• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

So how about that football

Page 35 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
25,764
1,386
126
No, there is a separate seeding pool for the div champs. For instance, the WFT will be seeded fourth, while all 3 wild card teams will be seeded lower, despite all of them having better records. That is a separate seeding pool for division champs. Granted that is not different, but one can still consider it unfair. It does matter less this year than most years though, because there in not such a huge home field advantage due to lack of fans in the stands.
Seeding for bragging rights is a bunch of nonsense. It's something the analysts come up with to boost the commentary shows.
What purbeast0 is saying is that division teams are really only in competition with each other. When it comes to the playoffs, the only thing on the line is 1. get in the playoffs 2. secure a better record than the other division champs and you, being the higher seed get homefield advantage. Wildcards are wildcards and always travel since the 1st and 2nd seeds don't play the wildcard round.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
51,142
3,811
126
No, there is a separate seeding pool for the div champs. For instance, the WFT will be seeded fourth, while all 3 wild card teams will be seeded lower, despite all of them having better records. That is a separate seeding pool for division champs. Granted that is not different, but one can still consider it unfair. It does matter less this year than most years though, because there in not such a huge home field advantage due to lack of fans in the stands.
I mean, you repeated exactly what I said.

Thanks I guess?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,149
21,139
136
I have no idea wtf you are talking about here but you are wrong. There is no "separate pool of seeding among division champs" in the seeding. The division champs with the best record is 1st seed, the division champ with the worst record is the 4th seed.

After that the wild cards are the best 2 (3 this season) records that are not division winners are the 5-6-7 seeds.

The only difference this year is that instead of 2 wild cards there are 3. Nothing else.

EDIT:

covid/playoff party at purbeast house next Saturday ta 8pm!
I don't know how you don't understand what I am saying, but I think it is because you are still trapped in "define by division champs" for seeding. The fact that this only applies to teams 1-4, as you and I have both said, is exactly what defines the separate pools for seeding, within each league. How do you not understand that? teams 1-4 are absolutely not seeded by record, on equal standing with all the teams. They simply aren't. Saying that this is "OK because division champs" isn't much of an argument when looking at the current reality of the system.

EDIT: correction--I see that I think I typed that wrong, earlier. Within the division champs, yes, they are all seeded by record among themselves, that is true. What I mean is that when you consider that the Wild Card is added to the mix, that simply breaks down. Effectively, you have the top two seeds, which will always be the top 2 seeds, and division champs, getting those spots based on their record. But because 2 more division champs are "Required to fill out seeds 3 and 4" they aren't really subjected to the same seeding rules as everyone else. In actual reality, seeds 1, 2, 5, 6, and now 7, are basically seeded on equal terms. 3 and 4 however are "gifted" these magic seeds (not their playoff spots--I am only talking about seeds) outside of consideration of really everyone else in the playoffs--it is in reference to the top 2 seeds, but only that.

I am saying that defining seeding by division champs is the problem. Yes, the division champs are 1-4 seeds. That is why they have a separate pool, for each league--how do you not understand that is what I am saying?--and that is why it no longer makes any sense. Nearly half of the playoff participants now are no longer division champs. Giving the champs automatic bids, but then subjecting EVERYONE to the same seeding rules is the only way forward: this preserves the 1-2 seed the way it has ALWAYS been, by default, and insures that garbage teams aren't coddled into favorable conditions through circumstance of playing garbage competition. (WFT has not earned the right to host Tampa Bay, for example. They really haven't, and basically anyone agrees with that when not using the "well, because the rules say so!" argument)

I am saying that this needs to be dissolved; you seem stuck on the impossibility of removing "division champ" as the qualification for the 3 and 4 seeds (again, seeds 1 and 2 are always going to be naturally based on record, and they will always be division champs, anyway. Math). I don't understand how you currently don't see that the 3 and 4 seeds have an entirely different set of rules for their seeding than the other teams, though. It's punching you right in the face with its silliness! :D

Also, since you said the NFL playoffs are Perfect as they are--does this include the previous couple of decades, or this year only, with the increased # of teams? That's a massive change, so either it was perfect up until this year and isn't, or it only is now. Which is it? It can only be perfect--because of what perfect actually means--in one of the two now-recent models of the playoffs.

I don't know why adding a team, to further muddying how seeding works, and which will inevitably and inarguably lead to more participation of garbage teams, is somehow unquestionable, whereas fixing the seeding, which is clearly wrong, is untenable. I just don't get it.

