Let's start with the presence of 7-9 Seattle in the playoffs (because they won their division) instead of 10-6 teams Tampa Bay and the Giants (because both finished in second), and to make things worse, the Seahawks are at home against 11-5 New Orleans. Many people think that the Seahawks shouldn't be in it at all, let alone have a home game. They propose changes to allow a team with a better record to take the place of a losing team in the future. In theory this works. In reality, if you can win a division (even a pathetic one like the NFC West) and not be in the playoffs, if there's no reward for finishing first, why have divisions to begin with? For that matter, why have conferences? Just have all the teams listed 1-32 and have the top 12 in the playoffs.
Of course, you'd have to figure out a way to come up with a fair schedule (fair in strength-of-schedule as well as things like travel) without divisions, and somehow not destroy many (if not all) of the division and conference rivalries. Imagine the Eagles and Cowboys not playing a game in a season. Or the Steelers and Ravens. Or whatever. So forget that idea.
However, I do think the Seahawks should be on the road.
If they had the same number of wins as the Saints, I'd have the division winner be at home. But this is a fair way to penalize them for their mediocrity. The top two teams should get the bye as usual, and the 3-4 seeds would only be the division winners if a wild card team had one more win. No tiebreakers here, not even head-to-head performance. The wild card team would have to beat out the division winner to get the home game. This is fair to me.
Speaking of fairness, the new overtime rules take effect for the playoffs. There's been a lot of whining in recent years about how unfair it is for a team to lose a game in sudden-death overtime because they lost the coin toss and didn't get a chance on offense. So the league decided it was important enough to change for the postseason -- but not for the regular season. That's laughable in itself. Isn't the regular season how we determine who's in the playoffs to begin with? Doesn't that make it important?
The short version of the new rule is that the team that receives the kickoff to start OT and goes on offense first has to score a TD to end the game on that first possession. If they only get a field goal, then they have to kick off to the other team, who then gets a chance on offense. That team can get a TD and end the game. If they only get a field goal to tie it, from then on it becomes sudden-death again.
But the people who wanted this rule are wrong. Remember when the New England Patriots were abusolutely destroying teams a few years ago and running up the score, even throwing bombs in the 4th quarter of games when they're up by 3 or 4 scores (not to mention that whole Spygate thing)? While some (including myself) felt it was poor sportsmanship on the part of the Patriots, many people derided that view. "If you don't want a team to run up the score against you, then stop them from scoring! Play defense, break up the pass, just stop them!" they cried.
But isn't this the same argument against the new overtime rule? "If you don't want to lose in overtime without getting the ball, then stop them from scoring! Don't have a lousy kickoff or poor coverage to give them field position, don't give up first downs on defense, and if they try a field goal, just block the kick!" What's the difference between these two premises?
This new rule is a step towards the college football overtime rule, which is highly entertaining but makes a complete mockery of the game and statistics. Some QB throws 5 touchdowns in a game, but 3 of them are in "overtime" because they only have to move the ball 25 yards to score and each team takes turns? Ludicrous.
Okay, time to climb down from my soapbox and onto my prognostication platform! (Strangely, it's the same box.)
SATURDAY'S GAMES
NFC -- (5) New Orleans Saints at (4) Seattle Seahawks: Seattle's undeservedly having this game at home (see above) won't help them win but I think it will help them stay close for at least a while. Saints haven't quite been the same team they were last year in winning the Super Bowl. Saints 27, Seahawks 17.
AFC -- (6) New York Jets at (3) Indianapolis Colts: All of the injuries the Colts had and they still won their division. But as much as I think the Jets' defense should slow down Peyton Manning better than the Colts' defense can handle the Jets, I think the Jets' offense is too dysfunctional to take advantage. What is it with a team with a head coach from the Ryan family that can't put together enough offense to go along with strong defense? Colts 24, Jets 20.
SUNDAY'S GAMES
AFC -- (5) Baltimore Ravens at (4) Kansas City Chiefs: The Chiefs are a great story. They're what the Detroit Lions hope to be next year. But they haven't done much against teams with winning records. Their inexperience will hurt them against a tough Baltimore team. Ravens 23, Chiefs 16.
NFC -- (6) Green Bay Packers at (3) Philadelphia Eagles: Deep breath. The way the Eagles' defense has played for most of the year makes me think that Packers QB Aaron Rodgers might torch them. The way the Eagles' offensive line has been subpar all year but especially lately, allowing blitzing teams to pound Michael Vick -- and the way Vick seems to have regressed back to his sloppy Atlanta style, possibly because of the line's ineffectiveness -- makes me think that the Packers' defense will have a field day. The only hope, I think, is for the Eagles to do what they so rarely do: run the football early enough and often enough to control the clock and march down the field more methodically. When they do it, though, it's always a surprise. Against my better judgment...surprise! Eagles 27, Packers 24.
No comments:
Post a Comment