25 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Ham... again.. I started by saying ... you fight for 3 things ... making the playoffs, division title and the bye.

Prior.... 6 teams....

2 Byes
2 Division winners with home games
2 playoff teams wildcard

Now

1 Bye to fight for ... means less teams fighting for it due to one less bye
2.  The division winners who already have it locked up ... but cant get a bye.... now this will only increase
3.  The 3rd wildcard team, means that you could see the 6th seed already locked in... 3 teams now means more could not have to fight to get in because they are in already.

I don't want to see more playoff teams rest guys.   There will always be the fights for division and last playoff spot.  This will be constant.  We now have created less involvement for a bye.  And more to where teams can relax and already be in.  

None of this actually adds up. I’ll give you that there are a billion scenarios. First though originally we talked about more competitive games. You moved the field goal posts on that one. Because more teams will be in play for the playoffs longer. Not arguable. Fact.

 But now you are talking about resting players. 
 But the odds of the three or four seed being able to coast for weeks by having their division locked up are slim. The one seed it’s more possible they ran away with their division. But did they run away from the two seed enough to rest guys? Lost a bye by adding a playoff game(great IMO). Added a playoff team. So that’s more teams mathematically in the hunt to make the playoffs. Your acting like you will rest guys because your happy being the six seed instead of wanting to be the five seed. Like going to the better team’s stadium fir the playoffs doesn’t matter. Of coarse it matters. I don’t want to play the three seed. I want yo play the four seed. Especially when you consider the four seed is the weakest division winner. Meaning the first wild card team is usually better than the four seed. So playing the four is huge over playing the three. Last year anybody would much rather played us than the Saints. Crazy to think seeding doesn’t matter. Many scenarios where if I’m the three seed I’m trying to become the two seed because I’d much rather face the worst team to make the playoffs. 
 
 

When you look at the standings... the exact scenario I gave you above is what would have occurred during week 18 in the new 17 game schedule 7 playoff team format.     All those playoff teams with nothing to play for.   And sure KC & NE could have really battled hard for #2.  It's possible for sure.  Wonder though for the future... if say in that scenario Mahomes or Brady get hurt.   Then you have two 12-4 teams having to battle it out for a seed.... yet a 9-7 Eagles team and a 10-6 Minnesota team... they can rest their guys????   along with Seattle, Buffalo ...etc.   Does that make sense????   

The goal should be having the most games between the best teams mean the most at the end.   Not a battle of the 8-8 Steelers and four 7-9 teams  Jets. Raiders, Colts and Broncos.  does anyone think those 4 teams needed to have a shot at the playoffs last year?   How about the Bears?       To me, it;s better BY FAR.. that the Steelers and Rams were out, than if the Bears and Jets got in.    You have really bad teams make the playoffs in NBA and NHL ... baseball is getting close to average teams getting in... football was great, the occasional so so team gets in but for the most part you have 10-6 teams have to fight to get in.   It's how it should be.  

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

None of this actually adds up. I’ll give you that there are a billion scenarios. First though originally we talked about more competitive games. You moved the field goal posts on that one. Because more teams will be in play for the playoffs longer. Not arguable. Fact.

 But now you are talking about rafting players. 
 But the odds of the three or four seed being able to coast for weeks by having their division locked up are slim. The one seed it’s more possible they ran away with their division. But did they run away from the two seed enough to rest guys? Lost a bye by adding a playoff game(great IMO). Added a playoff team. So that’s more teams mathematically in the hunt to make the playoffs. Your acting like you will rest guys because your happy being the six seed instead of wanting to be the five seed. Like going to the better team’s stadium fir the playoffs doesn’t matter. Of coarse it matters. I don’t want to play the three seed. I want yo play the four seed. Especially when you consider the four seed is the weakest division winner. Meaning the first wild card team is usually better than the four seed. So playing the four is huge over playing the three. Last year anybody would much rather played us than the Saints. Crazy to think seeding doesn’t matter. Many scenarios where if I’m the three seed I’m trying to become the two seed because I’d much rather face the worst team to make the playoffs. 
 
 

It absolutely adds up ... its actually where we were after 16 games.... you add the 7th playoff spot and 17th game... go look at the standings and tell me where I was wrong.  This is the EXACT thing that would have been the situation going into game #17.  EXACT!!!!

Your ideas are great.... this is the fact of what would have happened!   And stuff like this will happen again... a lot. 

5 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

When you look at the standings... the exact scenario I gave you above is what would have occurred during week 18 in the new 17 game schedule 7 playoff team format.     All those playoff teams with nothing to play for.   And sure KC & NE could have really battled hard for #2.  It's possible for sure.  Wonder though for the future... if say in that scenario Mahomes or Brady get hurt.   Then you have two 12-4 teams having to battle it out for a seed.... yet a 9-7 Eagles team and a 10-6 Minnesota team... they can rest their guys????   along with Seattle, Buffalo ...etc.   Does that make sense????   

The goal should be having the most games between the best teams mean the most at the end.   Not a battle of the 8-8 Steelers and four 7-9 teams  Jets. Raiders, Colts and Broncos.  does anyone think those 4 teams needed to have a shot at the playoffs last year?   How about the Bears?       To me, it;s better BY FAR.. that the Steelers and Rams were out, than if the Bears and Jets got in.    You have really bad teams make the playoffs in NBA and NHL ... baseball is getting close to average teams getting in... football was great, the occasional so so team gets in but for the most part you have 10-6 teams have to fight to get in.   It's how it should be.  

How does the 9-7 team get to rest their guys and win the division. Hard to foresee this scenario.

4 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

None of this actually adds up. I’ll give you that there are a billion scenarios. First though originally we talked about more competitive games. You moved the field goal posts on that one. Because more teams will be in play for the playoffs longer. Not arguable. Fact.

 But now you are talking about rafting players. 
 But the odds of the three or four seed being able to coast for weeks by having their division locked up are slim. The one seed it’s more possible they ran away with their division. But did they run away from the two seed enough to rest guys? Lost a bye by adding a playoff game(great IMO). Added a playoff team. So that’s more teams mathematically in the hunt to make the playoffs. Your acting like you will rest guys because your happy being the six seed instead of wanting to be the five seed. Like going to the better team’s stadium fir the playoffs doesn’t matter. Of coarse it matters. I don’t want to play the three seed. I want yo play the four seed. Especially when you consider the four seed is the weakest division winner. Meaning the first wild card team is usually better than the four seed. So playing the four is huge over playing the three. Last year anybody would much rather played us than the Saints. Crazy to think seeding doesn’t matter. Many scenarios where if I’m the three seed I’m trying to become the two seed because I’d much rather face the worst team to make the playoffs. 
 
 

Why does it have to be for weeks?    I used last year as an example... to you as a football fan... was it worth the battle between the Steelers, Jets, Broncos, Raiders and Colts.... to cause the rest of the other teams not to have to worry about playing?     Some years it could be multiple weeks... the Ravens were 2 games ahead... do we want them resting longer???   For teams like the Jets????   

This is your math... last year .. .the teams that would have battled week 18 for a playoff spot ... LA and Bears in the NFC      ... AFC... Steelers, Colts, Jets, Raiders and Broncos.    This is not theory... its what actually would have happened.  

Th

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

How does the 9-7 team get to rest their guys and win the division. Hard to foresee this scenario.

What was the Eagles record last year?   They won the division and had the tiebreaker with common opponents.  This was the exact scenario from last year... all of the stuff... you want a battle with the Bears and Rams ... Colts, Steelers, Jets.... imagine the Jets and Bears getting in... wow... gives the league such an elite level look there.   

And whatever the record. More teams and fan bases teams will be in it for longer. We’re you passed we made into the playoffs last year? No. We had a pretty crappy season but I was glad to make the postseason. Still applies to s third wild card. Heck I’d argue that extra wild card has at least half the time been as good as or better than the worst division winner. Last year the Rams has the same record as us. We  played in the easiest division in football. They played in the hardest. Easily could make the argument they deserved to be there more than us.

Theories are great... we can debate them all day.   I prefer to discuss the actual facts.  This was how the league played out last year.  This is what the new playoff scenario would have effected the last week... the future of the game.  I prefer how they were last year, rather than to have what would have happened with the new rules.  

2 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Your first sentence.   now replace.... " if you don't have a chance for the top seed"    right there, it was more of a chance to get top 2 than it was to get top 1.  So less need to fight to move up.   
Your second sentence.... if your top 2 seeds a re close.... well... prior if your top 3 or 4 seeds were close they would fight to get top 2 ... much different that 2 teams fighting for one spot

4th sentence.... you are 100% correct.. the mid seeds don't need to fight for anything ... now we just added another team to that mid seed tier.

