Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   Giants coach on visit to Philly: "I'll probably wear a helmet because my in-laws are already buying batteries''   (nypost.com) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

311 clicks; posted to Sports » on 21 Oct 2020 at 10:10 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



10 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-21 10:43:42 PM  
Between this and the Cowboys/Football Team game, if Dallas & Philly both lose, the NFC East division leaders will be tied at 2-5.

I am pretty confident that the NFL has never had division leaders at 3 games under .500 at any point in a season... if someone wants to correct me there, but, I'm pretty sure we've never seen that.

Even that year Seattle won the West at 7-9, the worst games under .500 record were 6-8 at any point.

I know people think expansion will be bad for the NFL, but, the NFL really needs to get to a point where they can get back to 3 divisions per conference, so, expand to 36 teams, and get to 3 6-team divisions.

At that point, you have 3 division winners and 4 wild card teams make the playoffs... you might extremely rarely at that point have a division winner be worse than all the wild card teams, but, it won't be nearly as likely as it has been (4 div + 2 wc before this year).  And you won't have a division winner under .500... just highly unlikely.

Right now they do have a very even setup with how the scheduling goes (each team plays 4 1st place, 4 2nd place, 4 3rd place, 4 4th place teams from the previous year).  Obviously, with divisional differences in strength of teams SoS still changes, but, the 4/4/4/4 is always steady and about as fair as you can make it.

I'm not sure how that would be able to work as evenly with 6 6-team divisions, but, they'd work something out (your schedule would likely be much more in-division... 10 games as opposed to only 6 now).

Maybe you could get rid of the concept of AFC/NFC, and just have 6 divisions completely geographically set, and then the out of division games are a rotation with all the teams in another 6-team division every year (so, you'll play each team out of division once every 5 years).  Playoffs would be a 14-team setup regardless w/o conference setup (Top 2 division winners get a bye, next 4 division winners and 8 wild-cards play in opening round).

Let's say your expansion is St. Louis, San Antonio, Mexico City, and London (just to give the NFL the foreign team they want).

The "Keep Dallas Happy" divisions:
Northeast - NYG, DAL, NE, LON, PHL, PIT
Eastern - NYJ, BAL, WAS, CIN, CLE, BUF
Southeast - CAR, ATL, JAX, TB, MIA, TEN
Central - DET, CHI, IND, GB, MIN, STL
South - KC, DEN, HOU, SA, NO, MEX
West - SEA, SF, LAR, LAC, LV, ARZ

The "Get with Geography Dallas" divisions:
Northeast - NYG, NYJ, NE, LON, PHL, PIT
Eastern - BAL, WAS, CIN, CLE, BUF, TEN
Southeast - CAR, ATL, JAX, TB, MIA, NO
Central - DET, CHI, IND, GB, MIN, STL
South - KC, DEN, DAL, HOU, SA, MEX
West - SEA, SF, LAR, LAC, LV, ARZ
 
2020-10-21 11:06:59 PM  

dletter: Reasoned post ...


Well, I say fark all of that.

Keep the divisions and wild cards as they are. If that leads to the occasional 11-5 team getting farked out of the playoffs in favor of a 7-9 division winner so be it. Should that division winner advance to the second round they've proven they're not total garbage.

The only change I'd propose is that any division winner 8-8 or worse should lose home field advantage to a wild card team with a winning record.
 
2020-10-22 12:48:53 AM  

Riothamus: dletter: Reasoned post ...

Well, I say fark all of that.

Keep the divisions and wild cards as they are. If that leads to the occasional 11-5 team getting farked out of the playoffs in favor of a 7-9 division winner so be it. Should that division winner advance to the second round they've proven they're not total garbage.

The only change I'd propose is that any division winner 8-8 or worse should lose home field advantage to a wild card team with a winning record.


The system worked perfectly fine till they pointlessly farked it up by adding a 7th seed. It isn't like 8-8 or worse teams enter the playoffs, let alone win divisions, all the time.

