Irish Boy wrote:
WHY!?!? If the best team will win, then it doesn't matter if we let the Lions into the playoffs along with everyone else. Why not just include everyone to be safe.
Quote:
IB you sound as if you are faulting the "mediocre" teams that beat the "better" teams and giving better teams a pass because they should be better, but they had a "bad day" (powter). that is a mind splittingly bad argument. if the giants were better than philly why didn't they beat them? if the panthers were better, or the falcons were better, than the cardinals--why did the cardinals beat them?
Because it happens all the time. Worse teams beat better teams every single week in the NFL. When the Browns beat the Giants in the middle of the year, we didn't think "oh, they must be the better team", because if you define "better" only like that, then you'll end up with complete circularity. Every team will be better than every other team, because there's a victory chain in there somewhere (unless, of course, you're the 2008 Lions)
Quote:
did jake delhomme really deserve to get to the superbowl this year? even if he didn't turn the ball over 6 times against a "bad team"? did eli manning, after his horrific performance against the eagles D, deserve to play in the NFC championship any more than mcnabb, who was passable, and in some ways, pretty damn good?
Maybe so, but this is what happens when you let in lesser quality teams. Sometimes they win. If we expanded the playoffs to 32 teams, I guarantee you that there'd be some bad teams beating good teams every once in a while. You can throw up your hands and say, "oh, they must be the better team after all", but why ignore 16 weeks worth of evidence because of the circumstances and coincidences of one game? This is, after all, why every other sport plays their playoffs in series- because the best team doesn't always win one game.
Quote:
that's why you play the games--yes, the cliche, loud and proud. that's what sports is about. greatness is achieved through more than just building pretty stats and playing sound fundamentals. it is about rising to the occasion and sometimes, snatching victory from the claws of defeat.
I think people are confounding arguments of mine here, so I'm going to try to separate them. I don't think teams should make the playoffs because they have the most stats. I think they should make the playoffs based on who has the most wins, just like everyone else. I just think that the number of teams should be less. People keep saying stuff like "you don't play the games on paper" and "you play the games", and I agree; that's why I want to make the 16 regular season games more important, not less important. Does anyone deny that my plan would make the regular season- the "games"- more important?
Quote:
that is a measurement of greatness. if the cardinals win it all, you can take nothing away from the fact that they played better than the "best" teams--and if that is the case, the interpretation of what "best" is can be altered. best can mean best fundamentals, best stats, it can also mean best team on the field that day, regardless. who wanted it more, etc. those cliches are there for a reason. it's not a media-created thing. it's a sports-created thing.
If the Cardinals win the Super Bowl this year, God help us, it should put an end to the fallacy once and for all that the Super Bowl winner is somehow the best team in the NFL. Look at it this way. Let's say that there was an extra game after the Super Bowl between the Super Bowl winner- we'll say, the Cardinals- and the Steelers, Titans, Giants, Ravens, or Colts. You had to bet your life on one of those teams. Which one do you choose? Isn't it a no-brainer that you'd have to choose the Cardinals, even though you know, deep down, that you can't be very confident in the pick, even though they were the "best team' and all that?
Quote:
the colts were a better team than the jets, but the jets beat them, and gave us the merge of the AFL and NFL. sounds like in your mind, that should have never happened. and it's one of the most dramatic stories in sports history.
Occasional upsets are fun and exciting. That's why I'm ambivalent about the Giants winning last year- I think it sucks when a team that played so poorly during the season wins the Super Bowl, but it was exciting the way that the season built up to the Super Bowl with the Patriots. Complete chaos and a total destruction of the meaningfulness of the regular season- the "games- is neither fun nor entertaining in my opinion. It makes me feel like the last 17 weeks were a complete waste of time, we could have accomplished the same thing in five weeks with a giant, randomized tournament.
Quote:
you say the cardinals don't deserve to be hosting the NFC championship, but when the bears were in their "race for the divison", considered a marginal team by most people (even bears fans) you were asking the question "which team scares you?" and though you (rightly) said it was doubtful to make the playoffs, you weren't counting them completely out--you were still trying to come up with scenarios in which the bears could make the playoffs (i'm not talking about your tongue-and-cheek road to the superbowl thread).
Yes! This should be the point where you say, oh my God IB, you were all right all along. The Bears could realistically have done the same thing the Cardinals have done- and it would be absolutely laughable to insist that they are one of the best teams in the NFL. After all, the Bears very nearly beat Atlanta on the road- playing them at home would have been much easier- and I don't think Jake Delhomme imploded because he was so intimidated by the Cardinals defense. This could have been the Bears, and think how scary that should be! That doesn't mean I don't want the Bears to be a sucky Super Bowl champion, but it would be a joke to insist they were the "best team" or even one of the best teams in the NFC.
Quote:
so you would be ok with the bears, a mediocre team, making the playoffs, and even hosting the NFC championship? well, i wouldn't blame you entirely since you are a fan. but what you're saying is an insult to cardinals fans (yes there are *some* out there) when you say they don't deserve to be where they are. i'm sure most panther fans are more pissed off that their "great" team couldn't handle the "mediocre" cardinals. but i'm sure they're giving the cardinals credit. and brandon jacobs, while an athlete and thus may be not very bright, even gave the eagles credit after they beat the giants.
I'm saying I'd want it as a Bears fan, but it would suck as a fan of the NFL. The Bears as a team should not have had a chance to clinch a playoff spot in Week 17. The cutoff should be higher. What's worse, a team should not need a mediocre Bears team to lose in Week 17 to make the playoffs. The cutoff should be higher.
Quote:
i don't think anyone'll miss you not watching the rest of the games, though.
I never said I won't watch the games. I'll just know that, if the NFC wins the Super Bowl, this year's playoffs were a farce. Go Steelers (or Ravens- at least they were 11-5)