there's no hypothetical conference of awesomeness. there were a lot of teams with vastly better records in several of the existing divisions.

as for the playoff system, yes i am fine with it overall, but not because it produces a superbowl featuring the 2 best teams. it rarely does.

that anyone can win is part of what makes the NFL so much fun.

To a degree, but what if AZ had won? Then you'd have wildcards winning 3 of the last 4 years - 2 of them being 6 seeds.

Don't get me wrong. I love playoffs as much as the next fan. But there should be a value/reward in performing well over the course of the regular season as much as there is for getting hot and going on a streak at the end, ala AZ this year.

Something to consider would be taking the top 6 teams in each conference in terms of record, eliminating an automatic bid for winners of weak divisions, which would've nixed AZ and SD this year. Less radical; don't give a weak division winner a home game if they're playing a wildcard team with a better record.

Chad,

THat's what the bye week is for in the playoffs.
The thing about the wild card teams doing well is because they improved as a team as the year went along. (Except for the New England game in Arizona's case.)
The super bowl isn't about putting together a great season and then being the team that should have won the superbowl. It's about being the best team after the 22 weeks (or whatever).



I predict the stock tanks after they give away free food for 8 hours tomorrow.

This is a big part of why I think the NFL is boring.

Me too.

A team can win any given week, not only based on stepping up their game, or the better team underperforming, but on how one team matches up against the other. A better pass defense can hurt some teams more than having a better rush defense, etc.

I see it as David vs. Goliath. People like to root for the underdog to find the weakness in the supposedly better team.

I don't discount the the universal appeal of "Any Given Sunday", but I like story lines better. I like the Evil Yankees, etc, and the notion of a real upset.

I'm talking about rewarding an 11-5 team for playing well in a competitive division. While I'm sure the bye week helps with some recovery/down time, it's hard to judge whether it's that much of a factor in ongoing performance and whether it's a true "reward".

Again, I've got no problems with occasional Cinderellas. Having that year after year, though, creates the feeling you might as well pull team names out of a hat instead of having players on 32 teams bust their asses for 16 games that nowadays might or might not mean you get to play for the ultimate prize if you perform well.

God, this makes me sound like such a New England fanboy. I'm not by any stretch. But shutting them and either Tampa or Dallas out in place of weak division winners (and then giving weak division winners a home game to boot) doesn't make a whole ton of sense.

finally some dudes who are willing to discuss this like gentlemen.

i see both sides of the argument about everybody having a chance. on one hand, it is exciting to see a team like the cards have a chance once in a while. on the other hand, it's not that impressive to win a single super bowl anymore. but all of this has more to do with the the league's interest in more parity than it does with the playoff system.

it could be awesome to go old mlb style and just have the top 6 teams in either conference go to the playoffs, but since they really can't add games to the schedule, still records could be inflated depending on schedules.

They still had to win three games to get to the Super Bowl and they won all three in somewhat convincing fashion.

Being good at the right time is important as anything in the NFL: contrast the Pittsburgh team a few years ago that played like dog early in the season, were "rewarded" by having to play three games on the road and still won and the Indy team that couldn't play run defense at all until they got their guys back just in time for the playoffs and the SB with last year's Pat's team that was all world early in the season who was then exposed as either too old, too hurt or too cocky to change their offensive scheme's by the end of the season, resulting eventually in a lost in the SB.

Also, thrillhouse, your argument is basically the same argument as people who like the BCS and the bowl system make.

i don't really have an argument. i don't believe i have even uttered a word of complaint in here that my team was on the outside looking in with a better record. i don't think it's unfair or anything. all i am saying is that 2 teams that i think are pretty mediocre played a great game against each other.

there was no great team this year, which i think is just part of the ebb and flow of the NFL and injuries and such.

After that game, I don't know how anyone could NOT say the Steelers were the best team in football this year. Similarly, I don't see how anyone can disparage the Cardinals. Sure the Cards barely made it into the playoffs, but they were a scary good team by the end of the season.

I like the current playoff format. Records will never completely show which team is best, because teams schedules are too different. The NFL season is long. Injuries can really sink a team, and good coaching can improve a team over the season. So, to me it does not matter that the Cardinals had a less impressive regular season than the Cowboys (for example). Both teams knew what they needed to do to get in, the Cardinals did it and by the time the playoffs rolled around, developed into a really good team. The Cowboys didn't and were falling apart and likely would have lost anyhow because of it.

The college football analogy is a good one. The people who are arguing that the regular season should have more significance are trying to make the argument that every game in the NFL has equal weight or meaning. This is what people always try to say about college football. That is not true in the NFL. Games at the end of the season mean more, games in your division mean more, and playoffs games mean way more.

Weren't the Steelers 12-4, and one of the best defenses in football this year? It's really really hard assert that the Steelers are mediocre. Maybe mediocre on offense.

Pitt had the #1 defense.

Also, 6 of the 7 teams with the toughest-rated schedules had losing records. Pittsburgh had a winning record.

If they win one more in the next year or 2, you'll be hearing about the Steelers and Rothlisberger like you were about Brady last year and two years ago. Solid fucking squad, and definitely the best team in the league.

Yeah and while I personally don't like "Ben" (and with apologies to Brady who i actually do like) that last Pittsburgh drive can only be described as Montana-esque.

Yeah but what's the big fucking deal about him, right?

About who? I mentioned three people there.

Montana. 'Twas a joke.

Yes.


What bothers me though is how a decent team can go 10-6 or even 11-5 and potentially not get to go to the playoffs, (this what had happened to the Browns last year) while other teams that go 8-8 and clearly don't belong, get in.

i'm glad harrison didn't win the mvp. what a douchebag.

just for the record, if the steelers win another in the next year or 2, that would make 3 in 5 or 6 years. pats won 3 in 4 years. so maybe people will talk about them like they talk about the pats, but whoever does will be a jackass. also, with ben's line in the first one he won, and a pretty mediocre game save for one drive against an atrocious defense in the other, there really is no comparison anyway.

and on another note, i have yet to see the steelers beat the patriots in the playoffs. injuries are part of the game and all, and the steelers deserved to win both of their recent sb's, but i don't expect to see the steelers back in the dance when tommy comes back.