The Philadelphia Eagles played a piss poor game against Cincinnati last weekend that they were lucky was held in Ohio rather than at Lincoln Financial Field, or the bad will from their fans might have blown Shayne Graham’s overtime field goal through the uprights.
The ugly tie left the Eagles in sole possession of last place in the NFC East with a 5-4-1 record and on the outside looking in at the playoffs as the standings currently sit.
I have little problem with forcing the Eagles to watch the playoffs from their respective living rooms – you can probably make a strong, solid case that a team finishing in fourth place in their own division doesn’t deserve to go to the playoffs. … Except for the fact that if they resided in the NFC North, they’d be in first place.
Yes, the last place team in the league’s best division is better than the best team in a couple divisions – a byproduct of the league’s conversion to the four division format a few year’s back. So far the switch hasn’t allowed any sub-.500 teams into the playoffs, but inevitably it sometime will. And I don’t suspect you’ll get the three North teams tied at 5-5 apologizing if they do make it in or offering the Eagles the spot.
There probably isn’t much the NFL can do about this minor injustice – and maybe they shouldn’t. It makes sense that division champions make the playoffs. There was some talk last year about after two Wild Card teams had better records than division winners about letting those Wild Card teams host first-round playoff games – that’d be a starting point reasonable for discussion.
After that, though, despite having allowed fewer and scoring more points (not that these are perfect measures, but what else are you going to use?) than the three tied NFC North teams that are likely competing to go to the playoffs ahead of the Eagles, there probably aren’t many ways to rejigger the system without completely tearing up the whole format and starting over.
Thoughts anyone?
Loading ...
I don’t see any reason to change anything. It isn’t “fair” that team with a better record has to sit out? Don’t care.
The divisions create and continue some great local rivalries (sort-of local anyway). If the winner of the NFC North gets smeared by a wildcard team, then fine. That’s the way it goes. But I think the “local” aspect of making division play important is a good thing.
Interesting argument. I don’t disagree. Interestingly, one of the arguments Peter King of SportsIllustrated.com (I’m pretty sure it was King, but it’s been awhile – if someone knows otherwise, please help me correct the record) raised in favor of adding one more game to the regular season was the idea of adding annual geographical or natural rivalries to the schedule, much as Major League Baseball has tried to do with interleague play.
I am a huge fan of Peter King and generally I enjoy what he writes. But I think it’s a terrible idea in both sports – it totally screws up the schedule in baseball – and in football, as you mentioned, the geographical rivalries are already in place with the divisional structure.
While I agree there isn’t a NEED to change I also wouldn’t be completely opposed to punishing division champions that finish with .500 or lower records. For quality of play in the playoffs, I hate when 8-8 teams make it and 10-6 teams stay home.