Me_2006 14 Posted January 5, 2010 The NFL was "tainted" by the Patriot film scandal and the Steelers Superbowl win over the Seahawks a few years ago. A team earning the right to do what is best for it (they aren't supposed to worry about the other teams, are they?) and acting accordingly is smart. I was pissed that my Colts didn't go for perfection, but if we had one loss or whatever, I'd be even more pissed if Peyton was still out there against the Jets or that mess in Buffalo yesterday. Every team starts the year 0-0 and every game starts the same way. If you guys really want to cry about teams getting "handed" something, shed your tears over strength of schedule differences. It's fairly easy, win your division, and you're in. If you don't, you run the risk of not making the playoffs. A team that goes 10-6 against a weak schedule getting in over a team that went 9-7 against the most difficult one in the league is far more unfair than teams "laying down" in week 16 or 17. any time there is a playoff scenario, teams that barely miss making the tournament get mad. The NCAA tourney has "bubble" teams that miss every single year. Some miss out because a small school wins their pitiful conference tourney and takes one of the automatic bids, but at the end of the day, YOUR TEAM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS OWN SUCCESS AND FAILURE. How do you expect to win the Superbowl (which is the point of making the playoffs, right?) if you can't beat the teams necessary to even make the playoffs? It's a fairly simple concept, folks. as for fans, please stop acting all outraged or surprised that teams rest their players. It's happened for several years now. How would you feel if Brady had missed week one coming back from the injury to get properly healed? What's the difference? Exactly. Ya know what's more "tainted" than a half-assed week 17? A playoff matchup with Curtis Painter or JT O'Sullivan under center. Those are your potential options. And I guarantee you everyone had rather see a full strength playoffs than a full strength meaningless game. Sorry if your team wont be part of it, but it's not the place of the other 31 teams to give a damn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 66 Posted January 5, 2010 I disagree with the notion that they've necessarily earned the right to grumble, and I also disagree with your contention regarding the ridiculous argument. To me, this is all about risk mitigation. At the start of the season every NFL team controls their own destiny - if a team performs to a certain level, then there is no risk of them not making the playoffs. Houston's performance allowed risk to be introduced to their equation, as it put them in a situation of having to rely on something out of their control (the performance of another team) to get them into the playoffs. Houston had plenty of opportunity to eliminate this risk by performing better (something in their control) in at least one of their seven losses. They didn't, and must now face the consequences of the risk they took in having their playoff hopes depend on someone else's performance. I think this can also be said regarding the "horrible call" scenario. By performing well enough to make a horrible call at the end of a game inconsequential, the risk of losing a game due to that call is eliminated. I hear what you're saying. The idea that everyone starts with their destiny in their hands has merit. You could argue, from that standpoint, that Houston should have done more. The problem is, they didn't simply fail to meet an expected standard; they were set in comparison to other teams, also expected to perform to a certain level throughout the course of that same season, to set themselves in position for the same prize that the Texans were. Through 14 weeks, both teams were 7-7. That is what they accomplished, what each team was responsible for. The last two weeks became a task for one team - Houston - who played two competitive teams to work their mark to 7-7. The other had two teams virtually - almost literally - forfeit their games against them. Was that because the Jets set themselves in better position with the way they played? I'm inclined to think no. I would say that it was more because they were gifted with two of the most competitive teams on their schedule at a point where those teams did not care. You can also argue that the Jets didn't do enough to put themselves in position for this not to have come so close. The difference is that they landed on the "upper side" of the argument because of the arrangement of the schedule. It's a simple contention that if the Jets played Indianapolis when Houston played them, and Houston played Indianapolis in week 16, then Houston would be in the playoffs. Unquestionably. Regarding the "horrible call" scenario, I think I said it in my preceding post. It's too simplistic and one-sided to say that a team "should have done more." It's not a track speed that they are aiming at and falling short of. They are two teams playing to an end of a game that is remarkably close . . . perhaps because both teams are balanced against each other. When