Red Mosquito

@SkitchP wrote:So then what exactly is the point of divisions?

You still get the playoff berth. Kind of a huge deal. I get what you're saying but the NFC South possibly getting a home game for going 6-10 is insane.

Orpheus wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:So then what exactly is the point of divisions?

You still get the playoff berth. Kind of a huge deal. I get what you're saying but the NFC South possibly getting a home game for going 6-10 is insane.

It's also an aberration. I am not a huge fan of overreacting to essentially what is a one off. It's happened, what, once before where a sub .500 even made the playoffs?

I'm with Skitch. There is a long-winded, classical logic line of reasoning why, but I'll spare you guys.

@SkitchP wrote:

Orpheus wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:So then what exactly is the point of divisions?

You still get the playoff berth. Kind of a huge deal. I get what you're saying but the NFC South possibly getting a home game for going 6-10 is insane.

It's also an aberration. I am not a huge fan of overreacting to essentially what is a one off. It's happened, what, once before where a sub .500 even made the playoffs?

I see it as a contingency plan. If it only happens once in a while, changing the rule won't change much at all. When it does happen, it'll make things more fair. I see absolutely no problem with it.

And as it stands now it's quite likely my team could be impacted negatively by it. I just don't know how you can point to traditional rivalries as a reason to keep divisions then dismiss "that's how it's always been and every sport does it" as an argument against straight record seeding.

Orpheus wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:So then what exactly is the point of divisions?

You still get the playoff berth. Kind of a huge deal. I get what you're saying but the NFC South possibly getting a home game for going 6-10 is insane.

the seachickens have won it with a 7-9 record

I think I misunderstood you skitch. I thought you were arguing for divisions, not against them. I'd probably prefer straight seeding myself, but if we are going to have divisions I think this is better.

And there's probably no way the Hawks win that game without being in Seattle.

Orpheus wrote:I think I misunderstood you skitch. I thought you were arguing for divisions, not against them. I'd probably prefer straight seeding myself, but if we are going to have divisions I think this is better.

And there's probably no way the Hawks win that game without being in Seattle.

but that game was pretty special either way

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:So then what exactly is the point of divisions?

Yeah, that's a good point. I revise my original statement. Spike is not right.

Go Broncos

Divisions create rivalries and nurture existing ones. Divisions are also essential in creating a balanced schedule.

Orpheus wrote:I think I misunderstood you skitch. I thought you were arguing for divisions, not against them. I'd probably prefer straight seeding myself, but if we are going to have divisions I think this is better.

And there's probably no way the Hawks win that game without being in Seattle.

Skitch is for divisions and I guess I am too. I have no problem with the current playoff seeding. If the Saints wanted a home playoff game, they shoulda won their division.

Self wrote:

Orpheus wrote:I think I misunderstood you skitch. I thought you were arguing for divisions, not against them. I'd probably prefer straight seeding myself, but if we are going to have divisions I think this is better.

And there's probably no way the Hawks win that game without being in Seattle.

Skitch is for divisions and I guess I am too. I have no problem with the current playoff seeding. If the Saints wanted a home playoff game, they shoulda won their division.

Yup, I'm all for divisions and not straight seeding. Ya gotta have the rivalries and there should be something said for winning your division...it's tough to play each team in your division twice...those games tend to be close since teams are familiar with each other.The current system is fine.

Coach wrote:

Self wrote:

Orpheus wrote:I think I misunderstood you skitch. I thought you were arguing for divisions, not against them. I'd probably prefer straight seeding myself, but if we are going to have divisions I think this is better.

And there's probably no way the Hawks win that game without being in Seattle.

Skitch is for divisions and I guess I am too. I have no problem with the current playoff seeding. If the Saints wanted a home playoff game, they shoulda won their division.

Yup, I'm all for divisions and not straight seeding. Ya gotta have the rivalries and there should be something said for winning your division...it's tough to play each team in your division twice...those games tend to be close since teams are familiar with each other.The current system is fine.

I'm for the Divisions model too.

Jeez. Took my backup long enough to get here. Do you have any idea how hard it is to be the only voice of dissent against GH?

@SkitchP wrote:Jeez. Took my backup long enough to get here. Do you have any idea how hard it is to be the only voice of dissent against GH?

This last page looked to have plenty of activity without me around.

team skitch

Mecca wrote:team skitch

are you going to volunteer to shovel the stadium for free tickets?

doug rr wrote:

Mecca wrote:team skitch

are you going to volunteer to shovel the stadium for free tickets?

I have season tickets, doug

Mecca wrote:

doug rr wrote:

Mecca wrote:team skitch

are you going to volunteer to shovel the stadium for free tickets?

I have season tickets, doug

are you going to volunteer to shovel the stadium for free?

Are you going to go to the stadium to watch people shovel?

Lament wrote:Are you going to go to the stadium to watch people shovel?

yeah, that's what I have season tickets for. You thought I meant the Bills? Shit's expensive