2010 NFL Season

[Lights Out]

Until the game starts. Then it's gonna be ugly.

[TopCat]

Yes, it will be awful. But it will be something I will remember for the rest of my life. Especially if the Vikes move or build a new stadium, I'll never see another snow game here.

[MDC]

I hope Brett Favre starts and gets his had rammed into the frozen turf by Julius Peppers

[B-Rich]

It's one thing for the NFL to reward division winners (especially those who are 7-9) an automatic spot in the playoffs, but to award them a home playoffs game over a Wild Card team who's got three or four more wins than them? something similar is going on over in the AFC as well, where both Wild Card teams will finish with better records than the botton two division winners. This is somethin the NFL has gotta look at over the offseason.

I disagree. If the division winner is so poor, shouldn't the wild card team have no problem beating them no matter where the game is played? This is a fluke season and it will all even itself out in the end after the Rams or Seahawks get bounced in the first round by the Saints.

I agree that all division winners should have an automatic spot in the playoffs. However, I believe teams should EARN homefield for the first round. Look at what;s going on now. The Saints, Ravens and Jets will all finish with 11 or 12 wins. But because they're locked in divisions with other 12+ win teams (NE, PIT, ATL), they are almost guaranteed to play all their games on the road in order to "reward" 7-8-9 game division winners home-field. It's crap.

Then why even have divisions in the first place? Why not just have two tables, take the top 6 teams and seed accordingly. I like the system the way it is. If you want a home playoff game, be the best team in your division. Who cares how great or poor the division next you is. Take care of business and beat the teams your division if you want to be the best. And guess what.... If you're the best team in your division, yet you suck, you're going to get embarrassed in front of your home fans wildcard weekend.

I have to agree with Cujo on this one. Yes, the division winner that sucks will get embarrassed at home. However the better wild card team is forced to play 3 straight road games if they want to make the Super Bowl. I know its been done before, but that's an extreme disadvantage. Now to an extent I agree with you that they shouldn't complain because they lost their division. But at the same time they may have had a much harder division to play in. I have no probably with a 7-9 division winner making the playoffs, but it does bother me some that they will be given a home game.

This is clearly the crux of the issue. We may end up with a Wild Card team that would have won the NFC West by 5 games. Obviously the wild card team has done far more to earn a home game than a 7-9 or 8-8 division "champion."

The whole point of a division is to have a reward for winning it; that reward is a higher seed and a home game in the first round. The way to eliminate this issue would be to have no divisions, but that isn't a good idea.

I disagree-- the reward for winning your division in a division set-up is the playoff spot itself. If there were no divisions, not only would you not have a higher seed and home game, you wouldn't even make the playoffs. To give an 8-8 or losing record team a higher seeding and home field advantage over a team with 4 or more wins than them is ludicrous.

In regards to claims that this is a statistical anomaly, not so much. Since the NFL went to 4 divisions in 2002, this year will likely be the second season this has happened (in nine seasons): 2008 was first-- New England finished 11-5, but sat home while San Diego at 8-8 won their division and made it. THAT should have been the Chargers reward -- a playoff berth. And the Colts, with a better 12-4 record, had to go to San Diego because they were the "lower seed".

2 out of nine -- 22% -- is not an anomaly.

[IceCap]

In regards to claims that this is a statistical anomaly, not so much. Since the NFL went to 4 divisions in 2002, this year will likely be the second season this has happened (in nine seasons): 2008 was first-- New England finished 11-5, but sat home while San Diego at 8-8 won their division and made it. THAT should have been the Chargers reward -- a playoff berth. And the Colts, with a better 12-4 record, had to go to San Diego because they were the "lower seed".

2 out of nine -- 22% -- is not an anomaly.

Back in 2008 the Charges simply getting in was the reward, yes. Slaughtering Denver in the last game of the season to clinch the playoffs was all I could have asked for. Yet the Colts lost to the Chargers in San Diego. Remember that? Hard to argue that the Colts deserved the home field advantage for that game. Aren't the best of the best supposed to win, regardless of where they're playing?

Even then, you at least had a .500 team making the playoffs. The very real possibility of a sub .500 team making the playoffs is an anomaly. It'll be one instance since the format was adopted. An anomaly. Certainly not worth freaking out over. If it happens two more times in five seasons, yes, do something about it. Only one time though? Not worth worrying about.

[rangerfan94]

Snow. Glorious snow. Tonight's game will be the greatest thing I've ever seen. It's a Christmas miracle!

Reminds me of the Joe Kapp days

[TopCat]

Snow. Glorious snow. Tonight's game will be the greatest thing I've ever seen. It's a Christmas miracle!

Reminds me of the Joe Kapp days

Don't know who that is, but hell yeah it does!

Hopefully Favre plays, one last go for the old gunslinger. In the snow and all. And (hopefully) one last go for Cujo's annoying anti-Favre posts, and my annoying Favre ass-kissing posts.

[trekbkr]

The whole point of a division is to have a reward for winning it; that reward is a higher seed and a home game in the first round. The way to eliminate this issue would be to have no divisions, but that isn't a good idea.

Really the whole point of a division is so every region of the country is guaranteed to be represented in the playoffs. It'd be bad for TV if only the east coast teams made the playoffs.

The whole point of a divisional structure is to maximize fan interest for the longest time possible. If the league were merely divided into two conferences, each with 6 teams out of 16 advancing to the postseason, then the fans of mediocre teams would be less likely to have something to cheer for and follow at the end of the year. Splitting a 16-team conference into four 4-team divisions spreads out playoff races and potentially increases fan interest. The NFC West may be mediocre this year, but all four teams' fans have something to cheer for this late in the season.

After all, it's really all about making money. Four 4-team races generates more interest -- and revenue -- than one 16-team race.

Aside: At least the NFL isn't divided into East and West conferences like the NBA and NHL are. If the two best teams in the NBA are the Spurs and Lakers, they can't meet for the title simply because they're both out west. That's dumb. League conferences should have nationwide alignment and be subdivided geographically. Just my two cents.

[Sport]

The whole point of a division is to have a reward for winning it; that reward is a higher seed and a home game in the first round. The way to eliminate this issue would be to have no divisions, but that isn't a good idea.

Really the whole point of a division is so every region of the country is guaranteed to be represented in the playoffs. It'd be bad for TV if only the east coast teams made the playoffs.

The whole point of a divisional structure is to maximize fan interest for the longest time possible. If the league were merely divided into two conferences, each with 6 teams out of 16 advancing to the postseason, then the fans of mediocre teams would be less likely to have something to cheer for and follow at the end of the year. Splitting a 16-team conference into four 4-team divisions spreads out playoff races and potentially increases fan interest. The NFC West may be mediocre this year, but all four teams' fans have something to cheer for this late in the season.

After all, it's really all about making money. Four 4-team races generates more interest -- and revenue -- than one 16-team race.

Aside: At least the NFL isn't divided into East and West conferences like the NBA and NHL are. If the two best teams in the NBA are the Spurs and Lakers, they can't meet for the title simply because they're both out west. That's dumb. League conferences should have nationwide alignment and be subdivided geographically. Just my two cents.

so what I said, but longer.

[rams80]

It's one thing for the NFL to reward division winners (especially those who are 7-9) an automatic spot in the playoffs, but to award them a home playoffs game over a Wild Card team who's got three or four more wins than them? something similar is going on over in the AFC as well, where both Wild Card teams will finish with better records than the botton two division winners. This is somethin the NFL has gotta look at over the offseason.

I disagree. If the division winner is so poor, shouldn't the wild card team have no problem beating them no matter where the game is played? This is a fluke season and it will all even itself out in the end after the Rams or Seahawks get bounced in the first round by the Saints.

I agree that all division winners should have an automatic spot in the playoffs. However, I believe teams should EARN homefield for the first round. Look at what;s going on now. The Saints, Ravens and Jets will all finish with 11 or 12 wins. But because they're locked in divisions with other 12+ win teams (NE, PIT, ATL), they are almost guaranteed to play all their games on the road in order to "reward" 7-8-9 game division winners home-field. It's crap.

Then why even have divisions in the first place? Why not just have two tables, take the top 6 teams and seed accordingly. I like the system the way it is. If you want a home playoff game, be the best team in your division. Who cares how great or poor the division next you is. Take care of business and beat the teams your division if you want to be the best. And guess what.... If you're the best team in your division, yet you suck, you're going to get embarrassed in front of your home fans wildcard weekend.

I have to agree with Cujo on this one. Yes, the division winner that sucks will get embarrassed at home. However the better wild card team is forced to play 3 straight road games if they want to make the Super Bowl. I know its been done before, but that's an extreme disadvantage. Now to an extent I agree with you that they shouldn't complain because they lost their division. But at the same time they may have had a much harder division to play in. I have no probably with a 7-9 division winner making the playoffs, but it does bother me some that they will be given a home game.

Solution: Don't lose to Atlanta at home by a field goal. Or ing beat Arizona and Cleveland.

Otherwise...

/Division winner will be 8-8.

[rams80]

It's one thing for the NFL to reward division winners (especially those who are 7-9) an automatic spot in the playoffs, but to award them a home playoffs game over a Wild Card team who's got three or four more wins than them? something similar is going on over in the AFC as well, where both Wild Card teams will finish with better records than the botton two division winners. This is somethin the NFL has gotta look at over the offseason.

I disagree. If the division winner is so poor, shouldn't the wild card team have no problem beating them no matter where the game is played? This is a fluke season and it will all even itself out in the end after the Rams or Seahawks get bounced in the first round by the Saints.

I agree that all division winners should have an automatic spot in the playoffs. However, I believe teams should EARN homefield for the first round. Look at what;s going on now. The Saints, Ravens and Jets will all finish with 11 or 12 wins. But because they're locked in divisions with other 12+ win teams (NE, PIT, ATL), they are almost guaranteed to play all their games on the road in order to "reward" 7-8-9 game division winners home-field. It's crap.

Then why even have divisions in the first place? Why not just have two tables, take the top 6 teams and seed accordingly. I like the system the way it is. If you want a home playoff game, be the best team in your division. Who cares how great or poor the division next you is. Take care of business and beat the teams your division if you want to be the best. And guess what.... If you're the best team in your division, yet you suck, you're going to get embarrassed in front of your home fans wildcard weekend.

I have to agree with Cujo on this one. Yes, the division winner that sucks will get embarrassed at home. However the better wild card team is forced to play 3 straight road games if they want to make the Super Bowl. I know its been done before, but that's an extreme disadvantage. Now to an extent I agree with you that they shouldn't complain because they lost their division. But at the same time they may have had a much harder division to play in. I have no probably with a 7-9 division winner making the playoffs, but it does bother me some that they will be given a home game.

This is clearly the crux of the issue. We may end up with a Wild Card team that would have won the NFC West by 5 games. Obviously the wild card team has done far more to earn a home game than a 7-9 or 8-8 division "champion."

The whole point of a division is to have a reward for winning it; that reward is a higher seed and a home game in the first round. The way to eliminate this issue would be to have no divisions, but that isn't a good idea.

I disagree-- the reward for winning your division in a division set-up is the playoff spot itself. If there were no divisions, not only would you not have a higher seed and home game, you wouldn't even make the playoffs. To give an 8-8 or losing record team a higher seeding and home field advantage over a team with 4 or more wins than them is ludicrous.

In regards to claims that this is a statistical anomaly, not so much. Since the NFL went to 4 divisions in 2002, this year will likely be the second season this has happened (in nine seasons): 2008 was first-- New England finished 11-5, but sat home while San Diego at 8-8 won their division and made it. THAT should have been the Chargers reward -- a playoff berth. And the Colts, with a better 12-4 record, had to go to San Diego because they were the "lower seed".

2 out of nine -- 22% -- is not an anomaly.

You know what's also interesting and apparently not anomalous by your standards? 3 of the last 4 8-8 teams to make the playoffs finished their seasons in the Divisional round.

Ooops.....

[trekbkr]

The whole point of a division is to have a reward for winning it; that reward is a higher seed and a home game in the first round. The way to eliminate this issue would be to have no divisions, but that isn't a good idea.

Really the whole point of a division is so every region of the country is guaranteed to be represented in the playoffs. It'd be bad for TV if only the east coast teams made the playoffs.

The whole point of a divisional structure is to maximize fan interest for the longest time possible. If the league were merely divided into two conferences, each with 6 teams out of 16 advancing to the postseason, then the fans of mediocre teams would be less likely to have something to cheer for and follow at the end of the year. Splitting a 16-team conference into four 4-team divisions spreads out playoff races and potentially increases fan interest. The NFC West may be mediocre this year, but all four teams' fans have something to cheer for this late in the season.

After all, it's really all about making money. Four 4-team races generates more interest -- and revenue -- than one 16-team race.

Aside: At least the NFL isn't divided into East and West conferences like the NBA and NHL are. If the two best teams in the NBA are the Spurs and Lakers, they can't meet for the title simply because they're both out west. That's dumb. League conferences should have nationwide alignment and be subdivided geographically. Just my two cents.

so what I said, but longer.

Yes and no. Divisional structures, no matter how they're aligned, are intended to maximize fan interest and revenue, which was my point. The Big Ten's new divisions, for example, have nothing to do with geography. It just happens to make the most sense for larger leagues like the NFL to have their divisions aligned geographically, which nicely fits your point.

[ninersdd]

God: Active tonight! AP is gonna sit

[Cujo]

OMG. FAVRE. IS. ACTIVE.

Edit: Oh, are we officially calling him "God" now? Took us long enough.

[TFoA]

LOL!!! So Favre is going to play in the snow on that ice rink of a surface against the Bears.

I wasn't going to watch this game anyways, but now it's a must watch just to see if Favre somehow makes it out of this game with all limbs intact.

[TopCat]

Officially slated to be the defining moment of my entire life now.

[Cujo]

Okay... How much is ESPN paying him to play tonight?

And TC, you need help.

[IceCap]

He just might die.

[TopCat]

All kidding aside, this really is going to be a horrific ending to the poor guy's career. As Ice_Cap said, he just might die.

[Punch]

My grandpa knows when it's time to call it quits. Why doesn't this old grunt know?

And, Brett, stop being such a tease! If you're gonna release pics of your genitals, send 'em to ESPN so the whole world knows about it by morning.

I'm calling hypothermia by the end of the first quarter.