a "horrible call" then decides the game, we accept the human nature of the game, and that mistakes happen, but how can we dare dismiss the abused team and its teams for being upset about it? Should San Diego have done more? You can argue that. But the reality is that they did enough . . . and then had the game taken away. Instead of looking at San Diego and arguing that they should have done more, look at Denver and ask yourself, "Did they deserve to win?" On that basis, the victims of that deserve a little leeway in venting their frustrations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,797 Posted January 5, 2010 I hear what you're saying. The idea that everyone starts with their destiny in their hands has merit. You could argue, from that standpoint, that Houston should have done more. The problem is, they didn't simply fail to meet an expected standard; they were set in comparison to other teams, also expected to perform to a certain level throughout the course of that same season, to set themselves in position for the same prize that the Texans were. Through 14 weeks, both teams were 7-7. That is what they accomplished, what each team was responsible for. The last two weeks became a task for one team - Houston - who played two competitive teams to work their mark to 7-7. The other had two teams virtually - almost literally - forfeit their games against them. Was that because the Jets set themselves in better position with the way they played? I'm inclined to think no. I would say that it was more because they were gifted with two of the most competitive teams on their schedule at a point where those teams did not care. You can also argue that the Jets didn't do enough to put themselves in position for this not to have come so close. The difference is that they landed on the "upper side" of the argument because of the arrangement of the schedule. It's a simple contention that if the Jets played Indianapolis when Houston played them, and Houston played Indianapolis in week 16, then Houston would be in the playoffs. Unquestionably. Regarding the "horrible call" scenario, I think I said it in my preceding post. It's too simplistic and one-sided to say that a team "should have done more." It's not a track speed that they are aiming at and falling short of. They are two teams playing to an end of a game that is remarkably close . . . perhaps because both teams are balanced against each other. When a "horrible call" then decides the game, we accept the human nature of the game, and that mistakes happen, but how can we dare dismiss the abused team and its teams for being upset about it? Should San Diego have done more? You can argue that. But the reality is that they did enough . . . and then had the game taken away. Instead of looking at San Diego and arguing that they should have done more, look at Denver and ask yourself, "Did they deserve to win?" On that basis, the victims of that deserve a little leeway in venting their frustrations. For what it's worth, I didn't say "horrible call," I said "ref call." Certainly a bad call leaves a sour taste, but at the end of the day, I maintain that those are part of the dynamic, and the NFL has put in place measures to minimize the effect of such calls. Similarly, I can see how a Texans fan would be sour. But successful people/organizations don't view such situations as being disenfranchised; rather, they view them as opportunities for improvement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted January 5, 2010 The Jets were given a free pass into the playoffs, bottom line, end of story... Do you ever get tired of being wrong? The Jets beat the Texans in Houston in the opener. Had the Texans won that game against a rookie QB, they would be in the playoffs. Simple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Foghorn Leghorn 0 Posted January 5, 2010 I hear what you're saying. The idea that everyone starts with their destiny in their hands has merit. You could argue, from that standpoint, that Houston should have done more. The problem is, they didn't simply fail to meet an expected standard; they were set in comparison to other teams, also expected to perform to a certain level throughout the course of that same season, to set themselves in position for the same prize that the Texans were. Through 14 weeks, both teams were 7-7. That is what they accomplished, what each team was responsible for. The last two weeks became a task for one team - Houston - who played two competitive teams to work their mark to 7-7. The other had two teams virtually - almost literally - forfeit their games against them. Was that because the Jets set themselves in better position with the way they played? I'm inclined to think no. I would say that it was more because they were gifted with two of the most competitive teams on their schedule at a point where those teams did not care. You can also argue that the Jets didn't do enough to put themselves in position for this not to have come so close. The difference is that they landed on the "upper side" of the argument because of the arrangement of the schedule. It's a simple contention that