Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 11:15:00 AM (view original):
So, because they did nothing but stand on the field and watch a kicker miss a FG they're more "deserving"?

Look, I believe in the "you are your record" thing(Parcells?).     But I don't want to hear about "deserving".  

If there are divisions, the powers that be are saying "You must beat these teams".    As I've repeated over and over and over again, if you want to do away with divisions, fine.    

Maybe do something else in the game where you don't have to put yourself in a situation where a FG loses a game for you.  Maybe if you pick the ball off twice in the fourth quarter against Cleveland, you should convert that into more than 3 points. Maybe have your running back do better than rush for 34 yards in that game.  Maybe don't blow 21-0 leads at home. Do things that good teams do. Play like a good team. That makes you deserving.  

Or winning your division makes you "deserving" of a home playoff game.

Maybe that. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 11:39:00 AM (view original):
Or winning your division makes you "deserving" of a home playoff game.

Maybe that. 

Yea, maybe. We're having a discussion about it, so...maybe not. Maybe teams that lose more than half their games aren't more deserving than 10-6 teams with tougher schedules who actually played well.  Maybe that.

Maybe you're not the abiter of "deserving".

Maybe that. 

I like how your argument has come to "well, it's not up to you to decide." I guess you're right.

Well, you seem a little slow on the uptake here so I'll help you out.

Putting "-" around deserving means I don't really think me, you, Goodell or anyone is the person who decides "deserving".    As a general rule, I think everyone eventually gets what they deserve.    The rules dictate that division winners get a home game.   Not one ******* thing mentions "deserving". 

So, yeah, talking about "deserving" ****** me off.

And I still don't get why you're not OK with doing away with divisions. 

I told you why I like divisions.

You must hate seeing offers and things and then seeing that star that tells you to read fine print for exceptions and details. Do you call up the company and go "IS IT 30% OFF OR NOT? None of this UNLESS nonsense."

And if this rule change were to take place like I would want it to, we can have it where it doesn't say "deserving." 

Posted by stinenavy on 12/12/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 8:10:00 AM (view original):

Now you're doing the same thing as burnsy.   "It matters except when it doesn't."

Try looking at it this way.    ****** NO has 8 wins with one left but they've clinched the division.   They play at 1.    Crappy SF has 9 wins and plays at 4.    Since they've clinched a spot and a home game, they'd normally sit key players after a quarter or half.  But, under your convoluted rules, they might need to win.    So, in a tight game, they have to use the entire playbook thus saving nothing for a PLAYOFF game.    Even worse, Drew Brees is injured late in the 4th quarter and they lose.   So does SF.   Yay!!!  NO gets a home game.    Without their QB. 

Call me crazy but I'd rather a team be full strength for a PLAYOFF game rather than scrapping for a win they MIGHT need in the last week. 

This is typical ridiculous MikeT bullshit argument. What if this happens! And then this! And then this! And then this! A super extreme outlier example could happen, thus we should not do anything.

It's a wonder how ever leave your house, you could be struck by lightning, or get run over by a monster truck, or eaten by a bear.

Thanks for your contribution.   Now go play on the interstate and STFU.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/12/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):
I told you why I like divisions.

You must hate seeing offers and things and then seeing that star that tells you to read fine print for exceptions and details. Do you call up the company and go "IS IT 30% OFF OR NOT? None of this UNLESS nonsense."

And if this rule change were to take place like I would want it to, we can have it where it doesn't say "deserving." 

Well, stop with the "deserving" nonsense if that's not what you think. 

As for divisions and rivals, the Raiders' rival used to be Pittsburgh.   They weren't in the same division.   Same with Niners/Cowboys and Pats/Manning's team.   They were rivals because those teams were competing for something that meant something. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 11:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moranis on 12/12/2014 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):
So, 24 hours later, you're shitcanning your convoluted "2 game difference" idea?    Good. 

I don't really care, I don't watch all regular season games in the NFL, but I catch a lot of the playoffs.   I just want good games.  Forcing a division winner to play all out in game 16 in order to "win" a home game seems to work against what I want.   

As I said to burnsy, if you want to throw out divisions, go ahead.   I'm fine with that.   If you want to change it to 4 divisions of 8 with only the division winners getting byes/home games, go ahead.    But don't "punish" division winners because they may have had a tougher road, and thus less wins, than a WC team. 

Mike, I have been consistent in this thread.  I just brought up those other ideas in response to others claims and objection to the very easy to do, seed by record.

who is to say the division winner had a tougher road though?  Maybe the 9-7 division winner had an easier schedule than the 11-5 non-division winner.  Winning games should matter more than anything else.

Teams all the time rest players the last week when it might matter for seeding.  It shouldn't be any different just because you've already won your division.  I mean every year you see teams that have won their division already make the analysis on rest or play based on seeding.  Some teams even rest players when they could improve their seeding in a victory.  It is a team by team thing. 

I've been consistent, winning the division should get you into the playoffs, it shouldn't get you a home game.

Yes, it should get you a home game.  

If the WC is so much better, or "deserving", just kick the *** of that "undeserving" division winner and move on. 

Why should it get you a home game?

Posted by moranis on 12/12/2014 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 11:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moranis on 12/12/2014 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):
So, 24 hours later, you're shitcanning your convoluted "2 game difference" idea?    Good. 

I don't really care, I don't watch all regular season games in the NFL, but I catch a lot of the playoffs.   I just want good games.  Forcing a division winner to play all out in game 16 in order to "win" a home game seems to work against what I want.   

As I said to burnsy, if you want to throw out divisions, go ahead.   I'm fine with that.   If you want to change it to 4 divisions of 8 with only the division winners getting byes/home games, go ahead.    But don't "punish" division winners because they may have had a tougher road, and thus less wins, than a WC team. 

Mike, I have been consistent in this thread.  I just brought up those other ideas in response to others claims and objection to the very easy to do, seed by record.

who is to say the division winner had a tougher road though?  Maybe the 9-7 division winner had an easier schedule than the 11-5 non-division winner.  Winning games should matter more than anything else.

Teams all the time rest players the last week when it might matter for seeding.  It shouldn't be any different just because you've already won your division.  I mean every year you see teams that have won their division already make the analysis on rest or play based on seeding.  Some teams even rest players when they could improve their seeding in a victory.  It is a team by team thing. 

I've been consistent, winning the division should get you into the playoffs, it shouldn't get you a home game.

Yes, it should get you a home game.  

If the WC is so much better, or "deserving", just kick the *** of that "undeserving" division winner and move on. 

Why should it get you a home game?

You played over 35% of your schedule against 3 teams.   And you came out on top.    You're one of 8 teams that managed to accomplish this task.

so if you beat 3 ****** teams 2 times.  that means you should get a home game.  got it.

no they shouldn't do it by record. whats the point of a division then? most likely if you go 5-1 or 4-2 in your division you will win your division. sometimes some divisions are better than others. cant believe some people think you should just make it by order. about as idiotic as the second wild card in baseball with a one game playoff. I think all the teams with the worst record should get in and they should have the losing teams keep playing there is just one ultimate loser

The Falcons are 4-0 in the division and 1-8 against everyone else but would be hosting a playoff game. That is idiotic.

Sounds like whoever has to travel to ATL should be happy.