This. Too many beers have clouded my memory, but roughly 2005, I think it was the AFC that had about 5 teams in contention for 1 playoff spot on the final Sunday afternoon...nobody could have projected that in week 13.

This is a tight race right now that could implode (e.g. Tampa/Giants stumbling) or could get even tighter, it's just too early. Bottom line, though, is if the Pack go 4-1 down the stretch (beating Giants), it would be pretty damn difficult for them NOT to make the playoffs.

If Green Bay beats San Francisco next week and beats Chicago to tie the division next week the tiebreaking run-down will go like this:

1.) Head-to-head: tied

2.) Division record: tied unless Green Bay or Chicago lose a remaining game against Lions or Vikings

3.) Common games: tied in this scenario. When tied with a division rival you have two head-to-head games that have now been split, 2 non-common games which a win over San Fran means Green Bay and Chicago both went 1-1 (Chicago beat Carolina, lost to Seattle) leaving 12 common games. Those have to be tied if their overall record is the same. They would both be 1-1 against each other, 1-1 in non-common games and be x-y overall. They would both have to be (x-2) and (y-2) in common games.

If Green Bay loses to San Francisco (knock on wood) and still ties Chicago having the same head-to-head and division, we win this tiebreaker. There is no way that we can lose this in the event of a tie.

4.) Conference record: Both teams currently have the same amount of loses (3) within the conference and Green Bay beating Chicago in this scenario gives them a fourth. This would depend on who each team beats but considering we would beat them in this scenario we have to lose two out of San Francisco, Detroit, and New York to lose this tiebreaker. I don't see that happening and us being in a tie for the division. Furthermore, to even get to this tiebreaker we have to beat San Francisco so that means we have to lose both against Detroit and New York, again not likely.

5.) Strength of Victory: again depends on who we beat the rest of the year but considering one of their wins is against Carolina we'll have an advantage with a win over San Francisco (we have to beat them to even get this far down the tiebreaker list). We've also already beaten the Jets which currently helps us out enormously.

6.) Strength of Schedule: if it somehow came to this we win. Hands down. We have the same schedule except for Atlanta and San Francisco compared to Seattle and Carolina. It is not even close and with 5 games to go Seattle is 4 behind Atlanta and Carolina is 3 behind San Francisco. This tiebreaker will be clinched for us within two weeks.


Long story short, every single one of those tiebreakers are more likely to go our way than Chicago's. If we go into the last week a game behind Chicago and win we will far more than likely win the division.


http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures 

---

I am going to feel sorry for the NFC team/teams that stay home and watch the Playoffs while a weak assed NFC West team with a worse record rolls into the dance.

It is not right.

---

So then why do we have divisions, if we are not going to crown a champion?

IMO, we have the right way of determining who get in.. however the seeding should be adjusted by record.. so that they are not rewarded a home game.

---

The only champion in the end is the SB champion and the teams with the best records should advance towards that goal. I think the least they can do is change the rule and disallow any Division Champion that cannot at least get to a .500 record and replace them with the next team up.

You have teams in tough divisions getting to a winning record and then teams in a weak division and they can't even win enough games playing all these weak sisters twice?

We will probably pummell the 49'rs Sunday and there's a chance they could end up in and were sitting? There will be teams with three more wins then the winner of that division that won't make the playoffs.

There's a lot more wrong with that then telling a Division Champ to go home IMO.

---

I will agree it is not fair..

But we have division play and schedules set up.. and is some years a strong division will beat up on itself and send folks home.. yet they dominate outside of the division.

We penalize them for being in a stout division.

Or we reward a solid team for playing in a weak division by scheduling them 6 gimme type games.

It is part of the divisional play.. set up to promote divisional rivalries and make those games mean more.

So where do you stop because one season you have a division that sucks.

But I wouldn't be opposed to a conference seeding and eliminate some of the repetitive divisional play and a better slice of competition across the conference.

I don't think it would fly.. but I personally would like it.

---

The more I think about it, the more I think that it would be okay to require a division winner to finish better than .500 to go to the playoffs. Having a division winner finish 8-8 (or worse) doesn't happen often anyway, so I don't think it would damage the divisional rivalries much.

I hate the idea of .500 or wore teams making the playoffs. The playoffs are supposed to be for good teams, and at team that finishes 8-8 is, by definition, average--not good.

---

"Fair" is for fruitcakes and sociologists.

:)

---

When the NFL expanded and broke each conference into 4 divisions in place of 3.. an thus reduced the wildcard number from 3 to 2 teams.. it set a more likelihood that a year like this year may happen.

Where multiple non playoff teams have a better record and better conference numbers than a divisional winner.

Less flexibility to include deserving teams than the automatic inclusions.

Damn Texans. 😉

---

I think the crappy thing about this week is all the playoff contenders won atlanta, bears giants NO rams and eagles ...

those teams are supposed to lose