NFL Playoff Matchup Q

[SL__72]

The way the playoffs work right now it is impossible to completely avoid divisional match ups in the 1st round. If both wild cards come from the same division and the winner of that division doesn't earn a bye, 3/4 teams in the first round are all from the same division.

At least thats better then the old way they did it. In 1994 all 4 teams in the first round of the playoffs were from the Central division. Chicago > Minnesota and GB > Detroit...

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
The way the playoffs work right now it is impossible to completely avoid divisional match ups in the 1st round. If both wild cards come from the same division and the winner of that division doesn't earn a bye, 3/4 teams in the first round are all from the same division.

At least thats better then the old way they did it. In 1994 all 4 teams in the first round of the playoffs were from the Central division. Chicago > Minnesota and GB > Detroit...

[/ QUOTE ]

And by the time the second round was over, all of those teams were eliminated.

I agree, the new alignment is better than the old alignment.

[Jack Bando]

Nuts, I meant I thought it was A in my OP ( I was rooting for the crazy scenario of Was over NYG, GB over CHI, and whoever GB needs to win-GB upset 3 seed, Bears crush them second round.)

[MacGuyV]

I dunno, to me 6 divisions of 5 teams each was perfect. With 8 4team divisions it isn't going to be that uncommon for an 11-5 wildcard to play @ an 8-8 division winner, which in my mind is a semi-travesty.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, to me 6 divisions of 5 teams each was perfect. With 8 4team divisions it isn't going to be that uncommon for an 11-5 wildcard to play @ an 8-8 division winner, which in my mind is a semi-travesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mind it if they seeded based on record. I like the current alignment because between teams in the same division, there are 14 common opponents, whereas on the old system, there were ~12 (and it was much fewer in a three way tie). Also, under the old system, it was possible to go 10 years or more without two teams plyaing each other. Under the new system, teams play teams from the other conference every 4 years, and teams from the same conference at least every 3 years.

Also, there hasn't been an 8-8 division winner yet, and if you want to have a home playoff game, you have to win your division. I think that's fair.

[d10]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, it's A. It's looking like the Eagles are going to be playing the Giants in the Wild Card this year (3vs6).

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I don't even think they'll be in the playoffs.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, to me 6 divisions of 5 teams each was perfect. With 8 4team divisions it isn't going to be that uncommon for an 11-5 wildcard to play @ an 8-8 division winner, which in my mind is a semi-travesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's very unlikely that we'll see an 8-8 division winner.

[Michael Davis]

"I think it's very unlikely that we'll see an 8-8 division winner."

How much do you want to bet that an 8-8 or worse team wins a division in the next five years, starting this year?

-Michael

[MacGuyV]

Yeah really. I mean, maybe Seattle loses this week and maybe they don't, but it's bound to happen really soon under the current format.

I'm all for upholding the tradition of a division title counting for something...but I think that kinda went out the window anyway the day they decided to make EIGHT of them, ya know?

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
Nuts, I meant I thought it was A in my OP ( I was rooting for the crazy scenario of Was over NYG, GB over CHI, and whoever GB needs to win-GB upset 3 seed, Bears crush them second round.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not that crazy. There is a chance the Giants lose tonight as their freefall continues. GB knocks off the Bears who might only have in their starters for the 1st quarter if the field is sloppy. Then GB would play Philly or Dallas. An upset there is pretty unlikely with the way the Eagles have been playing, but wouldn't be shocking.