So, I saw yesterday that there were 4 (now 5) sub-500 teams to ever make the playoffs (SB era). This is what people use to defend the system, but that is also because they aren't looking at what this data actually says (I know, small number, but many seasons to look at, hence--this is where the meaning lies). The first 2 were in 84 and, I think, 86 or 87 or something like that. So, it took nearly 24 years in the SB era for this to happen. But then, who cares? Much of that time was far fewer teams...you know, actual division champs, and only division champs. So, one pool of teams subjected to equal conditions for seeding. In 1978, the Wild Card was added. ...what's this? Only 5 or 6 years later, we start seeing sub-500 teams make the playoffs now? Oh, that's strange. Suddenly something has changed. But then, another drought, of another 25 years or so...when we've had 2 more years of sub-500 teams (Seattle and what was it, Philly? and now WFT). So, 3 out of 5 of those sub-500 teams appearing in the playoffs are concentrated in our current era of the playoffs. So, 60% of the events we are tracking have occurred in the most recent >5% of the potential history of the events.

It is changing. This is how numbers tell us, in real time, that things are actually changing and should be addressed. There is no more argument for how rare this is, because the new rule, which further changes everything, has basically enshrined that we will get crap teams with an automatic bid (or just overall more crap teams) participating. And remember, there is no "football reason" for increasing the number of teams. It is only about money. Nothing more, nothing less. That is all they will use to make their decisions. Knowing this, I fail to see how appeals to history or illogical defense of illogical precedent are justified with an organization that really doesn't care that much about these things when you get down to it. They truly only want to know how much more profit their product can generate every year.
 
Last edited:

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
51,142
3,811
126
I don't know how you don't understand what I am saying, but I think it is because you are still trapped in "define by division champs" for seeding. The fact that this only applies to teams 1-4, as you and I have both said, is exactly what defines the separate pools for seeding, within each league. How do you not understand that? teams 1-4 are absolutely not seeded by record, on equal standing with all the teams. They simply aren't. Saying that this is "OK because division champs" isn't much of an argument when looking at the current reality of the system.

EDIT: correction--I see that I think I typed that wrong, earlier. Within the division champs, yes, they are all seeded by record among themselves, that is true. What I mean is that when you consider that the Wild Card is added to the mix, that simply breaks down. Effectively, you have the top two seeds, which will always be the top 2 seeds, and division champs, getting those spots based on their record. But because 2 more division champs are "Required to fill out seeds 3 and 4" they aren't really subjected to the same seeding rules as everyone else. In actual reality, seeds 1, 2, 5, 6, and now 7, are basically seeded on equal terms. 3 and 4 however are "gifted" these magic seeds (not their playoff spots--I am only talking about seeds) outside of consideration of really everyone else in the playoffs--it is in reference to the top 2 seeds, but only that.

I am saying that defining seeding by division champs is the problem. Yes, the division champs are 1-4 seeds. That is why they have a separate pool, for each league--how do you not understand that is what I am saying?--and that is why it no longer makes any sense. Nearly half of the playoff participants now are no longer division champs. Giving the champs automatic bids, but then subjecting EVERYONE to the same seeding rules is the only way forward: this preserves the 1-2 seed the way it has ALWAYS been, by default, and insures that garbage teams aren't coddled into favorable conditions through circumstance of playing garbage competition. (WFT has not earned the right to host Tampa Bay, for example. They really haven't, and basically anyone agrees with that when not using the "well, because the rules say so!" argument)

I am saying that this needs to be dissolved; you seem stuck on the impossibility of removing "division champ" as the qualification for the 3 and 4 seeds (again, seeds 1 and 2 are always going to be naturally based on record, and they will always be division champs, anyway. Math). I don't understand how you currently don't see that the 3 and 4 seeds have an entirely different set of rules for their seeding than the other teams, though. It's punching you right in the face with its silliness! :D

Also, since you said the NFL playoffs are Perfect as they are--does this include the previous couple of decades, or this year only, with the increased # of teams? That's a massive change, so either it was perfect up until this year and isn't, or it only is now. Which is it? It can only be perfect--because of what perfect actually means--in one of the two now-recent models of the playoffs.

I don't know why adding a team, to further muddying how seeding works, and which will inevitably and inarguably lead to more participation of garbage teams, is somehow unquestionable, whereas fixing the seeding, which is clearly wrong, is untenable. I just don't get it.

