Meh, the NBA and MLB do it with Five.
Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
SO the Texans are in first place in the division....
- Thread starter DX-TEX
- Start date
Seems like it waters down the word, IMO. There should only be ONE champion in a given league.
JCTexan
Hall of Fame
I believe the people advocating for a .500 record to make the playoffs realize their team could make the playoffs this year because it doesn't work that way.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
I've got no problem with the rule the way it is now, and that has nothing to do with the Texans.
The Seahawks went 7-9 and made the playoffs. Then they beat the Saints.
The Giants limped into the playoffs at 9-7, the worst record of any of the NFC playoff teams that year, and got hot at the right time and beat the much more impressive Patriots for a SB.
It's about getting hot at the right time and about taking care of business.
There's no reason for divisions if you're going to get rid of the Division Champion concept, and that's going to lead to a much more complicated process of figuring out schedules. I like it the way it is.
The Seahawks went 7-9 and made the playoffs. Then they beat the Saints.
The Giants limped into the playoffs at 9-7, the worst record of any of the NFC playoff teams that year, and got hot at the right time and beat the much more impressive Patriots for a SB.
It's about getting hot at the right time and about taking care of business.
There's no reason for divisions if you're going to get rid of the Division Champion concept, and that's going to lead to a much more complicated process of figuring out schedules. I like it the way it is.
Having Seattle's "12th man" homefield advantage likely had something to do with that. Which makes a good case for not giving the division champ an automatic home game (New Orleans was a 11-5 wild card). Still, this stuff is rare, and probably not worth making rule changes for.
kiwitexansfan
Hall of Fame
Don't care if we make the playoffs at 6-10, gives us a punchers chance at a championship.
Would be awesome to forever be remembered as 'that' team.
Would be awesome to forever be remembered as 'that' team.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
That team that made it in at 6-10, won the SB, and then went on to become the winningest team for the next 50 years, winning more SBs than anyone ever before.
speedfreek
All Pro
Sweet! I can maintain false hope for another few weeks.
Yep. Not the first time a team with less than 8 wins won their playoff game either. As shocking as this may sound to some, each year there are only a couple of really great teams and a couple of really bad teams. Everyone else is a lot closer than people think. From 2000-2010 the NFC West was a complete joke record wise. Yet during that span a team from that division made 4 out of 10 Superbowls, tied for the most trips to a Superbowl with the AFC East or more specifically the Patriots. That's 3 different teams from a single division playing in the Superbowl in just one decade. Bad division doesn't mean bad team.
Let's also keep in mind that entire divisions play each other, so one division may be feasting on another. For every division having an abnormally down year, some beneficiary will be having an abnormally high year. TK's point about the NFC South's success this year isn't a coincidence to me since that's the division playing the AFC South.
Man that Bengal's QB looks familiar...
Seegara
Guitar Picker, Dog Lover, Woodworker
That Thorn is a prince of sarcasm.
Seegara
Guitar Picker, Dog Lover, Woodworker
Notice how the greatest QB's have high foreheads?You want sad?
What if the playoffs started today?
Look at the far right.
It was destiny....Somehow Ricky Bobby blew it up.
Seegara
Guitar Picker, Dog Lover, Woodworker
Moxnix if we have a share of 1st place. It isn't going to last. It's a cinch we won't make the playoffs any other way than being 1st in this division with an abominable record. Better not to make the playoffs if we had to come in through the back door.
Marshall
Not pretty, but ALIVE!
So a 10-6 record against the two weakest divisions is better than a 7-9 record against two of the toughest divisions?
I don't know that's the case in those two examples, but when a 7-8-1 team beats an 11-5 team, that tells me the system is right. Had the 7-8-1 team got blown out, then I'd have an issue with it.
I will make this so simple that even my first grader can understand: 10 > 7
Do you understand? TEN wins is MORE than seven wins.
I did not realize that the NFL had adopted the arbitrary strength of schedule mentality of the NCAA in quality over quantity. Oh wait, they don't...except for this goofy idea of "champions" of a four team crap division.
