As a flaming lib-rul, of course I see the 2000 Presidential election as a disastrous failure of our electoral system (shit, I voted for Nader that year and I still felt poor Al Gore got royally fucked over). My point in bringing this up is not to start a political flame war here, but to start an analogy relevant to our Seahawks...
One argument used by my fellow liberals that has always bugged me was the whole "Gore won the national popular vote! He should be President!" Um, no. That's an argument for changing the system in future elections, not that Al Gore should have been President. Both Gore and Bush knew going in that the Electoral College would decide the Presidency, not the Popular Vote. The injustice was not in Bush becoming President while losing the Popular Vote, but in all of the fucked-up shit that tipped Florida into Bush's Electoral Vote column.
(Two side notes: A) The HBO movie Recount is an entertaining account of what went down in Florida in Nov/Dec 2000- Y'all should check it out. B) To my conservative readers: Don't tell me to "get over" the 2000 election. When you do that, you sound like a fucking Steelers fan telling us to "get over" XL.)
My point? I'm already fucking sick of media wags and internet mouth-breathers saying that the 2010 NFC West Champion doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs. You can't change the rules in the middle of the season, you Jabronis! Every NFL team knew going into this season that every division champion would make the playoffs and host a playoff game. Dems da rules. Even if Seattle, St. Louis or San Fran wins the NFCW at 7-9 they absolutely DESERVE to be in the playoffs, because those are the rules the NFL established 20 MOTHERFUCKING YEARS AGO.
Don't like this result? Agitate for the rules to change next season. But stop this shit where you call the notion of Seattle in the playoffs "disgusting." Really? Disgusting? If we get into the playoffs instead of Tampa Bay or Green Bay? Fuck em. It's a tough old world, and frankly squads missing the playoffs in favor of teams with weaker records happens ALL THE TIME.
A reasonable reform for 2011 and beyond would be to give home field in the Wild Card round to the teams with the 3rd and 4th best records in the conference, rather than automatically giving them to division winners. Up until 1990, division winners didn't automatically get home playoff games (see: 1988 Seahawks) and Wild Card teams could host games (see: 1983 and 1984 Seahawks). I see no big problem with going back to this system. I will say that if you are going to bother having divisions, division champs need to make the playoffs.
Of course, I have even more radical ideas for the NFL playoffs- but I voted for Nader, so I'm obviously a crackpot :)
1 comment:
Like you I voted for a third party in 2000. Do I wish that Gore had won? Yep. If Gore had won his home state, that whole Florida fiasco would've been moot. Why do I bring this up? Because even though I don't agree with many of your political opinions I will fight hard to let you have them. I also happen to have a devotion towards the Seahawks that is borderline insane. I'm sure you know how that feels.
Would I like to see a return to the wild card round, where division winners got the week off, and only wild card teams played? Sure, if the teams get seeded. It won't happen though. If all the teams played each other, then we'd have a true guideline for how good each team is. But because teams play a division/conference heavy schedule, a truly good team can rule a weak division. Or you could have four weak teams that appear strong (2009 NFC East). Perceptions are unique, but they ususlly have one thing in common: They're bent to the speaker's use.
coldhardfootballfacts.com usually slams the NFC West, but nine days ago came to it's defense.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/5_3517_Pigskin_Detention%3A_NFC_West_needs_some_%27pundit%27_love.html
I can understand fans looking through rose colored glasses, but when the media does it, it has a tendency to warp reality. The NFC West has failed to win at least one game in the playoffs (2003) since realignment happened in 2002 just once. No other division can claim to have achieved that. How many times have San Diego, Indy, and Dallas won 12 games, only to not win a playoff game? Since 2002, the NFC West has had four bad playoff games, Arizona vs. New Orleans, St. Louis vs. Atlanta, San Francisco vs. Tampa Bay, and Seattle vs. Green Bay. Over the last 10 years the NFC West has gone 9-10 in the playoffs with only a fifth of their games being bad. Do these facts state that they are a strong division? No, but the facts state that the division winner is better than most people think.
I don't watch the network pre-game or half-time shows, but that chff article I cited earlier had a great point by Howie Long. "... anything can and does happen in the NFL playoffs, and that’s a good thing.”
I know that you're a big Red Sox fan, so you might remember this. Pete Rose was asked if he felt bad after Fisk's game six home run. Rose was excited. Why? Because, according to him, it was more exciting that way, and that's the way the game should be played. NFL fans should follow his example (Did I just say THAT?!).
So anyone that doesn't like the current playoff format, change it, or shut up.
Post a Comment