So, I saw yesterday that there were 4 (now 5) sub-500 teams to ever make the playoffs (SB era). This is what people use to defend the system, but that is also because they aren't looking at what this data actually says (I know, small number, but many seasons to look at, hence--this is where the meaning lies). The first 2 were in 84 and, I think, 86 or 87 or something like that. So, it took nearly 24 years in the SB era for this to happen. But then, who cares? Much of that time was far fewer teams...you know, actual division champs, and only division champs. So, one pool of teams subjected to equal conditions for seeding. In 1978, the Wild Card was added. ...what's this? Only 5 or 6 years later, we start seeing sub-500 teams make the playoffs now? Oh, that's strange. Suddenly something has changed. But then, another drought, of another 25 years or so...when we've had 2 more years of sub-500 teams (Seattle and what was it, Philly? and now WFT). So, 3 out of 5 of those sub-500 teams appearing in the playoffs are concentrated in our current era of the playoffs. So, 60% of the events we are tracking have occurred in the most recent >5% of the potential history of the events.

It is changing. This is how numbers tell us, in real time, that things are actually changing and should be addressed. There is no more argument for how rare this is, because the new rule, which further changes everything, has basically enshrined that we will get crap teams with an automatic bid (or just overall more crap teams) participating. And remember, there is no "football reason" for increasing the number of teams. It is only about money. Nothing more, nothing less. That is all they will use to make their decisions. Knowing this, I fail to see how appeals to history or illogical defense of illogical precedent are justified with an organization that really doesn't care that much about these things when you get down to it. They truly only want to know how much more profit their product can generate every year.
Holy moly you wrote a lot lol.

I'm still not following why you are acting like 1-2 seeds are any different than 3-4 seeds. They aren't.

Seeds 1-4 are all the "same".

Then you have the wildcards that make up 5-6 where it's just the runner ups in the divisions with the best records.

I believe that we can agree on, but I still don't get why you are putting seeds 3-4 in different manner than 1-2 because they aren't. You say seeds 1-2, 5-7 are all the same and 3-4 aren't but that isn't the case at all. It depends on the year and records to make the point you are trying to make. In any season seeds 1-4 could have the best record in the conference. Or seed 2 could potentially have a worse record than the 5th seed. It depends on the records that year.

I also do not like the 3rd wild card team being added this season. The NFL playoffs are/were perfect with 12 teams making every game super meaningful in the end. Adding 2 extra teams weakens that slightly. I'm all for more football though so having 6 games next weekend instead of 4 is not something I will complain about.

But the 12 team playoff IMO is the perfect formula, including 4 division winners making it and being top 1-4 seeds.

Every other sport has a cheaper playoff where 1/2 the league makes the playoffs. I know baseball changed it recently with the 1 game playoff though. I also think the NCAA tourney adding 4 teams is stupid and pointless too. Those bum ass teams will never go anywhere. If you aren't a top 64 team, being 65-68 isn't going to help you go anywhere.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,271
1,332
126
redskins/philly game:
with seconds left to go, why did the philly backup qb throw the ball down the middle for a few yards instead of the endzone for a hail mary???
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
19,206
2,750
126
Grats to Wash, now destroy Brady.

Congrats to Washington ... not that any of the NFC East teams really deserve to be called "champs" but you guys came the closest!

I would have enjoyed a chance for the Giants to completely ruin Brady's day one more time next weekend but IMO it's better this way since we are less likely to get stuck with Gettleman @ GM again next year. (and we still got to beat the Cow-Pies!)

Go "Football team" !!! ;)


*(I'm adopting Washington and Cleveland/Indy this year for rooting purposes)
 
Last edited:

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
19,206
2,750
126
Holy moly you wrote a lot lol.

I'm still not following why you are acting like 1-2 seeds are any different than 3-4 seeds. They aren't.

Seeds 1-4 are all the "same".

Then you have the wildcards that make up 5-6 where it's just the runner ups in the divisions with the best records.

I believe that we can agree on, but I still don't get why you are putting seeds 3-4 in different manner than 1-2 because they aren't. You say seeds 1-2, 5-7 are all the same and 3-4 aren't but that isn't the case at all. It depends on the year and records to make the point you are trying to make. In any season seeds 1-4 could have the best record in the conference. Or seed 2 could potentially have a worse record than the 5th seed. It depends on the records that year.

I also do not like the 3rd wild card team being added this season. The NFL playoffs are/were perfect with 12 teams making every game super meaningful in the end. Adding 2 extra teams weakens that slightly. I'm all for more football though so having 6 games next weekend instead of 4 is not something I will complain about.

But the 12 team playoff IMO is the perfect formula, including 4 division winners making it and being top 1-4 seeds.

Every other sport has a cheaper playoff where 1/2 the league makes the playoffs. I know baseball changed it recently with the 1 game playoff though. I also think the NCAA tourney adding 4 teams is stupid and pointless too. Those bum ass teams will never go anywhere. If you aren't a top 64 team, being 65-68 isn't going to help you go anywhere.

