4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

That's unfair, the Eagles should protest and petition the league to change the objective criteria that is used in creating the schedule so that they get an easier schedule. 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

and one with an asterisk at that over 17 games

Barkley would break it with less carries than Dickerson. And if you want to go there Dickerson has the asterisk too because it took him 2 more games then OJ

8 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Yeah... that's the rule.   Shall we visit history again?

1980 standings. 

Best record in the NFL (not just the NFC) was shared by the Eagles, Cowboys and Falcons.  The Eagles got HFA, because of tiebreakers.  And the Cowboys were a WC team, having to play while the 9-7 Minnesota Vikings got a bye, as the division winner.   In fact, the 11-5 Rams and 12-4 Cowboys played each other in the WC round, while the 9-7 Vikings got a bye as a division winner.  So unfair!  

 

Not every division is equal.  But, every team has the same opportunity as the rest of their division to be the division winner.  The fact that some are tougher than others is just fine and dandy by me.  

 

Objective application of the playoff rules being unbiasedly applied leads to fair and equitable results.  The rules are clear.  Win your division, get a benefit.  Don't win your division and you have to take the harder path.  It's been that way since time immemorial.  Just because it seems unfair according to some innate sense of 'fairness' as you want to define it, the rules apply the same to everyone.  And different divisions at different times have had their time of being the beneficiary and other times of having the harder path.  

 

But, since you've moved to the point of the camel case to try to invalidate the opposite point of view shows that you are getting emotionally charged and are no longer able to hold a rational discussion on the topic.  I won't be changing my mind, but so far, you've not created an argument that says that the current (and historical) objective rules for playoff seeding other than you feel it is an unfair practice.  Each team gets the same opportunity to win their division at the beginning of the year... and it's a race to the top of your DIVISION FIRST... and top of the CONFERENCE SECOND.  

you are using data from 1980. We are in the year 2024 and the most recent data is showing you there is a sizable change. You just choose to ignore it.

If you wanna use data from 1980 there were only 5 playoff teams in each conference. Do you wanna go back to just having five playoff teams?

Furthermore, it was just as unfair. And I can’t go back to 1980 to make the argument then that it should’ve been changed. But I can make the argument today when the data is showing you more and more often these wildcard teams are finishing with better records than some division winners.

also making the argument it’s been this way forever is not a good argument. Things Fing change. It’s why they went from 5 playoff teams to 7 playoff teams since 1980. If you are already tinkering with things might as well continue to. I hate the new kickoff rule, however, that was something the nfl had done forever and they changed it. Why? Becayse the nfl took information and data to change and try something new in an attempt to make it better. 

7 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

It’s why I used 44 years worth of data. 22 years prior to the 4 division change and after. There was already a jump going 3 to 4 division. The data has shown you over the last decade there’s a sizable shift. The last 5 years another jump and last 3 an even bigger jump.

The schedules are what they are. One year you’re gonna have a better schedule than another year. It happens. but the thing that keeps happening is some of these division winners are winning a bad divisions and being rewarded for being mediocre in a bad division with a home playoff game. It’s happened 2-6 times ever since year outside of the outlier year of 2021 where it happened 0 times. 

i’m just gonna point this out if the Eagles were in the situation that the Lions and Vikings were in, and the Eagles were forced to be the 5 seed at 14-3 and play 3 road games to get to the SB while two division winners had 4 and 5 less wins people would be blowing a gasket in here.

 

...and the divisions are what they are

When you say "it's happened" you are only looking at the records and not taking anything else into account.  A one game difference in record isn't enough to convince me that a wild card team should get a higher seed.  They obviously didn't win their division.  They may have played a far easier schedule and they may have even lost to the other team in question.  I think you'd at best just be shifting the problem somewhere else.

Akers full-time job is now trolling Cowboys fans.

 

 

37 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Nick is really the only one with skin in the game as far as the decision so it deserves to be his call.

I think Barkley has a little skin in the game as well. 

