Just a little bit of historical information...

1980 playoffs, the Eagles were the 2 Seed, played the Vikings in the Divisional round and won 31-16. Then because the 1 Seeded Falcons lost to the 4th Seeded Cowboys, the NFCCG was at the Vet, which of course the Eagles won to go to Super Bowl XV. 

Where was Super Bowl XV? The Superdome in Louisiana. 

Where is Super Bowl LIX? The Superdome in Louisiana. The Eagles are the 2 seed, and Detroit losing in the divisional round (if they get the 1 seed), is a possibility so we'll see if that bit of history plays out again and the Eagles handle their business making an NFCCG in the Linc happen to get the chance to go back to the Superdome to finally win a Lombardi in that building. 

9 minutes ago, twistr said:

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

That scenario with extra incentive can still exist. Hypothetically if the Cowboys heading into that game are the 2 seed (13-3) and the eagles are 4 (12-4). So heading into this game both teams have an home playoff game. However Eagles win the tiebreaker so If the eagles win it knocks the cowboys down to the 5 seed (losing an home playoff game) and the eagles bump up to the 2-3 depending on another game. So there’s still incentives that could exist.

We’re acting because we do not automatically give a home playoff game to a division winner that there’s not extra incentives anymore. That’s not necessarily true. 

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

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.

 

I never said it was a new phenomenon. What I’m telling you is that is happening more and more frequently and at a higher rate over the past decade to 5 years to 3 years. You continuously keep ignoring that data.

Nobody said it never happened before. what I am showing you is it is happening at a higher rate than ever before in NFL history.

Perc Pickett and the Mormon Missile. Major 2022 energy.

47 minutes ago, NOTW said:

As someone mentioned the other day, CJGJ maturing might be weirdest thing to happen this season.  He has really showed up this season.  With him and Blankenship at S the Eagles have some ball hawking/play making safeties in the back end.  

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

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. 

I did really like the home playoff games.  That's something that has always been missing in college football since a playoff was added.  Of course, that was only for the first weekend and now we go neutral the rest of the way.  I bet that will change in a few years and the bowls will only be involved for the final with one of the major bowls getting the final every four years (or whatever).

In the end of the day, the sport was always bound to change due to the entire player money thingy but the destruction of the conferences is really not acceptable and is going to cause real damage over time.

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I never said it was a new phenomenon. What I’m telling you is that is happening more and more frequently and at a higher rate over the past decade to 5 years to 3 years. You continuously keep ignoring that data.

Nobody said it never happened before. what I am showing you is it is happening at a higher rate than ever before in NFL history.

You didn't read the first paragraph.  It is happening more, because there are more divisions and fewer teams per division.  That's probability at work.  Its going to happen more frequently with more divisions and fewer teams per division.  

 

And based on your reply, I can tell that you didn't read the end of the post either where I broke down the schedule differences of the Vikings and Bucs (who would be the likely 4-5 matchup this year).  The Vikings have had a MUCH MUCH easier path to get where they are when taking their outside of division schedule into account.    Let me know if you want to actually look at the data on that or if you are so entrenched in your pet project that no data beyond your basic breakdown of frequency matters.  The frequency is a function of probability, not an inherent problem in the system that needs to be corrected.

I got an idea. How about the NY Giants return the favor of the sack record and let Barkley run 70 yards on his first carry as they carelessly dive at his ankles or fall over. Then on his next carry they all run into each other and Barkley casually jogs for 35 yards. Then you sit him and everyone is happy!

11 minutes ago, Cheesteakitis said:

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. 

So it’s fair what we have that a 7–9 commanders got a home playoff game winning one of the worst divisions in football in 25 years (on a eagles tank job) and got to make millions of dollars over 11-5 Bucs team is fair?

and before anybody goes, this is an outlier. I agree that is a severe outlier. However, you’re gonna tell me if the Steelers go 11–6 and the Texans go 9–8 winning the worst division in football isn’t unfair and screwing the Steelers out of millions when they played in a harder division to win and had more victories? That seems a little unfair too 

 

Ertz got $750k all because the Falcons kicker sucks and went to OT

4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I got an idea. How about the NY Giants return the favor of the sack record and let Barkley run 70 yards on his first carry as they carelessly dive at his ankles or fall over. Then on his next carry they all run into each other and Barkley casually jogs for 35 yards. Then you sit him and everyone is happy!

Well, everyone but Eric Dickerson.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Ertz got $750k all because the Falcons kicker sucks and went to OT

If that was the last game of the year... then maybe yes.  BUT... with a full game left, I think its a hard case to build, unless they tank the last game and don't use their #2 TE... to save that money.   Would be a pretty ****y thing to do though.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

If that was the last game of the year... then maybe yes.  BUT... with a full game left, I think its a hard case to build, unless they tank the last game and don't use their #2 TE... to save that money.   Would be a pretty ****y thing to do though.

True. I just meant he hit all 3 in OT yesterday. 

14 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You didn't read the first paragraph.  It is happening more, because there are more divisions and fewer teams per division.  That's probability at work.  Its going to happen more frequently with more divisions and fewer teams per division.  

 

And based on your reply, I can tell that you didn't read the end of the post either where I broke down the schedule differences of the Vikings and Bucs (who would be the likely 4-5 matchup this year).  The Vikings have had a MUCH MUCH easier path to get where they are when taking their outside of division schedule into account.    Let me know if you want to actually look at the data on that or if you are so entrenched in your pet project that no data beyond your basic breakdown of frequency matters.  The frequency is a function of probability, not an inherent problem in the system that needs to be corrected.

I don’t disagree with your first point, which is the whole reason they should change it. It’s easier to win a division now than it was 25 years ago simply cause there was 1 less division and an extra team you were competing with in your division. The data will tell you it’s easier to win a division competing with three other teams than it is with four other teams.

You can break down their schedule. Minnesota went out there and won the games that were put on their schedule. You act like Tampa Bay schedule didn’t have some advantage if their own. the fact the eagles were missing aj brown and devonta smith for that game. Does that go into your consideration or did we just ignore that factor? I’m guessing it ignored. Another factor Tampa Bay got to play Washington week one with a rookie quarterback. Daniels is FAR better today than at that time. So those two benefits at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers got in their scheduling don’t get factored into this.

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

So it’s fair what we have that a 7–9 commanders got a home playoff game winning one of the worst divisions in football in 25 years (on a eagles tank job) and got to make millions of dollars over 11-5 Bucs team is fair?

and before anybody goes, this is an outlier. I agree that is a severe outlier. However, you’re gonna tell me if the Steelers go 11–6 and the Texans go 9–8 winning the worst division in football isn’t unfair and screwing the Steelers out of millions when they played in a harder division to win and had more victories? That seems a little unfair too 

 

The Steelers are one game ahead of the Texans right now... hardly a huge difference.  

AND... the Texans have the benefit of not playing the last game, so they can use it as a bye.  The Steelers don't have that luxury.  Of course, if the Steelers had handled their business in their division and defeated the Ravens a couple weeks ago, they would have a game up on the Ravens, while holding the tiebreaker and wouldn't have to worry about the Week 18 game as well.  But, they didn't handle their business.  Meanwhile, the Texans swept the number 2 team in their division.  They handled their business.  Win your division games, win your division.  Not unfair. 

11 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

The Steelers are one game ahead of the Texans right now... hardly a huge difference.  

AND... the Texans have the benefit of not playing the last game, so they can use it as a bye.  The Steelers don't have that luxury.  Of course, if the Steelers had handled their business in their division and defeated the Ravens a couple weeks ago, they would have a game up on the Ravens, while holding the tiebreaker and wouldn't have to worry about the Week 18 game as well.  But, they didn't handle their business.  Meanwhile, the Texans swept the number 2 team in their division.  They handled their business.  Win your division games, win your division.  Not unfair. 

Their division is immensely easier in the afc south. So we’re just gonna ignore the fact of the second team in that division the Colts are about to be 7–10 and lost to the giants with their playoff lives on the line. Meanwhile, the second best team in the AFC north might be 11–6mor 10-7. Heck the third place team might finish 9-8 and have the same record as the afc south winner and miss the playoffs.  Yeah, it’s much easier to sweep the second team in the AFC south when the second team in the AFC south is about to be 7-10 That  matters.

let me just point something out about the AFC south, they are the only division in football that might have 3 teams be 3 or more games below 500. The only division to have potential that  

furthermore, if Baltimore wins early on Saturday, then the Steelers have nothing to play for just like the Texans. Can just rest guys. Furthermore, if the NFL went to what I said, the Texans would have to win that game to be able to get a playoff game and also the Steelers would have to win that game and have something to play for to get a home playoff game. So even more incentives for both teams to play and win week 18.

16 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I got an idea. How about the NY Giants return the favor of the sack record and let Barkley run 70 yards on his first carry as they carelessly dive at his ankles or fall over. Then on his next carry they all run into each other and Barkley casually jogs for 35 yards. Then you sit him and everyone is happy!

 

Folks who wanna go for the rushing record should zoom out a little bit.

Eagles are remarkably healthy right now. Saquon has 378 touches and still looks spry. We have all 5 OL available and playing at a high level - do we not remember the 8,000 OL combinations year? Hell, every core player on the roster is available and playing at a high level.

Count your blessings and start the backups next week.

17 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

If that was the last game of the year... then maybe yes.  BUT... with a full game left, I think its a hard case to build, unless they tank the last game and don't use their #2 TE... to save that money.   Would be a pretty ****y thing to do though.

I mean, Josh Harris is the owner, so...they'd definitely do that.

Saquan Barkley has 345 carries this year.  

Unless I am missing one, no RB has had that many carries and led their team to a SB win since Terrell Davis and the 1998 Denver Broncos.  

Do we really want to make it 365?  We are already banking on something that hasn't happened in over a quarter century.  At least give him the freshest legs possible.

