Should divisions be as heavily weighted as they are?
by ThaRealTruth on Jan 18, 2012 9:00 PM EST
Email
Print
Reading Brian's article on the main page today, made me revisit a view that I have had, in regards to overall record versus the weight of being in a given division. First, should a division winner with a weaker overall record get into the playoffs, when another team has a better overall record? Does this not make divisional games worth SIGNIFICANTLY more than any other games, and does this maybe make it unfair for teams that are not competitive in their division? At the same time, are there some teams that basically get a free ride to the playoffs, for being nothing more than the best of mediocrity? Read more, after the jump.
Obviously, as a Buffalo Bills fan, I recognize the impact of being in a strong division. I personally, have not been in the camp that a team who has won less games than another conference team, deserves a playoff berth, simply because they competed better in their potentially weaker division.
Take the AFC North, for example. Their division placed 3 out of 4 teams in the playoffs this year, and that was while competing with each other twice. That almost inherently dictates that they are overall better teams, than say, the AFC East. They were competitive with their division rivals, as well as their other league opponents. Meanwhile, if we look at the AFC West, each of these teams did no better than split their division (all had a 3-3 divisional record) and all of them were still in the playoff race, only because of their division. The closest in the NFL, they finished with 3 teams with a record of 8-8, one team 7-9. When we look at the NFC West last year, we see a team that didn't have a better overall record (Seahawks), getting into the playoffs ahead of teams with better records (Buccaneers), simply for winning their weaker division. Strength of schedule doesn't really become a factor, even divisional record may not play a role, and I personally have to question why a team with a better record doesn't get into the playoffs. I don't see why when the Buccaneers were in a division of better teams (who they had to play twice, while the weaker divisional team who got into the playoffs, had lesser competition to beat) fail to get into the playoffs ahead of the Seahawks who didn't even manage a winning record while in a terrible division, or a team like the Broncos, get in AGAIN this year, when they didn't also didn't manage a winning record.
So, fellow Rumblers, my question is this: Should divisions be as heavily weighted as they are, or should playoffs be decided by overall record? Is there some other other way of determining who the best teams are; OR, is there no fault with the current system because it is fair for all the teams, simply because they know what the expectations are, or because the whole point of divisions IS to make the games more valuable? Feel free to leave your thoughts, or answer the poll, or both. I just wonder if I am making an issue of nothing, or if divisions are somehow necessary in a way I hadn't considered... Or if it seems unfair that the teams who played better competition, ended with a better record, still fell short of the playoffs, while some mediocre (at best) team who played equally poor against poor competition, gets to beat the aforementioned better team out for those incredibly sought out playoff berths.
Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I want it the same.
I don’t want the playoffs deluded like the NBA.
"My new cat just farted on my lap. Smells like Bills football." BG.
by SERGEANT MAJOR THOR on Jan 18, 2012 9:28 PM EST reply actions
I voted for the second option
The current NHL realignment options have brought some of this to light. No matter how you work the playoffs, there will always be some teams on the outside, looking in, and feeling that they should have been in. And probably, to a degree, justified.
The Raiders went 6-0 in their division last year (maybe the year before), but didn’t win their division. Had they won it, but the best 6 teams got in, and not four division winner, they’d have a case to make the playoffs.
It’ll never be fair. The current system is pretty fair, and I’d rather not mess with a system that works. It’s not like 7-9 Seattle or 8-8 Denver go anywhere. We still get Packer-Steeler Super Bowls.
Re-starting the official Buffalo "Draft a quarterback in the First Round in 2012" campaign.
excellent points
the one that confuses me most, is probably this:
The Raiders went 6-0 in their division last year (maybe the year before), but didn’t win their division. Had they won it, but the best 6 teams got in, and not four division winner, they’d have a case to make the playoffs.
In a way, I almost think that means nothing… in that winning a division, while losing all other games, amounts to diddly. I mean, who cares how good you were in 6 out of 16 games (not the majority) if you can’t tie together enough wins in the remaining 10?
It’ll never be fair. The current system is pretty fair, and I’d rather not mess with a system that works. It’s not like 7-9 Seattle or 8-8 Denver go anywhere. We still get Packer-Steeler Super Bowls.
This is really the summation of my conclusion as well. I used to be far more upset about it, because it seems wholly unfair. I think that the best way I could phrase this sentiment was option 2.
On the side, I don’t follow much NBA or NHL or MLB, so I really am ignorant as to how their playoff systems are. I do however completely agree that it is not really all that significant YET because none of these junk teams have managed a Super Bowl appearance, let alone win. But, as a hypothetical, a team like the Raiders or San Diego can basically sandbag their season, put it together at the end, catch their stride in a Wildcard game, and end up landing themselves in the big game, just because the Chiefs and the Broncos are junk… and even as a Chargers fan, I feel that gives them a distinctly unfair advantage to say, the Bungles, who can play their rears off, and end up on the outside looking in, with like a 10-6 record, while San Diego could maybe get through with a 7-9. That seems like a system with fault, to me. Especially given specific circumstances described in the post, the last couple years.
ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE
by ThaRealTruth on Jan 18, 2012 10:02 PM EST up reply actions
While you generally get two good teams instead of junk teams in the Super Bowl, it’s always possible that you’re excluding a team that could have and would have made the Super Bowl by allowing the junk team. I’m much more concerned with that scenario.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
right. exactly this.
this is my point ENTIRELY. I think we are basically doing what Sarge doesn’t want: we are diluting the playoffs, in which there are few teams anyway. perhaps 12/32 seems like a lot, but it seems like fewer, when one of the teams basically “doesn’t count” or the top seeds are only playing 2 playoff games. It is really just helping teams like the Pats maintain their “dynasty” talk, and not allowing for much competition otherwise, because legit teams get left out, while junk teams get eliminated early. I think that overall record would offset that to some degree, and ANY team could get in, ANY year, by that standard. Especially if for example, we got to play the NFC West AND the AFC West, in the same year. Hahhaaha
ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE
by ThaRealTruth on Jan 18, 2012 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
I think this year is a good example of that. I honestly think that NE has a cake-walk into the playoffs. The Ravens are the only legitimate team they could have possibly faced, and a lot of that has to do with Denver being in the playoffs. The Broncos are built very specifically to beat a team like the Steelers, and built to lose badly to teams that play the spread (hell, the Bills destroyed them…) So NE had really no chance to lose that game, in my opinion.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
*cake-walk to the Super Bowl, is what I meant. I really wish we could edit posts….
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
yeah.
i make mistakes too often as well. I have gotten in the habit of proofreading before I post, but even then, too frequently i glaze over something as accurate, and then realize there is a typo or i wasn’t clear.
ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE
by ThaRealTruth on Jan 19, 2012 12:19 AM EST up reply actions
secondary question
how is it for college? doesn’t the shear number of teams make the number of wins inherently more important? i mean, they also have divisions or conferences or something, and i know that they basically need to win out, year in and year out, to guarantee themselves a bowl game. I think college games are more exciting, draw larger crowds, and are just plain a bigger deal, because their games matter so much, and they play FEWER, right? so i guess, the way i see it, that offsets the view of billsrule65 or stetzweb, because well, we play 16 games. they don’t (do they? again, showing my ignorance here)
ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE
by ThaRealTruth on Jan 18, 2012 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
I prefer the basketball system of playoffs
I don’t mind 6 teams from each conference, but they should simply be the 6 with the best records. Unfortunately, our season is not long enough for this to be a reality. If, like in basketball, each team played each other team in the conference a bunch of times, then this would be fair and make sense. 16 games is not enough to accomplish this, since you’d play every other team in the conference once and have one game left over. Still, the idea, to me, is better.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
I don’t mind 6 teams from each conference, but they should simply be the 6 with the best records. Unfortunately, our season is not long enough for this to be a reality.
billsrule65 posted similarly, and I guess, I don’t follow. The number of games is the same for all teams, which basically means it is invariable. So, if that is a constant, then the thing we are factoring higher, is divisional games, which almost screws GOOD teams, while rewarding less than average teams. Great teams, are basically irrelevant in this scenario, as they would take the division, EXCEPT in a division that contains multiple GREAT teams, AND a good team, like the AFC North this year. It is conceivable that the only losses the Bengals, the Ravens and the Steelers could end up with in a given year would be to each other. Do all three deserve to be in the playoffs? I would say yes. But, that could mean that a team like the Broncos will keep us out of the playoffs, because they happen to be outside our division, as well as playing weaker teams. I don’t suggest a division shuffle, I just don’t see why the weight of every game is not equal.
ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE
sorry, i thought i hit reply to stetzweb.
ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE
by ThaRealTruth on Jan 18, 2012 10:07 PM EST up reply actions
I guess my problem is with the shortness of the NFL season in general. I don’t believe that in a single game you get a true indication of which team is truly better. In three or four games between two teams, the difference is much clearer, as in the NBA. So if each AFC team played each other one, you’d hope that it would balance out over the full 15 games, but I can’t assume that it will.
At least with divisional games, you get a better sense of which teams are better than which others within the division, since they see each other multiple times, on each team’s field.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
i see your point
but, in the NFL, NO team plays another three or four times. Which is why winning as many games as possible is the most important thing, in the legit divisions. The lesser divisions though, only need to worry about winning around half. That sucks, to me.
ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE
by ThaRealTruth on Jan 18, 2012 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed completely. It just boils down to how we can get the best sense of the best teams with such a short schedule. I don’t think there’s necessarily a better system than what we have, as flawed as it is.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
i can accept that.
i just wanted to see if i was the lone individual out there that things the system has a flaw at all.
ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE
by ThaRealTruth on Jan 19, 2012 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
Definitely not. I think the last few years have provided enough evidence of that. Although, you’ll notice that both this year and last year (Seatlle) the scrub team made it to the divisional round…
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
slight tweak is all thats needed
letting the division winner get in is great for the league, creates leagues within leagues which creates rivalries for every fan of every team. HOWEVER, no more of this home-field advantage for division winners rule. I hate that. Every team that wins a division gets a spot but seeding and home-field advantage should be done squarely on record.
This even grates my passive cheese - LeClaire Bill
by poz on Jan 19, 2012 12:27 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think it all comes down to,
as a fan when you go and look at the standings, do you want to see 2 lists of 16 teams, or do you want to see subgroups. I love the element that subgroups add, almost another dimension to football theory. Its like in political science, are electoral votes necessarily a good idea/fair instead of just using a national popular vote? Its very debatable. But do they make elections way more interesting? Definitely in my opinion. And since the whole point of football is to be interesting, I like the extra elements that divisions in football adds. Whether its “fair” or not. :P
by Xaviermw on Jan 19, 2012 12:48 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
also
ever since they started putting lots of divisional games at the end of the year, the divisional system helps to create meaningful – and barring that, interesting – matchups late in the season
Rec’d…… Rec’d……. and Rec’d.
Call me old fashioned. Cause I am.
The system now sets up massive drama over the last 4 weeks.
Anything can happen.
Especially, as you say, the last few weeks of play, using only division teams playing each other, makes it sooooo awesome.
"My new cat just farted on my lap. Smells like Bills football." BG.
by SERGEANT MAJOR THOR on Jan 19, 2012 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
Rec’d for the electoral college analogy lol
by inthegaddadavida on Jan 19, 2012 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Things to know about NFL men who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