Screw the Chiefs. America wants to see the Bills vs Eagles, with those 2 fan bases tailgating in New Orleans. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

Barkley would break it with less carries than Dickerson. And if you want to go there Dickerson has the asterisk too because it took him 2 more games then OJ

And it took OJ 2 more games than Jim Brown.

Any asterisk talk is moronic.

 

 

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

...and the divisions are what they are

When you say "it's happened" you are only looking at the records and not taking anything else into account.  A one game difference in record isn't enough to convince me that a wild card team should get a higher seed.  They obviously didn't win their division.  They may have played a far easier schedule and they may have even lost to the other team in question.  I think you'd at best just be shifting the problem somewhere else.

Let me just point this out, if the NFL would’ve added a 7th playoff team before 2021 from 2013-2023, the data is even more skewed. There’s about another 5 to 6 teams that would’ve had a better record than a divisional winner as the seven seed.

I can go back through the data over the last 10 years but when going through it it was more than just 1 game in a good portion of these scenarios  

 

26 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

It’s why I used 44 years worth of data. 22 years prior to the 4 division change and after. There was already a jump going 3 to 4 division. The data has shown you over the last decade there’s a sizable shift. The last 5 years another jump and last 3 an even bigger jump.

The schedules are what they are. One year you’re gonna have a better schedule than another year. It happens. but the thing that keeps happening is some of these division winners are winning a bad divisions and being rewarded for being mediocre in a bad division with a home playoff game. It’s happened 2-6 times ever since year outside of the outlier year of 2021 where it happened 0 times. 

i’m just gonna point this out if the Eagles were in the situation that the Lions and Vikings were in, and the Eagles were forced to be the 5 seed at 14-3 and play 3 road games to get to the SB while two division winners had 4 and 5 less wins people would be blowing a gasket in here.

i’d also point out the NBA still has three divisions in each conference. The NBA was smart to do that because they figured out why are we penalizing a team if the Celtics have the best record and then the next best team in the east is the second place team. Why are they going to make those two teams face each other an entire rounder earlier then they have too and have the ratings tail off after that matchup in the semifinal 

 

Shut up, data nerd

19 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

My view is simple -- sit everyone week 18.

100% agree

26 minutes ago, NOTW said:

 

 

Good - F that Kendricks dude anyway 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Let me just point this out, if the NFL would’ve added a 7th playoff team before 2021 from 2013-2023, the data is even more skewed. There’s about another 5 to 6 teams that would’ve had a better record than a divisional winner as the seven seed.

I can go back through the data over the last 10 years but when going through it it was more than just 1 game in a lot of these scenarios  

 

It all boils down to what do you want to emphasize, division rivalries or conference records. If you remove the big incentive to winning your division, it lessens those rivalries and would create more conference rivalries which don't happen as often, think the Patriots/Colts in Tom/Peyton days. Without this system, the division games become far less meaningful. If you wanted to do that, I'd take it a step further like someone else said and get rid of divisions but especially multiple games against the division. The whole NFL is focused on division games and that built in rivalry, if you remove that, it takes something away from the overall game and strategy to me.

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Let me just point this out, if the NFL would’ve added a 7th playoff team before 2021 from 2013-2023, the data is even more skewed. There’s about another 5 to 6 teams that would’ve had a better record than a divisional winner as the seven seed.

I can go back through the data over the last 10 years but when going through it it was more than just 1 game in a good portion of these scenarios  

 

So what.  Do you feel the same about the MLB?  Give the wild card teams home field if they have a better record than the division winner?

17 minutes ago, Cheesteakitis said:

Your data can point anyway it wasn’t the only way the nfl is going to make a changes is if it means more money and I don’t think it does… as has been posted if winning a division doesn’t matter then there should just be conferences. Making rivalry games mean less and changing the whole landscape of the nfl… just let it how it is.

i could see maybe making a change if it was always 1/2 divisions who sucked so bad every year but I don’t think that is the case and most of the time the division winners with trash records aren’t always the same.

