IGotWorms Posted January 2, 2011 Posted January 2, 2011 So Oakland has become the first team to sweep its division but not go to the playoffs. They finished 8-8. Kansas City won the division because they finished 10-6, but they were also 2-4 in the division. San Diego will finish at either 8-8 or 9-7 (depending on the Denver game), but either way they will only be 2-4 or 3-3 in the division. So this got me to thinking: if you have beaten EVERY other team in your division TWICE, shouldn't you win the division regardless? How can Kansas City be considered the "better team" when Oakland played much better against them and all common division opponents? My proposal is that if you go undefeated in the division, you automatically win the division regardless of your overall record. Right now division record serves as a tie-breaker. My proposal would tend to make division games even more important than non-division games than they already are. But isn't that a good thing? And wouldn't it be fair to reward the team that dominated its own division regardless of how they fared outside the division? Quote
lambert58 Posted January 2, 2011 Posted January 2, 2011 So only 6 games out of 16 should matter? Interesting. Quote
WhiteWonder Posted January 2, 2011 Posted January 2, 2011 my proposal is they win more than 8 games. sweeping the division is impressive but what if your division is full of garbage teams like the NFC West? Should you be rewarded because you beat all of those teams but couldn't ever beat a legit NFL team? Don't get me wrong, the Chargers and Chiefs are not garbage but Oakland should have won more total games. Where would you draw the line? What if your team was 7-9 and 7-1 in the division but there was another team in your division that was a 10 win team but only 2-6 in the division? Couldn't you argue that you should win the division because you went 7-1? Quote
IGotWorms Posted January 2, 2011 Author Posted January 2, 2011 my proposal is they win more than 8 games. sweeping the division is impressive but what if your division is full of garbage teams like the NFC West? Should you be rewarded because you beat all of those teams but couldn't ever beat a legit NFL team? Don't get me wrong, the Chargers and Chiefs are not garbage but Oakland should have won more total games. Where would you draw the line? What if your team was 7-9 and 7-1 in the division but there was another team in your division that was a 10 win team but only 2-6 in the division? Couldn't you argue that you should win the division because you went 7-1? Each team only has six division games now after realignment. Although that will change if the NFL is actually stupid enough to go to an 18 game season. Anyway, I draw the line at undefeated, as in 6-0. Because more than one team could finish 5-1 in their division AND because the whole point of my proposal is that you have DOMINATED the rest of your division. If you are merely really good in your division, well then too bad if you didn't win enough outside of it. But if you beat every other team in your division twice, on the road and at home, then how could anyone honestly contend that some other team in that division is a "better" team? Quote
WhiteWonder Posted January 2, 2011 Posted January 2, 2011 Each team only has six division games now after realignment. Although that will change if the NFL is actually stupid enough to go to an 18 game season. Anyway, I draw the line at undefeated, as in 6-0. Because more than one team could finish 5-1 in their division AND because the whole point of my proposal is that you have DOMINATED the rest of your division. If you are merely really good in your division, well then too bad if you didn't win enough outside of it. But if you beat every other team in your division twice, on the road and at home, then how could anyone honestly contend that some other team in that division is a "better" team? haha yeah. i guess im living in the past regarding 8 games Quote
lambert58 Posted January 2, 2011 Posted January 2, 2011 Each team only has six division games now after realignment. Although that will change if the NFL is actually stupid enough to go to an 18 game season. Anyway, I draw the line at undefeated, as in 6-0. Because more than one team could finish 5-1 in their division AND because the whole point of my proposal is that you have DOMINATED the rest of your division. If you are merely really good in your division, well then too bad if you didn't win enough outside of it. But if you beat every other team in your division twice, on the road and at home, then how could anyone honestly contend that some other team in that division is a "better" team? So San Diego could go 14-2. Oakland could go 6-10 and win the division over San Diego? Under your scenario that could happen and Oakland wins the division. If that happens then a team with 10+ wins could lose the wild-card to a team with 6 wins. It is great that Oakland swept the division but they still have to win more than 2 of the remaining 10 games in the season in order to qualify for the playoffs. Just my opinion. Quote
BTL99 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Wow, that's borderline retarded. I'll take it a step further.......it is 100% retarded. Dumbest ###### thing I have ever heard. The Raiders shouldn't have choked in the non-division games. Quote
IGotWorms Posted January 3, 2011 Author Posted January 3, 2011 So San Diego could go 14-2. Oakland could go 6-10 and win the division over San Diego? Under your scenario that could happen and Oakland wins the division. If that happens then a team with 10+ wins could lose the wild-card to a team with 6 wins. It is great that Oakland swept the division but they still have to win more than 2 of the remaining 10 games in the season in order to qualify for the playoffs. Just my opinion. How likely is it that a team loses twice to a divisional opponent but wins their other 14 games? I don't see that. It's much more likely that this year's AFC West scenario is the only way this plays out. You have a pretender that manages to win 9 or 10 games that wins the division over a team that swept the whole division. If I have to choose between two pretenders, I'll take the one that can get things done in their own backyard. Quote
Big Blue 06 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 I see what you're getting at, but I have a bigger problem with two 10 win teams (Giants, Bucs) missing out while the NFC West winner will either have 7 or 8 wins. ALso, the fact that said West team will have a home game against an 11 win Saints team. Quote
