|
United States22883 Posts
On January 03 2011 13:11 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
I understand that people dislike that bad division winners make the playoffs, while good teams miss the playoffs, but that's what happens when there are divisions. If division winners didn't always make the playoffs, what would be the point in having divisions?
You still need a way to consistently schedule teams and maintain rivalries.
In fact, I'd like to hear someone explain how divisions do anything BESIDES what I mentioned above. I don't see why division winners should be given a playoff berth. I guess the idea is that a really tough division could beat itself up, but in the modern NFL you're still playing most of your games out of conference so a good team will have a good record.
It's probably just there to keep fans interested, so for the good of keeping the NFL alive in the west. But it's certainly not good for competition.
|
Divisions are nothing but a good thing. You need to have those similar foes to play/hate every year. This Seahawks thing, and the chargers a couple years back, are a pretty freakish anomaly overall.
|
This might be a dumb idea. But what if they got rid of divisions, and went to a nineteen game schedule? You would play each team in your conference once, and play four teams in the other conference, that way you still play each of them once every four years.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37058 Posts
Major disappointment in the Rams' performance tonight.
I expected so much more from Sam Bradford.
Oh well, atleast we now know who deserves to go to the playoffs.
Now I am wondering, is this it? Are all the teams going into the playoffs now decided?
Or is there one more week before everything is decided?
As far as I can see, they only have 12 in for the playoffs.
Don't they need 16?
|
|
|
On January 03 2011 13:47 Seeker wrote:
Major disappointment in the Rams' performance tonight.
I expected so much more from Sam Bradford.
Oh well, atleast we now know who deserves to go to the playoffs.
Now I am wondering, is this it? Are all the teams going into the playoffs now decided?
Or is there one more week before everything is decided
As far as I can see, they only have 12 in for the playoffs.
Don't they need 16?
No, the NFL playoffs has twelve teams. Six from each conference. The top two in each get a bye week, and the bottom four play. The winners from those games play the teams that got a bye. It's like this:
Playoff week one:
3 vs 6
4 vs 5
1 and 2 don't play
The winners advance to the second week. The lower seeded team that won gets the 1 seed, and the higher seeded team that won plays the 2 seed.
So if the higher seeds win, in week 2 you'd have:
1 vs 4
2 vs 3
|
Guys, this isn't necessarily football talk at this point, but someone is just pissing me off with either excellent trolling, or a complete inability to comprehend words over ten characters. So, are the following phrases ad hominems or not?
"You dont know football if you think the Bears are a better team, period."
"You pick a few stats (maybe 0.5% of the team stats compiled) and believe that supports your case? omg I'm talking to an amateur."
There seems to be confusion on what an ad hominem is (seriously, if you're unsure you should have googled before ruining my poll, because they are ad homs, I wasn't asking because I thought there was a good chance I was wrong, I was asking because I wanted a poll to back me up, because I'm 100% correct)... Note that wiki shows there are three different types of ad homs, his argument was "LOL SO YOU THINK YOU'RE BEING ABUSED HERE? LOZL" but not quite that stupid looking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Types of ad hominems
[edit]
Ad hominem abuse
Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
Examples:
"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
Personal example: "I can't believe you think the Bears are better than the Giants. You don't know anything about football!" (note how this becomes an attack on ME rather than the long analysis I had given priorly. I won't quote it here, because you've all seen the posts I make, and it was basically one of those. Then they changed the subject to what an ad hominem is after I completely wrecked everything they had to say).
Poll: Ad hominems?Yes (5) 63% No (3) 38% 8 total votes Your vote: Ad hominems? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
On January 03 2011 13:38 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 13:11 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
I understand that people dislike that bad division winners make the playoffs, while good teams miss the playoffs, but that's what happens when there are divisions. If division winners didn't always make the playoffs, what would be the point in having divisions? You still need a way to consistently schedule teams and maintain rivalries. In fact, I'd like to hear someone explain how divisions do anything BESIDES what I mentioned above. I don't see why division winners should be given a playoff berth. I guess the idea is that a really tough division could beat itself up, but in the modern NFL you're still playing most of your games out of conference so a good team will have a good record. It's probably just there to keep fans interested, so for the good of keeping the NFL alive in the west. But it's certainly not good for competition.
