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

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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 CRedskinsRule;1065437[B

]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? [/B]

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.

You could argue it, sure. I just don't see it like you do. A two seed I think deserves that first round bye for what they did in the regular season. 3-6 should have to play.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

You could argue it, sure. I just don't see it like you do. A two seed I think deserves that first round bye for what they did in the regular season. 3-6 should have to play.

But again, what criteria (other than that's the way it is now) makes the 2nd seed deserve it, but not the 3rd seed? I get that the number 1 seed overall deserves a benefit, but why does coming in 2nd deserve it.

[MTK]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.