Thread: So Wave

I think if you want to make the case, as some are, that it should be record and not winning the division that controls seeding, then it only makes sense that you don't stop there, but also extend it to qualifying for the playoffs. Meaning, winning the division no longer gets you in the playoffs, but instead, the six teams with the top records in each conference get in, even if four of them come from the same division (not sure if that's mathematically possible) or six teams come from two divisions, with two divisions in the conference having zero representation.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You shouldn't on the one hand say winning the division is such an accomplishment, that you get in the playoffs, even when teams with better records don't get in (was it Seattle one year getting in at 7-9?), but then say that winning the division shouldn't give you a home game. I don't see how you can divorce qualifying and seeding.

Personally, I think there should be a premium given for winning your division. However, I can certainly see the other side's point of view, that says absolute record should be the driving factor in home field and then I simply say that once you go that far, it only makes sense that you take it all the way, and throw winning the division completely out, and simply take the top six teams in each conference and seed them based on record.

I dont think more data is needed than what was already provided. What we see with just the Super Bowl winners (and quite honestly...that's all that matters) is that teams CAN play on the road and WIN in the playoffs. This is despite their regular season record. That being said, there would appear to be no significant advantage to having home field throughout. It is a reward for having the best record. What you do with it after that is up to you and the numbers show those teams dont always take advantage of it.

SF and NO had arguments for playing on the road against a team with a lesser record...but they won anyway. KC playes on the road against a team with an equal record, but I can guarantee you that playing on the road had nothing to do with their abysmal meltdown. Then, SD played on the road against a team with a much better record and still won. 4 games this weekend...1 home win that was gift-wrapped by the opponent. I dont know what more proof we need that home field isnt always an advantage if you are not the better team.

I thought the chiefs lost at home. I must be retarded for real

Originally Posted by Tned

I think if you want to make the case, as some are, that it should be record and not winning the division that controls seeding, then it only makes sense that you don't stop there, but also extend it to qualifying for the playoffs. Meaning, winning the division no longer gets you in the playoffs, but instead, the six teams with the top records in each conference get in, even if four of them come from the same division (not sure if that's mathematically possible) or six teams come from two divisions, with two divisions in the conference having zero representation.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You shouldn't on the one hand say winning the division is such an accomplishment, that you get in the playoffs, even when teams with better records don't get in (was it Seattle one year getting in at 7-9?), but then say that winning the division shouldn't give you a home game. I don't see how you can divorce qualifying and seeding.

Personally, I think there should be a premium given for winning your division. However, I can certainly see the other side's point of view, that says absolute record should be the driving factor in home field and then I simply say that once you go that far, it only makes sense that you take it all the way, and throw winning the division completely out, and simply take the top six teams in each conference and seed them based on record.

Bit off topic but did you see my PM from yesterday? I sent it through my phone so i dont know if you ever saw it.

Originally Posted by Northman

Bit off topic but did you see my PM from yesterday? I sent it through my phone so i dont know if you ever saw it.

you never pm me anymore you jerkoff

So agap, do you think we have a shot against the 49ers next week? Will we hit enough home runs to win?

Originally Posted by chazoe60

So agap, do you think we have a shot against the 49ers next week? Will we hit enough home runs to win?

9ers play the chiefs I think

Originally Posted by Northman

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

But I do have to ask this North. If you are so insistent that home field doesn't matter and the better team will win regardless, what problem do you have with letting the team with the better record host? You said yourself homefield doesn't matter. So what's the harm in giving the team with the better record the home game?

Because im of the belief that winning your division means you get to host a playoff game. If the setup was different and it went strictly by record i could see your argument but its not set up that way so as it stands the division should get he home game. Winning the division has to mean more than just making the playoffs in its current format.

But you said home games don't matter. So how is that a reward for winning the division?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I dont think more data is needed than what was already provided. What we see with just the Super Bowl winners (and quite honestly...that's all that matters) is that teams CAN play on the road and WIN in the playoffs. This is despite their regular season record. That being said, there would appear to be no significant advantage to having home field throughout. It is a reward for having the best record. What you do with it after that is up to you and the numbers show those teams dont always take advantage of it.

SF and NO had arguments for playing on the road against a team with a lesser record...but they won anyway. KC playes on the road against a team with an equal record, but I can guarantee you that playing on the road had nothing to do with their abysmal meltdown. Then, SD played on the road against a team with a much better record and still won. 4 games this weekend...1 home win that was gift-wrapped by the opponent. I dont know what more proof we need that home field isnt always an advantage if you are not the better team.