The last 8-8 team that won a division was the 2011-12 Broncos (the Tim Tebow team), and that's because was a 3-way tie for first in the AFC West. And the last time that an 8-8 team got a wildcard spot was the 2006-07 Giants, who summarily went one-and-done.

There's been only 2 times in the entirety of NFL history that a sub-0.500 team won their division: the 2010-11 Seahawks (7-9) and the 2014-15 Panthers (7-8-1), and even then, they didn't go far in the playoffs.

Expanding to 7+ seeds means more 8-8 or worse teams sneaking into the playoffs, not fewer.

To whit, the only time to date that there were more than 6 seeds in an NFL postseason were the 1982-83 playoffs, and that was due to the strike-shortened season. The lowest two seeds were the Patriots (5-4), Buccaneers (5-4), Lions (4-5), and Browns (4-5), all of whom went one-and-done.
 
2020-10-22 5:46:28 AM  
The Patriots created a dynasty playing in a total trainwreck of a division.
 
2020-10-22 8:47:46 AM  
Along with term limits for Congress, I feel there should be accountability in pro sports ownership. In addition to diversity, let's get rid of the wannabes and meddlers, and those using the franchise as a tax write-off.

One championship and two playoff appearances in the previous 10 years or you're out. Maybe shorten that to eight years. Make all teams spend up to the salary cap and install ownership groups capable of doing so.

If you're a Steinbrenner during the 80s, you lose your franchise. If you're a Schneider, you lose your franchise. If the Browns need to look beyond Ohio's borders, so be it.

The NFC East is snakebit, but they've been collectively lousy for several years.  Dallas has a bad defense and lost their franchise QB. Washington switched QBs, but seems flailing. I can't explain what's going on with the green team in Pennsylvania, as they have much of the staff and personnel in place from their alleged title run.

As for my Giants, I can't explain one fluke playoff one-and-done since the 2011 championship. Eli was chosen over Coughlin, but they're on their third coach since letting him go. Losing Saquon didn't help, but their last two GMs don't seem to know what a good offensive lineman is.

As a fan of the most important team in that division, and the NFL really (league would've folded if the Giants didn't form in 1925), I am okay with the NFC East not being invited to the playoffs, even if my team manages two or three more wins and wins the division.
 
2020-10-22 10:45:35 AM  

YabbaDabbaDouchebag: Along with term limits for Congress, I feel there should be accountability in pro sports ownership. In addition to diversity, let's get rid of the wannabes and meddlers, and those using the franchise as a tax write-off.

One championship and two playoff appearances in the previous 10 years or you're out. Maybe shorten that to eight years. Make all teams spend up to the salary cap and install ownership groups capable of doing so.

If you're a Steinbrenner during the 80s, you lose your franchise. If you're a Schneider, you lose your franchise. If the Browns need to look beyond Ohio's borders, so be it.

The NFC East is snakebit, but they've been collectively lousy for several years.  Dallas has a bad defense and lost their franchise QB. Washington switched QBs, but seems flailing. I can't explain what's going on with the green team in Pennsylvania, as they have much of the staff and personnel in place from their alleged title run.

As for my Giants, I can't explain one fluke playoff one-and-done since the 2011 championship. Eli was chosen over Coughlin, but they're on their third coach since letting him go. Losing Saquon didn't help, but their last two GMs don't seem to know what a good offensive lineman is.

As a fan of the most important team in that division, and the NFL really (league would've folded if the Giants didn't form in 1925), I am okay with the NFC East not being invited to the playoffs, even if my team manages two or three more wins and wins the division.


Sounds like arguments for relegation
 
2020-10-22 1:57:04 PM  

johnny_vegas: YabbaDabbaDouchebag: Along with term limits for Congress, I feel there should be accountability in pro sports ownership. In addition to diversity, let's get rid of the wannabes and meddlers, and those using the franchise as a tax write-off.

One championship and two playoff appearances in the previous 10 years or you're out. Maybe shorten that to eight years. Make all teams spend up to the salary cap and install ownership groups capable of doing so.

If you're a Steinbrenner during the 80s, you lose your franchise. If you're a Schneider, you lose your franchise. If the Browns need to look beyond Ohio's borders, so be it.

The NFC East is snakebit, but they've been collectively lousy for several years.  Dallas has a bad defense and lost their franchise QB. Washington switched QBs, but seems flailing. I can't explain what's going on with the green team in Pennsylvania, as they have much of the staff and personnel in place from their alleged title run.

As for my Giants, I can't explain one fluke playoff one-and-done since the 2011 championship. Eli was chosen over Coughlin, but they're on their third coach since letting him go. Losing Saquon didn't help, but their last two GMs don't seem to know what a good offensive lineman is.

As a fan of the most important team in that division, and the NFL really (league would've folded if the Giants didn't form in 1925), I am okay with the NFC East not being invited to the playoffs, even if my team manages two or three more wins and wins the division.

Sounds like arguments for relegation


P&R is almost completely unusable in the U.S. for various business, geographic, and public-perception legacy reasons.
 
2020-10-22 2:02:25 PM  
Even if you kept it "within" the NFL (ie, the NFL realigns the conferences to not be "equal"... the "NFC 16" play each year for the Super Bowl, and the "AFC 16" play each year for the "AFC Championship", and the AFC champion gets to move up to the NFC the next year, swapping with the worst record NFC team.

The issue with that though is the divisions would get wonky really fast.

Another way to do it would be ALL NFC divisions East/North/South/West 4th place teams would go "down" to the AFC the next year, with the AFC first place teams coming "up".    The championship playoffs in the NFC & AFC wouldn't have any bearing except to choose a champion in the NFC (Super Bowl) and the "AFC Championship", although a wild card could win in the AFC who would not move up to the NFC the next year.

At least with that setup, divisions stay "geographic".  But, even with this setup, the NFL has just cut the value of the "AFC" TV contract dramatically, by at least half or more, as now it is seen as a "B-League"/Minor League outfit (even if all the teams are still "NFL" teams).
 
2020-10-22 4:20:46 PM  

dletter: Even if you kept it "within" the NFL (ie, the NFL realigns the conferences to not be "equal"... the "NFC 16" play each year for the Super Bowl, and the "AFC 16" play each year for the "AFC Championship", and the AFC champion gets to move up to the NFC the next year, swapping with the worst record NFC team.

The issue with that though is the divisions would get wonky really fast.

Another way to do it would be ALL NFC divisions East/North/South/West 4th place teams would go "down" to the AFC the next year, with the AFC first place teams coming "up".    The championship playoffs in the NFC & AFC wouldn't have any bearing except to choose a champion in the NFC (Super Bowl) and the "AFC Championship", although a wild card could win in the AFC who would not move up to the NFC the next year.

At least with that setup, divisions stay "geographic".  But, even with this setup, the NFL has just cut the value of the "AFC" TV contract dramatically, by at least half or more, as now it is seen as a "B-League"/Minor League outfit (even if all the teams are still "NFL" teams).


I actually agree and was just being a smart ass.
/ you laid out the argument a lot better than I could've
 
2020-10-22 6:13:28 PM  

johnny_vegas: I actually agree and was just being a smart ass.
/ you laid out the argument a lot better than I could've


Thanks.

The converse is why "does" it still work for soccer in England (the "Soccer Pyramid"):
* Small geographic area country, the size of Illinois
* Traditional (since 1888, First Division and then Premiere League being the top of the Pyramid)
* Totally different format/expectations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englis​h_​football_league_system ) , there are literally thousands of teams in the entire pyramid.  Someone could be at level 8, and, in 15 years, get to the premier league, technically (although there are funding, etc. issues that would make that unlikely I'd guess), but, technically possible.  Let me know the NFL setting up a system where some "Moline Jackhammers" at "Semi-Pro" level 8 are going to be let into the NFL within 10-15 years just because they are "playing well".
* Generations of fans who don't go "Well my team is in the EFL leagues now and not in Champions League, hell with them!"
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.