They did get blown out by the Seattle Seahawks 31-17 on January 10, 2015.
Okay, so keep the lame "champion" thing of divisions and let them in the playoffs. Home field should be awarded by record. It seems like giving away too much to crappy division winners.
But, I have higher expectations for professional sports, so that's just me. I'm not from the participation trophy generation.
Thorn
Dirty Old Man
So let's send the top six seeded teams from each conference to the playoffs, with this exception: After following the normal tie breaking procedures, if a non-divisional winner has the same record as a divisional winner, the divisional winner will go to the playoffs despite the fact they lost the tie breaking procedure. Let's leave the divisional winners at least something. This should keep 8-8 divisional winners out of the playoffs which I think is our goal. Most likely you will still have 9-7 teams in the playoffs, but that's OK by me.
Speedy
Former Yeller Dweller
I will make this so simple that even my first grader can understand: 10 > 7
Do you understand? TEN wins is MORE than seven wins.
I did not realize that the NFL had adopted the arbitrary strength of schedule mentality of the NCAA in quality over quantity. Oh wait, they don't...except for this goofy idea of "champions" of a four team crap division.
They did get blown out by the Seattle Seahawks 31-17 on January 10, 2015.
Okay, so keep the lame "champion" thing of divisions and let them in the playoffs. Home field should be awarded by record. It seems like giving away too much to crappy division winners.
But, I have higher expectations for professional sports, so that's just me. I'm not from the participation trophy generation.
Yeah, the division "champion" thing is a little watered down now, especially since there's a 1 in 4 shot at getting one every year, and there are 8 of them a season, but there's not really a better way to do it. Not to mention that with 4 team divisions a sub .500 team making the playoffs is more likely to happen. Sure, you can eliminate divisions and just go with the top 6 or whatever but then schedule making becomes even more difficult than it is now.
Not a problem if you had enough games where you at least played everybody, but that's not possible in the NFL so the schedules will be unbalanced no matter how you do it.
And yes, the 7-8-1 Panthers made it while the 10-6 Eagles sat at home last year. The Panthers however, played the toughest division in football last season, the AFC North (a combined record of 38-25-1), going 1-2-1, while the Eagles had the pathetic AFC South (25-39 combined record) that they went 4-0 against. Is that 10 win Eagles team really all that much better than the 7 win Panthers? The strength of your schedule does make a difference.
Look at the 10 win Colts last year. They were a .500 football team outside of the AFC South. Only 4 of their 10 wins were against teams with a winning record and 2 of those were against the 9-7 winning record Texans.
I get the division champion thing...well, like I said, being watered down, but there's not really a better way to do it. Yeah, you can do it by most wins but you'll still have the same problems with teams getting in with a soft ass schedule while better teams playing a much harder schedule get left out. And that does matter.
I don't really see a better way to do it.
Marshall
Not pretty, but ALIVE!
2 - 17 team conferences. Give LA one expansion team in each league or to any city losing a team to LA.
Every Team plays every other team alternating home field advantage from year to year making a 16 game schedule with 8 at home and 8 on the road and a bye week like it does presently.
Top 8 teams in each conference are seeded for their conference championships. The Superbowl never has a rematch from earlier in the season. no sub 500 team is likely to make it in this format.
It really isn't that hard to come up with a better way.
Adding two more teams would be absolutely terrible.
Marshall
Not pretty, but ALIVE!
Not for a 16 game schedule. But if you would rather eliminate two teams and go with a 14 game schedule and a 4 team conference playoff, that would work as well. 15 game schedule could work, though it cannot be as symmetric as an even numbered schedule.
I'm not saying things are messed up now nor trying to fix them. Just that adding two more teams and watering down the currently soaking wet product would be terrible. Hell, I wouldn't hate axing two clubs. Jax has never been worth a flip and SD couldn't really care to have a team. Adios to both and option B in your paragraph if things just had to be messed with. Better play all around and a "fair" schedule for all. Would never ever ever ever happen though.
ChampionTexan
Hall of Fame
So in essence, do the exact opposite of what MLB did with great success when they started inter-league play in 1997. Granted, it's not as big a deal now as originally, and it got watered down a bit more when the Astros moved to the AL, but when you give someone something new, it usually ends up as a positive, just like when you take away something someone likes, it's gonna be a negative most of the time.
Even though it's only once every 4 years now, I don't like the idea of the Steelers never playing the Eagles, the Raiders never playing the 49ers, the Ravens never playing the Redskins, or heck, even the Texans never playing the Cowboys. Obviously, all of these match ups could happen in the Super Bowl, but the odds are against it (to put it mildly).
The other specific item that I don't like about this is that it would require two team to be on by every single week of the season. We went through that during the years from the resurrection of the Browns to the addition of the Texans because the NFL had 31 teams. I thought it was absolutely awful. It's not competitively fair to tell one team they have a week one bye, so essentially they play a 16 week season with no bye, while you tell another team they're off during week 17, so whatever playoff questions may revolve around your team will just have to be observed with no possibility whatsoever of actually impacting your future.
dream_team
Hall of Fame
Well if we want to get totally fair, then we should move to a 30 game season. Each team plays every team in the conference twice, one home & one away. Then after that, we simply take the 6 teams with the best records into playoffs.
I know, that's ridiculous. But anything less than that, there's going to be some sort of "unfairness". Yes, the whole point of the divisions & division champs making playoffs is to try to solve the strength of schedule issue. It's not perfect, but it is what it is.
The goal is to TRY to get the 6 best teams into the playoffs. Just because a team has more wins doesn't necessarily mean they are better.
Speedy
Former Yeller Dweller
Then you don't play the other conference ever. That's not going to work. So yeah, it is a little harder than you think.
But, I have higher expectations for professional sports, so that's just me. I'm not from the participation trophy generation.
Well, when you get the sand out of your vagina, you can take it & your higher expectations & stick it up your ass.
Sooner or later, you're going to have a 10-6 team not make the play offs in their conference while an 8-8 in the other conference gets in.
They should just scrap the whole conference BS all together. Extend the season to 18 games & let the top 4 teams (by win loss record) play for the championship.
Hervoyel
BUENO!
I don't embrace change in the NFL. I feel like 9 times out of 10 it's unnecessary and lessens the game somehow.
I would be OK with giving WC teams with better records get home field advantage over division champions that had a sub .500 record but if we did it "best record gets home field advantage" then sooner or later you would have a 9-7 or even a 10-6 division winner have to go on the road because they were playing a 10-6 or 11-5 WC team. I'm not for that because it leads you down a path where you make winning your division meaningless and then you start closing in on questioning strength of schedule.
I don't see any reason to change at this point. I think it's a fluke that the NFC South last year and the AFC South this year are playing so bad. Usually a bad division produces at least one better team that feeds on the others and if we're going to start penalizing division winners for feeding on weak teams then we might as well be conducting a college poll. Eventually they'll probably just do a thing where the top "x" number of teams make the playoffs. That's going to come about when the number of teams increases.
Eventually we'll be looking at 5 teams in each division or another realignment that adds two more divisions. The NFL is in an endless-expansion-never-ending-money-bath mode and they're not going to stop. I know how slow they expand but I think that way of doing things is slowly on its way out. There aren't enough NFL quality players for a league of 40 teams to be consistently good but if you're putting 16-18 teams in the playoffs every year it's going to make them a lot of money.
London, Birmingham (England), Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, There's a division right there. St Louis, San Diego, and/or Oakland are all in danger of losing a team to LA. Granted not all will.
8 more teams though is easy to do. That's like $7-8 billion dollars or some such insanity that all these greedy bastards can split among themselves. It will happen.
I would be OK with giving WC teams with better records get home field advantage over division champions that had a sub .500 record but if we did it "best record gets home field advantage" then sooner or later you would have a 9-7 or even a 10-6 division winner have to go on the road because they were playing a 10-6 or 11-5 WC team. I'm not for that because it leads you down a path where you make winning your division meaningless and then you start closing in on questioning strength of schedule.
I don't see any reason to change at this point. I think it's a fluke that the NFC South last year and the AFC South this year are playing so bad. Usually a bad division produces at least one better team that feeds on the others and if we're going to start penalizing division winners for feeding on weak teams then we might as well be conducting a college poll. Eventually they'll probably just do a thing where the top "x" number of teams make the playoffs. That's going to come about when the number of teams increases.
Eventually we'll be looking at 5 teams in each division or another realignment that adds two more divisions. The NFL is in an endless-expansion-never-ending-money-bath mode and they're not going to stop. I know how slow they expand but I think that way of doing things is slowly on its way out. There aren't enough NFL quality players for a league of 40 teams to be consistently good but if you're putting 16-18 teams in the playoffs every year it's going to make them a lot of money.
London, Birmingham (England), Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, There's a division right there. St Louis, San Diego, and/or Oakland are all in danger of losing a team to LA. Granted not all will.
8 more teams though is easy to do. That's like $7-8 billion dollars or some such insanity that all these greedy bastards can split among themselves. It will happen.
Thorn
Dirty Old Man
And if that happened, then that would mean (in my scenario) that there were 6 teams in that conference with 11-5 records or better. That's not likely to happen, but anything is possible I suppose.
Marshall
Not pretty, but ALIVE!
If you don't like conferences, then just eliminate it all and have an unequal schedule and just take your chances. ~Everybody knows those interconference matchups every 4 years are too important to give up for an equal strength of schedule.~
Speedy
Former Yeller Dweller
The NFL is never ever going to come up with a plan where half the teams never ever play the other half. Try coming up with something a bit more realistic.
Marshall
Not pretty, but ALIVE!
Then you are STUCK on the status quo. Never to improve. So don't bellyache about sub 500 teams making it.
Speedy
Former Yeller Dweller
Show me where I'm bellyaching about it. I don't have a problem with the way it is, so I don't know where you got that I did. You've obviously got me confused with someone else.
And not improving would be to implement your idea of watering the league down even more with 2 new teams and half the league never playing the other half. That's improvement? No thanks.
Marshall
Not pretty, but ALIVE!
Obviously I did confuse you with the other posters who wanted sub 500 teams removed from the playoffs. Those were the ones I had in mind when I offered alternative structures.
It's like arguing with someone who wants change to happen without their having the guts to actually make changes.
Kaiser Toro
Native Mod
It pisses me off the way that Houston fans can find things to complain about, even when their team has a chance. Hell, the Houston Rockets went to the finals with a losing record, and beat a team in the conference finals with a losing record. Wars, fortunes, teams, relationships just need a spark to get going. Suck it up Houston, you are the biggest loser, and that can be ok.
Last edited:
Explosions sometimes just need a spark, too. And blowing up this organization doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
Thorn
Dirty Old Man
Nice. I thought you had more maturity than to post such nonsense. Such a disappointment, just like our Texans.
This is the NFL, my friend, where the weak always eventually get exposed. The eternal optimist can cling to that statistical chance, but most of us trust our guts and we know better. This Texans team has no heart, which is where your comparison to the Rockets falls short.
Man this thread...
Some points I'd like to contribute.
First off, I question the extent of what people are asking is "fair." Not surprisingly, nearly everyone has a different definition. But do you guys really want what's fair or are you simply providing your own arbitrary definition of what "fairness" is when it comes to rewarding teams.
Here's a fact that many people are overlooking: the best team doesn't always win the Superbowl.
I don't say that in a condescending manner. It's the honest truth and there is no disputing that. There have been more non-1 seeded teams that have hoisted the Lombardi compared to the "best" teams. http://www.nfl.com/superbowlchamps/seeding
If you really want to reward wins, then I have the perfect solution, but nobody is going to like it...
No playoffs.
That's right. No playoffs. Whoever has the best record at the end of the regular season is the champion. There.
Boring, right? Again, not being condescending, but the fact is that sports fans love the idea of chance even if they don't publicly admit it.. It's what makes sports... sports. It's why we have "Wildcards" in almost every league. Wins should matter, but wins don't always matter. The last team standing isn't always the best team but the last team, and that is by design of how we like our sports. For those who do find themselves upset about a 7-9 or an 8-8 team making the playoffs, I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Furthermore, no 8-8 team has won the Superbowl, much less a 7-9 team. But supposed a 7-9 team did go on to win the Superbowl. They'd have to win the wildcard round, then the divisional, then the conference, then the Superbowl itself. Suddenly they're 11-9 and no longer have a losing record.
Let's also say, hypothetically, that the Texans win the division at 7-9.
They get the fourth seed and host the, oh, I dunno, Steelers at 10-6. That's a difference of three wins. And let's just keep the lollipops and sunshine going here and say Texans win and the people of Pittsburgh are sent into a state of shock. Meanwhile the, oh, I dunno, Jets have the sixth seed at 9-7 and go on to play the 12-4 Broncos, Bengals, or Patriots (Considering those 3 are still undefeated, a 12-4 team having the #3 seed is possible). If the Jets win, is there as much backlash? While the Jets would have a winning record, it's still a three game difference in both those games. Arguably the gap is just as large in terms of how good these teams are perceived to be. Is it anymore fair for the 10-6 Steelers to face elimination by the 7-9 Texans than it would be for the 12-4 Broncos to face elimination by the 9-7 Jets? Is a single game over .500 really as exact for rewarding as we're making it seem?
If you want to say the Texans shouldn't be able to host that game, that's a point I'm certainly open to change about. But even if you simply have Pittsburgh host the game but still have Pittsburgh risk elimination by a 7-9 Houston team, you'd still be doing what the NFL has done since forever: leaving the game up to chance.
Some points I'd like to contribute.
First off, I question the extent of what people are asking is "fair." Not surprisingly, nearly everyone has a different definition. But do you guys really want what's fair or are you simply providing your own arbitrary definition of what "fairness" is when it comes to rewarding teams.
Here's a fact that many people are overlooking: the best team doesn't always win the Superbowl.
I don't say that in a condescending manner. It's the honest truth and there is no disputing that. There have been more non-1 seeded teams that have hoisted the Lombardi compared to the "best" teams. http://www.nfl.com/superbowlchamps/seeding
If you really want to reward wins, then I have the perfect solution, but nobody is going to like it...
No playoffs.
That's right. No playoffs. Whoever has the best record at the end of the regular season is the champion. There.
Boring, right? Again, not being condescending, but the fact is that sports fans love the idea of chance even if they don't publicly admit it.. It's what makes sports... sports. It's why we have "Wildcards" in almost every league. Wins should matter, but wins don't always matter. The last team standing isn't always the best team but the last team, and that is by design of how we like our sports. For those who do find themselves upset about a 7-9 or an 8-8 team making the playoffs, I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Furthermore, no 8-8 team has won the Superbowl, much less a 7-9 team. But supposed a 7-9 team did go on to win the Superbowl. They'd have to win the wildcard round, then the divisional, then the conference, then the Superbowl itself. Suddenly they're 11-9 and no longer have a losing record.
Let's also say, hypothetically, that the Texans win the division at 7-9.
They get the fourth seed and host the, oh, I dunno, Steelers at 10-6. That's a difference of three wins. And let's just keep the lollipops and sunshine going here and say Texans win and the people of Pittsburgh are sent into a state of shock. Meanwhile the, oh, I dunno, Jets have the sixth seed at 9-7 and go on to play the 12-4 Broncos, Bengals, or Patriots (Considering those 3 are still undefeated, a 12-4 team having the #3 seed is possible). If the Jets win, is there as much backlash? While the Jets would have a winning record, it's still a three game difference in both those games. Arguably the gap is just as large in terms of how good these teams are perceived to be. Is it anymore fair for the 10-6 Steelers to face elimination by the 7-9 Texans than it would be for the 12-4 Broncos to face elimination by the 9-7 Jets? Is a single game over .500 really as exact for rewarding as we're making it seem?If you want to say the Texans shouldn't be able to host that game, that's a point I'm certainly open to change about. But even if you simply have Pittsburgh host the game but still have Pittsburgh risk elimination by a 7-9 Houston team, you'd still be doing what the NFL has done since forever: leaving the game up to chance.