Yep the meltdown by the Chiefs didn't have anything to do with playing on the road it had to with just about everything else.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

But you said home games don't matter. So how is that a reward for winning the division?

Because there is so much parity in the league homefield doesnt mean what it use too in terms of winning and losing. But, if your are an organization or team that wants to play at home in front of your crowd than you play to win your division so you can have that opportunity to play in front of your crowd. A team might consider playing at home as an advantage but in reality it is not. Subconsciously they might tell themselves it gives them an advantage but as i pointed out in recent years for the most part its meant nothing in terms of the SB champion. Just because a team believes it gives them an advantage does not equate to actually being true. But teams will continue to try and win that homefield regardless because that is what they believe. And technically, for the sake of sales it puts more butts in the seats in the playoffs if they get home games in the postseason.

Originally Posted by Northman

Because there is so much parity in the league homefield doesnt mean what it use too in terms of winning and losing. But, if your are an organization or team that wants to play at home in front of your crowd than you play to win your division so you can have that opportunity to play in front of your crowd. A team might consider playing at home as an advantage but in reality it is not. Subconsciously they might tell themselves it gives them an advantage but as i pointed out in recent years for the most part its meant nothing in terms of the SB champion. Just because a team believes it gives them an advantage does not equate to actually being true. But teams will continue to try and win that homefield regardless because that is what they believe. And technically, for the sake of sales it puts more butts in the seats in the playoffs if they get home games in the postseason.

There is some advantage to playing at home if you can keep your fans involved but with a rules are today that can be overcome by road teams.

Originally Posted by Tned

I think if you want to make the case, as some are, that it should be record and not winning the division that controls seeding, then it only makes sense that you don't stop there, but also extend it to qualifying for the playoffs. Meaning, winning the division no longer gets you in the playoffs, but instead, the six teams with the top records in each conference get in, even if four of them come from the same division (not sure if that's mathematically possible) or six teams come from two divisions, with two divisions in the conference having zero representation.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You shouldn't on the one hand say winning the division is such an accomplishment, that you get in the playoffs, even when teams with better records don't get in (was it Seattle one year getting in at 7-9?), but then say that winning the division shouldn't give you a home game. I don't see how you can divorce qualifying and seeding.

Personally, I think there should be a premium given for winning your division. However, I can certainly see the other side's point of view, that says absolute record should be the driving factor in home field and then I simply say that once you go that far, it only makes sense that you take it all the way, and throw winning the division completely out, and simply take the top six teams in each conference and seed them based on record.

Heck if were going that far we might always have every team with a winning record should make the playoffs.

Originally Posted by Tned

I think if you want to make the case, as some are, that it should be record and not winning the division that controls seeding, then it only makes sense that you don't stop there, but also extend it to qualifying for the playoffs. Meaning, winning the division no longer gets you in the playoffs, but instead, the six teams with the top records in each conference get in, even if four of them come from the same division (not sure if that's mathematically possible) or six teams come from two divisions, with two divisions in the conference having zero representation.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You shouldn't on the one hand say winning the division is such an accomplishment, that you get in the playoffs, even when teams with better records don't get in (was it Seattle one year getting in at 7-9?), but then say that winning the division shouldn't give you a home game. I don't see how you can divorce qualifying and seeding.

Personally, I think there should be a premium given for winning your division. However, I can certainly see the other side's point of view, that says absolute record should be the driving factor in home field and then I simply say that once you go that far, it only makes sense that you take it all the way, and throw winning the division completely out, and simply take the top six teams in each conference and seed them based on record.

See, I think you can divorce qualifying and seeding. I see it as a middle ground. Still reward a division winner with a playoff game so that divisions still mean something, but then seed by record among those teams. I think it is a nice middle ground.

I get all the arguments for divisions, that they keep more teams in the race and promote rivalries, and for these reasons I doubt they ever get rid of them, but I honestly would be fine with it if they did.

Originally Posted by Northman

Bit off topic but did you see my PM from yesterday? I sent it through my phone so i dont know if you ever saw it.

I did, but I planned on not responding, but with the public call out, I guess I will have to respond now...

Originally Posted by Tned

I did, but I planned on not responding, but with the public call out, I guess I will have to respond now...

Bwhaahahahhahahaha.....bitch....