Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Week 17

123457»

Comments

  • #302
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    Change the system, and you'd be denying yourself the best playoff moment in recent history!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip0CmzkODO8


  • #303
    steelcityblues
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    But it raises the point that if the game was in NO, would the Seahawks have won?


  • #304
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    Saints should have taken care of business in their own division in that case so. The only problem I'd have with last year is that the Seahawks went in with a losing record, even then I'm not bothered, but I have no problem with division winners getting homefield advantage over wildcard teams.


  • #305
    spiralism
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭spiralism


    Peyton Manning wrote: »
    Saints should have taken care of business in their own division in that case so. The only problem I'd have with last year is that the Seahawks went in with a losing record, even then I'm not bothered, but I have no problem with division winners getting homefield advantage over wildcard teams.

    That's why they're wildcards after all. No point in changing the seeding system or it could create a tiering of the top teams where all of NE, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Baltimore and the likes are guaranteed home games (as opposed to one or two) and at least one likely win in the playoffs. Bear in mind the Packers won the superbowl last year as 6 seed wildcard and there was that famous upset by Seattle over NO. The system isnt broken, don't fix it.


  • #306
    Dotrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Dotrel


    steelcityblues wrote: »
    One thing that really annoys me about the playoff seeding process is how the division winner is always guaranteed a top 4 berth, even if they have an inferior record to a divisional runner up.

    Just look at the 12-4 Steelers having to travel to the 8-8 Broncos, next week. The AFC West arguably being the poorest division, this season.

    The seeding system needs to be changed.

    I'm just getting into NFL atm (only watched my first ever game from start to finish yesterday) but as I understand it each division don't really play a comparable set of fixtures anyway (ie the 6 games vs your own division, 10 weighted and spread across other divisions and conferences). As such a 1st place 7-9 in one division could still theoretically be better set of performances/results than say a 10-6 2nd place in some other division for example.

    I agree it's an unfair system but realistically the only way you'd ever get a truly fair system as far as I can tell would be if everyone played everyone in their conference once (or more accurately twice).


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    kmart6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,174 ✭✭✭✭kmart6


    Dotrel wrote: »
    As such a 1st place 7-9 in one division could still theoretically be better set of performances/results than say a 10-6 2nd place in some other division for example.

    Theoretically maybe...very slight maybe....possibility of that ever being the case...never!


  • #308
    Coll79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43 ✭Coll79


    heres a cool breakdown video of Marshawn Lynchs run



Advertisement