if the Jets played Indianapolis when Houston played them, and Houston played Indianapolis in week 16, then Houston would be in the playoffs. Unquestionably. Regarding the "horrible call" scenario, I think I said it in my preceding post. It's too simplistic and one-sided to say that a team "should have done more." It's not a track speed that they are aiming at and falling short of. They are two teams playing to an end of a game that is remarkably close . . . perhaps because both teams are balanced against each other. When a "horrible call" then decides the game, we accept the human nature of the game, and that mistakes happen, but how can we dare dismiss the abused team and its teams for being upset about it? Should San Diego have done more? You can argue that. But the reality is that they did enough . . . and then had the game taken away. Instead of looking at San Diego and arguing that they should have done more, look at Denver and ask yourself, "Did they deserve to win?" On that basis, the victims of that deserve a little leeway in venting their frustrations. I agree wholeheartedly that Houston got the raw end of the deal, and that the Jets were the beneficiaries of some serendipitous scheduling and results leading up to yesterday. And yes, if the roles were reversed, then Houston would be in the playoffs. But to me, that helps illustrate what can happen when you leave things to a chance situation that's out of your control - merit and "deserving to get in" have no impact on the outcome, and it comes down to blind luck. In the Texans' case, it could be argued that their own carelessness (blowing a 17-0 lead at home against the very same Colts) contributed to their predicament as much as the Jets fortuitous luck - hold onto that lead instead of folding, and yesterday would have been a moot point. Some might argue further that a team that blows a 17-0 lead at home in what was, even at the time, essentially a "must-win game", perhaps doesn't merit a playoff spot as much as first thought (I'm not necessarily agreeing with the argument, just positing it as an argument that might have some basis for further discussion). Regarding the "horrible call" scenario, the way I view it is that there is always something a team could have done better in a game, even if it's a close game between two balanced teams - something that could have prevented what amounts to a 50/50 call deciding the outcome of a game. In your example, I would argue that San Diego did enough to put themselves in a position to let a controversial call win or lose the game for them, but not that they did enough to win period. Now, that being said....I do understand that it's human nature to want to vent frustrations, and don't hold any grudges against Houston if they do so. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics in questioning whether they earned the right to do so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Foghorn Leghorn 0 Posted January 5, 2010 For what it's worth, I didn't say "horrible call," I said "ref call." Certainly a bad call leaves a sour taste, but at the end of the day, I maintain that those are part of the dynamic, and the NFL has put in place measures to minimize the effect of such calls. Similarly, I can see how a Texans fan would be sour. But successful people/organizations don't view such situations as being disenfranchised; rather, they view them as opportunities for improvement. I was actually going to mention the same thing in my previous post, but forgot to. I'm glad you mentioned it, because I couldn't agree more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doughboys_2002 11 Posted January 5, 2010 Do you ever get tired of being wrong? The Jets beat the Texans in Houston in the opener. Had the Texans won that game against a rookie QB, they would be in the playoffs. Simple. If the Jets didn't play two teams that benched there starters Houston would be in there place. Simple! Houson earned it, Jets were handed it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,735 Posted January 5, 2010 my thought on this 1. Any team in position to sit players and keep them healthy for the playoffs has earned that right by playing well enough all season. 2. I understand the NFL is a business and they want to see the best product on the field, but teams also have to answer to their fans and ticket holders who I'm sure would like to see Wes Welker on the field come playoff time. 16-0 is a nice accomplishment, and I would personally have tried for it but NFL teams are measured in championships. The Patriots won 18 straight games but they didn't get to hoist the hardware. Offering extra draft picks is really no incentive. You can't force players to try hard, only to be on the field and why would they wan't to be on the field? to gain draft choices that could be their potential replacements? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Franknbeans 46 Posted January 5, 2010 it's cool, KSB lost all board cred in the Tiger thread anyway Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewburtx8 67 Posted January 5, 2010 Great post, craw. Especially the part about the inferior product seeping into the playoffs. The entire NFL product has been dumbed down, except for a handful of monster teams. The Steelers simply needed to win one of those games that they should have won and we wouldnt be talking about this right now. That being said - The focking Jets are just lousy in every way. They have ONE good player(Revis) and thats about it. They are excruciatingly boring to watch, they have NO offense, and have no business being in the playoffs. I thought the same thing at first...wow the Jets aren't a very good team. BUT this is just because they aren't an exciting team. They don't throw the ball a lot at all. BUT they are the #1 rushing team in the NFL AND the #1 defense in the NFL. That is two pretty impressive categories to lead the NFL in. This gives the Jets a chance against anyone, well until Sanchez makes a mistake to screw it up. I wouldn't say Houston, Pittsburgh or anyone else were any more deserving really. I would of liked to see the Jets play out there last two games, but I wouldn't say Houston or Pittsburgh got jobbed. Neither of those teams were that impressive this season either. At least the Jets have an identity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 The NFL was "tainted" by the Patriot film scandal and the Steelers Superbowl win over the Seahawks a few years ago. A team earning the right to do what is best for it (they aren't supposed to worry about the other teams, are they?) and acting accordingly is smart. I was pissed that my Colts didn't go for perfection, but if we had one loss or whatever, I'd be even more pissed if Peyton was still out there against the Jets or that mess in Buffalo yesterday. Every team starts the year 0-0 and every game starts the same way. If you guys really want to cry about teams getting "handed" something, shed your tears over strength of schedule differences. It's fairly easy, win your division, and you're in. If you don't, you run the risk of not making the playoffs. A team that goes 10-6 against a weak schedule getting in over a team that went 9-7 against the most difficult one in the league is far more unfair than teams "laying down" in week 16 or 17. any time there is a playoff scenario, teams that barely miss making the tournament get mad. The NCAA tourney has "bubble" teams that miss every single year. Some miss out because a small school wins their pitiful conference tourney and takes one of the automatic bids, but at the end of the day, YOUR TEAM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS OWN SUCCESS AND FAILURE. How do you expect to win the Superbowl (which is the point of making the playoffs, right?) if you can't beat the teams necessary to even make the playoffs? It's a fairly simple concept, folks. as for fans, please stop acting all outraged or surprised that teams rest their players. It's happened for several years now. How would you feel if Brady had missed week one coming back from the injury to get properly healed? What's the difference? Exactly. Ya know what's more "tainted" than a half-assed week 17? A playoff matchup with Curtis Painter or JT O'Sullivan under center. Those are your potential options. And I guarantee you everyone had rather see a full strength playoffs than a full strength meaningless game. Sorry if your team wont be part of it, but it's not the place of the other 31 teams to give a damn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 5, 2010 Do you ever get tired of being wrong? The Jets beat the Texans in Houston in the opener. Had the Texans won that game against a rookie QB, they would be in the playoffs. Simple. obtuse doesn't even begin to describe what you are. Yes, of course that game is a factor, but if the Jets are playing two teams in the last two games of the season that even GIVE A CRAP ABOUT WINNING, there's a good chance that 1st game of the season is rendered moot. If Indy has to play out the string there's no way the Jets are sitting where they are. With every post you prove yourself to be an even bigger imbecile than any of us could imagine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 5, 2010 I thought the same thing at first...wow the Jets aren't a very good team. BUT this is just because they aren't an exciting team. They don't throw the ball a lot at all. BUT they are the #1 rushing team in the NFL AND the #1 defense in the NFL. That is two pretty impressive categories to lead the NFL in. This gives the Jets a chance against anyone, well until Sanchez makes a mistake to screw it up. I wouldn't say Houston, Pittsburgh or anyone else were any more deserving really. I would of liked to see the Jets play out there last two games, but I wouldn't say Houston or Pittsburgh got jobbed. Neither of those teams were that impressive this season either. At least the Jets have an identity. and i thought the same thing, and my rant honestly isn't about the Jets, they were just the fortuitous benefactors of a flawed system. I'm not at all saying they COULDN'T have earned the playoff birth they received, I'm saying they SHOULD have earned it. If they play 2 teams intent on winning and beat them, damned right they deserve that spot in the playoffs, particularly since it was 2 playoff teams. And I thought the exact same thing you did, mainly of the old adage at the running the ball and stopping the run equal playoff success, and they do both very well. However, it doesn't change the fact that they beat two teams that clearly DID NOT care about winning, which taints the victories, the postseason and the product. Say what you want about the Lions and Rams, both those teams want desperately to win. They put their best possible product on the field every game, even if their product is the equivalent of a Yugo compared to the elite teams BMW's. But when teams put their 1982 Ford F150 out there and leave the BMW in the garage, there's something wrong... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 it's cool, KSB lost all board cred in the Tiger thread anyway Anybody wanna guess who Franknbeans favorite team is? I'll give you three guesses, but you'll only need one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadLizard 73 Posted January 5, 2010 and i thought the same thing, and my rant honestly isn't about the Jets, they were just the fortuitous benefactors of a flawed system. I'm not at all saying they COULDN'T have earned the playoff birth they received, I'm saying they SHOULD have earned it. If they play 2 teams intent on winning and beat them, damned right they deserve that spot in the playoffs, particularly since it was 2 playoff teams. And I thought the exact same thing you did, mainly of the old adage at the running the ball and stopping the run equal playoff success, and they do both very well. However, it doesn't change the fact that they beat two teams that clearly DID NOT care about winning, which taints the victories, the postseason and the product. Say what you want about the Lions and Rams, both those teams want desperately to win. They put their best possible product on the field every game, even if their product is the equivalent of a Yugo compared to the elite teams BMW's. But when teams put their 1982 Ford F150 out there and leave the BMW in the garage, there's something wrong... Agreed again. The Jets are exactly the kind of team that the world does NOT want to make the playoffs, especially in the horrificly cheesey manner that they did. The only worse thing I can remember is the Patriots making the Super Bowl with that horrendous FUMBLE errr...um... tuck rule call. Thats still the worst call in the history of sports. Just sickening. Honestly, the NFL playoffs are flawed because by playing only one game, it puts too much emphasis on chance, weather, and one or two bad calls. At least in the other sports, the seven game series weed out the pretenders and the cream always rises to the top. You cant get lucky or live on bad calls for 4 games out of 7. The one hit wonders get eliminated in that system. The NFL ends up with too many bad matchups and in many cases the WRONG teams make the Super Bowl or knock out the fun teams, hence ruining the Super Bowl. I know, I know...you cant play a seven game series in football. So, the entire playoff system is somewhat of a crapshoot as it is. Meh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 and i thought the same thing, and my rant honestly isn't about the Jets, they were just the fortuitous benefactors of a flawed system. I'm not at all saying they COULDN'T have earned the playoff birth they received, I'm saying they SHOULD have earned it. If they play 2 teams intent on winning and beat them, damned right they deserve that spot in the playoffs, particularly since it was 2 playoff teams. And I thought the exact same thing you did, mainly of the old adage at the running the ball and stopping the run equal playoff success, and they do both very well. However, it doesn't change the fact that they beat two teams that clearly DID NOT care about winning, which taints the victories, the postseason and the product. Say what you want about the Lions and Rams, both those teams want desperately to win. They put their best possible product on the field every game, even if their product is the equivalent of a Yugo compared to the elite teams BMW's. But when teams put their 1982 Ford F150 out there and leave the BMW in the garage, there's something wrong... There were 256 NFL games this season. Maybe 4 of them had it where a team rested it's players in weeks 16/17. So what you are telling me that the whole NFL is 'flawed' because only 1.5% of all the games had it where the starters didn't play the whole game. Are you still whining about that 1.5%? Get over it. Unless all the teams play the exact same schedule then it will never be 100% fair because one team will play an easier schedule than another. If the Cav's have wrapped up the 1 seed in April and LeBron has a small tweak in his ankle or seems tired, guess what? He will sit out a couple games. Maybe the Cav's play teams fighting for the 8th seed in the East that week. Same in baseball with a pitcher. Same in all sports. It's called a playoff system, and there will always be "the team that was left out". I'll ask you again. Would you rather have a BCS type system then? I didn't