Hangover 2: You had to be there

September 10, 2011

Don't Drink and Jerk

Last weekend I got hammered with my friends Tibbs (also known as Turbo for some reason), Derek, Melissa, Kael, Eric, Brandon, my girlfriend, and some chick I didn't know. We played a drinking game I invented, and then out of nowhere, suddenly Tibbs is bleeding all over the place. Apparently Eric tried to pull Tibbssess knife from his pocket and that somehow resulted in a cut on the thumb and on the wrist. We were just about to go to the bars, and Tibbs wasn't about to not go out, so we duct taped the shit out of his cuts and were off to the clubs! Where we almost got in a fight. It was awesome.

Don't give a shit? Yeah, cause it's a story that's only cool if you were actually there to witness it (and were also drunk). "You had to be there" stories lead to some of the worst moments in your life. Whenever you go to a party, there's always some guy named Walter or Matt or Jake, some boring name to go with his boring life, and he's going to corner you and tell you this story about his crazy friend Tim who you've never met, and how Tim did the craziest thing this one time when they were in San Diego, but were so drunk they thought they were actually in Tijuana. You...had to be there.

I'm talking about YHTBT stories for a reason. And that reason is to dissect a film that came out a while ago for no apparent reason.

Three Men and a Plot Twist
The Hangover worked for a couple of reasons. The obvious one is that it paired the mystery plot structure with the stupid high concept comedy. It's a mystery with clues and twists and surprises, but it's also funny most of the way through. This is why I love writing comedies. In most dramas, there's only really one thing going on at a time. Watch any Hugh Grant movie and you'll see how little is going on. Boy meets girl. They flirt and stuff, and then they don't hook up for a while for some reason, then they do hookup and the music swells, and then they kinda breakup for some reason, and then they end up together probably, cue music. Comedies have to do all the things that a mystery, or a suspense thriller, or a chick flick does, but they also have to be funny, which ain't nothing to sneeze at.

Does Bruce Willis Look Like a Bitch?
If you can think of a way to match the mystery plot with high concept comedy, you can have a million dollar idea. A script that just recently sold for 1.2 mill is called "Sex Tape." It's about a regular couple who have a crazy night of sex and when they wake up the sex tape they made is gone! TV Networks love the shit out of cop shows because each week they can have a new serial rapist to catch. But in ordinary life, something that a comedy can work with, mysteries revolve around shit like "Dude, where's my car?" or "What the fuck happened last night." Those are both really the same thing. DWMC? matched the mystery plot with the comedy, but that movie sucked a dick because it was a fucking retarded stoner movie. (And then like hot Alien Chicks should show up!)

The Inept Sperm Dance
So what else can we match the mystery plot with? "Shit, who's the daddy?" Has been done, Jerry Springer and Maury Pauvich have built mansions based on that slut shaming enterprise. That subplot has been used frequently on TV to give female characters something to do. Another version is the, "Who is the sperm donor?" plot, which has also been done. So where's the next Hangover? What other real life mysteries do we face? Or perhaps it's going to be the pairing of a different plot to the high concept comedy (Gone In 60 Seconds meets 40 Year Old Virgin. "What's more fun? Having sex, or stealing cars?" In fact, I'm going to rewatch that movie and pretend it's really about Nicholas Cage trying to finally have sex...with the unicorn?)

The OTHER reason The Hangover worked was because you felt like you were one of the guys. Who can't imagine going with their close friends to Vegas for a great bachelor party? So the movie puts you in the moment, with these guys just like it's you and your friends getting into whacky shananigans. There's surprises and crazy shit and the goal is clear and simple. We need to find our friend, who's getting married. It's a crazy party story and you're there actually experiencing it.

Then my friend was all like...


The Hangover 2 is a really good movie because it feels like you're right there with your friends going through this. I mean, who hasn't gotten stoned in Thailand and misplaced their friend's fiance's little brother? Oh right, that's never happened ever. The Hangover 2 doesn't work for the same reason the first one does. The Hangover 2 is a movie that should really end with the Director coming on screen over the credits, putting his head down and saying "I guess you had to be there."

The big differences between the two films really comes down to believability. The first one is believable enough that when something crazy happens, it's like one of your friends suddenly getting a beat down from a naked chinese dude. In the second one, I'm not buying it, it draws too much attention to the fact that it's not just a movie but a sequel. When whacky things happen to whacky characters in a whacky movie...well so what? So when people say that the second one sucked because it was too much like the first one, they're part right. The first one was good, so why would it be such a sin to be similar? Well, the answer is that drawing attention to the artifice of it completely undermines the main reason the first one worked. So instead of being there and experiencing it, the second one is a whacky YHTBT story.

Rust Belt Readies For Waves of Refugees from Manning-torn Indy

September 5th, 2011

"The quarterback dropped back to pass, and then I just don't know what happened," said Indianapolis native Joe Quincy, "There were receivers running routes, but he just didn't throw a perfect back-shoulder fade or anything. I mean, how hard is it to throw a touchdown?"

"These quarterbacks are awful! I'll bet their passer rating is lower than 100!" Said Tim Gransell, 18, "I mean how hard is it to throw a ball? These guys suck."

Everyone outside of Indiana has known this day will come. The day when Peyton Manning won't be the starting quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. The result? A bewildered and frightened population. Thousands of Indianans wearing #18 jerseys wander shell-shocked through the streets. It's been 14 years since someone other than Manning started a game under center.

The Indianapolis PD has been over-worked trying to field all the suicide-related calls. Buildings all over the rejuvenated down-town have lines out the door of hopeful suicide jumpers trying to catch elevators to the top.

Many citizens of Indianapolis couldn't name a single former QB that preceded Manning. "Harbaugh? The Ravens coach?"

Curtis Painter is ready to become the QB of the future. 12 more people just jumped.

"We've got clones of Peyton in training right?" asked Jim Caldwell, which is the longest sentence he's ever uttered.

The Colts season starts on Sunday against The Texans. It should be an interesting QB battle between Matt Schaub and Kerry Collins. Collins in all likelihood will pass Joe Montana on the all-time passing yards list, putting him into 10th all-time. If he plays all year he might surpass Dan Fouts for 9th all-time.

Collins might just have had one of the most overlooked careers of all time. It won't be a consolation to Colts fans when Collins passes Joe Montana. Peyton, who's 5 years younger than Collins, passed Montana four years ago. Collins remains a Michael Vick's worth of passing yards behind Manning on the all-time list.

Manning was expected to surpass Dan Marino into 2nd all-time in Touchdown passes. He has 399, Marino's record was 420 before Brett Favre broke it. Instead of Manning breaking Marino's mark, Colts fans will be treated with Kerry Collins passing Randall Cunningham for 28th place at 208 career TDs.

Interestingly, Manning and Collins are tied for 28th all-time in Interceptions thrown (even though Manning has nearly double the TD passes). So perhaps Colts fans can have something to celebrate as Peyton moves down on the all-time interception list. Some consolation prize.

D E C E P T I O N

 September 1, 2011

It's September and you know what that means! Time to disect a movie that came out last year for no apparent reason.

This month it's time to tackle, BWAAHHHHH, Inception.

First off, Inception did spawn this: http://inception.davepedu.com/
Perhaps the greatest tool for everyday conversation ever devised.

Just pull that up and sprinkle it into conversations.

To the Movie!


So Inception is a good movie. It's at least original, has some interesting ideas, does way more than the average blockbuster, but it's not Citizen Kane, hell it's not even The Matrix.

One thing it is is a litmus test. If you meet someone and they tell you that Inception was a "Philosophical" film, run away fast. This person is dumb. And the one thing we know about dumb people, it's that they know nothing about  C O N T R A C E P T I O N. 


