O/T Song of The (NFC) South

[Zorn76]

This division continues to set new lows, as the Saints drop their third game in a row at home.

They are now 3-3 in the dome and 1-4 away. Atlanta is the default 1st place team by virtue of their earlier win against N.O. this season.

The South winner will be the 4th seed in the playoffs.

How awesome would it to be the #5 (if we don't win the division), and be able to play an opponent who likely won't have a winning record. I know that we were in a similar situation a few yrs back hosting like this, but the Falcons, Saints, Panthers and Bucs are just flat out poor teams.

It ain't saying much, but I think we'd crush any of those teams in the playoffs on the road.

[c_hawkbob]

It ain't saying much, but I think we'd crush any of those teams in the playoffs on the road.

I'm sure the Saints said the same thing about coming here to face a sub .500 playoff team a couple years ago ... I got nothing to say about the winner of that division, I was happy as a clam to go to the playoffs, and to get a home playoff game, as a 7-9 team.

Wouldn't it be something if the Saints won the division and we went there for our first playoff game this year? Talk about kismet.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I've been ribbing the Saints fans down here in Baton Rouge for weeks now about their division. It really would be sweet to see them win their division at 7-9; they were the biggest cry babies after that loss in 2010. All of them told me how the game should have never been played, which I assume means they think they would have fared better against a 10-6 team.

Still, Cbob's caution is noted; like we did in 2010, a 7-9 NFC South division winner could play one of their best games of the season at home in the wild card. As always, can't take any team lightly.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Speaking of the Saints, how about Justin Forsett last night? Hate that he could no longer be a Seahawk, but glad he's doing well in Baltimore. He was a ton of fun to watch.

[mykc14]

I've been ribbing the Saints fans down here in Baton Rouge for weeks now about their division. It really would be sweet to see them win their division at 7-9; they were the biggest cry babies after that loss in 2010. All of them told me how the game should have never been played, which I assume means they think they would have fared better against a 10-6 team.

Still, Cbob's caution is noted; like we did in 2010, a 7-9 NFC South division winner could play one of their best games of the season at home in the wild card. As always, can't take any team lightly.

Personally I am hoping for a 6-10 champ so people will stop talking about the 7-9 Hawks. Also, I wasn't against us hosting a home game at 7-9 so I am certainly not against the NFC South Champ hosting a game this year if they finish with a losing record. I like how the NFL Playoffs work and don't really want to change anything.

[Futureite]

Of course this will start a firestorm here and everyone will take it personal, but the playoffs are suppose to be about matching the best teams in the NFL against one another. A record of below .500 is by definition "suck". It is below average. I wonder how deserving a 6-10 team will be of a playoff slot on this board if the Hawks go 10-6 and don't make the playoffs. If that happens they'll have been shafted just as several other teams were in 2010. This rule should have been changed after 2010.

And btw the idea that by setting some sort of standard for teams to qualify will lessen the importance of the Div structure will be diminidhed is just hokey. A minimum standard of 8 wins to qualify would keep the current structure in tact but would also remove the rare outliers that should not be there. It would also force teams like the Panthers and Saints to do what the 49ers and Hawks are now doing by playing with some urgency, making additional transactions to win, etc instead of coasting as they are.

[mykc14]

Of course this will start a firestorm here and everyone will take it personal, but the playoffs are suppose to be about matching the best teams in the NFL against one another. A record of below .500 is by definition "suck". It is below average. I wonder how deserving a 6-10 team will be of a playoff slot on this board if the Hawks go 10-6 and don't make the playoffs. If that happens they'll have been shafted just as several other teams were in 2010. This rule should have been changed after 2010.

And btw the idea that by setting some sort of standard for teams to qualify will lessen the importance of the Div structure will be diminidhed is just hokey. A minimum standard of 8 wins to qualify would keep the current structure in tact but would also remove the rare outliers that should not be there. It would also force teams like the Panthers and Saints to do what the 49ers and Hawks are now doing by playing with some urgency, making additional transactions to win, etc instead of coasting as they are.

If the hawks were to go 10-6 and not make I would say they should have won more games, that's just the way it is. I don't disagree with your theory but how is an 8-8 team that much better than a 7-9 team? I understand the point of creating a minimum amount of losses but the difference between 8-8 and 7-9 is miniscule in the NFL. Your standard would not removed 'sucky' teams from the playoffs any 8-8 team could still be sucky. Also, it absolutely WOULD diminish the divisional structure because by definition one division would have no representation in the playoffs, so don't just dismiss it as hokey. You could argue the importance of the division structure if you would like but you can't just throw a whole argument out because you don't understand it. Lastly I am sure the Panthers and Saints are currently playing with urgency to argue that they aren't is 'hokey.' They have all the urgency that the Hawks and Niners have; they just aren't very good. I actually would be 'OK' with them changing the format as I would understand what they would be trying to do, but hope they don't because I like the importance it puts on winning your division. That's also why I don't like the idea of re-seading by record. You win your division you deserve to host a playoff game.

[HumanCockroach]

If the hawks were to go 10-6 and not make I would say they should have won more games, that's just the way it is.

Exactly. No one to blame for not winning enough to get in, but yourself. You want a guaranteed spot? Win your division. Period. Whether that be 5 wins or 13, doesn't change the only guaranteed way in, is to win more than those teams in your division.

[NorthHawk]

Some years the records are vastly different because the teams they play are either weaker or better than in other divisions.
You could have teams that in some divisions have a barely winning record, but their schedule turns out to be one of the toughest in the NFL.
Take our Division, we could possibly have all 4 teams split with each other - that's 3 losses. If we also ended up playing the toughest AFC Division and other toughest NFC Division for the rest of the schedule our teams could have lesser records than the talent would suggest. Conversely, teams that are otherwise average and play 'weak' schedules could have better records than if they were in tougher Divisions.

So the winner of each Division should get a playoff berth in my mind. After all, it's the first goal of every team.

[Futureite]

Some years the records are vastly different because the teams they play are either weaker or better than in other divisions.
You could have teams that in some divisions have a barely winning record, but their schedule turns out to be one of the toughest in the NFL.
Take our Division, we could possibly have all 4 teams split with each other - that's 3 losses. If we also ended up playing the toughest AFC Division and other toughest NFC Division for the rest of the schedule our teams could have lesser records than the talent would suggest. Conversely, teams that are otherwise average and play 'weak' schedules could have better records than if they were in tougher Divisions.

So the winner of each Division should get a playoff berth in my mind. After all, it's the first goal of every team.

This is true, but rules and standards have to be set everywhere in life to maintain structure. I really tried to argue my way out of the speeding ticket I got in WA, but the police officer repeated several times that a speed limit of 60 is posted at 3 mi intervals just prior to where he clocked me. Unfortunately the argument that "just above" 60 is "substantially the same "as driving in the flow of traffic @ 60 didn't fly. The same holds true with the comparison of 8-8 to 7-9.

The reality is a benchmark for wins and losses is no more arbitrary than the random collection of teams comprising a "division" or the rule that the winner of any one of them gets an automatic bid. The playoff system, seeding etc is constantly in flux, as are all NFL rules (or any organization's for that matter) as they are modified to create fair and balanced play, and they are all "made up" or random. You see it in helmet to helmet contact, salary cap limits, and additional playoff seeds added (the Wildcard system and homefield advantage has been modified several times, as has the geographic collection of teams that make up a division). The point of all of these rule changes is to promote fair and balanced competition - not to keep some sort of "history" intact that is in constant flux anyway.

Given that all of those changes and others have left the game of football relatively intact - yes - I do believe the all or none claims about a minimum benchmark "destroying" the current format to be far fetched and hokey. It would only serve to eliminate outliers that do not belong as participants amongst the"best" 12 teams in the NFL. No one from the NFC South will be amongst the 12 best teams at yrs end.

[Futureite]

Mykc;

I do not believe the Panthers and the Falcons et al are playing with the same urgency as Hawks or Niners. The reality of any situation does something to the human spirit that the mere notion of cannot. Pressure does different things to different people. This is why some teams tighten up or fade as the season goes on and the pressure to win becomes greater, while others play better. The talent disparity may be negligible, but the results can be night and day different. The NFC South teams are not living in "every game is a playoff mode" as the Niners and Hawks are, regardless of how hard their respective coaches try to sell it to them. I have watched this effect play out with the SF Giants baseball team for yrs now. Iron sharpens iron in all arenas of competition, and there ain't much.of it now in the NFC South.

[Zorn76]

As long as we have divisions, there will always be some kind of reward (playoff spot) for winning one.

There's any number of ways they could make a change. One possibility is to have a 3 game discrepancy rule, if you will.

That means if a division winner finishes under .500 (8-8. while sad, would not apply), and their W-L record is three games worse than that of their opening opponent, then a switch of home field would be made. That's a significant enough margin to merit a shift for home/away, IMO.

7-9 vs 9-7, for example, wouldn't be enough of a difference.

Regardless, this type of thing happens rarely. I understood the Saints and their opinion on the matter in 2010. It just is what it is - a rare occurrence that rears its ugly head once every few years.

[Futureite]

As long as we have divisions, there will always be some kind of reward (playoff spot) for winning one.

There's any number of ways they could make a change. One possibility is to have a 3 game discrepancy rule, if you will.

That means if a division winner finishes under .500 (8-8. while sad, would not apply), and their W-L record is three games worse than that of their opening opponent, then a switch of home field would be made. That's a significant enough margin to merit a shift for home/away, IMO.

7-9 vs 9-7, for example, wouldn't be enough of a difference.

Regardless, this type of thing happens rarely. I understood the Saints and their opinion on the matter in 2010. It just is what it is - a rare occurrence that rears its ugly head once every few years.

Exactly. It is rare. A rule that is enforced less than 1% of the time could not devalue the current format. Hence my "hokey" comment. I don't remember anyone complaining when I was a kid and one, then two playoff participants were added as wildcards. Or when the divisions expanded to 4 and the 3rd and 4th seeds were forced to play a wildcard game. The playoff structure has been in flux for a long, long time.

[NorthHawk]

I complained, but nobody cared.

I have heard about talk of expanding the playoffs to 16 teams (2 more for each Conference) meaning half of the teams will make the playoffs - and at some point a bunch with poor records will play. I don't like that at all, but because it would mean more money for the owners, it will surely happen.

[c_hawkbob]

More playoff teams = more playoff games = more $$$. Lot's more $$$

[HumanCockroach]

Might as well do away with divisions all together than. No sense putting stupid parameters in, might as well have them play 16 different teams give the top two byes and be done with it. If you take the priority off the division title, there is little reason to HAVE a division.

[Hawktown]

To at least have a possible division to win if the leader is only around .500, than would it not give the lesser teams in that division motive to keep playing hard through the rest of the season? I like the divisions myself, rivalry purposes and then some.

[Hawktawk]

Who cares? quite frankly should Seattle wind up having to go to a 6-10 Saints or Falcons and lose at say 11-5 I doubt there would be this big uproar anywhere but the Northwest and the twelves about the injustice.I hope we dont have to find out.

People forget that Seattle needed to put up a ton of points, one of the all time playoff runs, and a last minute stop of a great offense playing very well to do what they did in 2010.
Anyway go Falcons this weekend!!

[RiverDog]

During the Saints' MNF game vs. the Ravens, they put out a tidbit that if the Saints lost that game that it would be the first time in the history of the league that a division or conference leader was 3 games below .500, and of course, the Saints lost and in the process set the record.