team, then you're considered one of the better teams in football for some reason.