lambert58 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 How likely is it that a team loses twice to a divisional opponent but wins their other 14 games? I don't see that. It's much more likely that this year's AFC West scenario is the only way this plays out. You have a pretender that manages to win 9 or 10 games that wins the division over a team that swept the whole division. If I have to choose between two pretenders, I'll take the one that can get things done in their own backyard. To your point, this is the first time since the merger that any team has swept their division and did not make the playoffs. In the past 40 years it has only happened once.. but it did happen. So my scenario "can" happen and then what would you do? A team with 6 wins "could" make the plaoyffs under your scenario and that isn't good for anyone. I don't know if you are a Raiders fan or not. But let's say you are. Would you be happy if the Chiefs finished 12-4, The Raiders finished 10-6, and the Broncos finished 7-9 but swept the division (not a stretch since Oakland just did it at 8-8) This would make the Broncos the division champs, knock KC to wild card (maybe) and possibly knock the Raiders out of the playoffs. The Raiders lost this year to the Titans, Cardinals, Texans, 49'rs, Dolphins, and Jags.. all non-playoff teams. If they win 2 of those games they are in the playoffs. Quote
lguero1 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 I think the team with that scores the most overall points should also be allowed into the playoffs. Not really, but that could be just as dumb as this posting. Quote
Stewburtx8 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 The Raiders just had to win 2 games total against Tennessee, Arizona, Houston, San Fran, Miami, and Jacksonville. These teams combined to go 32-58 against the rest of the league. You can't go 0-6 against these teams and be considered a playoff team, regardless of how well you played in your division. Quote
MDC Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 I have zero problems whatsoever with the playoff format as-is. I don't care that the Raiders missed the postseason and I don't care that the Seahawks will get a home playoff game. Quote
Cstriker Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 They could get the division sweep title but not the playoffs. Quote
surferskin Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 I propose that you should just start keeping these ideas to yourself. Quote
TV's Frank Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 The Raiders just had to win 2 games total against Tennessee, Arizona, Houston, San Fran, Miami, and Jacksonville. These teams combined to go 32-58 against the rest of the league. You can't go 0-6 against these teams and be considered a playoff team, regardless of how well you played in your division. This is the key. The Raiders blew several winnable games against inferior opponents. Their record in the division has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the Raiders did finish with non-losing record for the first time since Al Davis died, so they've got that going for them. Quote
lambert58 Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 This is the key. The Raiders blew several winnable games against inferior opponents. Their record in the division has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the Raiders did finish with non-losing record for the first time since Al Davis died , so they've got that going for them. Quote
IGotWorms Posted January 4, 2011 Author Posted January 4, 2011 To your point, this is the first time since the merger that any team has swept their division and did not make the playoffs. In the past 40 years it has only happened once.. but it did happen. So my scenario "can" happen and then what would you do? A team with 6 wins "could" make the plaoyffs under your scenario and that isn't good for anyone. I don't know if you are a Raiders fan or not. But let's say you are. Would you be happy if the Chiefs finished 12-4, The Raiders finished 10-6, and the Broncos finished 7-9 but swept the division (not a stretch since Oakland just did it at 8-8) This would make the Broncos the division champs, knock KC to wild card (maybe) and possibly knock the Raiders out of the playoffs. The Raiders lost this year to the Titans, Cardinals, Texans, 49'rs, Dolphins, and Jags.. all non-playoff teams. If they win 2 of those games they are in the playoffs. No I'm not a Raiders fan. I'm a Pats fan and I like the Chiefs much, much more than the Raiders (because of the Pioli connection and because they seem to have great fans). However, what most people seem to be missing here is that the most important thing in the NFL is to take care of your own division. So when a team manages to win every single game in their division, I think that should mean something. Otherwise why do we even bother having divisions at all? Why not just have all 32 teams lumped into one set of standings and the top 12 go to the playoffs? Quote
listen2me 23 Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Dumbest thing I've read on here today. Like was mentioned earlier....if you win all 6 division games....how about beat more than 2 other teams? That will do the trick. Everyone is freaking out over these issues this year, even though it is the 1st time they happened in the history of the NFL. Can you say knee-jerk reaction? Quote
JT Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Same crap people were spouting when Arizona..."the worst playoff team in history" according to Collinsworth...snuck in a couple years ago. Snuck in all the way to the Super Bowl. Not a fan of the NFC West, but I'm not any more impressed by Kansas City winning the crapfest that is the AFC West than I am by Seattle winning. There aren't more than a handful of good teams in the league. People want to go to bat for Oakland? Tampa? Giants? Please. Quote
jaxjag Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 How likely is it that a team loses twice to a divisional opponent but wins their other 14 games? I don't see that. It's much more likely that this year's AFC West scenario is the only way this plays out. You have a pretender that manages to win 9 or 10 games that wins the division over a team that swept the whole division. If I have to choose between two pretenders, I'll take the one that can get things done in their own backyard. Had the Patriots beaten the Browns and played the Jets ... say in week 17 - that scenario could have happened. It didn't miss by much! How likely is it that a team can sweep their division... but lose almost all their other games? That doesn't seem likely either but it just happened. In fact, sweeping your division seems much easier when you consider there is often two over matched teams. Then it is just of matter of "protecting this house" against your main foe and winning a single competitive division game on the road. Not that difficult and a huge leg up on the division race. Now if you can't win enough of the remaining games... Hello Raiders! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.