Would the NFL really allow a 5-6 win team into the playoffs?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
How isn't it?
Changing rules mid season. Fixing the outcome of a div. race by eliminating the whole div. from the playoffs. How about since that div. is eliminated shouldn't all the wins and losses by other teams against that div. not count? At that point why not just pick who they want to play in the SB and scrap the rest.

If the NFL was ever that stupid to change rules during the season affecting the outcome, what league officials that weren't in prison for racketeering would be out of work since Congress would be running the NFL.

Fixing a game is when you pay or order a team to lose a game on purpose. That's different from altering playoff criteria.
 

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
Anybody who thinks the NFL is going to change the rules right before the playoffs is off their rocker.
 

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
The solution I've proposed in the past, and I've seen other people mention the same, is the following...

1) Everything stays the same. Winning a division guarantees a playoff berth UNLESS that team is below .500. In that case, the team is replaced with a third wild card, but only if the wild card has a winning record (a third potential wild card team cannot replace a 7-win playoff team if it only has a .500 record, it needs 9 or more wins).

2) Use records to determine home games—not division titles. (Or, make it so that the wild card gets the home game ONLY if the division champ has 8 or less wins)

I think that's pretty easy.
 

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
Anybody who thinks the NFL is going to change the rules right before the playoffs is off their rocker.
I don't THINK it will happen. It just wouldn't surprise me. A 5-win team winning a division is a pretty drastic situation. Probably a moot point, since either NO or ATL will probably win one more game.
 

yrba1

Mild-mannered Rams fan
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
5,087
Yeah they would, if the 2010 Seahawks can beat the former Super Bowl champions, then it's fine. Wouldn't surprise me if the Saints advance deep into the playoffs with all the heat they're getting from the media and fans. That team is capable of dumping 40+ points on anyone when Brees gets into rhythm.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Fixing a game is when you pay or order a team to lose a game on purpose. That's different from altering playoff criteria.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where the Rams are going to the playoffs, then suddenly aren't because of a midseason rule change. Even if you personally understand and agree with the change, the Rams fanbase would be utterly livid about it and with good reason.

If the NFL was stupid enough to try it, there'd be lawsuits and Congressional investigations into fixing the season as a whole since those earlier games had teams playing under one understanding of the rules and the rules changed after.

And all this said, Goodell is tinkering with what isn't broken way too much as it is.
 

Yamahopper

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,838
Fixing a game is when you pay or order a team to lose a game on purpose. That's different from altering playoff criteria.

So you would be good with changing the rules this Thursday against Zona if the Rams were winning as time ran out and the NFL decides to change the rules and give Zona another 5 minutes to score. If no one got paid it's all good.
Okay then.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
The solution I've proposed in the past, and I've seen other people mention the same, is the following...

1) Everything stays the same. Winning a division guarantees a playoff berth UNLESS that team is below .500. In that case, the team is replaced with a third wild card, but only if the wild card has a winning record (a third potential wild card team cannot replace a 7-win playoff team if it only has a .500 record, it needs 9 or more wins).

2) Use records to determine home games—not division titles. (Or, make it so that the wild card gets the home game ONLY if the division champ has 8 or less wins)

I think that's pretty easy.

I'm okay with item 2, but the other than that I think it should stay the same.
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,158
Name
Mack
So you would be good with changing the rules this Thursday against Zona if the Rams were winning as time ran out and the NFL decides to change the rules and give Zona another 5 minutes to score. If no one got paid it's all good.
Okay then.

Don't give the NFL any ideas, man!!!
 

Pancake

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
2,204
Name
Ernie
I think it would be fantastic if a 5-6 win team got in and then kicked everyone's asses to win the whole thing.
 

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
So you would be good with changing the rules this Thursday against Zona if the Rams were winning as time ran out and the NFL decides to change the rules and give Zona another 5 minutes to score. If no one got paid it's all good.
Okay then.

That would be adjusting a game and its outcome... in the middle of a game. This would be a scheduling adjustment. Not even close to the same thing.
 

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where the Rams are going to the playoffs, then suddenly aren't because of a midseason rule change. Even if you personally understand and agree with the change, the Rams fanbase would be utterly livid about it and with good reason.

If the NFL was stupid enough to try it, there'd be lawsuits and Congressional investigations into fixing the season as a whole since those earlier games had teams playing under one understanding of the rules and the rules changed after.

And all this said, Goodell is tinkering with what isn't broken way too much as it is.

If the Rams got in as a five win team... I would totally understand it and be OK with it. If a FIVE WIN teams.... as in, a team with more than twice as many losses as wins.... gets into the playoffs, something needs to happen. I don't think it will. I'm not expecting it. But IF the NFC South winner finishes with five wins, and the owners/commish hold an emergency meeting to discuss it, it wouldn't surprise me. That's all I'm saying.

And I know we're not allowed to be OK with any changes that Goodell/the NFL makes, but if a five win team gets in, then something IS broken.
 

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
I'm okay with item 2, but the other than that I think it should stay the same.

So you don't have a problem with 5-6 win teams potentially making the playoffs? The #1 would fix the issue without disbanding the need for divisions.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
So you don't have a problem with 5-6 win teams potentially making the playoffs? The #1 would fix the issue without disbanding the need for divisions.

If they win their division, no I don't have a problem. The absolute importance of division rivals and those games is one of the top reasons the NFL is better than the other sports. I don't favor diluting that whatsoever. And any of these other "fixes" dilute that. The NFL wasn't broken, why do we have to keep "fixing" it?
 

BriansRams

"Rams next Superbowl is 2023 season." - (Oct 2022)
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
2,563
Name
Brian
To me, the absolute simplest way to make this better is to add 2 more wild card spots in each conference. 4 more teams total in the playoffs. THAT would make the NFL fan base so much more excited about their respective teams.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
If the Rams got in as a five win team... I would totally understand it and be OK with it. If a FIVE WIN teams.... as in, a team with more than twice as many losses as wins.... gets into the playoffs, something needs to happen. I don't think it will. I'm not expecting it. But IF the NFC South winner finishes with five wins, and the owners/commish hold an emergency meeting to discuss it, it wouldn't surprise me. That's all I'm saying.
They could have all the "emergency meetings" they want, but they will not, repeat will not, repeat WILL NOT ever change the rules for the playoffs midseason. The consequences for that would be a lot worse than the benefits.

And I know we're not allowed to be OK with any changes that Goodell/the NFL makes, but if a five win team gets in, then something IS broken.
Really, dude? Not sure why you felt the first shot was necessary at all. No one's opposing Goodell just to oppose him, but the vast majority of changes he proposes are unnecessary and stupid. He's the worst commissioner I've ever seen the NFL have, and that'd still be the case if the NFL had more than 3 different commissioners in my experience.

And nothing is broken if a 5 win team happens to get in due to statistical anomaly. The best NFC team will still go to the Super Bowl, and at least 3 of the NFC South teams will have great draft picks to make their team better so that it's not likely to repeat, just as it didn't repeat when the 7 win Seahawks went to the playoffs in 2014. 4 years later, and that weak division is now considered the strongest.
 

Yamahopper

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,838
That would be adjusting a game and its outcome... in the middle of a game. This would be a scheduling adjustment. Not even close to the same thing.
10703727_1484083518526221_749628271411948314_n.jpg
 

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
[/ATTACH]

It's just a meaningless football conversation dude.

Anything else you wanna add? Or just stupid pictures? Do you add anything to the conversation? Or is it just sarcasm and BS?
 
Last edited by a moderator: