|
Sheesh reading all that confused the hell out of me, but kinda makes sense. I can understand that all that would come into play if they hadn't faced each other in the reg season (GB and Sea) but with GB's victory over the Seahawks I don't see why that doesn't negate all of this. I don't see why Seattle beating theoretically stronger opponents would matter when they lost to GB.
The theory that the NFL seems to use is that if Team A beat Team B, then Team B beats Team C, Team A must be better than Team C as well and is therefore the best team. By that reasoning the Seahawks (team B) beat teams C, D, and E (Pitt, Bal, or whoever) which makes them have a very good strength of victory (or whatever it's called) but GB (team A) beat Seattle anyway, that should be the only tiebreaker they need right? A > B > C >D >E. It seems like they are trying to make things more complicated than they really should be.
Like I said, all of this would be justified (as crazy as it is) if the two teams never faced each other, but the fact is that they did face each other and there was a clear outcome. I'm starting to think they should just make a mandatory week between the end of reg season and the beggining of the playoffs. This week will be an off week for the more dominant teams and it will be known as "Tie Break Week." Any teams who are in contention for a playoff spot but are tied at the end of the season will have a playoff qualifying game. Hmm I guess that doesn't work if there is a 3-way tie huh? Damn, I thought I was on to something there.
Ok, I'll stop rambling. Maybe will get lucky and SF will beat Sea and we won't have to bother with all this tie break stuff. I'd like to see Arizona beat Minnesota too, but I'm not getting my hopes up on that one.
|