That's exactly why, tough divisions can beat up on each other. I gave a scenario earlier that would probably make a team with a slightly worse record than another a bit better due to tougher divisions. The scenario is unlikely, I suppose, but so is the scenario we faced this year. It's the first time in the nearly forty years since the merger that a team with a below .500 record has made the playoffs.
|
seahawks settin records baby
|
Seahawks were just not bad enough to win lol. Don't worry everyone knows they've played terrible and acknowledge how lucky they are to be in the playoffs. I do expect the Saint/Seahawks game to be closer than most people think because the hawks play well at home and especially at home in the playoffs.
I still find it hilarious how bad the NFC West is but yet the cardinals were in the super bowl in 2009 and the seahawks years before that were in it also.
|
The crazy thing about the Seahawks making the playoffs is not only that they are 7-9, but also all 9 of their losses were double digit losses, and a lot of them being huge blowouts. It's also funny that the 2 teams that just barely missed the playoffs in the NFC (Tampa Bay and The Giants) both played the Seahawks this year and outscored them by a combined 79-22.
All that being said, there has been times where the Seahawks have played well this year, they've just been very inconsistent. If they can play at their best during the playoffs they may be able surprise some people.
|
I think I've said this before but in case I haven't I'll say it again. Superbowl is gonna be falcons pats.
|
It's all the Whiners fault!!! If they didn't underachieve this season, we wouldn't look like the laughingstock division with the NFC West champion being 7-9.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
^_____________________________________________^
|
On January 03 2011 14:42 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Guys, this isn't necessarily football talk at this point, but someone is just pissing me off with either excellent trolling, or a complete inability to comprehend words over ten characters. So, are the following phrases ad hominems or not?
"You dont know football if you think the Bears are a better team, period."
"You pick a few stats (maybe 0.5% of the team stats compiled) and believe that supports your case? omg I'm talking to an amateur."
Verbal abuse, yes. Logical fallacies, no.
Falcons going all the way baby!
|
As a huge Seahawks fan I'm really excited. I know we're terrible but I really like Pete Carroll and I think we're only going to get better.
Terrible teams have done well in the playoffs in the past few years, one can only hope.
|
if i didnt live in the seattle area i would be mad the seahawks are in the playoffs.
|
On January 03 2011 19:17 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 14:42 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Guys, this isn't necessarily football talk at this point, but someone is just pissing me off with either excellent trolling, or a complete inability to comprehend words over ten characters. So, are the following phrases ad hominems or not?
"You dont know football if you think the Bears are a better team, period."
"You pick a few stats (maybe 0.5% of the team stats compiled) and believe that supports your case? omg I'm talking to an amateur." Verbal abuse, yes. Logical fallacies, no. Falcons going all the way baby!
I think you should know what an ad hominem is before you vote on whether or not something is an ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Types of ad hominems
[edit]
Ad hominem abuse
Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
Examples:
"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
Personal example: "I can't believe you think the Bears are better than the Giants. You don't know anything about football!"
|
On January 03 2011 19:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Personal example: "I can't believe you think the Bears are better than the Giants. You don't know anything about football!"
Bad example, the second thing is just a tacked on insult, it is not an ad-hominem because they are not using it to belittle your argument. They're stating that the Bears are worse than the Giants, then concluding you know nothing about football, a crappy argument, but not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem would be "SweetLemons is wrong about the Bears being better than the Giants, he didn't even win in fantasy football so you can take what he says with a grain of salt." It is fallacious because they are not addressing your argument directly, just trying to link its validity with something that may or may not be true about the person itself. Just a regular personal attack, not argumentum ad hominem.
|
A part of me wants the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl just to see the hilarious reactions from the media.
|
I'm a pretty big Tampa Bay fan, although I'm disappointed that they didn't make the playoffs I'm pleased to see them at 10-6. At the start of the season a friend of mine and I decided that they'd only be capable of winning 5 to 7 games this year.
Its good to see that the youngest team in the league can still contend to a playoff spot. Even if I wasn't a Tampa Bay fan, I think it'd be better for the sport that so many teams are able to contend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