Last edited:
Man this thread...
Some points I'd like to contribute.
First off, I question the extent of what people are asking is "fair." Not surprisingly, nearly everyone has a different definition. But do you guys really want what's fair or are you simply providing your own arbitrary definition of what "fairness" is when it comes to rewarding teams.
Here's a fact that many people are overlooking: the best team doesn't always win the Superbowl.
I don't say that in a condescending manner. It's the honest truth and there is no disputing that. There have been more non-1 seeded teams that have hoisted the Lombardi compared to the "best" teams. http://www.nfl.com/superbowlchamps/seeding
If you really want to reward wins, then I have the perfect solution, but nobody is going to like it...
No playoffs.
That's right. No playoffs. Whoever has the best record at the end of the regular season is the champion. There.
Boring, right? Again, not being condescending, but the fact is that sports fans love the idea of chance even if they don't publicly admit it.. It's what makes sports... sports. It's why we have "Wildcards" in almost every league. Wins should matter, but wins don't always matter. The last team standing isn't always the best team but the last team, and that is by design of how we like our sports. For those who do find themselves upset about a 7-9 or an 8-8 team making the playoffs, I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Furthermore, no 8-8 team has won the Superbowl, much less a 7-9 team. But supposed a 7-9 team did go on to win the Superbowl. They'd have to win the wildcard round, then the divisional, then the conference, then the Superbowl itself. Suddenly they're 11-9 and no longer have a losing record.
Let's also say, hypothetically, that the Texans win the division at 7-9.
If you want to say the Texans shouldn't be able to host that game, that's a point I'm certainly open to change about. But even if you simply have Pittsburgh host the game but still have Pittsburgh risk elimination by a 7-9 Houston team, you'd still be doing what the NFL has done since forever: leaving the game up to chance.
Great post, man.
My thoughts in this thread were simply to generate discussion. Your post nailed the atmosphere of the on-going conversation. I love the NFL. It's the ONLY sport I consistently watch. And it's not like I'm going to stop if nothing changes. We don't have to like every little thing of something we love.
Hervoyel
BUENO!
McNair doesn't sound too upset here. He's ready to win the second half of the season and thinks that at least "We're tied for first".
Except for that pesky half game lead Indy holds on us. Classic McNair.
Except for that pesky half game lead Indy holds on us. Classic McNair.
From the article:
"I think they've got it together in the last game, and if we keep playing defense the way we did in that last game, we'll give everybody a hard time," McNair said. "And that's where we want to be." -McNair
Does he know we just played the Titans who had a worse offense than the Texans?
We'll see if the defense has put it together against the Bengals. Until then, I don't think so.
"I think they've got it together in the last game, and if we keep playing defense the way we did in that last game, we'll give everybody a hard time," McNair said. "And that's where we want to be." -McNair
Does he know we just played the Titans who had a worse offense than the Texans?
We'll see if the defense has put it together against the Bengals. Until then, I don't think so.
Last edited:
This is what I'm talking about: "The good news is that this is a new season"
Stop, Bob, please just stop. This is not a whole new season. This is a 3-5 team that is getting its ass handed to it by barely mediocre teams.
I hope he's convincing himself; he sure as hell isn't fooling anyone with a room-temperature (or better) IQ.
bah007
Hall of Fame
This is what I'm talking about: "The good news is that this is a new season"
Stop, Bob, please just stop. This is not a whole new season. This is a 3-5 team that is getting its ass handed to it by barely mediocre teams.
Relax guys. We've still got 8 seasons left this season. That's plenty of seasons to turn this season around.
Your post was too long for me to read. But I gave you a like for best gif of the year. This exemplifies the Texans 2015 season in 5 seconds. Bravo!Man this thread...