JetsFan20 Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 So last year Pittsburgh would have gotten in at 8-8 and the Rams would have snuck in at 9-7. Overall I’m a pretty big fan of this. Maybe the Jets can sneak into the playoffs this decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted April 1, 2020 Author Share Posted April 1, 2020 4 hours ago, Cripple Creek said: I suppose you're one of those gugnys who wouldn't want any part of a shortened season WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP? Hell No! By hook or by crook! I’ll take any title and party like I never have before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said: Hell No! By hook or by crook! I’ll take any title and party like I never have before! Wouldn't feel right to me. Just like Johan Santana's "no hitter." It wasn't a no-hitter. Beltran's batted ball clearly hit the chalk and it was erroneously called foul. In my mind, the Mets STILL don't have a no-hitter. It was cheap. And if the NFL plays an abbreviated season, the "winner," won't be a real Super Bowl champion because it would be cheapened. I would find it hard to enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turk71 Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 32 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Yeah. I was surprised. There's more examples of 7-9 division winners making it. Once you expand the regular season to 17 games those 8-8 teams that made it under the current system will pry make it at 8-9. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if one did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFan20 Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 At this point why not just go to 8 teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeKayAdams Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 I really like this new 14-team playoff format. It rewards the best record in the conference with a week off, all of the division winners are guaranteed a home game, and you still have over half of the teams in the regular season not qualifying. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 17 minutes ago, JetsFan20 said: At this point why not just go to 8 teams? Why not just have all the teams make it and give them trophies after their final regular season game? Excuse me while I go yell at the cloud in the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted April 1, 2020 Author Share Posted April 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Gugny said: Wouldn't feel right to me. Just like Johan Santana's "no hitter." It wasn't a no-hitter. Beltran's batted ball clearly hit the chalk and it was erroneously called foul. In my mind, the Mets STILL don't have a no-hitter. It was cheap. And if the NFL plays an abbreviated season, the "winner," won't be a real Super Bowl champion because it would be cheapened. I would find it hard to enjoy. Tell this to 49er fans after eating Cinci in a strike shortened season. No prob. History doesn’t explain the variables, just who won, who lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 (edited) Lock is a bit strong. Pretty likely, though. It's not going to mean as much to make the playoffs from now on, though. Two more creampuffs won't make the product better. Edited April 1, 2020 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 Trusting the Process. 12 hours ago, TigerJ said: On One Bills Live, they backchecked the drought and learned a 14 team playoff field would not have put the Bills into the playoffs even once. I hesitate to say the Bills are a lock. Too many times, teams that had high expectations in the off season flopped for one reason or another when they actually played games. However, if the Bills fail to make the playoffs, it would be a major disappointment. we're golden when it goes up to 16 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 10 hours ago, billsfan89 said: The Thursday games are rarely good in my opinion. The players hate the 3 day turnaround, the games are often sloppy quality wise and they are rarely compelling matchups. MNF has been hurt by the fact that SNF took the best games when MNF moved to ESPN and the fact that it went from the only nationally televised game each week to now one of three makes it feel less special overall. Thursday games also ruin fantasy football in my opinion because it is a constant thing you have to monitor as opposed to just putting in your waiver claims Tuesday and adjusting your roster Wednesday and then you are good until Sunday. Monday being only one day removed from Sunday doesn't alter the players ability to prepare for games. I think MNF is a salvageable product whereas TNF is an abomination. I don't agree. The last couple of years the Thursday night games have been really good. I know the players hate them but the quality has been much better and the overall product is far superior. I know ESPN is now owned by Disney but they might as well have Donald Duck presenting and Micky and Minnie Mouse in the announcers box. If you just prefer the Monday Night time slot to the Thursday time slot that is fair enough. But as products MNF has been absolutely atrocious for a long time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 7 hours ago, PetermansRedemption said: First, which season would a 7-9 team have taken the extra spot? Second, what happens when the Lions win. Peterman, I broke it down yesterday and over 10 years as I broke it down, 13-20 had a winning record, and the rest were 8-8. Not one team would be a wildcard team with a losing record, and in that same decade there were two division winners, with a 7-9 record, most notably Seattle. people that keep purporting a wildcard team will have a losing record did not do their homework. Don’t take my word for it, I simply went year by year on a google search from 2010-19, and the facts are clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 6 hours ago, Turk71 said: It certainly wouldn't surprise me if one did. The 17 game season doesn’t start until a year after the 14 game playoff according to the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProcessTruster Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 no team is a lock. if 3/5 of the starting O Line goes down with IR injuries, if Josh blows a knee , etc. your season is Over. But yes, if they are nearly as healthy as they were last year, this is a 10 win+ team, sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fiend Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 4 hours ago, Chandler#81 said: Tell this to 49er fans after eating Cinci in a strike shortened season. No prob. History doesn’t explain the variables, just who won, who lost. You mean Washington over Miami in the strike-shortened 1982 season? San Francisco beat Cincinnati in the SB the year before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 6 hours ago, RealKayAdams said: I really like this new 14-team playoff format. It rewards the best record in the conference with a week off, all of the division winners are guaranteed a home game, and you still have over half of the teams in the regular season not qualifying. Likewise. Of all the changes they have made this one bothers me less than the 17 game season. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripple Creek Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 7 hours ago, Gugny said: Wouldn't feel right to me. Just like Johan Santana's "no hitter." It wasn't a no-hitter. Beltran's batted ball clearly hit the chalk and it was erroneously called foul. In my mind, the Mets STILL don't have a no-hitter. It was cheap. And if the NFL plays an abbreviated season, the "winner," won't be a real Super Bowl champion because it would be cheapened. I would find it hard to enjoy. Oh fer chrissakes. You'd find it hard to enjoy. Boo*****inghoo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 15 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said: Oh fer chrissakes. You'd find it hard to enjoy. Boo*****inghoo. I would, yes. Just like I didn't feel like the drought ended when Cincinnati got us into the playoffs. I think the key, here, is that it would be the first one. If the Bills already had a Lombardi and subsequently won in a shortened season, then I'd be all over it. But not for the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted April 1, 2020 Author Share Posted April 1, 2020 43 minutes ago, The Fiend said: You mean Washington over Miami in the strike-shortened 1982 season? San Francisco beat Cincinnati in the SB the year before. No. I don’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 5 hours ago, Chandler#81 said: Tell this to 49er fans after eating Cinci in a strike shortened season. No prob. History doesn’t explain the variables, just who won, who lost. I would always remember. The non-no-hitter was in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts