|
On October 24 2012 12:57 thuracine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 11:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you keep getting input. Why do you ask for input, then get all defensive and say "I just wanted input from others." That's what you're getting.
Your question "What if every 4 years the NFL would mix up divisions?"
Changing divisions necessarily changes the scheduling of the NFL (i.e. you wouldn't play rivalry teams twice per season any longer). That's the point of divisions, and division winners. They play each other twice to determine the best team by trying to negate home field advantage (that's why they each get one home game out of the two possible games). What is it that you don't understand about this? Realigning divisions necessarily changes the way the NFL is scheduled. In other words, WHAT I SAID BEFORE: It would destroy the established rivalries in the NFL.
You've been given precisely what you asked for several times by several people, except we went farther, and tried to be nice, but you don't seem to be grasping that. The idea was stupid. . DUMB. FUCKING. IDEA. Unless your real question is to ask "How could we rig the NFL so the lowly Lions don't look so lowly any longer?" You must have stepped on a lego. The only input you have given is that its a bad idea and would destroy rivalries. Instead of jumping all over me and saying how bad of a idea it is why not ignore my posts and save yourself the stress and time. I wasn't interested in if it was a good or bad idea, more of "I am tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs every year and how those teams would do in another division". You know playing the "What If" game and you took it like I was trying to reconstruct how the nfl schedules the teams. Maybe your next post will be " I hate those Patriots, Jets and Giants should switch divisions so Brady has to deal with them twice a year". But most likely going to be another post about my terrible idea or maybe just no response at all.
Here's an idea: If you don't actually want input on your "what if" idea, don't ask for it. I addressed your scenario exactly as it was asked to be addressed, and did so in a rather polite manner the first time. I'm not the one that's not reading things here, or lacking comprehension of what was posted. On the contrary, I am addressing precisely the question that was asked. Realignment of divisions in any way is a generally bad idea. That is my input on this, and you keep trying to defend your idea, saying you aren't talking about the way the NFL schedules, while ignoring everything else that I'm posting. I.E. That changing divisions necessarily changes scheduling, so it's a valid point of discussion.
Furthermore, if your problem is that you're tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs (who knows why you're upset about that, as it has literally nothing to do with divisional alignment, and more to do with incompetency in power positions for teams [see Jerry Jones]), changing scheduling is EXACTLY what you're suggesting. "How would teams fair in another division" is basically the same thing as saying "I wish they had to play different teams more often," which is a change to scheduling, which destroys the long-standing rivalries the NFL has built.
Instead of getting defensive about a bad idea, how about you think before posting, or just don't post at all? I vote for the latter, because so far, all of your posts are terrible. Honestly, I keep repeating myself like it's going to sink in at some point, but you're either unwilling to read what I'm actually saying (dismissing it as if I have not addressed your ludicrous idea), or you just don't actually understand the implications of your scenario. I don't know, or particularly care, which one it is.
It's like you just want to say what you want to say, and not have anyone respond critically to your idea. Or maybe you're just fighting for the last word, for some sort of moral victory. If that's the case, have it.
|
On October 24 2012 13:53 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:57 thuracine wrote:On October 24 2012 11:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you keep getting input. Why do you ask for input, then get all defensive and say "I just wanted input from others." That's what you're getting.
Your question "What if every 4 years the NFL would mix up divisions?"
Changing divisions necessarily changes the scheduling of the NFL (i.e. you wouldn't play rivalry teams twice per season any longer). That's the point of divisions, and division winners. They play each other twice to determine the best team by trying to negate home field advantage (that's why they each get one home game out of the two possible games). What is it that you don't understand about this? Realigning divisions necessarily changes the way the NFL is scheduled. In other words, WHAT I SAID BEFORE: It would destroy the established rivalries in the NFL.
You've been given precisely what you asked for several times by several people, except we went farther, and tried to be nice, but you don't seem to be grasping that. The idea was stupid. . DUMB. FUCKING. IDEA. Unless your real question is to ask "How could we rig the NFL so the lowly Lions don't look so lowly any longer?" You must have stepped on a lego. The only input you have given is that its a bad idea and would destroy rivalries. Instead of jumping all over me and saying how bad of a idea it is why not ignore my posts and save yourself the stress and time. I wasn't interested in if it was a good or bad idea, more of "I am tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs every year and how those teams would do in another division". You know playing the "What If" game and you took it like I was trying to reconstruct how the nfl schedules the teams. Maybe your next post will be " I hate those Patriots, Jets and Giants should switch divisions so Brady has to deal with them twice a year". But most likely going to be another post about my terrible idea or maybe just no response at all. Here's an idea: If you don't actually want input on your "what if" idea, don't ask for it. I addressed your scenario exactly as it was asked to be addressed, and did so in a rather polite manner the first time. I'm not the one that's not reading things here, or lacking comprehension of what was posted. On the contrary, I am addressing precisely the question that was asked. Realignment of divisions in any way is a generally bad idea. That is my input on this, and you keep trying to defend your idea, saying you aren't talking about the way the NFL schedules, while ignoring everything else that I'm posting. I.E. That changing divisions necessarily changes scheduling, so it's a valid point of discussion. Furthermore, if your problem is that you're tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs (who knows why you're upset about that, as it has literally nothing to do with divisional alignment, and more to do with incompetency in power positions for teams [see Jerry Jones]), changing scheduling is EXACTLY what you're suggesting. "How would teams fair in another division" is basically the same thing as saying "I wish they had to play different teams more often," which is a change to scheduling, which destroys the long-standing rivalries the NFL has built. Instead of getting defensive about a bad idea, how about you think before posting, or just don't post at all? I vote for the latter, because so far, all of your posts are terrible. Honestly, I keep repeating myself like it's going to sink in at some point, but you're either unwilling to read what I'm actually saying (dismissing it as if I have not addressed your ludicrous idea), or you just don't actually understand the implications of your scenario. I don't know, or particularly care, which one it is. It's like you just want to say what you want to say, and not have anyone respond critically to your idea. Or maybe you're just fighting for the last word, for some sort of moral victory. If that's the case, have it.
We get it YOU think realignment of divisions is a bad idea. The NFL didn't think so when they did it in 02 and came up with the new scheduling system(which I know you love) and still protect your precious rivalries. Who's to say they don't do it again when new teams join the league or broke teams disband.
We get it YOU think realignment of divisions is a bad idea. So how do you feel about the Giants switching places with the Jets? not how there travel plans might change but how the two divisions would change.
|
The NFL will never realign in such a way as to break up big rivalries. When they realigned in 02, they specifically kept the Saints and Falcons (As one of the longest standing rivalries affected by the mix up) in the same division. They will never break up anyone in the NFC East (despite the cowboys not being in the east at all) or the NFC north, or the AFC West (despite the dumpster fire that it is, the AFC West has by far the longest most impressive history in the AFC).
They kept most of the old AFC Central rivalries, only moving the legacy of the oilers away, but that team got scrapped and changed and lost its history anyhow.
You would have fucking riots in New York if you broke up their rivalries with Washington, Dallas and Philadelphia. That shit is the backbone of the NFL. It would piss off literally millions of fans. How long have you been watching the NFL to not understand how big a deal these rivalries are?
The NFL also has things scheduled in a particular way so that teams will eventually play each other over the course of 4 years in phases. You'd have to completely toss out their current division based scheduling system and build from scratch if you wanted to just randomly swap teams in and out of divisions.
If you did swap the Giants and the Jets, then both divisions would probably get a little more competitive, as the Giants could challenge the patriots and the Jets would be closer to the level of the rest of the NFC East, creating a much closer race.
|
On October 24 2012 15:32 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The NFL will never realign in such a way as to break up big rivalries. When they realigned in 02, they specifically kept the Saints and Falcons (As one of the longest standing rivalries affected by the mix up) in the same division. They will never break up anyone in the NFC East (despite the cowboys not being in the east at all) or the NFC north, or the AFC West (despite the dumpster fire that it is, the AFC West has by far the longest most impressive history in the AFC).
They kept most of the old AFC Central rivalries, only moving the legacy of the oilers away, but that team got scrapped and changed and lost its history anyhow.
You would have fucking riots in New York if you broke up their rivalries with Washington, Dallas and Philadelphia. That shit is the backbone of the NFL. It would piss off literally millions of fans. How long have you been watching the NFL to not understand how big a deal these rivalries are?
The NFL also has things scheduled in a particular way so that teams will eventually play each other over the course of 4 years in phases. You'd have to completely toss out their current division based scheduling system and build from scratch if you wanted to just randomly swap teams in and out of divisions.
If you did swap the Giants and the Jets, then both divisions would probably get a little more competitive, as the Giants could challenge the patriots and the Jets would be closer to the level of the rest of the NFC East, creating a much closer race.
WHAT IF, after all teams have played one another they shuffle up the divisions( how they would come with a fair to do it I have no clue). The rivalries are still there they just happen a less rate, that could build on that rivalry with the anticipation you don't know when you are going to get the chance again so you better bring the A game.
|
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
|
Food for thoughts. The 49ers biggest rivalries is the Cowboys and they're not even in their division. 49ers and Packers too. But then 49ers rivalry is pretty minute compared to division rivalries. Eagles/Redskin/Giants Raiders/Broncos/Chiefs. No rivalries compares to that of the Raiders/Broncos and Raiders/Chiefs imho.
|
maybe it is because i am an east coaster but I feel the rivalry between the niners and their division opponents is very minor. THe last time we really had a serious rivalry with any of them was the late 90s early 00 when the Rams were nasty and we were still pretty good, and for a tad there when the Hawks were kind of good with Shawn Alexander before he decided to stop trying.
the division change thing is retarded. Those niner and GB rivalries were built up almost exclusively from playoff match ups. consistently meeting in the playoffs is not a bad thing at all. Hockey had the same thing, with a lot of rivalries being built in the same fashion. RIP Hockey 
|
On October 24 2012 15:08 thuracine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:53 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On October 24 2012 12:57 thuracine wrote:On October 24 2012 11:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you keep getting input. Why do you ask for input, then get all defensive and say "I just wanted input from others." That's what you're getting.
Your question "What if every 4 years the NFL would mix up divisions?"
Changing divisions necessarily changes the scheduling of the NFL (i.e. you wouldn't play rivalry teams twice per season any longer). That's the point of divisions, and division winners. They play each other twice to determine the best team by trying to negate home field advantage (that's why they each get one home game out of the two possible games). What is it that you don't understand about this? Realigning divisions necessarily changes the way the NFL is scheduled. In other words, WHAT I SAID BEFORE: It would destroy the established rivalries in the NFL.
You've been given precisely what you asked for several times by several people, except we went farther, and tried to be nice, but you don't seem to be grasping that. The idea was stupid. . DUMB. FUCKING. IDEA. Unless your real question is to ask "How could we rig the NFL so the lowly Lions don't look so lowly any longer?" You must have stepped on a lego. The only input you have given is that its a bad idea and would destroy rivalries. Instead of jumping all over me and saying how bad of a idea it is why not ignore my posts and save yourself the stress and time. I wasn't interested in if it was a good or bad idea, more of "I am tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs every year and how those teams would do in another division". You know playing the "What If" game and you took it like I was trying to reconstruct how the nfl schedules the teams. Maybe your next post will be " I hate those Patriots, Jets and Giants should switch divisions so Brady has to deal with them twice a year". But most likely going to be another post about my terrible idea or maybe just no response at all. Here's an idea: If you don't actually want input on your "what if" idea, don't ask for it. I addressed your scenario exactly as it was asked to be addressed, and did so in a rather polite manner the first time. I'm not the one that's not reading things here, or lacking comprehension of what was posted. On the contrary, I am addressing precisely the question that was asked. Realignment of divisions in any way is a generally bad idea. That is my input on this, and you keep trying to defend your idea, saying you aren't talking about the way the NFL schedules, while ignoring everything else that I'm posting. I.E. That changing divisions necessarily changes scheduling, so it's a valid point of discussion. Furthermore, if your problem is that you're tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs (who knows why you're upset about that, as it has literally nothing to do with divisional alignment, and more to do with incompetency in power positions for teams [see Jerry Jones]), changing scheduling is EXACTLY what you're suggesting. "How would teams fair in another division" is basically the same thing as saying "I wish they had to play different teams more often," which is a change to scheduling, which destroys the long-standing rivalries the NFL has built. Instead of getting defensive about a bad idea, how about you think before posting, or just don't post at all? I vote for the latter, because so far, all of your posts are terrible. Honestly, I keep repeating myself like it's going to sink in at some point, but you're either unwilling to read what I'm actually saying (dismissing it as if I have not addressed your ludicrous idea), or you just don't actually understand the implications of your scenario. I don't know, or particularly care, which one it is. It's like you just want to say what you want to say, and not have anyone respond critically to your idea. Or maybe you're just fighting for the last word, for some sort of moral victory. If that's the case, have it. We get it YOU think realignment of divisions is a bad idea. The NFL didn't think so when they did it in 02 and came up with the new scheduling system(which I know you love) and still protect your precious rivalries. Who's to say they don't do it again when new teams join the league or broke teams disband. We get it YOU think realignment of divisions is a bad idea. So how do you feel about the Giants switching places with the Jets? not how there travel plans might change but how the two divisions would change.
This proves exactly how stupid you are. The NFL changed the divisions for actual reasons in that scenario. They changed them based on the new, round number of teams (since they had 32, they could have eight divisions of four teams), and based on region. It made sense. It wasn't a change that was made all willy-nilly, spur of the moment, as you're suggesting. You've yet to provide a single reason that it would be a good idea to change divisions. All you keep saying is that you want input, and now you're getting mad because your idea sucks, and I'm no longer being nice about it.
Swapping the two teams would be stupid. What point would it serve? None. Absolutely none. The only thing it would do is, potentially, keep the Patriots from being division winners as often as they are, because the Giants seemingly outplay them every time they play. But what good is that, except to irritate one of the NFL's most fervent fan bases?
How about this, you give a single (1) reason that they should rotate divisions. So far, you've given zero (0), so how about you try for one. Then you can come back all snippy at people who don't like your fucking idiotic posts. No one has been supportive of your idea, but you keep responding directly to me, so you're seeing more of my posts. Give a reason, or YOU stop posting about it.
On October 24 2012 16:03 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
He's not actually saying anything. Just a bunch of posts saying "WHAT IF! LOZL!" WHAT IF THE WHOLE WORLD ERUPTED IN A BALL OF FIRE AND THERE WERE NO PRO FOOTBALL PLAYERS LEFT AND THE NFL HAD TO USE SCRUBS OFF THE STREET?! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFF. (Never mind the obvious point that the ENTIRE WORLD IS ON FIRE and there are probably no people left... irrelevant details!)
The point is, what he's talking about is not possible (shifting divisions and maintaining the same level of rivalry), he's just unable to figure that out.
[Edited to make it a little bit nicer, I get the impression that thuricaine is young, thus the lack of logical reasoning. Hopefully, instead of posting dumb shit all the time, he'll start to actually read some posts here and learn something about football.]
|
On October 24 2012 15:46 thuracine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 15:32 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The NFL will never realign in such a way as to break up big rivalries. When they realigned in 02, they specifically kept the Saints and Falcons (As one of the longest standing rivalries affected by the mix up) in the same division. They will never break up anyone in the NFC East (despite the cowboys not being in the east at all) or the NFC north, or the AFC West (despite the dumpster fire that it is, the AFC West has by far the longest most impressive history in the AFC).
They kept most of the old AFC Central rivalries, only moving the legacy of the oilers away, but that team got scrapped and changed and lost its history anyhow.
You would have fucking riots in New York if you broke up their rivalries with Washington, Dallas and Philadelphia. That shit is the backbone of the NFL. It would piss off literally millions of fans. How long have you been watching the NFL to not understand how big a deal these rivalries are?
The NFL also has things scheduled in a particular way so that teams will eventually play each other over the course of 4 years in phases. You'd have to completely toss out their current division based scheduling system and build from scratch if you wanted to just randomly swap teams in and out of divisions.
If you did swap the Giants and the Jets, then both divisions would probably get a little more competitive, as the Giants could challenge the patriots and the Jets would be closer to the level of the rest of the NFC East, creating a much closer race. WHAT IF, after all teams have played one another they shuffle up the divisions( how they would come with a fair to do it I have no clue). The rivalries are still there they just happen a less rate, that could build on that rivalry with the anticipation you don't know when you are going to get the chance again so you better bring the A game.
it's stupid as hell. in the nfl, you currently play everyone in your division 2x, and then everyone in two different divsions each year on a rotating schedule + 2 random games. so you'd be seeing your rival once every four years... that defeats the whole concept of rival
|
On October 24 2012 16:26 Damiani wrote:
Food for thoughts. The 49ers biggest rivalries is the Cowboys and they're not even in their division. 49ers and Packers too. But then 49ers rivalry is pretty minute compared to division rivalries. Eagles/Redskin/Giants Raiders/Broncos/Chiefs. No rivalries compares to that of the Raiders/Broncos and Raiders/Chiefs imho.
On October 24 2012 22:07 QuanticHawk wrote:maybe it is because i am an east coaster but I feel the rivalry between the niners and their division opponents is very minor. THe last time we really had a serious rivalry with any of them was the late 90s early 00 when the Rams were nasty and we were still pretty good, and for a tad there when the Hawks were kind of good with Shawn Alexander before he decided to stop trying. the division change thing is retarded. Those niner and GB rivalries were built up almost exclusively from playoff match ups. consistently meeting in the playoffs is not a bad thing at all. Hockey had the same thing, with a lot of rivalries being built in the same fashion. RIP Hockey
It's probably because two teams in that division haven't been good at the same time... pretty much ever. When the Seahawks were a decent team, the rest of the division was pretty much trash. When the Rams were great, the same could be said, and so on. Things may start getting more heated now that the whole division is on the uptick.
Playoffs are a good place to develop some rivalries. 49'ers/'Girls, 49'ers/Packers, Colts/Pats. All great playoff rivalries. If these teams weren't deciding who got a ring that year, and who didn't... then no one would care about those games. Without the ring on the line, they'd have been irrelevant match ups.
The NFC East/South/North rivalries, and the AFC West/North rivalries are all built on decades of competition, and some bad blood for moving teams from city to city. The Browns fans will always hate the Ravens, and the Ravens fans will always hate the Colts, it's in their blood since the teams abandoned their cities. Rare cases though.
People would be PISSED if any of these other teams weren't playing each other twice a season though.
|
On October 24 2012 22:28 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 15:46 thuracine wrote:On October 24 2012 15:32 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The NFL will never realign in such a way as to break up big rivalries. When they realigned in 02, they specifically kept the Saints and Falcons (As one of the longest standing rivalries affected by the mix up) in the same division. They will never break up anyone in the NFC East (despite the cowboys not being in the east at all) or the NFC north, or the AFC West (despite the dumpster fire that it is, the AFC West has by far the longest most impressive history in the AFC).
They kept most of the old AFC Central rivalries, only moving the legacy of the oilers away, but that team got scrapped and changed and lost its history anyhow.
You would have fucking riots in New York if you broke up their rivalries with Washington, Dallas and Philadelphia. That shit is the backbone of the NFL. It would piss off literally millions of fans. How long have you been watching the NFL to not understand how big a deal these rivalries are?
The NFL also has things scheduled in a particular way so that teams will eventually play each other over the course of 4 years in phases. You'd have to completely toss out their current division based scheduling system and build from scratch if you wanted to just randomly swap teams in and out of divisions.
If you did swap the Giants and the Jets, then both divisions would probably get a little more competitive, as the Giants could challenge the patriots and the Jets would be closer to the level of the rest of the NFC East, creating a much closer race. WHAT IF, after all teams have played one another they shuffle up the divisions( how they would come with a fair to do it I have no clue). The rivalries are still there they just happen a less rate, that could build on that rivalry with the anticipation you don't know when you are going to get the chance again so you better bring the A game. it's stupid as hell. in the nfl, you currently play everyone in your division 2x, and then everyone in two different divsions each year on a rotating schedule + 2 random games. so you'd be seeing your rival once every four years... that defeats the whole concept of rival
Yeah, but dude... what if they could realign the divisions, but still maintain the rivalries by having the current rivals play each other twice a year still?
Or, what if they put all the teams in one division, and then arbitrarily decided who goes in which bracket to play for the Super Bowl? WHAT IF!
|
Holy balls I'm about to pull off a coup here.
Gonna get Harvin for F. Jackson and M Williams looool
I have the option of taking Vincent Jackson instead. Any opinion on this? I wanna smash the fuck out accept right now but I wanna decide... I think VJ might get more TDs but he is more feast or famine. Harvin is closer to a RB in terms of just being so damn consistent.
e: Went ahead with the trade. So Sunday, I will start:
QB: Matt Ryan
WR: White, Harvin, Brown
RB: Lynch, Matthews, CJ2K
TE: VD
K: Gould
D: Pitt
Bench: Rivers, Leshoure, Wright, Graham... and the guy who I traded with dropped Andre Roberts, who I'll probably snag.
I will definitely have the best team in the league after this and most of my bye's are over with now. 6TD all around.
Not bad at all considering this is how I started off:
1. (9) Ryan Mathews RB
2. (16) Marshawn Lynch RB
3. (33) Fred Jackson RB
4. (40) Vernon Davis TE
5. (57) Antonio Brown WR
6. (64) Philip Rivers QB
7. (81) Robert Meachem WR
8. (88) Stevan Ridley RB
9. (105) Matt Ryan QB
10. (112) Darrius Heyward-Bey WR
11. (129) Mikel LeShoure RB
12. (136) Kendall Wright WR
13. (153) Mike Williams WR
14. (160) Cincinnati DEF
15. (177) Dan Carpenter K
|
On October 24 2012 22:23 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 15:08 thuracine wrote:On October 24 2012 13:53 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On October 24 2012 12:57 thuracine wrote:On October 24 2012 11:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you keep getting input. Why do you ask for input, then get all defensive and say "I just wanted input from others." That's what you're getting.
Your question "What if every 4 years the NFL would mix up divisions?"
Changing divisions necessarily changes the scheduling of the NFL (i.e. you wouldn't play rivalry teams twice per season any longer). That's the point of divisions, and division winners. They play each other twice to determine the best team by trying to negate home field advantage (that's why they each get one home game out of the two possible games). What is it that you don't understand about this? Realigning divisions necessarily changes the way the NFL is scheduled. In other words, WHAT I SAID BEFORE: It would destroy the established rivalries in the NFL.
You've been given precisely what you asked for several times by several people, except we went farther, and tried to be nice, but you don't seem to be grasping that. The idea was stupid. . DUMB. FUCKING. IDEA. Unless your real question is to ask "How could we rig the NFL so the lowly Lions don't look so lowly any longer?" You must have stepped on a lego. The only input you have given is that its a bad idea and would destroy rivalries. Instead of jumping all over me and saying how bad of a idea it is why not ignore my posts and save yourself the stress and time. I wasn't interested in if it was a good or bad idea, more of "I am tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs every year and how those teams would do in another division". You know playing the "What If" game and you took it like I was trying to reconstruct how the nfl schedules the teams. Maybe your next post will be " I hate those Patriots, Jets and Giants should switch divisions so Brady has to deal with them twice a year". But most likely going to be another post about my terrible idea or maybe just no response at all. Here's an idea: If you don't actually want input on your "what if" idea, don't ask for it. I addressed your scenario exactly as it was asked to be addressed, and did so in a rather polite manner the first time. I'm not the one that's not reading things here, or lacking comprehension of what was posted. On the contrary, I am addressing precisely the question that was asked. Realignment of divisions in any way is a generally bad idea. That is my input on this, and you keep trying to defend your idea, saying you aren't talking about the way the NFL schedules, while ignoring everything else that I'm posting. I.E. That changing divisions necessarily changes scheduling, so it's a valid point of discussion. Furthermore, if your problem is that you're tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs (who knows why you're upset about that, as it has literally nothing to do with divisional alignment, and more to do with incompetency in power positions for teams [see Jerry Jones]), changing scheduling is EXACTLY what you're suggesting. "How would teams fair in another division" is basically the same thing as saying "I wish they had to play different teams more often," which is a change to scheduling, which destroys the long-standing rivalries the NFL has built. Instead of getting defensive about a bad idea, how about you think before posting, or just don't post at all? I vote for the latter, because so far, all of your posts are terrible. Honestly, I keep repeating myself like it's going to sink in at some point, but you're either unwilling to read what I'm actually saying (dismissing it as if I have not addressed your ludicrous idea), or you just don't actually understand the implications of your scenario. I don't know, or particularly care, which one it is. It's like you just want to say what you want to say, and not have anyone respond critically to your idea. Or maybe you're just fighting for the last word, for some sort of moral victory. If that's the case, have it. We get it YOU think realignment of divisions is a bad idea. The NFL didn't think so when they did it in 02 and came up with the new scheduling system(which I know you love) and still protect your precious rivalries. Who's to say they don't do it again when new teams join the league or broke teams disband. We get it YOU think realignment of divisions is a bad idea. So how do you feel about the Giants switching places with the Jets? not how there travel plans might change but how the two divisions would change. This proves exactly how stupid you are. The NFL changed the divisions for actual reasons in that scenario. They changed them based on the new, round number of teams (since they had 32, they could have eight divisions of four teams), and based on region. It made sense. It wasn't a change that was made all willy-nilly, spur of the moment, as you're suggesting. You've yet to provide a single reason that it would be a good idea to change divisions. All you keep saying is that you want input, and now you're getting mad because your idea sucks, and I'm no longer being nice about it. Swapping the two teams would be stupid. What point would it serve? None. Absolutely none. The only thing it would do is, potentially, keep the Patriots from being division winners as often as they are, because the Giants seemingly outplay them every time they play. But what good is that, except to irritate one of the NFL's most fervent fan bases? How about this, you give a single (1) reason that they should rotate divisions. So far, you've given zero (0), so how about you try for one. Then you can come back all snippy at people who don't like your fucking idiotic posts. No one has been supportive of your idea, but you keep responding directly to me, so you're seeing more of my posts. Give a reason, or YOU stop posting about it. Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 16:03 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I have no idea what you're trying to say. He's not actually saying anything. Just a bunch of posts saying "WHAT IF! LOZL!" WHAT IF THE WHOLE WORLD ERUPTED IN A BALL OF FIRE AND THERE WERE NO PRO FOOTBALL PLAYERS LEFT AND THE NFL HAD TO USE SCRUBS OFF THE STREET?! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFF. (Never mind the obvious point that the ENTIRE WORLD IS ON FIRE and there are probably no people left... irrelevant details!) The point is, what he's talking about is not possible (shifting divisions and maintaining the same level of rivalry), he's just unable to figure that out. [Edited to make it a little bit nicer, I get the impression that thuricaine is young, thus the lack of logical reasoning. Hopefully, instead of posting dumb shit all the time, he'll start to actually read some posts here and learn something about football.]