think so. I'm being honest when I say you guys are way to close to this topic right now. It's understandable, but if you can't see where you are whining because your team was close to making it then I don't know what to tell you. Seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadLizard 73 Posted January 5, 2010 I'll ask you again. Would you rather have a BCS type system then? I didn't think so. Actually, a BCS system would be GREAT for fantasy football since scoring asnd margin of victory would be important and fantasy players stats would go up for sure. However, it would probably suck for the real NFL. The lack of a playoff and BCS system is one of many reasons I find college football to be the gayhest sh!t on the planet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 5, 2010 There were 256 NFL games this season. Maybe 4 of them had it where a team rested it's players in weeks 16/17. So what you are telling me that the whole NFL is 'flawed' because only 1.5% of all the games had it where the starters didn't play the whole game. Are you still whining about that 1.5%? Get over it. Unless all the teams play the exact same schedule then it will never be 100% fair because one team will play an easier schedule than another. If the Cav's have wrapped up the 1 seed in April and LeBron has a small tweak in his ankle or seems tired, guess what? He will sit out a couple games. Maybe the Cav's play teams fighting for the 8th seed in the East that week. Same in baseball with a pitcher. Same in all sports. It's called a playoff system, and there will always be "the team that was left out". I'll ask you again. Would you rather have a BCS type system then? I didn't think so. I'm being honest when I say you guys are way to close to this topic right now. It's understandable, but if you can't see where you are whining because your team was close to making it then I don't know what to tell you. Seriously. You can minimize with whatever #'s you want. I can see, and understand, both sides of this debate. However, in 100% of the Jets last two games they faced teams with no intention of winning a game. It's not about the Jets, or the Texans, or the Steelers, or the Colts and Bengals. It's about the most important time of the NFL season being important. If the Jets have to play two teams hell-bent on winning, it changes the ENTIRE scope of the playoffs. Sincerely, I hope it comes back to bite the Colts (again) and the Bengals for resting their players. I didn't like it any other season it was done, and don't like it now. This isn't the NBA. It's not an 82 game marathon season with best of 7 matchups. It's 16 games, then win or go home. The longest entire season is 20 games for any one team. That's 3 playoff series for NBA guys, so leave your oranges out of the apple conversation, please... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 Just go back and read Me2006's post, and jerryskids too. Try to have some persective and quit your whining. On second thought, don't, it's becoming entertaining. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Franknbeans 46 Posted January 5, 2010 Anybody wanna guess who Franknbeans favorite team is? I'll give you three guesses, but you'll only need one. oooh, you caught me, all except for the part where I complained about any of it. What the hell happened to you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 oooh, you caught me, all except for the part where I complained about any of it. What the hell happened to you? Are you gonna contribute to the thread at all? Or do you just troll? Also, what do you mean what happened? Most of the relevant posters in this thread agree with me. (Me2006, FeelinMN, jerryskids, surferskin, edjr ect.) Most all have the outside perspective and aren't using hyperbole like "tainted" and "ruined". Save for crazy ass Phurfur the rest that continue to have this hoooooge problem and think the NFL playoffs are now somehow ruined are Steeler fans. So exactly how am I off or out there? TIA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 5, 2010 Are you gonna contribute to the thread at all? Or do you just troll? I didn't realize you were enrolled in the flahawker school of bored manners. I'm really sorry you didn't get what you wanted for Christmas, but your attitude sucks man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 I didn't realize you were enrolled in the flahawker school of bored manners. I'm really sorry you didn't get what you wanted for Christmas, but your attitude sucks man. It was an honest question. He brought up Tiger Woods in a football thread, and didn't even offer an opinion on the topic. That would be trolling...No? Why is it wrong to ask if he actually has an opinion on the topic at hand? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 5, 2010 It was an honest question. He brought up Tiger Woods in a football thread, and didn't even offer an opinion on the topic. That would be trolling...No? Why is it wrong to ask if he actually has an opinion on the topic at hand? and yet you started it with your "anybody wanna guess that team frankenbeans roots for comment"? that's a lot of value-added right??? he's given his opinion, you disagree and you're on your "only whiners who's team lost out on this are even posting in this thread" soapbox. usually you string together very well thought out and informed arguments...you've just chosen not to do so in this thread, your perogative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 and yet you started it with your "anybody wanna guess that team frankenbeans roots for comment"? that's a lot of value-added right??? he's given his opinion, you disagree and you're on your "only whiners who's team lost out on this are even posting in this thread" soapbox. usually you string together very well thought out and informed arguments...you've just chosen not to do so in this thread, your perogative. No he hasn't. Please show me where. Both his posts in this thread were him trolling with no real opinion on the subject and topic at hand. You're not reading this thread and talking out of your ass. Also, it's not a soapbox. It's an observation. The four or five most "outraged" guys in this thread are all Steeler fans (save for phurfur). That is an observation. I didn't make it up out of thin air. There have been multiple posts by me, Me2006, and jerryskids. I've yet to see any quoting or response from those. Just more of this. Therefore I will dumb it down for you with three questions that you hopefully don't skip over this time. 1. Would you prefer a BCS type system? 2. Do you agree that any NFL system will never be 100% fair because the schedules are already not the same? 3. What do you propose as a better championship determining system that is feasible? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joelmrut 4 Posted January 5, 2010 Just go back and read Me2006's post, and jerryskids too. Try to have some persective and quit your whining. On second thought, don't, it's becoming entertaining. After re-reading this posts this is the dumbest sh!t ever. We has a winner. Someone whining about other people whining. Classic! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 5, 2010 No he hasn't. Please show me where. Both his posts in this thread where him trolling with no real opinion on the subject and topic at hand. You're not reading this thread and talking out of your ass. Also, it's not a soapbox. It's an observation. The four or five most "outraged" guys in this thread are all Steeler fans (save for phurfur). That is an observation. I didn't make it up. There have been multiple posts by me, Me2006, and jerryskids. I've yet to see any quoting or response from those. Just more of this. Therefore I will dumb it down for you with three questions that you hopefully don't skip over this time. 1. Would you prefer a BCS type system? 2. Do you agree that any NFL system will never be 100% fair because the schedules are already not the same? 3. What do you propose as a better championship determining system that is feasible? 1. Speaking of reading the thread, I've answered this one. However, in the interest of keeping it simple...No. The BCS system sucks for college football and would bring a whole 'nother level of suck to the NFL. 2. Again, speaking of reading the thread, I've also answered this one. However, again in the interest of keeping it simple...Yes, I agree it likely won't ever be completely fair but have acknowledged that some "minor" tweaks, like those suggested by Mike and Mike, may add an additional level of fairness, interest and importance to the late season games. 3. There is no better system out there, but that doesn't mean you can't improve on what is already the best. That's my chief complaint and also the words of Roger Goodell, who also realizes that the events that took place in the last two weeks of the season impacted the product he oversees adversely. If the commissioner of the NFL can see it's an issue, why can't you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 66 Posted January 5, 2010 1. Speaking of reading the thread, I've answered this one. However, in the interest of keeping it simple...No. The BCS system sucks for college football and would bring a whole 'nother level of suck to the NFL.2. Again, speaking of reading the thread, I've also answered this one. However, again in the interest of keeping it simple...Yes, I agree it likely won't ever be completely fair but have acknowledged that some "minor" tweaks, like those suggested by Mike and Mike, may add an additional level of fairness, interest and importance to the late season games. 3. There is no better system out there, but that doesn't mean you can't improve on what is already the best. That's my chief complaint and also the words of Roger Goodell, who also realizes that the events that took place in the last two weeks of the season impacted the product he oversees adversely. If the commissioner of the NFL can see it's an issue, why can't you? Goodell's a Steelers fan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 5, 2010 Goodell's a Steelers fan. Ok, stop it Dan, now you're egging KSB on Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 1. Speaking of reading the thread, I've answered this one. However, in the interest of keeping it simple...No. The BCS system sucks for college football and would bring a whole 'nother level of suck to the NFL.2. Again, speaking of reading the thread, I've also answered this one. However, again in the interest of keeping it simple...Yes, I agree it likely won't ever be completely fair but have acknowledged that some "minor" tweaks, like those suggested by Mike and Mike, may add an additional level of fairness, interest and importance to the late season games. 