Lose ALL draft picks & eliminated from the playoffs that year

 

Fine 500,000, ban coach for a year and team loses a draft choice.

 

2 bricks and a salivating Rotweiller.

 

I'm interested to see what they are discussing about playoff seeding.

 

how is that fair? If Miami won the AFC east with a 9-7 record, and everyone else in the AFC east was 9-7 or 8-8, and let's say Jacksonville was the wild card team at 10-6. Why would it be fair to let Jax have the home field?

Or am I totally missing the point here?

 

That makes no sense imo.

 

Makes total sense to me...

You forget this is the league in which a team could (not at all likely, but...) win their division and make the playoffs with a 3-13 record... :pointlol:

 

and at the same time we went 10-6 and missed the playoffs. Go figure.

 

I just want them to get rid of the hair below the name tags. Tired of seeing these long haired girls out there on the field.

 

If we won our division at 9-7 and they were second in theirs at 10-6 they should get home field. We would have finished in third in theirs, possibly not even making the playoffs.

The team with the better record should have home field.

Then again just my opinion

 

If a division champ goes 9-7, while playing in a much tougher division and overall had a much tougher schedule than a wild card team at 10-6, I don't see any reason why they wild card team should get the benefit of a home game. Only division champs should be allowed home games in the first rounds.

 

Problem is you're just making up a scenario.

It's possible that at 9-7 we played a tougher schedule, but it's equally as likely we didn't. So when all things are considered over a span of time if there truely is some form of parity, which I believe there is, they will have also played a tougher schedule the same amount of times.

The team who wins more games should benefit. In the NFL any team can win any game, so even if we had a tougher schedule by a few percentage points it wouldn't make that much of a difference.

 

OK since you think I am making up a scenario, let's place the 2007 scenario into the picture.

Do you think with this new possible rule that the 07 Giants who finished 10-6 should have hosted the wild card game against the 9-7 TB bucs? Clearly we all know that the Giants had the tougher schedule because they play in the toughest division. Now let's take the Redskins. They play in the same division, and finished 9-7. Should they have had the chance to host the game against the Bucs with this new rule? I mean where do we draw the line?

The rules are the rules and they should stay as they are. I mean last year's wild card team did pretty well, as have the wild card teams in the past few years.

 

i dont know if they should change the seeding rule or not, i mean we went what 10-6 one year and didnt make the playoffs we *****ed but nothing got done t now

and now that the browns do the same they are thinking about changing it?

 

The discussion is about how to seed the teams that are in the playoffs, not to change how you get in. And the owners are just discussing it, not necessarily proposing any rules changes, which would have to go through the union too, if i'm not mistaken.

 

yeah thats true i got what they were doing and what i read in an article the article mentioned they should change how they get in

 

the wild-card team with a better record hosting a division champ is just common sense. just lookg at the bucs and giants game, bucs played in a crappy division and won their division with a 9-7 record while the giants was in possibly the hardest division in the NFL and had a better record of 10-6 and had to travel to tampa. makes no sense.

 

In the case of the same record it should go to the division winner.

However if a team wins more games in a league where parity is supposed to rule, IMO they should host.

 

exactly! i agree with this proposed change. if you win your division, you should be entitled a playoff spot, and nothing more. if the wildcard team comes from another division and has a better record, then they should get the homegame based on their record. personally i think it makes perfect sense that way. give the division winners a spot in the playoffs as a reward for winning the division, but seed the games based on records to reward those teams who won. :up:

 

I would like to see them do something about the rookies high salaries. They are way over payed, until they prove themselves.

 

There are arguments for either way, I like the new proposed rule. The goal is to win games, you win less than the other, you shouldn't get to host. Period. Teams that win the division still get in the playoffs. Remember, there is one incentive for this rule, it's to create more meaningful games at the end of the season, less teams resting their starters etc.. That's fine with me.

 

They need to implement something with HARSH penalties because the integrity of the game is at stake.

With the Walsh thing hanging over their heads right now it is more important than ever that they step up and make it known that cheating in the NFL will be dealt with severly and not just a wrist slap.

 

Nice post, I agree with it.

 

The rookie salary cap is the part of the talks I find most intriguing and necessary.

For the longest time, the Dolphins didn't have to worry about it, so I didn't pay much attention to the escalating costs for players picked in the first round until our illustrious 4-12 season. At that point, I became a champ for a rookie salary cap in a hurry. Of course, they'll get to talking about it now that we're on our way to rebuilding with no way to avoid a #1 pick overall salary cap hit.

It's simple - if the team with the worst record is going to be saddled with the biggest financial burden for a player who has never played in an NFL game, then they need to either implement a cap or come up with a way of having guaranteed contracts become not guaranteed in the case of the top 10.