how do the teams play 16 games if they play each team in their division twice? that only adds up to 6 games.....do they then play 10 random teams?

btw thanks for your synopsis, it made things easier to understand!

Thanks Dapper for the info. In response to Benno, the teams play each twice in their division then play the balance of games against teams(once) from other divisions and also I believe the other conference too. Not sure of the exact details or fixture formula.

As for the wildcard system, I believe it could have merit for our comp and is worth investigating even for academic interest alone. For example the best performed team that finishes below seventh for the second half of the season gets the eigth wilcard sport irrespective to where they finish on the ladder. Thsi will provide incentive for lower ranked teams and slow starters to play out the season in full and also fuel interest.

Could not be any worse than the current system and will also discourage tanking to a degree.

Edited December 23, 201014 yr by america de cali

As for the wildcard system, I believe it could have merit for our comp and is worth investigating even for academic interest alone. For example the best performed team that finishes below seventh for the second half of the season gets the eigth wilcard sport irrespective to where they finish on the ladder. Thsi will provide incentive for lower ranked teams and slow starters to play out the season in full and also fuel interest.

Could not be any worse than the current system and will also discourage tanking to a degree.

Disagree. Having one, or even two, wildcards does not fully rule out the possibility of a team missing out on finals despite winning more games than a team who makes it.

At any rate, it's no different to what we have now, it's just dressed up. Right now everyone plays each other at least once, and for almost every team the big rivalries are played twice a year. So if we changed to a conference system nothing would really change except the possibility for teams to beat better teams to a finals spot.

However, for NFL I think it works as well as they could get any system to work.

Disagree. Having one, or even two, wildcards does not fully rule out the possibility of a team missing out on finals despite winning more games than a team who makes it.

At any rate, it's no different to what we have now, it's just dressed up. Right now everyone plays each other at least once, and for almost every team the big rivalries are played twice a year. So if we changed to a conference system nothing would really change except the possibility for teams to beat better teams to a finals spot.

However, for NFL I think it works as well as they could get any system to work.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't advocate a conference system but want to see the current very long season and finals system improved. I want to see action at all stages of the footy season. I want to see teams sitting at 10, 11, 12 and so on at midseason having a real crack in the later half of the year. The draft system rewards mediocre teams for tanking. Offering a wildcard for the top performing team that finishes below seventh from mid to end of the season is of far more value and interest. It would develop a secondary race for a finals spot that could create enormous interest and genuine competative games at the lower levels. It may also scare a few of the top clubs too.

Edited December 23, 201014 yr by america de cali

The whole wildcard thing shows exactly what's wrong with the conference system. Of course for NFL they have little choice but here for AFL the mere suggestion of it is ridiculous.

The Wildcard part is actually the GOOD part. The conference system itself (Wild Cards aside) is what's messed up. I can't believe one team that's 6-8 will get there. It's actually an embarrassment.

how do the teams play 16 games if they play each team in their division twice? that only adds up to 6 games.....do they then play 10 random teams?

btw thanks for your synopsis, it made things easier to understand!

It did? That'd be a first. So the season is 16... that's 6 games between you and your division rivals... then you'll play all the teams from 2 different divisions... and those two divisions are selected from both conferences. After that, there's two more games selected, though I don't know how they're selected. So for example, for the Eagles who are in...

6 vs NFC East teams. These are the big ones.

4 X NFC North teams. That's a Division in the Eagles' own conference.

4 X AFC South teams. That's a division OUTSIDE the NFC's conference. These are SLIGHTLY less important, as you're unlikely to need a tie breaker where your record against these teams matters.

2 X games against one team from the remaining two divisions. So the only two divisions in the Eagles' conference they haven't played are NFC South (Falcons) and West (49ers).

For example the best performed team that finishes below seventh for the second half of the season gets the eigth wilcard sport irrespective to where they finish on the ladder.

As with most of these suggestions for fixture changes, there's an immediate merit to it. But then, a season isn't 11 games long. It's a marathon. If, say, we won our first 6 games... then went badly at the end of the year, I'd feel jibbed. Also... if you think it'll make the end of the season better, it'll almost certainly make the start of the season less important. Teams will be trying harder at the end of the year when their situation becomes clearer, and taking their foot off the gas at the start of the year.

As with most of these suggestions, the league will only change them when MADE to... Like when new clubs come in. I love the idea that it'll stay a final 8, even though that's less than half of the teams in the league.

QUOTING DAPPA DAN

As with most of these suggestions for fixture changes, there's an immediate merit to it. But then, a season isn't 11 games long. It's a marathon. If, say, we won our first 6 games... then went badly at the end of the year, I'd feel jibbed. Also... if you think it'll make the end of the season better, it'll almost certainly make the start of the season less important. Teams will be trying harder at the end of the year when their situation becomes clearer, and taking their foot off the gas at the start of the year.

As with most of these suggestions, the league will only change them when MADE to... Like when new clubs come in. I love the idea that it'll stay a final 8, even though that's less than half of the teams in the league.

Edited December 23, 201014 yr by america de cali

Back to our fixtures, My concern is clubs who for strategic considerations don't play out a full season. We now on a regular basis have lower ranked teams under performing for draft positions and highly ranked teams "resting" during the second half of the season. This is going to be an ever increasing problem in our game and certainly needs to be looked at somehow.

That's true, but I don't think a conference system really fixes anything. The bottom 2-3 teams, who will be out of the running for the wildcard anyway, will put their players out to pasture and prepare for the next year regardless of the system that is in place.

The Wildcard part is actually the GOOD part. The conference system itself (Wild Cards aside) is what's messed up. I can't believe one team that's 6-8 will get there. It's actually an embarrassment.

It did? That'd be a first. So the season is 16... that's 6 games between you and your division rivals... then you'll play all the teams from 2 different divisions... and those two divisions are selected from both conferences. After that, there's two more games selected, though I don't know how they're selected. So for example, for the Eagles who are in...

6 vs NFC East teams. These are the big ones.

4 X NFC North teams. That's a Division in the Eagles' own conference.

4 X AFC South teams. That's a division OUTSIDE the NFC's conference. These are SLIGHTLY less important, as you're unlikely to need a tie breaker where your record against these teams matters.

2 X games against one team from the remaining two divisions. So the only two divisions in the Eagles' conference they haven't played are NFC South (Falcons) and West (49ers).

As with most of these suggestions for fixture changes, there's an immediate merit to it. But then, a season isn't 11 games long. It's a marathon. If, say, we won our first 6 games... then went badly at the end of the year, I'd feel jibbed. Also... if you think it'll make the end of the season better, it'll almost certainly make the start of the season less important. Teams will be trying harder at the end of the year when their situation becomes clearer, and taking their foot off the gas at the start of the year.

As with most of these suggestions, the league will only change them when MADE to... Like when new clubs come in. I love the idea that it'll stay a final 8, even though that's less than half of the teams in the league.

thanks for that, make sooo much sense now.

We now on a regular basis have lower ranked teams under performing for draft positions and highly ranked teams "resting" during the second half of the season. This is going to be an ever increasing problem in our game and certainly needs to be looked at somehow.

Yeah, but there really isn't a system to fix this. At the heart of the problem is the fact that the worst sides NEED the picks the most... You can fiddle with the system all you like, but it'll always be exploited. The closest thing I've seen to a fix is the lottery system in the NBA. And even that is HORRIBLY unfair when the team who came last doesn't get the #1 pick.

IMO, having gone as badly as we have the last 3 years, I think a draft system with compensation pick etc is actually working a lot better than people claim. I don't think we tanked, by definition. We certainly did everything within the rules to get those first picks, but it's not like the players ever kicked the ball backwards deliberately. I'm almost certainly in the minority, but the fact we've had something to cheer for for the last 3 years (the draft, ie the future) is what's kept me sane.

It's not perfect, and no system will be no matter how complicated you make it... but this is doing it's job. Look at our list. :D

Sometimes he doesn't make the right decisions, and he needs more protection from his offensive line. /quote]

I must be new to this game. When does he ever make the wrong decision anymore? He's thrown 2 picks through about 10 games! And given the modest offensive line, they're standing up wonderfully.

Just watching the replay of the Eagles vs Minnesota game. Michael Vick - hit 4 times in the first 5 plays by the Vikings defence.

He's a fabulous quarterback but please give him some protection Eagles.

ame='Dappa Dan' date='05 December 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1291511073' post='387849']

Just watching the replay of the Eagles vs Minnesota game. Michael Vick - hit 4 times in the first 5 plays by the Vikings defence.

He's a fabulous quarterback but please give him some protection Eagles.

My worst fear came true in the first play. The OL has been going really well all season, but in recent weeks has been overwhelmed by the Giant's amazing pass rush, and now the Vikings who have a respectable defence. The league now has the information they need to get at Vick. I worry... especially with defenders dropping like flies. He's an amazing football player, Mick the [censored], but if they don't go nuts recruiting guards and tackles next season I'll be worried. Reid came out and said that if he had to play today he couldn't and that he's unlikely to play on the weekend. Which is good. That is essentially our bye now.

So if we want to get to a superbowl, we'll have to beat one of the Packers, Giants or Buccaneers at home... then go on to beat probably Bears then Atlanta away... Tough call.