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

I don’t disagree with your first point, which is the whole reason they should change it. It’s easier to win a division now than it was 25 years ago simply cause there was 1 less division and an extra team you were competing with in your division. The data will tell you it’s easier to win a division competing with three other teams than it is with four other teams.

You can break down their schedule. Minnesota went out there and won the games that were put on their schedule. You act like Tampa Bay schedule didn’t have some advantage if their own. the fact the eagles were missing aj brown and devonta smith for that game. Does that go into your consideration or did we just ignore that factor? I’m guessing it ignored. Another factor Tampa Bay got to play Washington week one with a rookie quarterback. Daniels is FAR better today than at that time. So those two benefits at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers got in their scheduling don’t get factored into this.

I pointed out what the differences in their schedules were in terms of their division... i.e. the NFC North matchups and the NFC South matchups.  Every game will have some variations in terms of who is available, but now you are ignoring the advantages that the Vikings had in their particular matchups.  McCaffrey wasn't playing when the 49ers matched up against the Vikings.

But, clearly you are dug in and aren't willing to look at the significance of the divisions and how comparing teams from the various divisions isn't as simple as their overall record... because each division plays a different division because you can't have all the teams playing the same opponents.  So, having divisions and having the divisions take precedence over the conference ranking makes perfect sense, because the divisional competitors have basically the same schedule as the rest of their division... so its a much more apples to apples comparison.  That's not true from one division to the next, as I demonstrated with the overall winning pct of the divisional matchups and the 'extra' games between the Vikings and Bucs.  A 0.330 vs. 0.622 winning pct is a dramatic difference and its much wider as it pertains to their respective schedules.   In other words, unless you have a way to compare them more appropriately, leave it well enough alone.   The Vikings have it within their power to host a playoff game (every playoff game, this year as it turns out).  If they handle their business against the Lions... they get HFA and its the Lions' problem (the same problem will exist for the Lions extra divisional lineup, given than the comparison was based on the divisions... though the 'extra' games for the Lions would be different).  

 

But, we're done here.  This is going in circles, especially as you ignore what is actually being presented.

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

Their division is immensely easier in the afc south. So we’re just gonna ignore the fact of the second team in that division the Colts are about to be 7–10 and lost to the giants with their playoff lives on the line. Meanwhile, the second best team in the AFC north might be 11–6mor 10-7. Heck the third place team might finish 9-8 and have the same record as the afc south winner and miss the playoffs.  Yeah, it’s much easier to sweep the second team in the AFC south when the second team in the AFC south is about to be 7-10 That  matters.

furthermore, if Baltimore wins early on Saturday, then the Steelers have nothing to play for just like the Texans. Can just rest guys. Furthermore, if the NFL went to what I said, the Texans would have to win that game to be able to get a playoff game and also the Steelers would have to win that game and have something to play for to get a home playoff game. So even more incentives for both teams to play and win week 18.

Not ignoring it at all.  Point is... division games matter more than other games.  It's as simple as that.  And division games matter more, because of the implications of being the division winner and the home playoff game.  

4 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Saquan Barkley has 345 carries this year.  

Unless I am missing one, no RB has had that many carries and led their team to a SB win since Terrell Davis and the 1998 Denver Broncos.  

Do we really want to make it 365?  We are already banking on something that hasn't happened in over a quarter century.  At least give him the freshest legs possible.

You think that the reason that no RB has had that many carries and gotten a SB win is because of the workload?   That's not a causal equivalence.  NFL teams don't use a single RB that much anymore... not because of the impact on the Super Bowl, but because they just don't run the ball that much anymore.  The NFL is by and large a passing league.  

I personally don't care if the playoff seeding stays the same or not. But I do find it funny how fans will care about certain traditions and not others.

Uniforms change, the rules change, the style of play, schemes, etc. The draft used to be 17 rounds, there used to not be a salary cap or free agency. Football started out as a version of rugby with no forward pass, it was controversial when they wanted to allow passing and now it's a passing league. The points system changed from the beginning, they wore leather helmets. The players are more athletic and in shape, there's more sports science and analytics, there are expansion teams and teams that relocate, old stadiums are torn down and new ones created. There's newer technology, new access to watch on different channels and streaming services, NFL Sunday Ticket, social media access to teams, the NFL draft used to always be in NY now other cities have opportunity to host. No one's pounding their fist for "tradition" with running only and in leather helmets with players playing both offense and defense.

Things change and adapt over time. They always have. Leagues should evaluate if changes they make were good or not, and revert if not. Like the new kickoff, it's stupid. They should change it back. But passing is cool, that can stay. Things change. They just have to make sure the changes are good ones.

 

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

You think that the reason that no RB has had that many carries and gotten a SB win is because of the workload?   That's not a causal equivalence.  NFL teams don't use a single RB that much anymore... not because of the impact on the Super Bowl, but because they just don't run the ball that much anymore.  The NFL is by and large a passing league.  

And why do teams not use a single RB that much anymore and why is the NFL a passing league?

There is a reason teams don't give a RB 345+ carries in a season anymore.