You must be a peach to be around. Everyone of your post have said the same thing, bad idea don't mess with rivalries.
Instead of being a dick and saying the same shit over and over why not be constructive maybe improve on the idea. Use your imagination, this was never about scheduling or rivalries it was actually quite simple. So before you over analyze everything I will make it simple.
EA has come up with a formula that will allow you in next years madden to "create your own divisions" scheduling done for you. How would you setup your divisions in the video game.
|
On October 25 2012 06:28 thuracine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 22:23 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On October 24 2012 15:08 thuracine wrote:On October 24 2012 13:53 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On October 24 2012 12:57 thuracine wrote:On October 24 2012 11:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
And you keep getting input. Why do you ask for input, then get all defensive and say "I just wanted input from others." That's what you're getting.
Your question "What if every 4 years the NFL would mix up divisions?"
Changing divisions necessarily changes the scheduling of the NFL (i.e. you wouldn't play rivalry teams twice per season any longer). That's the point of divisions, and division winners. They play each other twice to determine the best team by trying to negate home field advantage (that's why they each get one home game out of the two possible games). What is it that you don't understand about this? Realigning divisions necessarily changes the way the NFL is scheduled. In other words, WHAT I SAID BEFORE: It would destroy the established rivalries in the NFL.
You've been given precisely what you asked for several times by several people, except we went farther, and tried to be nice, but you don't seem to be grasping that. The idea was stupid. . DUMB. FUCKING. IDEA. Unless your real question is to ask "How could we rig the NFL so the lowly Lions don't look so lowly any longer?" You must have stepped on a lego. The only input you have given is that its a bad idea and would destroy rivalries. Instead of jumping all over me and saying how bad of a idea it is why not ignore my posts and save yourself the stress and time. I wasn't interested in if it was a good or bad idea, more of "I am tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs every year and how those teams would do in another division". You know playing the "What If" game and you took it like I was trying to reconstruct how the nfl schedules the teams. Maybe your next post will be " I hate those Patriots, Jets and Giants should switch divisions so Brady has to deal with them twice a year". But most likely going to be another post about my terrible idea or maybe just no response at all. Here's an idea: If you don't actually want input on your "what if" idea, don't ask for it. I addressed your scenario exactly as it was asked to be addressed, and did so in a rather polite manner the first time. I'm not the one that's not reading things here, or lacking comprehension of what was posted. On the contrary, I am addressing precisely the question that was asked. Realignment of divisions in any way is a generally bad idea. That is my input on this, and you keep trying to defend your idea, saying you aren't talking about the way the NFL schedules, while ignoring everything else that I'm posting. I.E. That changing divisions necessarily changes scheduling, so it's a valid point of discussion. Furthermore, if your problem is that you're tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs (who knows why you're upset about that, as it has literally nothing to do with divisional alignment, and more to do with incompetency in power positions for teams [see Jerry Jones]), changing scheduling is EXACTLY what you're suggesting. "How would teams fair in another division" is basically the same thing as saying "I wish they had to play different teams more often," which is a change to scheduling, which destroys the long-standing rivalries the NFL has built. Instead of getting defensive about a bad idea, how about you think before posting, or just don't post at all? I vote for the latter, because so far, all of your posts are terrible. Honestly, I keep repeating myself like it's going to sink in at some point, but you're either unwilling to read what I'm actually saying (dismissing it as if I have not addressed your ludicrous idea), or you just don't actually understand the implications of your scenario. I don't know, or particularly care, which one it is. It's like you just want to say what you want to say, and not have anyone respond critically to your idea. Or maybe you're just fighting for the last word, for some sort of moral victory. If that's the case, have it. We get it YOU think realignment of divisions is a bad idea. The NFL didn't think so when they did it in 02 and came up with the new scheduling system(which I know you love) and still protect your precious rivalries. Who's to say they don't do it again when new teams join the league or broke teams disband. We get it YOU think realignment of divisions is a bad idea. So how do you feel about the Giants switching places with the Jets? not how there travel plans might change but how the two divisions would change. This proves exactly how stupid you are. The NFL changed the divisions for actual reasons in that scenario. They changed them based on the new, round number of teams (since they had 32, they could have eight divisions of four teams), and based on region. It made sense. It wasn't a change that was made all willy-nilly, spur of the moment, as you're suggesting. You've yet to provide a single reason that it would be a good idea to change divisions. All you keep saying is that you want input, and now you're getting mad because your idea sucks, and I'm no longer being nice about it. Swapping the two teams would be stupid. What point would it serve? None. Absolutely none. The only thing it would do is, potentially, keep the Patriots from being division winners as often as they are, because the Giants seemingly outplay them every time they play. But what good is that, except to irritate one of the NFL's most fervent fan bases? How about this, you give a single (1) reason that they should rotate divisions. So far, you've given zero (0), so how about you try for one. Then you can come back all snippy at people who don't like your fucking idiotic posts. No one has been supportive of your idea, but you keep responding directly to me, so you're seeing more of my posts. Give a reason, or YOU stop posting about it. On October 24 2012 16:03 TwoToneTerran wrote:
I have no idea what you're trying to say. He's not actually saying anything. Just a bunch of posts saying "WHAT IF! LOZL!" WHAT IF THE WHOLE WORLD ERUPTED IN A BALL OF FIRE AND THERE WERE NO PRO FOOTBALL PLAYERS LEFT AND THE NFL HAD TO USE SCRUBS OFF THE STREET?! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFF. (Never mind the obvious point that the ENTIRE WORLD IS ON FIRE and there are probably no people left... irrelevant details!) The point is, what he's talking about is not possible (shifting divisions and maintaining the same level of rivalry), he's just unable to figure that out. [Edited to make it a little bit nicer, I get the impression that thuricaine is young, thus the lack of logical reasoning. Hopefully, instead of posting dumb shit all the time, he'll start to actually read some posts here and learn something about football.] You must be a peach to be around. Everyone of your post have said the same thing, bad idea don't mess with rivalries. Instead of being a dick and saying the same shit over and over why not be constructive maybe improve on the idea. Use your imagination, this was never about scheduling or rivalries it was actually quite simple. So before you over analyze everything I will make it simple. EA has come up with a formula that will allow you in next years madden to "create your own divisions" scheduling done for you. How would you setup your divisions in the video game.
Dude.
Give 2 reasons why it should happen.
He has said it would break up rivalries, so you need two reasons to have a better argument. Lets hear them.
EDIT: Your original post wasn't about Madden, it was about the NFL:
On October 23 2012 18:10 thuracine wrote:
After the game I was discussing divisions with a friend and how some are harder or easier than others.We started getting in to the "what if", what if every 4 years the nfl would mix up the divisions. Wont go in to want teams we put in different divisions just want to put it out there and see what other people come up with and where they would put teams.
So talk about the NFL Divisions, not Madden Fantasy Divisions
|
Even if you took the rivalries out of it, I don't think that you can do anything about travel distances. If you split the Conferences and Divisions geographically, you'd end up with a line going down Michigan-Alabama. I don't see how that helps much. It would only magnify the inequality for northeast teams who would never have to leave the tri state area practically and Seattle who has to fly a shitton in any scenario. Could you cut down on the overall miles, sure, but it wouldn't really solve any problems.
|
Oh god who cares about that division idea!
The real question is if I should drop 100 smackers on the Giants beating the cowboys by 1.5 points...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Is there a site where I can see how many sacks each team is giving up?
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
On October 25 2012 02:06 QuanticHawk wrote:
Holy balls I'm about to pull off a coup here.
Gonna get Harvin for F. Jackson and M Williams looool
I have the option of taking Vincent Jackson instead. Any opinion on this? I wanna smash the fuck out accept right now but I wanna decide... I think VJ might get more TDs but he is more feast or famine. Harvin is closer to a RB in terms of just being so damn consistent.
e: Went ahead with the trade. So Sunday, I will start:
QB: Matt Ryan
WR: White, Harvin, Brown
RB: Lynch, Matthews, CJ2K
TE: VD
K: Gould
D: Pitt
Bench: Rivers, Leshoure, Wright, Graham... and the guy who I traded with dropped Andre Roberts, who I'll probably snag.
I will definitely have the best team in the league after this and most of my bye's are over with now. 6TD all around.
Not bad at all considering this is how I started off:
1. (9) Ryan Mathews RB
2. (16) Marshawn Lynch RB
3. (33) Fred Jackson RB
4. (40) Vernon Davis TE
5. (57) Antonio Brown WR
6. (64) Philip Rivers QB
7. (81) Robert Meachem WR
8. (88) Stevan Ridley RB
9. (105) Matt Ryan QB
10. (112) Darrius Heyward-Bey WR
11. (129) Mikel LeShoure RB
12. (136) Kendall Wright WR
13. (153) Mike Williams WR
14. (160) Cincinnati DEF
15. (177) Dan Carpenter K
Getting Harvin was the better option in my opinion. Harvin's a beast. Jackson is more like a roller-coaster ride. Just as soon as he can get you huge games like the one against the Saints, he'll also fade away for a week and kill your team. Harvin's consistent, which is really, really nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