The division still matter because the easiest way to make the playoffs is to the division to make the playoffs otherwise you are relying on being a wild card with tiebreaker scenarios. Add if you made the tiebreaker scenarios for better seeding winning the division over the wild card then division championship still matters 

The one thing the NBA got right was changing their seeding. they didn’t want their best team potentially playing their second best team in the second round of the playoffs as opposed to the conference finals.

9 minutes ago, twistr said:

It all boils down to what do you want to emphasize, division rivalries or conference records. If you remove the big incentive to winning your division, it lessens those rivalries and would create more conference rivalries which don't happen as often, think the Patriots/Colts in Tom/Peyton days. Without this system, the division games become far less meaningful. If you wanted to do that, I'd take it a step further like someone else said and get rid of divisions but especially multiple games against the division. The whole NFL is focused on division games and that built in rivalry, if you remove that, it takes something away from the overall game and strategy to me.

I disagree with this for the reason of this, if the Eagles and Cowboys are playing in week 18 for a chance to go to the playoffs winning the division. You think it’s gonna be lesser because the Eagles or Cowboys if they win aren’t gonna get a home playoff game?

Winning the division still matters because it’s the easiest path to getting to the playoffs. The rivalries will still exist at whatever level cause they have hated each other for years. Also those teams will still be able to knock you from a 2 seed to a 7 seed and would like nothing more than to take away a potential 2 home games to 0. 

16 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So what.  Do you feel the same about the MLB?  Give the wild card teams home field if they have a better record than the division winner?

Yeah i do.

In the national league this year it wouldn’t have matter. As padres (WC) and brewers had same record but divisional champ gets the tiebreaker of 3 seed (in my scenario).

But the AL the orioles played in a much tougher division than the Astros did in 2024. They should’ve had a higher seed as they had a better record than Houston. It just so happens the best AL team played in their division.

6 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I disagree with this for the reason of this, if the Eagles and Cowboys are playing in week 18 for a chance to go to the playoffs winning the division. You think it’s gonna be lesser because the Eagles or Cowboys if they win aren’t gonna get a home playoff game?

Winning the division still matters because it’s the easiest path to getting to the playoffs. The rivalries will still exist at whatever level cause they have hated each other for years. Also those teams will still be able to knock you from a 2 seed to a 7 seed and would like nothing more than to take away a potential 2 home games to 0. 

No, but if both are already going to the playoffs but it's also for the division, then there's a ton of extra incentive

32 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

Barkley would break it with less carries than Dickerson. And if you want to go there Dickerson has the asterisk too because it took him 2 more games then OJ

Exactly.  There is no asterisk if you understand football and stats. 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Yeah i do.

In the national league this year it wouldn’t have matter. As padres (WC) and brewers had same record but divisional champ gets the tiebreaker of 3 seed (in my scenario).

But the AL the orioles played in a much tougher division than the Astros did in 2024. They should’ve had a higher seed as they had a better record than Houston. It just so happens the best AL team played in their division 

Ok, I'd rather keep the extra level of importance on the division standings and what it means to win a division in the MLB/NFL.  I find that far more entertaining than the type of setup we see in the NBA these days.

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

you are using data from 1980. We are in the year 2024 and the most recent data is showing you there is a sizable change. You just choose to ignore it.

If you wanna use data from 1980 there were only 5 playoff teams in each conference. Do you wanna go back to just having five playoff teams?

Furthermore, it was just as unfair. And I can’t go back to 1980 to make the argument then that it should’ve been changed. But I can make the argument today when the data is showing you more and more often these wildcard teams are finishing with better records than some division winners.

also making the argument it’s been this way forever is not a good argument. Things Fing change. It’s why they went from 5 playoff teams to 7 playoff teams since 1980. 

I'm using data to show that this isn't a new phenomenon.  You make the case that its happening more frequently now.  Of course it is.  4 divisions will lead to more division winners, and fewer teams in each division.  Therefore, the probability means that you will have more situations where a weaker team wins a division, and it means more often you will have a team with a stronger record going on the road.   What I showed you going back to 1960 was that it happened even when there were just 2 divisions.  It happened more often when they went to 3 divisions... and now that its 4 divisions, it happens more frequently still.   That's just basic mathematics and it doesn't mean a thing to me.   

I'm not making the argument that this is the way its been forever, I countered that divisions matter.  Win your division first.  Then worry about conference seeding.  But you are arguing that conference seeding should take precedence over division standings.  Sorry, I can't get behind that, because there ARE divisions.  The divisions give the league a specific character, and it should be preserved.   

 

You are right when you say that things change.  (once again, you are showing your emotions are getting the best of you though.). We are seeing that with the NCAA right now.  They have completely upended everything that the conferences once stood for.  They chased the almighty dollar and have (in my opinion) ruined college football.  The SEC and Big Ten are the only conferences that really matter now.  Everyone else is fighting for scraps.  They have created a 'better' system with 12 teams in the playoff... and despite that, there was a ton of argument about which teams did and didn't belong in.  Alabama should have been in versus Clemson or Indiana.   blah blah blah.  Funny, even expanding the field, the argument didn't change.  Some 'deserving' team(s) was(were) left out of the tournament... which is exactly the same argument as was made when it was just 2 teams... or 4 teams... or whatever.    

 

Putting that into the context of the NFL... not all divisions are the same, they face different schedules.  The NFC North, for example, had the benefit of matching up against AFC North, a division you say is weak.  Meanwhile the NFC South, had to face the AFC West, which is a much harder division.

So, consider this:   
Vikings against the AFC South went 4-0.  (Combined record 23-41)
Buccaneers against the AFC West went 2-2. (Combined record 38 - 26)
(The NFC West overall and NFC East overall matchups are almost equal... 32-31 vs. 34-30, so not a massive swing one way or the other.)

Further, the 'extra' games that each team had were very different.
Vikings faced off against the Giants, Jets and Falcons.  They went 3-0.  (Combined record 15 - 33  )
Buccaneers faced off against the Lions, Ravens, and Cardinals.  They went 1-2. (Combined record 31 - 16)

 

So, that's a significant difference in schedule... accounting for a 7-0 record for the Vikings and a 3-4 record for the Buccaneers.

In those 7 games... combined winning pct for each opponent Vikings - 38 - 74 (0.330) .... and Buccanneers - 69 - 42 (0.622)

So, is it really fair to compare their overall records in terms of seeding without considering their divisional alignment, because its is because of the divisional differences that account for who these opponents were?  Are the Vikings really 4 games better than the Bucs because they are 4 games better, or just because they had a MUCH easier path?   And so far, the Bucs have done something that the Vikings haven't... they beat the Lions.  

 

So, yeah... let's not arbitrarily toss out the divisional differences and penalize the division that actually had a harder schedule outside of their divisional opponents than a different division.

 

37 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

...and the divisions are what they are

When you say "it's happened" you are only looking at the records and not taking anything else into account.  A one game difference in record isn't enough to convince me that a wild card team should get a higher seed.  They obviously didn't win their division.  They may have played a far easier schedule and they may have even lost to the other team in question.  I think you'd at best just be shifting the problem somewhere else.

See above.   

20 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

The division still matter because the easiest way to make the playoffs is to the division to make the playoffs otherwise you are relying on being a wild card with tiebreaker scenarios. Add if you made the tiebreaker scenarios for better seeding winning the division over the wild card then division championship still matters 

The one thing the NBA got right was changing their seeding. they didn’t want their best team potentially playing their second best team in the second round of the playoffs as opposed to the conference finals.

If you’re potentially taking a home playoff game and millions of dollars away from a team and offering them a tiebreaker instead that’s doesn’t seem like a fair trade to me.