As a Rams fan It's great to see us topping our division after being bottom for a while

But our division is so poor we might make the playoffs on the back of a losing season!

Actually they'll be on .500, since they have to beat the Seahawks to get in. It's amazing though. If that doesn't usher in some change, I don't know what will. Imagine if they somehow beat the Saints/Falcons in week one?!

How good would that be, yeah sorry a par season.

Can we go through even if we lose to Seattle, cos we will be on same wins, i think we have better for and against points, but they use head to head to determine who gets through don't they?

How good would that be, yeah sorry a par season.

Can we go through even if we lose to Seattle, cos we will be on same wins, i think we have better for and against points, but they use head to head to determine who gets through don't they?

Naah....

The tie -breaking procedure is like 12 steps long, and ends (with identical records) in a coin toss...

The only steps that really matter are, in order:

1: Head-to-head (win-loss-tie record between the two teams)

2: Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.

3: Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games (games played against the same opponents)

4: Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.

After that it gets into complicated things like percentage in victories, and amounts of touchdowns. The first ones are the ones to keep an eye on. In the Rams/Seahawks one, both teams are on 3-2 in their division. If the Rams win they'll be 8-8, and Seahawks will be 7-9... easy. But if the Seahawks win, both sides would end up 8-8... both teams will have won once each against each other (Rams earlier this season, Seahawks this week), and their division records would be: Rams 3-3, Seahawks 4-2... That last stat being the tiebreaker.

Exciting stuff.

All I know is next year we will top our division easily

All I know is next year we will top our division easily

Wouldn't be difficult though, would it?

How good would that be, yeah sorry a par season.

Can we go through even if we lose to Seattle, cos we will be on same wins, i think we have better for and against points, but they use head to head to determine who gets through don't they?

Rams out - Seattle thru to the playoffs with an amazing 7-9 win loss record - the worst in NFL playoff history.

Go Packers!!!

Go Packers!!!

Bah...

watch out for the Eagles in Philly...

And the whole team has just had a lovely week off too...

It's the mighty Green Bay Packers verses the Pittsburgh Steelers in this years Superbowl, to be played on Monday Morning feb 7 (our time).

Both sides dominated their respective first halfs in the division championships, yet fell away in the second half.

Pittsburgh will probably start as raging favourites - they won 3 years ago and were the second ranked team, whereas this is the Packers first Superbowl since 1997 and they came in to the playoffs as wildcards. The Steelers have a very good running game; a good defence; and seem to come up with big plays at the right time. The Packers have multiple options in attack and an excellent quarterback in Aaron Rogers.

I think the Packers will be more desperate, but i'm concerned with their poor form in the second half. They looked a bit tired and they also have a poor special team. Now I'm not an expert, but I thought that if 'Team A' kicks off after a score, or punts the ball, then isn't 'Team B' supposed to catch the ball and return it?. Not the Packers. They run away from the ball and hope they get a nice bounce!! Good grief.

I've barracked for the Packers for years. I believe they are the only club that is owned by the supporters (about 120,000 of them)rather than a multi-millionaire, and now they are in their grand final. I hope it's an omen for the Dees.

Edited January 25, 201114 yr by DirtyDees DDC

THE PACKERS WIN THE SUPERBOWL!!!! IT'S AN OMEN!!! GO DEES IN 2011!!!!!!!!!

What a match. Pittsburgh were far more experienced, but they threw 2 interceptions and tossed in a fumble, and that was the difference.

Green Bay had 3 key players injured by 1/2 time yet they hung on against the powerhouse steelers. It was probably the proudest victory in their proud history.

Lombardi would have loved 'em.

I'm so glad someone started an NFL thread in here, I have loved this sport for years.....

My team however have sucked for years. I follow the 49'ers and hopefully our new coach will finally manage to find some (any) form from a relatively talented but to

date fundamentally useless team lead by a catastrophically hot/cold #1 draft pick at QB and a great wide receiver.

Congrats to the Pack though!!!

I'm so glad someone started an NFL thread in here, I have loved this sport for years.....

My team however have sucked for years. I follow the 49'ers and hopefully our new coach will finally manage to find some (any) form from a relatively talented but to

date fundamentally useless team lead by a catastrophically hot/cold #1 draft pick at QB and a great wide receiver.

Congrats to the Pack though!!!

What a great team the 49ers had in the '80s. Joe Montana as QB, Jerry Rice as the best receiver in history, and rugged Ronnie Lotts as the safety. We they are struggling at the moment. i think they even sacked their coach at end of season.

Great game, and great win by the Pack. They deserved it on the day... though probably not through the season.

Can't wait for next season. Jeez what a tough comp eh?

Alright yank sports fans...

Is there going to be a season this year?

Tentative word is, yes...