I'm torn on the playoff issue.... while I agree the NFL does by far the best job with the playoffs of the American pro sports leagues I can see the attraction of adding more games/teams to the mix. I don't really have a problem with two more games provided that's where it ends.

The one change I really WOULD like to see is elimination of the 2ed week between the Championship games and the SB.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,394
126
Congrats to Washington ... <snip>

Go "Football team" !!! ;)


*(I'm adopting Washington and Cleveland this year for rooting purposes)
If WFT and Browns both lose next week, I am going to point at this post and laugh. ... :D

Sorry I am a bit cranky. My Fins was so close but did not make to the big dance this year, again. :(
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
51,142
3,811
126
I'm torn on the playoff issue.... while I agree the NFL does by far the best job with the playoffs of the American pro sports leagues I can see the attraction of adding more games/teams to the mix.

The one change I really WOULD like to see is elimination of the 2ed week between the Championship games and the SB.
Yeah I see the attraction and am not complaining about more football, but it cheapens the playoffs when you do it. 12 teams, then 2 weekends of 4 games, 2 on saturday, 2 on Sunday, is just perfection.

I agree about the 2 weeks between the championship games and the SB. It kind of makes the hype die down a bit IMO. And now they are trying to at least fill that empty weekend with the Pro Bowl, but we all know what a joke that is and no one wants to go to it, let alone watch it.

I'm just glad that the WFT game is Saturday night because that means I can get f'd up and not have to worry about work the next day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
19,206
2,750
126
If WFT and Browns both lose next week, I am going to point at this post and laugh. ... :D

Sorry I am a bit cranky. My Fins was so close but did not make to the big dance this year, again. :(

Its fine ... I understand completely! ;)

*(also that's one of the things that makes sports fun!!!)


And while I hate to take away from you reveling in sour-grapes, I do feel the need to point out that "rooting" for a team and believing they have a realistic chance to actually win anything of significance are two very different things!

:p


My (not very) bold predictions for playoff winners:

AFC: (1) Chiefs (2) Bills

NFC: (1) Saints (2) Seahawks
 
Last edited:

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
19,206
2,750
126
Yeah I also don't think anyone is going to be shocked if WFT and/or the Browns lose next weekend.

Tampa is a flawed team even with Golden-Boy and I wouldn't be shocked to see a tight game but I do agree that the Bucs should win this one if their defense shows up.

Cleveland OTOH is extremely tough to figure out. If they play they way they did yesterday Ben and the Steelers should win going away BUT if the offense comes to play I could see a 14-point Browns victory. Neither outcome would shock me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: purbeast0

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,303
919
106
Holy moly you wrote a lot lol.

I'm still not following why you are acting like 1-2 seeds are any different than 3-4 seeds. They aren't.

Seeds 1-4 are all the "same".

Then you have the wildcards that make up 5-6 where it's just the runner ups in the divisions with the best records.

I believe that we can agree on, but I still don't get why you are putting seeds 3-4 in different manner than 1-2 because they aren't. You say seeds 1-2, 5-7 are all the same and 3-4 aren't but that isn't the case at all. It depends on the year and records to make the point you are trying to make. In any season seeds 1-4 could have the best record in the conference. Or seed 2 could potentially have a worse record than the 5th seed. It depends on the records that year.

I also do not like the 3rd wild card team being added this season. The NFL playoffs are/were perfect with 12 teams making every game super meaningful in the end. Adding 2 extra teams weakens that slightly. I'm all for more football though so having 6 games next weekend instead of 4 is not something I will complain about.

But the 12 team playoff IMO is the perfect formula, including 4 division winners making it and being top 1-4 seeds.

Every other sport has a cheaper playoff where 1/2 the league makes the playoffs. I know baseball changed it recently with the 1 game playoff though. I also think the NCAA tourney adding 4 teams is stupid and pointless too. Those bum ass teams will never go anywhere. If you aren't a top 64 team, being 65-68 isn't going to help you go anywhere.
What you are saying in in direct contradiction to your conclusion. Nobody is saying there are different seeding pools between the first four seeds (i.e. the division champs). The division champs are one seeding pool, while the wild cards are another seeding pool. Thus *2* seeding pools.
 

dasherHampton

Platinum Member
Jan 19, 2018
2,450
454
96
I've come across some heinously bad takes the past few years but this one takes the cake imo. I've come across it in at least 3 places.

Let me try to translate into modern day "wokespeak":

The Dolphins must ditch Fitzpatrick now to empower Tua to be the best he can be. If Fitzpatrick is on the roster next season it will most certainly damage Tua's psyche. How can Tua be expected to shine with Fitz looking over his shoulder?
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
51,142
3,811
126
Nobody is saying there are different seeding pools between the first four seeds (i.e. the division champs).
Yes ... yes there was, which is what started me talking about it.

HOWEVER: let's fix the seeding. We already, for some reason, set seeding based on record for the TOP 2 teams anyway...then, all the rest, get their own stupid set of rules that are, well arbitrary.
I think he already said he mistyped though.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,271
1,332
126
Cleveland OTOH is extremely tough to figure out.
If they play they way they did yesterday Ben and the Steelers should win going away BUT if the offense comes to play I could see a 14-point Browns victory. Neither outcome would shock me.
um.. thought ben didnt play yesterday thus why the browns were 10 points FAVORITES. (and they barely won by 2 pts)
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,303
919
106
Tampa is a flawed team even with Golden-Boy and I wouldn't be shocked to see a tight game but I do agree that the Bucs should win this one if their defense shows up.

Cleveland OTOH is extremely tough to figure out. If they play they way they did yesterday Ben and the Steelers should win going away BUT if the offense comes to play I could see a 14-point Browns victory. Neither outcome would shock me.
Yea, TB is too dependent on Brady, and the pass defense can be atrocious. If they give him good protection, Brady can still light it up, and they are capable of beating anybody. OTOH, if the opponents can get good pressure on him, Brady has problems, and I have not seen the defense and running game show that they can carry the team if Brady is "off". They have a good record, but have only beaten one quality team (Packers).

I would love for the Browns to beat the Steelers, but it seems unlikely they can beat them twice in a row.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
51,142
3,811
126
Yea, TB is too dependent on Brady, and the pass defense can be atrocious. If they give him good protection, Brady can still light it up, and they are capable of beating anybody. OTOH, if the opponents can get good pressure on him, Brady has problems, and I have not seen the defense and running game show that they can carry the team if Brady is "off". They have a good record, but have only beaten one quality team (Packers).

I would love for the Browns to beat the Steelers, but it seems unlikely they can beat them twice in a row.
I dunno man, the Steelers have been looking pretty average or less than average since they got WFT'd.

Browns are a fun team to watch now too so that game should be fantastic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,585
1,648
136
Holy moly you wrote a lot lol.

I'm still not following why you are acting like 1-2 seeds are any different than 3-4 seeds. They aren't.

Seeds 1-4 are all the "same".

Then you have the wildcards that make up 5-6 where it's just the runner ups in the divisions with the best records.

I believe that we can agree on, but I still don't get why you are putting seeds 3-4 in different manner than 1-2 because they aren't. You say seeds 1-2, 5-7 are all the same and 3-4 aren't but that isn't the case at all. It depends on the year and records to make the point you are trying to make. In any season seeds 1-4 could have the best record in the conference. Or seed 2 could potentially have a worse record than the 5th seed. It depends on the records that year.

I also do not like the 3rd wild card team being added this season. The NFL playoffs are/were perfect with 12 teams making every game super meaningful in the end. Adding 2 extra teams weakens that slightly. I'm all for more football though so having 6 games next weekend instead of 4 is not something I will complain about.

But the 12 team playoff IMO is the perfect formula, including 4 division winners making it and being top 1-4 seeds.

Every other sport has a cheaper playoff where 1/2 the league makes the playoffs. I know baseball changed it recently with the 1 game playoff though. I also think the NCAA tourney adding 4 teams is stupid and pointless too. Those bum ass teams will never go anywhere. If you aren't a top 64 team, being 65-68 isn't going to help you go anywhere.
The issue is that the NFL is a much more physical sport than any other. To ask these guys to play extra weeks is not a good long-term strategy for their health. They already have an average career length of 4 years and adding extra games or no bye or no rest will make that shorter. The week between the playoffs and the Super Bowl is necessary. There must be some advantage to winning the games to get a conference championship. They have to get some rest. Do you want the SB to be the best two teams or the ones that survive? If it is the later, then expect some key player to go down and then one or both of the teams do not play a full slate of guys, impacting the quality of the game.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
51,142
3,811
126
The issue is that the NFL is a much more physical sport than any other. To ask these guys to play extra weeks is not a good long-term strategy for their health. They already have an average career length of 4 years and adding extra games or no bye or no rest will make that shorter. The week between the playoffs and the Super Bowl is necessary. There must be some advantage to winning the games to get a conference championship. They have to get some rest. Do you want the SB to be the best two teams or the ones that survive? If it is the later, then expect some key player to go down and then one or both of the teams do not play a full slate of guys, impacting the quality of the game.
Not sure why you quoted me. Never once did I say they should make the season longer or add rounds to the playoffs.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY