2018 NFL Regular Season!!!!

[caketastydelish]

I didn't get to watch it but I did the see the stats. If Nick Foles wasn't about to get paid when the season ends, he sure as hell is now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just listening to the crowd noise during the night game, you would have thought it was an Eagles home game. LC is doubtless glad for a bit of a cushion for home field.

Thing about LA is that everyone is from somewhere else, and for a lot of them that's Philly. I'd put the crowd at 60/40 for the Rams, but the Rams fans swallowed their tongues pretty early.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That's true. That does circle us back to one of the original debates about whether playoff seeding should be based purely on record. Which brings up another thing. Why even have conferences or divisions? Why not just have the 8 or 12 or whatever teams with the best record be seeded into the playoffs period? Is there value... entertainment, monetary or otherwise in having "division champs" and "conference champs" and more accessible playoffs where only the absolute worst teams are truly "out of it" all the way up to the last couple games of the season?

For playoffs I'd prefer to just have the 12 best teams go. Divisions make sense during regular season with regards to travel expenses + fatigue.

Not necessary. I can admit that my "analysis" of how the divisions compare was more of a hot-take. I didn't sit down and apply any metrics and I'm willing to take your word for it if you say that you have and there's no metric whatsoever by which you can say the AFC North has had a rougher go of it than the AFC West. Ultimately, we have the playoff to sort this all out afterall. But then that's an argument in favor of the current setup isn't it? To "settle" at least in a cosmetic sense the "they had a tougher schedule" and "they have a powderpuff division" arguments. Folks like me can have subjective, squishy attitudes about division/conference/team strength that mixes emotion and intuition with stats, but ultimately, there's no arguing with the score at the end of the Superbowl.

That's mostly true, but playoffs themselves only "prove" to some extent. There will be a team or two that makes a deep run this year that lost to someone with 4-6 wins, same as most years. Anybody can have a bad game or play above their usual level. The playoffs don't necessarily crown the best team on average, but they are at least fair (in contrast to college football with trash like 2017 UCF being left out of the playoffs entirely despite that their SoS was actually decent last year and only ~10 spots behind Alabama's...who lost two of those games).

I can’t watch games because I’m at work but I can’t believe the Jags managed to lose to the Redskins.

Bortles has never been amazing but he regressed a lot. They're both dysfunctional teams in bad shape, I'm not surprised that one team in such a condition beats the other as they tend to lack much consistency. I was more surprised by 49ers beating Seahawks for example.

 

[Sommerswerd]

For playoffs I'd prefer to just have the 12 best teams go. Divisions make sense during regular season with regards to travel expenses + fatigue.

But the London/Mexico City games tho...

Also, Dallas... Indy, Baltimore, Miami, the whole AFC West, etc... In other words, I get what you're saying, but to really have distance-fatigue/expense be relevant in a significant measure, the divisions would need to be reworked substantially and the extra-national games scrapped. I mean it's not like baseball or basketball where they're playing every other day, right? There's plenty of days in the week to plan the trip to account for the jetlag or buslag or whatever.

The other thing is my point about the accessibility of the playoffs. In a "12 best, hang the rest" setup, you will risk having half the fanbase basically checking out midway through the season, whereas with the current system there is increased "in the hunt" drama that keeps fans hopes alive.

That's mostly true, but playoffs themselves only "prove" to some extent. There will be a team or two that makes a deep run this year that lost to someone with 4-6 wins, same as most years. Anybody can have a bad game or play above their usual level. The playoffs don't necessarily crown the best team on average, but they are at least fair (in contrast to college football with trash like 2017 UCF being left out of the playoffs entirely despite that their SoS was actually decent last year and only ~10 spots behind Alabama's...who lost two of those games).

I agree that "prove" belongs in scare quotes in this context. At best what we get... and all we can ask for really... is some way to "settle" the issue of who is "better"... and the most satisfying/entertaining/profitable way to do that is to say You know what? You guys just play each other and that will settle it.

 

[rah]

Divisions are good because they create real rivalries. There's nothing like playing a team twice a year to generate some hate.
For Bears fans, nothing beats winning against the Packers. Beating Buffalo is good but still kind of meh.

And yeah, it keeps interest alive for more teams later into the season. It's all about the money.

 

[Serutan]

Bortles has never been amazing but he regressed a lot. They're both dysfunctional teams in bad shape, I'm not surprised that one team in such a condition beats the other as they tend to lack much consistency. I was more surprised by 49ers beating Seahawks for example.

While I agree with you about Bortles, in fairness to him he didn't play yesterday.

Thing about LA is that everyone is from somewhere else, and for a lot of them that's Philly. I'd put the crowd at 60/40 for the Rams, but the Rams fans swallowed their tongues pretty early.

Yes I know and going by the Cardinals would expect such when the team is bad or mediocre but I am somewhat surprised that this happened in a year where the Rams have been good. Am I underestimating the local indifference factor and/or is it the Mausoleum?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The other thing is my point about the accessibility of the playoffs. In a "12 best, hang the rest" setup, you will risk having half the fanbase basically checking out midway through the season, whereas with the current system there is increased "in the hunt" drama that keeps fans hopes alive.

Most years won't make much difference. Here are the records of the top 12 teams right now:

1. 11-2
2. 11-3
3. 11-3
4. 10-4
5. 10-4
6. 9-5
7. 8-5-1
8. 8-6
9. 8-6
10. 8-6
11. 8-6
12. 8-6

These are the teams overwhelmingly favored to reach the playoffs at present anyway, with a few 7-7 teams still having a shot because they play an 8-6 team or said team still has a team with a good record remaining. Those same 7-7 teams would still be alive to surpass one of the 8-6 squads in a top 12 format too. Some years it might even be more favorable since conferences are occasionally lopsided and having 7 losses often guarantees you're out if you're in the wrong conference that year.

On the flip side, advanced metrics give the Browns a ~1% chance to make the playoffs at 6-7-1. Teams with 8 losses are all but eliminated regardless of which playoff format is used, so I'm not convinced present format offers significantly more hope on average. It's just more likely to fail to pick the best 12 teams by performance.

What the "best 12 go" does is prevent the odd scenario where an 11-5, competitive team is left in the cold in favor of a team with a record between 7-9 and 9-7. Even in such years where this happens, the only fans "not checking out" are the ones for the team(s) leading that division, likely at the expense of fans of the good team, which are miffed.

While I agree with you about Bortles, in fairness to him he didn't play yesterday.

He didn't play because he got benched for performance reasons. This in contrast to Alex Smith, which has had a somewhat unfortunate run of luck in his career but nevertheless managed to last a long time and have quite a few solid seasons.

 

[rah]

I don't mind the division winners auto making it. Mainly due to common schedules. 14 common opponents makes it pretty even. One division could be playing two week divisions to boost their entire division's W-L.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't mind the division winners auto making it. Mainly due to common schedules. 14 common opponents makes it pretty even. One division could be playing two week divisions to boost their entire division's W-L.

By that logic, you're necessarily sending one of the teams from those "weak" divisions, likely over teams that directly beat them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes I know and going by the Cardinals would expect such when the team is bad or mediocre but I am somewhat surprised that this happened in a year where the Rams have been good. Am I underestimating the local indifference factor and/or is it the Mausoleum?

The Colosseum isn't as bad as it used to be, but it certainly doesn't help. Ultimately though, the only ways to keep fans of the visiting team from being a big part of the crowd is either if the visiting team doesn't have any fans, or if you can pretty much fill the stadium with season ticket holders. Some friends of mine called me the day the schedule was announced and said "The Birds are playing in LA in December and we're getting tickets. Do you want to go?" Local Rams fans aren't picking that game out of the schedule and selling it out on day one, but local Eagles fans are buying tickets to the one game of the season they really want to see.

Rams seem to be doing pretty good on selling season ticket licenses for the new stadium, so things might improve once they move.

 

[caketastydelish]

The kicker of the Panthers has a name that reminds me of the Pokemon Charizard. Lol.

Spoiler name :

Chandler Catanzaro

 

[Sommerswerd]

What the "best 12 go" does is prevent the odd scenario where an 11-5, competitive team is left in the cold in favor of a team with a record between 7-9 and 9-7. Even in such years where this happens, the only fans "not checking out" are the ones for the team(s) leading that division, likely at the expense of fans of the good team, which are miffed.

Since the 1978 expansion just two teams with 11–5 records...the 1985 Denver Broncos and the 2008 Patriots have missed the playoffs. I don't know if that's worth abandoning the current system. The folks jilted from the playoffs are always miffed. In the current system the fans of the teams with an eventual record of 7-9 are all engaged right up until the last game.

 

[Light Cleric]

I swear to God this team is like an RPG character with a fixed amount of attribute points, one part gets better at the cost of the other sucking more

Last 6 games the defense has forced 14 turnovers, 28 sacks and only given up 12.3 PPG

Simultaneously our offense has 3 flat tires and also the engine is on fire

I honestly would not have been surprised if we'd lost because divisional road games are a nightmare (ask the Pats about Miami lol) but not like that. Seriously we let the Panthers score on our two-point conversion so it's a 3-point game instead of 6 or 7, then get ready to cap a clock-chewing drive with a touchdown to effectively end the game and fumble it out of the end zone for a touchback. I've seen the movie before but thank God the script was different at the end this time.

Fortunately, unless we lose both our remaining games (in which case we're in trash shape anyway) the next game we'd have to play outside of the Superdome would be the Super Bowl if we got there

 

[rah]

By that logic, you're necessarily sending one of the teams from those "weak" divisions, likely over teams that directly beat them.

Yes, my preference allows that to happen. Why should a team from a super hard division that has to play 6 games in it be penalized. There's going to be injustices no mater how you do it. Winning your division should mean something.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, my preference allows that to happen. Why should a team from a super hard division that has to play 6 games in it be penalized. There's going to be injustices no mater how you do it. Winning your division should mean something.

"Winning your division should mean something" is often stated, and never actually supported with coherent reasoning. We already established earlier that divisions are somewhat arbitrary earlier, and mostly are interesting due to old rivalries rather than anything else. Teams get screwed by hard/easy schedules in the current format too, often dramatically. The league even intentionally sets the leading teams from the previous season against each other.

SoS differentials are not sound logic for preferring one format to the other because it's something that will exist using either, to comparable degrees.

Since the 1978 expansion just two teams with 11–5 records...the 1985 Denver Broncos and the 2008 Patriots have missed the playoffs. I don't know if that's worth abandoning the current system. The folks jilted from the playoffs are always miffed. In the current system the fans of the teams with an eventual record of 7-9 are all engaged right up until the last game.

That's not true. This year no fans of teams with 8-9 losses will be engaged - those teams have virtually zero playoff chances (actually 0, at 9). Also while only two 11-5 teams have been hosed, having 10-6 squads miss is significantly more common.

 

[rah]

What part of "my preference" did you not understand? We're still all entitled to our opinion. Your opinion on this is not supported any more logically than mine.
I did say that injustices would happen either way, so I based it on something else. Winning your division against teams that played common opponents.

 

[Sommerswerd]

"Winning your division should mean something" is often stated, and never actually supported with coherent reasoning.

It has value because its more entertaining that way. When there is more "success" to go around, there is more good feelings to go around, more room for teams/fans to feel a sense of accomplishment or a sense that something is at stake... consolation prizes, if you will. Of course there is a balance to be struck. Too many prizes starts to feel like participation trophies, making "success" meaningless... but too few can lead to exasperation and disengaging by fans, players, etc.

That's not true. This year no fans of teams with 8-9 losses will be engaged - those teams have virtually zero playoff chances (actually 0, at 9).

But doesn't that somewhat undermine the idea that a top-12 system is needed/desirable? If none of the 9 loss teams have any chance with 2 games left, then "it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it" arguably applies... at least in terms of the system you're proposing... right?

Now to be fair, I'll admit that I wasn't really talking in terms of this season specifically, my intent was more general. And I think that the current format keeps folks more engaged longer into the season, precisely because the current format allows a 7-9 or 8-8 team to make it once in a blue moon, and allows 10-6 teams to miss out occasionally. I actually like that dynamic because I think its more exciting/entertaining. I can understand your thinking that the best records should make it period, I just don't think that would have the same entertainment value.

