 |
 |
Hey rules committee - shouldn't the 10-win teams be the top 3 seeds? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 11/27/2018 9:33:54 AM |
 |
 |
Hey rules committee - shouldn't the 10-win teams be the top 3 seeds?
|
|
|
|
Each division winner deserves a playoff berth, but I don't think those 4 division-winner spots need to be the top 4 seeds. Rules committee, please consider a format whereby once playoff teams are determined, seeding is based strictly on record and points instead of division winners as 1-4.
What say you, rules committee?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2018 10:50:18 AM |
|
|
Stats for your asses!
|
|
|
|
I went back and looked. It's a snow day. I have time. It may just be the optical illusion because we've rarely had three teams with double digits (1999, 2005, 2009, 2010 with just two teams, 2006 with three, and 2003 with FOUR!). So it's been a long time! All things traditional, since ’13, records had fallen in order from best --> worst, which I checked. But the last incident happened in '13 when I played the Factor (#4) when I had a better record as a #5 in the playoffs. (I won.) There may be others before then, but I don’t have THAT much time. Incidentally, that year Koo and Thunder had double digit wins (the last time before now). Only one team since '13 made it to 10 (Koo '16)!
Point being. It isn't common. This season is of epic proportions of the likes that we may possibly never see again. So I could see the argument for either way. “That's the way the cookie crumbles” goes through my head all too often in Ragnarok. Is it fair that Sean might tie your record and you only edge him by a few points...and get the #5? There are multiple teams still fighting for #6 in the last week, so the fact that he’s in, no matter what, is still prime real estate.
Sidebar. I guess I don't get the realignment Calculator. If the season ended today, and I'm #6, why would I still be in Hel? Curious.
I know a few of us are on here and pondering this. I just wanted to throw some stats at your asses, and realize that this season isn't the norm, so is this the scenario we juggle seeds, when at least in 2013, it didn't faze anyone to ask the question. Because three 10's up there is an impressive board. Not since 2006!
I'm sure we'll hear other thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2018 12:08:53 PM |
|
|
snow days rock
|
|
|
|
Enjoy it, Z!
I agree with Jeremy's point about the playoff seeding. With the divisions being weighted, and therefore the teams in the higher divisions playing comparatively more difficult schedules already, I think we would be swinging the pendulum too far if we were to make the 4 division champions automatically the top 4 seeds. We can use my team this year as an example--and it's more of an extreme one, given, as Zach noted, it's rare that a 2nd place team in a division also has 10+ wins--but the fact remains, this kind of thing could definitely happen again.
As it's currently configured, the 2nd place team in Asgard--already playing the toughest schedule--would get no higher than the #5 seed, and therefore have to play a road playoff game (which includes the home field advantage) against a team from a lower division that played a weaker schedule AND had fewer wins. That doesn't seem right, and I think it would make sense to make this change for the upcoming playoffs rather than wait until the following season.
Things are magnified this season because this happened in the Asgard division. But really, in theory wouldn't changing the playoff seeding really help across ALL divisions? In future years, what if the 2nd place team in Hel was 10-3? That team would deserve to be seeded higher than #5 as well.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/27/2018 6:47:58 PM |
|
|
It does make sense.
|
|
|
|
I can see both sides, if you will. I do vaguely remember feeling shafted with the seedings in 2013, but I was "go along to get along" cause that's just always been the rule. I also know we are pushing to to be cutting edge and revolutionary in our vision with FF. And we are! All of Sean's points are clear. And it does work for all seeds.
But there's not much posting on this propsal today, so...
I guess I'm saying I am for the shift to seeding teams based on overall league standings as opposed to, what... just division leaders plus two teams? Though the four division leaders still must get in the top six. It's just the remaining two second place teams and where they stand against the other division leaders. (Am I articulating this correctly?) I guess where I sense friction is that we are typically not a reactionary group. The idea of doing this next week could be seen as knee jerk. In the new era of weighted divisions, we may indeed see more of this. And with the new Offense led NFL, points will go up and winning streaks may be more common depending on your luck in the draft/FA/trades!
I've just been watching the snow all day, so I've been thinking on this too much. I'll wait and see what yoos other guys think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Cowher Tomlin
Football Freak
997 posts
 |
Fu: 100.96 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/28/2018 5:21:13 PM |
|
|
I'm not opposed to changing the seeding
|
|
|
|
| Everything we have been doing lately has been in the interest of creating a more balanced League, so if you guys think that will help accomplish that goal I see no reason not to implement it this season. Just so long as it doesn't hinder my improbable run for King of the Losers! |
|
|
|
|
|
