oldschooler Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote][size=5][b]COMMISH CONSIDERS PLAYOFF SHAKEUP[/b][/size] By BART HUBBUCH February 2, 2008 -- PHOENIX - The Giants' wild-card run to Super Bowl XLII would have looked different under a plan being studied by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Speaking here in his annual state-of-the-league address, Goodell revealed a potential shakeup to the existing playoff system that would allow wild-card teams the possibility of a home game. In the early stages of Goodell's plan, which would require the owners' longshot approval, the bottom two division winners by record in each conference would go on the road the first week if they have a worse mark than the wild-card teams. If the plan had been in place this year, the wild-card Giants (10-6) would have hosted NFC South winner Tampa Bay (9-7) and the wild-card Jaguars (11-5) would have hosted the AFC North champion Steelers (10-6) in the first round. Ironically, in light of Goodell's plan, the road team ended up winning both of those games. "The focus that we'll probably give it in the short term would be to look at our seeding process," Goodell said. "What we'd like to look at is, if a wild-card team has a record that's better than a division winner, should that give the [home-field] advantage to the wild-card team?" Although it's unlikely, Goodell went a step further by saying the plan could expand in future years to include a complete reseeding of the playoffs based on record. "There are a number of variations on the table," he said. [b]Goodell's aim is to cut down on the obvious tanking of games at the end of the season by teams that have already clinched playoff position[/b], the most glaring recent example being the Colts' final-week home loss to the Titans this year. But Goodell appears likely to face fierce opposition from the owners, several of whom said yesterday they would be reluctant to take away the meaning of winning the division. Any change would require approval from at least 24 of the 32 owners. [b]"If the team wins its division, it should play at home," Steelers owner Dan Rooney said. "It's as simple as that."[/b] bhubbuch@nypost.com[/quote] [url="http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022008/sports/giants/commish_considers_playoff_shakeup_615641.htm"]http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022008/sport...keup_615641.htm[/url]
oldschooler Posted February 2, 2008 Author Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote][size=5][b]Changes possible in playoff seeding[/b][/size] [size=3]Goodell is considering organizing the teams by record, not status.[/size] By Vito Stellino, The Times-Union PHOENIX - NFL commissioner Roger Goodell floated the possibility that the Jaguars might not have to win their division title in future years to host a playoff game. At his annual Super Bowl news conference Friday, Goodell said one way to keep playoff-bound teams from tanking their regular-season finales is to seed them by record. That would mean a wild-card team could host a first-round playoff game if it had a better record than a division champion. "We are going to look into the potential of seeding our teams differently after they qualify for the playoffs, so you could potentially make more of the regular-season games have significance for the postseason," Goodell said. "I think what we'd like to look at is if a wild-card team has a better record than a division winner, should that give the advantage to the wild-card team that has the better record. "Last season, there were nine games in the last two weeks of the season where at least one of the teams didn't have any impact on the postseason seeding. We think that by looking at our seeding process that we could have affected three of the nine games this year. The Pittsburgh [playoff] game could have potentially been in Jacksonville, and I think the Tampa-Giants game potentially could have been in New York." Twice in the last three years, the Jaguars have played their first playoff game on the road even though they had a better record than a division champion because they finished second to the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC South. In 2005, the Jaguars had the second-best record in the AFC at 12-4, but they opened at 10-6 New England and lost. This season, they were 11-5, opened at 10-6 Pittsburgh and won. Goodell said he doesn't like teams tanking the regular-season finales. "I do believe this is something we need to address as a league," he said. "The incentive should be for every team to win as many games as possible." But Goodell might have a tough time selling the owners on the concept of making a division champion play on the road because it could dilute the importance of division games. Steelers owner Dan Rooney said he's against the idea and that the league should find better ways to make the games more meaningful. Goodell didn't set a timetable for when he would like to implement a new plan, but it likely will be a topic of discussion at the annual March owners meetings in Palm Beach. During Friday's session, Goodell also was asked several questions about the Patriots' Spygate controversy. Goodell tried to minimize the situation, saying the Patriots turned over six tapes and some notes, which the league destroyed. "I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome of any game," he said. But the controversy might not be fading. The New York Times devoted its lead story Friday to the controversy and quoted Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) as saying he wants Goodell to testify before Congress about why he destroyed the tapes. "Of course I am more than willing to meet with the senator," Goodell said. "I think there are very good explanations for the reason why I destroyed the tapes." Goodell also tried to downplay the comments of NFL Players Association leader Gene Upshaw, who said Thursday that if the owners opt out of the labor agreement Nov. 8, the players will discuss a strike, lockout decertification or an extension. If the owners opt out, 2010 would become an uncapped year, and the deal would expire in 2011. Upshaw also said the union will not agree to any givebacks in the current deal in which it receives almost 60 percent of the gross revenue. "I'm not really much into the rhetoric," Goodell said. "I think these issues don't get resolved by making comments publicly, but rather sitting at the negotiating table. I believe we will be able to come to a resolution that is good for the game, good for the players, good for the owners, and good for our fans, most of all." Goodell also said: - The New Orleans Saints will play the San Diego Chargers on Oct. 26 in London as the league continues its program of having regular-season games on foreign soil. - The Buffalo Bills will play a regular-season game in Toronto for the next five years as they attempt to become a regional team. - The NFL has invested $3 million with the U.S. Olympic Committee in an attempt to develop a test for human growth hormone. - The league hopes to take some of the red tape out of the process for providing aid for disabled players.[/quote] [url="http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/020208/jag_242952386.shtml"]http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stor...242952386.shtml[/url]
top6 Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 I don't know how, and it makes no sense, but I'm sure this is a plot by Goodell to somehow screw over the Bengals.
gatorclaws Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 Horrible idea. You spend the season mostly competing against your division. If you win it, you should get a home game.
Bengals1181 Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 I'm surprised the proposed change wasn't "only teams that play in cities with atleast 5 million people can make the playoffs"
dacow Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 I agree with this proposal. If a team in the Pats division had gone 14-2 and lost only to the Pats twice, should that team go on the road to an 8-8 division winner? Makes no sense to me. Rank em by wins and losses.
|Bunghole| Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='dacow' post='629332' date='Feb 2 2008, 12:30 PM']I agree with this proposal. If a team in the Pats division had gone 14-2 and lost only to the Pats twice, should that team go on the road to an 8-8 division winner? Makes no sense to me. Rank em by wins and losses.[/quote] First of all, Miami, Buffalo, the Jets.....14-2? Anyhoo, yes that 14-2 team should have to play on the road. They needed to beat the Patriots to win their division, didn't, and therefore shouldn't be rewarded solely on their record. Besides, if they're that damn good at 14-2, they will crush that 8-8 team on the road anyway. I agree with Rooney on this one...this would cheapen the effort to win your division... And to the poster that said that somehow this was an attempt by Goodell to screw over the Bengals....
Oldcat Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='Bunghole' post='629338' date='Feb 2 2008, 09:48 AM']First of all, Miami, Buffalo, the Jets.....14-2? Anyhoo, yes that 14-2 team should have to play on the road. They needed to beat the Patriots to win their division, didn't, and therefore shouldn't be rewarded solely on their record. Besides, if they're that damn good at 14-2, they will crush that 8-8 team on the road anyway. I agree with Rooney on this one...this would cheapen the effort to win your division... And to the poster that said that somehow this was an attempt by Goodell to screw over the Bengals.... [/quote] I would only agree to this if we get to play shitty teams like the Raiders and Dolphins twice a year too. Remove the division championship reward, and you remove the rivalry in the division
Jamie_B Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 Doing this would take away from winning your division and the point of rivals in the division imo.
Bengals1181 Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='629358' date='Feb 2 2008, 02:42 PM']Doing this would take away from winning your division and the point of rivals in the division imo.[/quote] see, I think it would do the exact opposite, it makes every game more important as you're now fighting for a division championship AND playoff seeding, where in the past those two were hand-in-hand.
|Lucid| Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 I refuse to suppor any of goodells ideas. Asspirate
gatorclaws Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='Bengals1181' post='629360' date='Feb 2 2008, 02:51 PM']see, I think it would do the exact opposite, it makes every game more important as you're now fighting for a division championship AND playoff seeding, where in the past those two were hand-in-hand.[/quote] But now the division championship wouldn't mean anything. You get nothing from winning it.
mroby85 Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 not very often do i agree with anything this fool does, but i think this is a good idea!
The Ghost of Chucky B. Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='Bunghole' date='Feb 2 2008, 12:48 PM' post='629338'] First of all, Miami, Buffalo, the Jets.....14-2? Anyhoo, yes that 14-2 team should have to play on the road. They needed to beat the Patriots to win their division, didn't, and therefore shouldn't be rewarded solely on their record. Besides, if they're that damn good at 14-2, they will crush that 8-8 team on the road anyway. I agree with Rooney on this one...this would cheapen the effort to win your division... I disagree with the statement that it would cheapen the effort to win the division because the cold hard fact remains that if you win your division, you're in the playoffs. Plain and simple. This has no bearing on the validity or the prestiege of winning the division, because again, you're still in the playoffs. The only thing that is at stake here is a home game. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on this. I'll have to give it more thought. I mean, its not as if they're just giving the top six records playoff berths, division champions be damned. All division champs still get in, regardless of the record. With this proposal, they're just giving a bit of a reward to teams who fare better in the regular season, regarldess of where they did in their respective division final standings. Man, i'm fucking rambling. And 'Lethal Weapon 2' is a fantastic movie. This HBO on demand shit is great.
CatScratchFever Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='Lucid' post='629361' date='Feb 2 2008, 02:52 PM']I refuse to suppor any of goodells ideas. Asspirate [/quote] [url="http://www.zebraz.com/T-Shirts/BUTTE_PIRATES_ATHLETIC_T-SHIRT/Page_1/68428%20%20%20%20%20SML.html"]http://www.zebraz.com/T-Shirts/BUTTE_PIRAT...0%20%20SML.html[/url] [img]http://www.zebraz.com/images/products/68428.JPG[/img] I agree. Horrible idea. Remove the incentive to win a division and you might as well not have divisions. Although, in that light, I'm not sure what the point of having divisions is, except to create rivalries and to allow teams with lesser regular season records to make the playoffs.
Bengals1181 Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='gatorclaws' post='629370' date='Feb 2 2008, 03:38 PM']But now the division championship wouldn't mean anything. [b]You get nothing from winning it.[/b][/quote] I was under the impression that teams that win their division get to play in the playoffs.
The Ghost of Chucky B. Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='Bengals1181' post='629381' date='Feb 2 2008, 04:05 PM']I was under the impression that teams that win their division get to play in the playoffs. [/quote] No sir, you are wrong. The regular season will now be played just for fun. The actual playoff participants and their corresponding seedings will be based on the number of tabloid and celebrity encouters each team has following the completion of the 16th game. We will be happy to know that the police blotter as well as comedian barbs will count as qualification points. Winning the division will have little bearing on your actual playoff status, unless that championship brings you extra celebrity attention. And if your team's logo appears in a rap video, that is bonus points. Based on my calcuations the Los Angeles Raiders (despite now playing in Oakland) will be the number one seed, followed closesly by the Chicago White Sox and the Denver Nuggets, and whatever team wears that red hat with the Yankees logo with the hologram sticker. Not sure where they play though.
Bengals1181 Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='The Ghost of Chucky B.' post='629386' date='Feb 2 2008, 04:24 PM']No sir, you are wrong. The regular season will now be played just for fun. The actual playoff participants and their corresponding seedings will be based on the number of tabloid and celebrity encouters each team has following the completion of the 16th game. We will be happy to know that the police blotter as well as comedian barbs will count as qualification points. Winning the division will have little bearing on your actual playoff status, unless that championship brings you extra celebrity attention. And if your team's logo appears in a rap video, that is bonus points. Based on my calcuations the Los Angeles Raiders (despite now playing in Oakland) will be the number one seed, followed closesly by the Chicago White Sox and the Denver Nuggets, and whatever team wears that red hat with the Yankees logo with the hologram sticker. Not sure where they play though.[/quote] what a well thought out post.
The Ghost of Chucky B. Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='Bengals1181' post='629387' date='Feb 2 2008, 04:27 PM']what a well thought out post.[/quote] thank you. That's what 4 years of Jesuit high school education and 4 years of a federal service academy will get you. My parents are proud. USA! USA! USA!
Jamie_B Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='gatorclaws' post='629370' date='Feb 2 2008, 03:38 PM']But now the division championship wouldn't mean anything. You get nothing from winning it.[/quote] exactly
dacow Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='gatorclaws' post='629370' date='Feb 2 2008, 03:38 PM']But now the division championship wouldn't mean anything. You get nothing from winning it.[/quote] Hey moron, your 8-8 division champ still gets to play in the playoffs, they just have to go on the road. I think that makes sense. Screw sucky divisions.
|Bunghole| Posted February 2, 2008 Report Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='dacow' post='629411' date='Feb 2 2008, 05:21 PM']Hey moron, your 8-8 division champ still gets to play in the playoffs, they just have to go on the road. I think that makes sense. Screw sucky divisions.[/quote] I don't think slinging around insults over a disagreement in opinion is really appropriate here, nor relevant to the topic. Please don't do that.
gatorclaws Posted February 3, 2008 Report Posted February 3, 2008 [quote name='dacow' post='629411' date='Feb 2 2008, 05:21 PM']Hey moron, your 8-8 division champ still gets to play in the playoffs, they just have to go on the road. I think that makes sense. Screw sucky divisions.[/quote] Thanks for the insults, it's probably not even worth trying to explain my opinion to you. Anyway, your record being in the top 6 gets you in the playoffs. What does the division crown get you? If you are going to adopt this new rule, then you should get rid of divisons all together. Why should you play certain teams twice a year if there's no bonus for being the best of the 4.
Nati Ice Posted February 3, 2008 Report Posted February 3, 2008 while practical, this would be a bad business decision
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.