Playoff qualifications
-
Of the top of your head, does anyone know what the best record to not make the nfl playoffs is?
11-5 i believe since there have been 16 games. I know it happened to the broncos in the 80s and could have happened to the cards last year if they won their last one (they would have had a chance at 11-5 but not a clinch I think)
I think 7-9 is the worse to make it, but don't quote me on it (3-13 is worst possible to win a division if you split with your division mates)
11-5 i believe since there have been 16 games. I know it happened to the broncos in the 80s and could have happened to the cards last year if they won their last one (they would have had a chance at 11-5 but not a clinch I think)
I think 7-9 is the worse to make it, but don't quote me on it (3-13 is worst possible to win a division if you split with your division mates)
True. And on the flip side wouldn't it suck donkey balls to go 13-3 and miss the playoffs?
-
Division winners should get in no matter their record, yes its unfair, but oh well that's the way it works and the way it should work.
Division winners should get in no matter their record, yes its unfair, but oh well that's the way it works and the way it should work.
Agree...
As for hosting a First Round game???
No, treat any team at or under .500 as a WC team and seed the teams from the get-go instead of beginning in Rnd 2. Don't reward a .500 or under team with home field...
-
Division winners should get in no matter their record, yes its unfair, but oh well that's the way it works and the way it should work.
Division winners should get in no matter their record, yes its unfair, but oh well that's the way it works and the way it should work.
Agree...
As for hosting a First Round game???
No, treat any team at or under .500 as a WC team and seed the teams from the get-go instead of beginning in Rnd 2. Don't reward a .500 or under team with home field...
Exactly. Freddie Colman on ESPN radio has been beating this drum for a couple of weeks, & I totally agree. I'll be charitable and say the Saints or Falcons finish at 7-9, though I think 6-10 is more likely. They get to host a team like the Seahawks or Lions because they won their crappy division this year? I think the NFC South is currently so bad, they're going to be forced to change the rules. LOL Atlanta still hasn't beat a team outside of their division, and I'm betting the Saints are going to go oh-fer against the AFC North. Tampa at 2-9 isn't even mathematically eliminated yet- how sad is that? You win your division at or under .500, I'll still give you the 4th seed, but you play the wild card team with the best record on the road. .
-
I think we should get rid of divisions and have the best 6 from each conference in the playoffs. Each team should be assigned 3 or 4 other teams they play each year (rival games). Youd broaden the variety of matchups and get the better teams in the playoffs.
-
Here is the history from 1933 the year of the first playoff game until 1969, the year before the merger. The following teams with records of .750 or better did NOT make the playoffs those years:
1934 Lions 10-3 .769
1936 Bears 9-3 .750
1939 Redskins 8-2-1 .800
1942 Packers 8-2-1 .800
1943 Packers 7-2-1 .778
1944 Eagles 7-1-2 .875
1948 Bears 10-2 .750
1949 Bears 9-3 .750
1951 Giants 9-2-1 .818
1953 49ers 9-3 .750
1956 Lions 9-3 .750
1962 Lions 11-3 .786
1963 Packers 11-2-1 .846
1964 Cardinals 9-3-2 .750
1967 Colts 11-1-2 .917.....maybe the best team to never make playoffs
1968 Rams 10-3-1 .769
-
Further information:
From 1970 to 1977 the NFL played a 14 game schedule. There were 3 divisions in each conference and one wildcard got in the playoffs. A total of 8 playoff teams. The following teams had the best record during those years but failed to make the playoffs despite going 10-4 for a .714 record:
1975 Dolphins
1975 Oilers
1976 Bengals
1976 Cardinals
1977 Dolphins
In 1978 the league expanded to a 16 game season. With that they also expanded the playoffs to take 5 teams from each conference for a total of 10 playoff teams. So from 1978 to 1990 when the playoffs were expanded again to take in 12 teams, one team had an 11-5 record and failed to earn a playoff spot:
1985 Denver Broncos 11-5 .688 win pct.
In addition, from 1978 to 1990 ten (10) teams had a 10-6 record and failed to make the playoffs (almost one per year)
In 1990 the league went from 10 playoff teams to 12. Since that time only one team had an 11-5 record that failed to make the playoffs:
2008 New England Patriots 11-5 .688
In addition 9 teams have gone 10-6 and failed to make the playoffs including the 2007 Browns. The last one was the 2013 Arizona Cardinals.
Note that there were 10 10-6 teams that failed to make it in the 12 years from 1978-1990, but only 9 teams with that record have failed to make it in the 23 years since 1990.
-
From 1933 until 1978 no team in the NFL that did not have a record of at least 2 games above .500 ever made a postseason appearance. But since then there have been a few, and here they are, the teams with the worst records ever to make the playoffs:
1978 Vikings 8-7-1
1982 Browns 4-5...strike year where they included 16 teams in the playoff
1982 Lions 4-5.....same as above
1985 Browns 8-8....first .500 team to make playoffs in non-strike year
1987 Vikings 8-7-1
1990 Saints 8-8
1991 Jets 8-8
1999 Lions 8-8
1999 Cowboys 8-8
2004 Vikings 8-8
2004 Rams 8-8
2008 Chargers 8-8
2010 Seahawks 7-9...first sub .500 team to make playoffs in non-strike year
2011 Rams 8-8
2013 Packers 8-7-1
This year it seems like we may be guaranteed to have another sub .500 team in with the situation in the NFCS.
-
I think we should get rid of divisions and have the best 6 from each conference in the playoffs. Each team should be assigned 3 or 4 other teams they play each year (rival games). Youd broaden the variety of matchups and get the better teams in the playoffs.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
I think we should get rid of divisions and have the best 6 from each conference in the playoffs. Each team should be assigned 3 or 4 other teams they play each year (rival games). Youd broaden the variety of matchups and get the better teams in the playoffs.
Yes, but no. You start off in your little bubble of a division, and you and the fan base concern yourselves with that.
Even though you suck, your entire fan base is intrigued and so is the surrounding teams' fan base because, any given Sunday, right?
And who knows. The playoffs are one and done, but if some team stumbles in there with a losing regular season record and actually wins it all? Good God, that's a story for the ages.
It would inspire the fan base of every shitty team for years to come.
And inspired fans buy jerseys and shit.
-
Division winners should get in no matter their record, yes its unfair, but oh well that's the way it works and the way it should work.
Agree...
As for hosting a First Round game???
No, treat any team at or under .500 as a WC team and seed the teams from the get-go instead of beginning in Rnd 2. Don't reward a .500 or under team with home field...
Exactly. Freddie Colman on ESPN radio has been beating this drum for a couple of weeks, & I totally agree. I'll be charitable and say the Saints or Falcons finish at 7-9, though I think 6-10 is more likely. They get to host a team like the Seahawks or Lions because they won their crappy division this year? I think the NFC South is currently so bad, they're going to be forced to change the rules. LOL Atlanta still hasn't beat a team outside of their division, and I'm betting the Saints are going to go oh-fer against the AFC North. Tampa at 2-9 isn't even mathematically eliminated yet- how sad is that? You win your division at or under .500, I'll still give you the 4th seed, but you play the wild card team with the best record on the road. .
Exactly. Freddie Colman on ESPN radio has been beating this drum for a couple of weeks...
Just googled and see that it's Coleman...
Any relation to Ken Coleman... local TV broadcaster and host of the weekly "Quarterback Club" show from the 60's... and his son, Casey?
Also I just had a Gib Shanley flashback... I went to school with Gib's son.
-
Shut up, you bitches.
Division winners get in. That's it.
-
I think the OP has it right. Division winner UNLESS you sport a losing record. Loser teams shouldn't be eligible for the post-season.
-
I think the OP has it right. Division winner UNLESS you sport a losing record. Loser teams shouldn't be eligible for the post-season.
I think the OP has it right. Division winner UNLESS you sport a losing record. Loser teams shouldn't be eligible for the post-season.
No sirree bob.
Losers need love too.
-
keep the division winners but if there's a wildcard team with a better record they should get the home field. That was easy.
-
keep the division winners but if there's a wildcard team with a better record they should get the home field. That was easy.
keep the division winners but if there's a wildcard team with a better record they should get the home field. That was easy.
Why is it damn near everything you say is what l would have thought of before l think of it?
-
keep the division winners but if there's a wildcard team with a better record they should get the home field. That was easy.
keep the division winners but if there's a wildcard team with a better record they should get the home field. That was easy.
Bingo, IMO this would be the best solution.
-
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
I think we should get rid of divisions and have the best 6 from each conference in the playoffs. Each team should be assigned 3 or 4 other teams they play each year (rival games). Youd broaden the variety of matchups and get the better teams in the playoffs.
Yes, but no. You start off in your little bubble of a division, and you and the fan base concern yourselves with that.
Even though you suck, your entire fan base is intrigued and so is the surrounding teams' fan base because, any given Sunday, right?
And who knows. The playoffs are one and done, but if some team stumbles in there with a losing regular season record and actually wins it all? Good God, that's a story for the ages.
It would inspire the fan base of every shitty team for years to come.
And inspired fans buy jerseys and shit.
Ok, two divisions for each conference. The division winners get the bye, and you'll get the best 12 teams in the playoffs 99.9% of the time. Once again, you broaden the variety of matchups, and the bigger the variety, the better the chance that the best teams rise to the top.Yes, but no. You start off in your little bubble of a division, and you and the fan base concern yourselves with that.
Even though you suck, your entire fan base is intrigued and so is the surrounding teams' fan base because, any given Sunday, right?
And who knows. The playoffs are one and done, but if some team stumbles in there with a losing regular season record and actually wins it all? Good God, that's a story for the ages.
It would inspire the fan base of every shitty team for years to come.
And inspired fans buy jerseys and shit.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login