Just consider extending your reasoning to its ultimate logical conclusion. Why not scrap the playoffs entirely and just give the team with the best record outright the championship? If there is a tie in record at the top, then just use tiebreaker formulas to decide who is the champion. Would you prefer that? If the answer is "No, we don't do that because it's not as fun/entertaining/profitable"... well... there you have it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It has value because its more entertaining that way. When there is more "success" to go around, there is more good feelings to go around, more room for teams/fans to feel a sense of accomplishment or a sense that something is at stake... consolation prizes, if you will. Of course there is a balance to be struck. Too many prizes starts to feel like participation trophies, making "success" meaningless... but too few can lead to exasperation and disengaging by fans, players, etc.

You can still "win" a division regardless of playoffs though, if that's what we care about.

But doesn't that somewhat undermine the idea that a top-12 system is needed/desirable? If none of the 9 loss teams have any chance with 2 games left, then "it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it" arguably applies... at least in terms of the system you're proposing... right?

Let's simplify the case:

1. In one system, a team with 2 or more losses will occasionally be selected over a team that has performed better on arbitrary grounds.
2. In both systems, 9 loss teams will have very little to no chance in most years (it's not impossible in either system).
3. In both systems, playoff chances will end at similar #games on average.

Just consider extending your reasoning to its ultimate logical conclusion. Why not scrap the playoffs entirely and just give the team with the best record outright the championship? If there is a tie in record at the top, then just use tiebreaker formulas to decide who is the champion. Would you prefer that? If the answer is "No, we don't do that because it's not as fun/entertaining/profitable"... well... there you have it.

Extra games are profitable regardless, so it's useful to pull that out as a separate reason from "fun/entertaining". There is also some appeal to pitting the strongest teams across a season against each other, as in MOST cases the quality of play in these games is significantly higher than regular season games (excepting the occasional matchup of two elite teams, which you only see a handful of times per regular season). In this sense you can make a case that 8-8 representatives or junk teams are not good for the playoff format. For every magical 1 playoff win 7-9 Seattle game, you have a dozen games with teams like last year's Bills creeping in. 12 best records doesn't guarantee that won't happen, but it makes it less likely.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You can still "win" a division regardless of playoffs though, if that's what we care about.

But as your appropriately scare quoted "win" suggests... "winning" isn't of much value if you don't actually get a playoff berth out of it. To quote something you said earlier, which I agree with, BTW:

trash like 2017 UCF being left out of the playoffs entirely despite that their SoS was actually decent last year and only ~10 spots behind Alabama's...who lost two of those games

Last year's NCAA football playoff seedings infuriated me (I'm being melodramatic... they annoyed/irritated me), partly because I felt Ohio State got hosed (but in that case I was homering a little)... but UCF? SMFH that hosing was a travesty. That's where I would've really preferred a system where a conference champ like UCF gets in period, over that garbage that occurred. Its so annoying that Bama lost the conference championship, but still got into the playoff ahead of conference champions based on the arbitrary conclusion that they were "the strongest".

The point is I enjoy a system where the division champs get rewarded with a playoff berth. It adds more meaning/value/importance to being a division champion, as contrasted with NCAA where the conference championship is meaningless.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

NCAA is in the unfortunate position of relying on subjective opinion, with obvious biases year to year. Pre-season rankings are sticky, which is BS. The whole thing is a farce really.

NFL rules aren't great, but at least they're objective and you can consistently anticipate playoff seeding if x team does y thing. 12 best record teams with tiebreaker rules would not be like NCAA because you would still be using objective metrics.

There are years where a conference or division champion is weak and thus their automatic inclusion doesn't make much sense. Imagine an SEC conference that was skewed such that the west had 3 teams with 11 wins, and then 7-5 UF gets into SEC title game and upsets one of them. UF getting a playoff berth in such a scenario would not be good for the game. They won the division, but they have proven less on the national stage than competitors and thus have not earned a place ahead of said competitors.