Those are the changes I see ... compared to you not seeing any changes.     The system works the same... just now gave one less spot at the top to fight for... and one more middle and bottom spots.  This creates seed 2 having to play wildcard weekend ... and say seed 6 already knowing they are in .... could be 5 teams not really worrying about their seeds.. seeds 2 to 6.  with seed 1 already way ahead... and 3 other teams fighting for the 7th and final spot.

Also... the one time when a key player gets hurt ... to where he plays simply to fight for spot 5 instead of falling back to a possible 6 or 7th seed .... or fighting for the 2 seed instead of a possible 3rd or 4th.... watch how that changes how teams and players think going forward.     

Teams will fight for 3 things .... playoffs, division and bye.    More teams in the playoffs who aren't going to win their division.  More division winners who aren't going to get a bye... will cause less need to play at the end and more bogus games.    Will it happen like this every year... nope... will it happen about half the time... yep.  will one injury change things to more bogus games ... yep.    Do I hate bogus games at the end... YEP

It's just my personal preference.  Not everyone has to agree.    I also like less playoff teams because I like the idea of good teams missing the playoffs... seems like we don't have that in sports anymore.  The NFL was really the only one you could say that lately.  Especially with baseball increasing their playoff teams.  Too much mediocrity anymore.

Lmao never said I didn’t see changes said it doesn’t really change much in the competitiveness of playoffs to me.... Teams will rest starters final week maybe final two weeks now with the added extra game

Speaking of FACTS

The Philadelphia Eagles are the only team to ever beat Lombardi in the Championship Game, and win a Lombardi in the Championship Game.

3 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Why does it have to be for weeks?    I used last year as an example... to you as a football fan... was it worth the battle between the Steelers, Jets, Broncos, Raiders and Colts.... to cause the rest of the other teams not to have to worry about playing?     Some years it could be multiple weeks... the Ravens were 2 games ahead... do we want them resting longer???   For teams like the Jets????   

This is your math... last year .. .the teams that would have battled week 18 for a playoff spot ... LA and Bears in the NFC      ... AFC... Steelers, Colts, Jets, Raiders and Broncos.    This is not theory... its what actually would have happened.  

Th

Doesn’t have to be for weeks. Multiple is the biggest downside scenario. But the four seed wrapping up their division title early isn’t the most likely scenario. They should still be fighting for their division in most historical situations. They have the worst record so they shouldnt be too far ahead of the second place team in their  division. Which also means they are fighting for a wild card position.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

And whatever the record. More teams and fan bases teams will be in it for longer. We’re you passed we made into the playoffs last year? No. We had a pretty crappy season but I was glad to make the postseason. Still applies to s third wild card. Heck I’d argue that extra wild card has at least half the time been as good as or better than the worst division winner. Last year the Rams has the same record as us. We  played in the easiest division in football. They played in the hardest. Easily could make the argument they deserved to be there more than us.

Ham... again... stop talking theories for a second... you are in hypothetical mode... get to reality of what actually happened and how the new way would have been.   Fro last year what was your preference..... A battle between the Rams and Bears  .... a battle between Steelers, Colts, Jets, Raider, Broncos?     Or lets move on with less bs at the end.  Last year would have had a lot of BS at the end.  

5 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

What was the Eagles record last year?   They won the division and had the tiebreaker with common opponents.  This was the exact scenario from last year... all of the stuff... you want a battle with the Bears and Rams ... Colts, Steelers, Jets.... imagine the Jets and Bears getting in... wow... gives the league such an elite level look there.   

But we didn’t get to rest our starters the last week of the season. Had to win. Fight for our lives.

Same was going to be the case of the playoffs stayed in the same format teams clinched top seed and top 2 seeds by like week 14-15 that likely isn’t changing you think they were going to play final games of the season???? You think the 3rd/4th seed that clinched the division but couldn’t get top two seeds was going to play starters for what???? So then really only have final 2 seeds fighting with the teams on the outside looking in

3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

And whatever the record. More teams and fan bases teams will be in it for longer. We’re you passed we made into the playoffs last year? No. We had a pretty crappy season but I was glad to make the postseason. Still applies to s third wild card. Heck I’d argue that extra wild card has at least half the time been as good as or better than the worst division winner. Last year the Rams has the same record as us. We  played in the easiest division in football. They played in the hardest. Easily could make the argument they deserved to be there more than us.

We won the division last year... a division winner should get in.  No change there... we are adding a wildcard team.    .last year we had 7 possible teams that could have made it.   One was 9-7, two were 8-8 ... the other 4 were 7-9.   I don't need that mediocrity to get in... and plus the Eagles playing a BS game at the end after beating Dallas.  

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

Ham... again... stop talking theories for a second... you are in hypothetical mode... get to reality of what actually happened and how the new way would have been.   Fro last year what was your preference..... A battle between the Rams and Bears  .... a battle between Steelers, Colts, Jets, Raider, Broncos?     Or lets move on with less bs at the end.  Last year would have had a lot of BS at the end.  

Of coarse I’m in hypothetical mode about a situation that’s never happened.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

But we didn’t get to rest our starters the last week of the season. Had to win. Fight for our lives.

YES... and then with the extra game... we would have had a BS week.   Nothing to play for.   

Just now, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Same was going to be the case of the playoffs stayed in the same format teams clinched top seed and top 2 seeds by like week 14-15 that likely isn’t changing you think they were going to play final games of the season???? You think the 3rd/4th seed that clinched the division but couldn’t get top two seeds was going to play starters for what???? So then really only have final 2 seeds fighting with the teams on the outside looking in

We were the four seed. Had nothing locked up. Gotta win the division. Most always the situation with the four seed. 

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Of coarse I’m in hypothetical mode about a situation that’s never happened.

LOL.... but you have an easy thing to look at when you take the new rules and apply them to what happened last year.   Why not do that?   Then you can see the effects of the new rules instead of making theories?  

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

We were the four seed. Had nothing locked up. Gotta win the division. Most always the situation with the four seed. 

We had the division locked up ... we would not have needed to play week 18.   You are missing where the game is going ... 17 games with 7 playoff spots.   After week 16 we had the divison locked up.  Could not move up to the 3 seed.  No need to play our 17th game.    Which is what is going to be in place next year.  

Just now, joemas6 said:

YES... and then with the extra game... we would have had a BS week.   Nothing to play for.   

Nothing is different with an extra week. I’d we beat the Dolphins maybe we could have rested players the final week. I can’t remember if the Cowboys won week 17 or not. But we had to win if they won. Nothing is different. Just moved the end line from week 17 to week 18. You can’t close it out until you have enough room between you and the rest of your division. You could do that by week 15,16,17 or 18. The extra playoff team doesn’t change that. That straight competition between you and your division. Division battles will still be fought about the same. Lasting until the end.

4 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

But we didn’t get to rest our starters the last week of the season. Had to win. Fight for our lives.

Last year the last week was week 17 ... 16 games.... nest year the last week will be week 18 ... the 17th game.   We would have had nothing to play for.   Neither would all the other teams I mentioned... but yay... lets have FOUR 7-9 teams battle it out with two more 8-8 teams and a 9-7 3rd place team for a final wildcard spot.... yippee... so exciting.   Who needs to get right into the NE vs Tenn, Seattle vs Philly,  Saints vs Vikings or Houston vs Buffalo matchups.... so lets wait a week to see if Sam Darnold or the Steelers QB can get in...lol  

5 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

We had the division locked up ... we would not have needed to play week 18.   You are missing where the game is going ... 17 games with 7 playoff spots.   After week 16 we had the divison locked up.  Could not move up to the 3 seed.  No need to play our 17th game.    Which is what is going to be in place next year.  

The Cowboys lost week 17? I really only remembered us winning.

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Nothing is different with an extra week. I’d we beat the Dolphins maybe we could have rested players the final week. I can’t remember if the Cowboys won week 17 or not. But we had to win if they won. Nothing is different. Just moved the end line from week 17 to week 18. You can’t close it out until you have enough room between you and the rest of your division. You could do that by week 15,16,17 or 18. The extra playoff team doesn’t change that. That straight competition between you and your division. Division battles will still be fought about the same. Lasting until the end.

OK.. since we are getting nowhere on this one ... as once you fixate on something its hard for you to let it go.... how about the other part.    Do you realize Seattle, Buffalo and those other teams I mentioned would have had nothing to play for.   I will give you NE and KC since yoyu are so hell bent on that 2 seed in your own mind.    But look at who the final playoff spot would have come down to????  Do you really think the league needed those teams to have a chance to make the playoffs?  Did the Jets seem like a playoff team to you... Broncos... Raiders????  

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The Cowboys lost week 17? I really only remembered us winning.

WE had to beat the Giants... because if we lost, they would have had a better division record.   Once we won that we had the next tiebreaker.    So for week 18 ...we would not have neededto win... you follow yet?????    The new rules... add a game plus add a playoff team?  In that scenario... week 18 would have been meaningless.  Dallas could have tied our record, but we had the tiebreaker after we beat the Giants.  No need to play the next game... the 17th game that is going to happen.