3. There is no better system out there, but that doesn't mean you can't improve on what is already the best. That's my chief complaint and also the words of Roger Goodell, who also realizes that the events that took place in the last two weeks of the season impacted the product he oversees adversely. If the commissioner of the NFL can see it's an issue, why can't you? So we agree then, while not a perfectly 100% system, it's the best out there. And therefore saying the NFL is "tainted" is only hyperbole and whining by fans of the team that got left out. Tweaking the schedule is working within the confines of normal play. That's fine and was discussed two pages ago; hell I broght it up myself (therefore your last sentence makes no sense). However that doesn't mean this years playoffs are somehow "unfair", or "tainted", or "ruined". Saying all that is just whining. HTH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 5, 2010 So we agree then, while not a perfectly 100% system, it's the best out there. And therefore saying the NFL is "tainted" is only hyperbole and whining. Tweaking the schedule is working within the confines of normal play. That's fine and was discussed two pages ago, hell I broght it up myself (therefore you last sentence makes no sense). However that doesn't mean this years playoffs are somehow "unfair", or "tainted", or "ruined". Saying all that is just whining. HTH Yes, we are in agreement...no matter what anybody else, including the commissioner of the NFL, says, all you see/hear is: "blah blah blah (whining) blah blah blah" thanks for your complete lack of contribution to this thread... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 thanks for your complete lack of contribution to this thread... I'm the one that brought up tweaking the schedule (in this thread). How is that not contributing? I'll hang up and listen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,586 Posted January 5, 2010 Goddell is a fan of himself, not football Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 5, 2010 I'm the one that brought up tweaking the schedule (in this thread). How is that not contributing? I'll hang up and listen. you hung up and stopped listening when you played the "whiner" card Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spongeballer 2 Posted January 5, 2010 Introduce the ultimate flex schedule for weeks 16 and 17. Complete all division and conference games by week 15. For weeks 16 and 17, flex the teams that are in contention to play each other. While your at it, flex the teams that have clinched against each other too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Franknbeans 46 Posted January 5, 2010 Are you gonna contribute to the thread at all? Or do you just troll? Also, what do you mean what happened? Most of the relevant posters in this thread agree with me. (Me2006, FeelinMN, jerryskids, surferskin, edjr ect.) Most all have the outside perspective and aren't using hyperbole like "tainted" and "ruined". Save for crazy ass Phurfur the rest that continue to have this hoooooge problem and think the NFL playoffs are now somehow ruined are Steeler fans. So exactly how am I off or out there? TIA I never said I had problem with it nor did the other Steeler fans that I read but you keep insisting otherwise. It's like you went to the Newbie school of trolling and flunked out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 you hung up and stopped listening when you played the "whiner" card If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck. It's prolly a duck. I didn't have to "play" anything. It is as plain as day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 I never said I had problem with it Exactly. You never said you did have a problem or you didn't. You never offered any opinion on the actual topic. I merely asked if you had one. Are you gonna share your opinion on the thread topic or not? It's a simple question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Franknbeans 46 Posted January 5, 2010 Exactly. You never said you did have a problem or you didn't. You never offered any opinion on the actual topic. I merely asked if you had one. Are you gonna share your opinion on the thread topic or not? It's a simple question. I just did. or do you want an opinion on your suggestion? What the hell do you want? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 5, 2010 nor did the other Steeler fans that I read So what does the thread title mean? The OP has no problem with it so he creates a thread saying the NFL is "tainted"? Reading comprehension not a strong suit..eh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites