Why the Packers have to win the division.

[PackAttack12]

Someone needs a mathematical lesson in probability.

There's always exceptions to every rule. But given the situation we are in right now, we're the 1st wild card team at 4-3 and we're 1 game back from the division lead. This year's example, at the present moment, shows that it's easier to get a wild card berth than to win your division.

Who gives a crap how we get there. Damnit lets just get there by winning as many games as possible and let the seeding and positioning of other teams take care of the rest.

 

[swhitset]

I back up my statements with facts......which you failed miserably to do !

you are hilarious, however I see no benefit to the forum to continue this.... I am putting you on ignore so I won't be tempted to respond to anymore of your obtuse comments.

 

[PackAttack12]

less than 12% of Division winners since 2002 have won fewer than 10 games...

That stat has no meaning. All I'm saying is that sometimes a team with more wins than a division winner does not make the playoffs. It's hard to deny a team with 10 wins a playoff game.

Sometimes. Not all of the time, not even most of the time.

Prob-ab-ility.

And by the way, bolding your print, increasing your font size, and using 12 different crayons doesn't make your point more valid nor does it make it more emphatic, as you are clearly attempting to do.

 

[C-Lee]

Just win, baby.

 

[PackAttack12]

Just win, baby.

Simple as it gets.

 

[swhitset]

I'm not talking about 10 games...that's insignificant. Sometimes a team has more wins than a division winner and fails to make the playoffs.

But in that specific case that also means that that team did not win its own division... therefore as I said before it really was a meaningless question.... statistically it generally takes fewer wins for a wildcard than a division win... that is the only answer we can say with any statistical evidence. While there have been exceptions, to this, I see no reason to hope for this. Let's just get in the playoffs however we can lol

 

[swhitset]

"statistically it generally takes fewer wins for a wildcard than a division win... that is the only answer we can say with any statistical evidence".

Can you back this statement with proof ?

Well, yes actually I can... but it was a lot of work sigh.... taking the records from NFL.com... I added up the records of all the division winners from 2005-2015... The average record of all 88 division winners in that 11 year period was 11.43 wins. Likewise, I did the 44 wildcard teams from that same 11 year period. The average record of the wildcard teams was 10.36 wins. Therefore this data supports the statement that statistically a team will need at least 1 more win to win their division than they will need for a wildcard. As we know at playoff time 1 win means a lot. Another way to look at the same data... only 12.5% of the 88 division winners had less than 10 wins, while 20% of the wild card teams had less than 10 wins.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not really. The ball control passing offense went into affect in the second half of the Dallas game. The first half against the Bears entailed 4 possessions as follows:

13 plays, 53 yards, FG
11 plays, 90 yards, surrender on downs
6 plays, 21 yards, punt
10 plays, 53 yards, FG

True, while the Packers didn't score a lot of points the offense was able to move the ball.

Sometimes a team has more wins than a division winner and fails to make the playoffs.

I agree that it happens sometimes but that's an exception to the rule. That's why I claimed that it most likely will take more wins to secure the division that clinching a wild card spot.

"statistically it generally takes fewer wins for a wildcard than a division win... that is the only answer we can say with any statistical evidence".

Can you back this statement with proof ?

Since the 2002 realignment division winners have averaged 11.5 wins per season compared to 10.2 for wild card teams.

 

[PikeBadger]

Since the 2002 realignment division winners have averaged 11.5 wins per season compared to 10.2 for wild card teams.

Interesting stat. I would have guessed the wild card average to be a shade under 10.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That "exception" has happened every year since 2010.

Geez, do you even realize that those wild card teams didn't win their division and therefore would have had to win more games to clinch their division??? Just let it go.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There was talk of changing the playoffs......just taking the best six records in each conference.

The NFL hasn't considered that idea but to expand the playoffs to seven teams in each conference.

 

[adambr2]

Yeah, the 7th team I've heard talk of and while I don't like it, I think it's an inevitability. More teams equals more games equals more money.

I've never heard simply taking the top 6 teams having gotten any serious consideration, and I hope they don't do that. At that point, doesn't really make much sense to have divisions if your division winner is potentially sitting at home for the playoffs.

I would be fine with the better record team automatically getting the home game in the playoffs, though. Perhaps taking the 4 division winners and 2 wild cards and then seeding them all according to record, with division winners getting priority in the event of a tie. So the NFC playoff field last year would have been:

1) Carolina
2) Arizona
3) Minnesota
4) Green Bay
5) Seattle
6) Washington

No changes in the top 3, but we would have hosted a playoff game against Seattle with division winner Washington on the road at Minnesota.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I've never heard simply taking the top 6 teams having gotten any serious consideration, and I hope they don't do that.

Well, that was just a poster making an assertion because he'a not able to admit he was wrong and therefore coming up with random stuff.

I would be fine with the better record team automatically getting the home game in the playoffs, though. Perhaps taking the 4 division winners and 2 wild cards and then seeding them all according to record, with division winners getting priority in the event of a tie. So the NFC playoff field last year would have been:

1) Carolina
2) Arizona
3) Minnesota
4) Green Bay
5) Seattle
6) Washington

No changes in the top 3, but we would have hosted a playoff game against Seattle with division winner Washington on the road at Minnesota.

While there have been some odd examples over the past few years (like the 8-7-1 Packers hosting the 12-4 Niners in 2013) I generally like the idea of division winners getting a home playoff game. I guess most of the time those teams ending up with a worse record than a wild card team is the result of competing in a tougher division as well as having to face more talented teams playing against all clubs from another division in the NFC and AFC.

 

[Half Empty]

Well, that was just a poster making an assertion because he'a not able to admit he was wrong and therefore coming up with random stuff.



While there have been some odd examples over the past few years (like the 8-7-1 Packers hosting the 12-4 Niners in 2013) I generally like the idea of division winners getting a home playoff game. I guess most of the time those teams ending up with a worse record than a wild card team is the result of competing in a tougher division as well as having to face more talented teams playing against all clubs from another division in the NFC and AFC.

I'd have to leave that up to you and your knack for stats/results. The other side of the coin would be that the division leader sucked, maybe split with the other sucky teams in its division, and lost most of the other games. However, while I don't like to see a team with a worse record hosting, the question that would otherwise have to be answered, IMO, is "why are the teams organized by division?".

 

[Raptorman]

And don't forget the 2010 Seahawks at 7-9 hosting the Saints at 11-5. That was the biggest mockery of the playoff structure.

Except for the fact they beat the Saints.

 

[Half Empty]

Which either favors one side of the argument (the 'Hawks shouldn't have been given the HFA) or the other (the 'Hawks were actually the better team).

 

[Robert Mason]

The NFL hasn't considered that idea but to expand the playoffs to seven teams in each conference



The idea of re-seeding the playoffs has grown in popularity this season, with the Saints and Falcons currently tied for the NFC South lead at 5-8. Division champions receive at least a first-round home game in the playoffs.

• MMQB: NFL playoff format has a pending debacle

From the report:



One formula that will be discussed in the offseason is that in addition to first-round byes for the teams with the best record in the AFC and NFC, two divisional champions in each conference will get home games and the remaining 8 teams will be seeded by win-loss recor

Last month, NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reported that NFL owners would discuss the possibility of re-seeding the playoffs, but that change was unlikely because owners prefer to reward division winners with a playoff home game.

The Saints and Falcons each have three games remaining, meaning the best either team could finish is .500.

- Molly Geary

Promoted Stories

 

[Robert Mason]

The idea of re-seeding the playoffs has grown in popularity this season, with theSaints and Falcons currently tied for the NFC South lead at 5-8. Division champions receive at least a first-round home game in the playoffs.

• MMQB: NFL playoff format has a pending debacle

From the report:
One formula that will be discussed in the offseason is that in addition to first-round byes for the teams with the best record in the AFC and NFC, two divisional champions in each conference will get home games and the remaining 8 teams will be seeded by win-loss record.

Last month, NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reported that NFL owners would discuss the possibility of re-seeding the playoffs, but that change was unlikely because owners prefer to reward division winners with a playoff home game.

The Saints and Falcons each have three games remaining, meaning the best either team could finish is .500.

- Molly Geary

 

[Robert Mason]

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/11/26/nfl-playoff-format-pending-debacle



now seems like a good time to once again reexamine the flaws and inequity of the NFL’s playoff seeding format, which stubbornly continues to reward and prioritize division champions, even if their records are far inferior to wild-card qualifiers.

 

[Half Empty]

Still haven't heard why they bother with divisions, then.

 

[Robert Mason]

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/11/26/nfl-playoff-format-pending-debacle



now seems like a good time to once again reexamine the flaws and inequity of the NFL’s playoff seeding format, which stubbornly continues to reward and prioritize division champions, even if their records are far inferior to wild-card qualifiers.

The topic of re-seeding the playoffs by records has become a familiar debate by now. Every few years or so it resurfaces, and every time we get the same tired answer from NFL ownership:

 

[Robert Mason]

Still haven't heard why they bother with divisions, then.

Actually I like the divisions....Two Packers-Bears games every year ! I would much rather have two Bears games than a game with someone like the Bengals or Browns. The owners like the division rivalries and I agree to that. It's the possibility of rewarding a 7-9, 8-8, 8-7-1 team with a home playoff game while a 10-6 team doesn't make the playoffs is wrong in my opinion. Sorry, but I'm entitled to my opinion right or wrong and weather anyone agrees with me or not. Winning a four team division is no big deal to me. I don't think there is a trophy for it.....Is there ?
Was there an addition to the Vikings trophy room last year for winning the division ?

 

[swhitset]

Was there an addition to the Vikings trophy room last year for winning the division ?

Isn't that where they have been storing the mops and brooms?

 

[Half Empty]

They want to maintain the established rivalries.......Packers-Bears.......Cowboys-Indians..........Steelers-Ravens.....etc.

OK for scheduling then, but, for the sake of this argument, what's the point in having divisions if the division winner isn't rewarded for same?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

All the more reason a 10-6 team should be more entitled to the playoffs than a 8-8 team.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!