the all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread sponsored by Paintrain

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Some years you're going to have a 10-6 not make it, and the rare occasion an 11-5 team not make it. It's not a perfect system. But more times than not, we're going to see a team like last years Steelers get in. No desire to watch that. Just waters it down too much for me.

But you are wrong based on the past 13 years (which I showed you 5 of) you are most likely to have a 9-7 or 10 - 6 each year and some years you will even get an 11-5. Often those teams will be more competitive than the worst of the division champs.

[CRedskinsRule]

And the worst case scenario by your standard is an 8-8 team plays an away game against the 2 seed and the number 2 seed fans get to enjoy a romp victory at home. I would enjoy the skins being the 2nd seed and destroying an 8-8 team if that were to happen.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

But you are wrong based on the past 13 years (which I showed you 5 of) you are most likely to have a 9-7 or 10 - 6 each year and some years you will even get an 11-5. Often those teams will be more competitive than the worst of the division champs.

You showed 7 teams that were 9-7 or 8-8 and 3 that were 10-6. 9-7 doesn't mean you're a good team that should be in the playoffs. You're just above 500. Yes there's teams like the Giants that make a run but that year they were 1 of 6 teams in their conference. That's the difference for me. Feel bad for the 13 Cards and 08 Pats but that happens sometimes.

A lot of fans (and the NFL) think more football is better, and I get that. I just don't like it, as I've said, it waters down an already watered down product.

[MTK]

How is the playoff field as it is now "watered down"?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

And the worst case scenario by your standard is an 8-8 team plays an away game against the 2 seed and the number 2 seed fans get to enjoy a romp victory at home. I would enjoy the skins being the 2nd seed and destroying an 8-8 team if that were to happen.

But the number #2 seed should not be playing. They've earned that bye/weeks rest which is a big advantage. With 7 teams a #2 would be playing after week 16 to add in another game, which means more money.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

How is the playoff field as it is now "watered down"?

I didn't say that. I said the league in general is a bit watered down. Meaning, the quality of the teams and the play is not what it use to be.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

You showed 7 teams that were 9-7 or 8-8 and 3 that were 10-6. 9-7 doesn't mean you're a good team that should be in the playoffs. You're just above 500. Yes there's teams like the Giants that make a run but that year they were 1 of 6 teams in their conference. That's the difference for me. Feel bad for the 13 Cards and 08 Pats but that happens sometimes.

A lot of fans (and the NFL) think more football is better, and I get that. I just don't like it, as I've said, it waters down an already watered down product.

Glass half full/half empty argument. I showed that 3 teams were .500 and 7 teams were above .500. You want to focus on the 3 that were .500 and discount the 4 that were 1 game above it, however I also showed that no team ever was under .500, and that there would be an occasional team that was over 10-6.

[MTK]

I'll take gladly take 2 more playoff teams vs 2 more regular season games for everyone. The league is looking for more games/more revenue, this is obviously the better way to go. I hope we can all agree on that at least.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

But the number #2 seed should not be playing. They've earned that bye/weeks rest which is a big advantage. With 7 teams a #2 would be playing after week 16 to add in another game, which means more money.

Couldn't you just as easily argue that only the #1 seed deserves the bye week rest? Why does # 2 deserve it but not #3, or #4?

Of course it means more money, that's clearly a big motivation in adding it. But just because it adds more money doesn't in and of itself make it a bad thing.

It should work to increase competition, meaning the advantage of being #1 over #2 increases, so it's less likely to see a team rest it's starters early. Likewise, some years that #7 spot will be heavily contested by teams whose fans might have had nothing to root for except playing spoilers.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'll take gladly take 2 more playoff teams vs 2 more regular season games for everyone. The league is looking for more games/more revenue, this is obviously the better way to go. I hope we can all agree on that at least.

If I had to pick, w/out question, I would take the playoff games. I'm just confused why the league needs more revenue.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

If I had to pick, w/out question, I would take the playoff games. I'm just confused why the league needs more revenue.

The league needs more revenue because, face it, it's tough to live on only $9 billion.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

If I had to pick, w/out question, I would take the playoff games. I'm just confused why the league needs more revenue.

Well, for one thing, Goodell has said he wants a revenue goal of $25 billion in the next 13 years.

But that's beside the point. More importantly really is the NFL is a major major business. And, major or not, what business says "we don't need more revenue"?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well, for one thing, Goodell has said he wants a revenue goal of $25 billion in the next 13 years.

But that's beside the point. More importantly really is the NFL is a major major business. And, major or not, what business says "we don't need more revenue"?

A business that's closing up shop.

So what are people's thoughts on the no-dunking the ball over the goal post rule?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

A business that's closing up shop.

So what are people's thoughts on the no-dunking the ball over the goal post rule?

Call it the Jimmy Graham rule I guess. If he didn't break that one last year I doubt the rule comes about.

Plus with the talk of possibly extending the goal posts and making them longer, they'll be even more top heavy and more of a possible hazard if they get tipped over. The last thing anyone needs is for the posts to come down in the crowd and injure people.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

A business that's closing up shop.

So what are people's thoughts on the no-dunking the ball over the goal post rule?

Hate it. Hate nearly all the "No Fun Rules"