I will give credit to the movie for not being a fucking obvious action movie, and for not having any cheesy one-liners, and at least taking a crack at an interesting premise. Most action movies fail on all counts here. What I want to talk about aren't what they did right, but what they did wrong.

1. E X C E P T I O N . . . to the rule.

In the Matrix, the screenwriters needed a way for the action within a virtual world to matter, so they devised the simple rule "the body cannot live without the mind," meaning that if you die in the matrix your mind is somehow destroyed? It makes perfect sense because every time you die in Grand Theft Auto you die in the real world too. It's a way to cheat and give stakes to a situation that would otherwise be consequenceless. We as audiences tend to be very accepting of illogical and poorly introduced rules as long as it makes for a better story.

Now, when Inception begins, you're inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream and then you flashback to being inside a dream inside a dream that happened months earlier (I did the math, that's an accurate description). And once we learn that this is a dream, and Leo and Joe are discovered, we quickly learn that dieing in the dream world simply wakes you up. So right off, I'm glad they don't take the Matrix route and make you somehow die if you die in a dream.

 I'm a bit unhappy that being shot in the heart actually somehow makes you die in a dream. I mean, you can have a dream that you're guillotined and then live on as a severed head for months. Anything can happen in dreams.

But they stop short of allowing for things like that and establish that pain is real, so torture is possible, and they can imprison you and prevent you from achieving your goals while torturing you, which is probably worse than just putting a bullet through your cerebellum.

I found this to be a pretty good rule. It can allow for clear goals and for stakes. They can capture Juno, torture her spunky ass, and prevent them from completing their mission whilst getting information from her. Leading the gang to go on a mission to kill Juno to end her misery and stop their prying torture, or perhaps to break her out and continue on despite the psychological trauma. Either way, shit can mean something, it's not just anything can happen land with no consequences.

BUT, once they start the big heist at the core of the film, this rule is immediately wiped away and a new less sensical one is established. If you die in this dream, you go to limbo, because of the powerful sedative. Umm wat? Limbo is never very clearly defined, despite earnest attempts such as calling it "raw infinite subconcious." Oh, okay, that clears everything up. So if you die on the big mission, you get sent to a never ending Madonna video.

So basically all this accomplishes is that the main characters spend the movie trying not to die. I've never seen an action film with that goal before. So they squander an interesting opportunity, and commit a cardinal sin of spending time explaining a rule, only to completely change the rule a little later in the film.


Exception Part II

Remember how on Dream Level 1 (DL1), they are in the van and falling to the river? This means that in DL2, in the hotel, they are in zero gravity, thus leading to Joe's dillema of having to create a kick or a fall without using gravity. That's interesting, it's a weird logic puzzle, it creates scenes that are definitely original. It also leads to some of the best action in the movie with zero-g fights, or with tumbling gravity. Great right?

Well, in DL2, the rest of the crew is sleeping, and floating, and in the next dream down, DL3, they are on a snow level...with gravity. Excuse me? If zero g in one level causes zero g down a rung, then why doesn't it keep continuing? This makes no sense.

DL3 should have taken place in zero-g. Maybe underwater or in a space station.



2. Squandered Opportunities

My favorite part of the movie, at least the first time I watched it, was when Juno learns all about the dream world. She's given a tutorial about changing the world, she even folds up a city, moves bridges, creates infinite mirrors, alters gravity, it's all pretty interesting, but then comes with a caveat. If you change a lot of things, the sub-conscious becomes hostile. Suddenly all the extras filling the Escheresque city start trying to grab Juno like aggressive planned parenthood protesters. Anyone with a pulse can see that later in the film, on the big job, Juno will have to manipulate the world, bend physics, create impossible shapes, turn a city on edge, maybe just turn gravity upside down to get them out of a pickle, a million weird things that you've never seen in another action movie are possible, BUT this power is limited by the aggressiveness of the extras afterwards. So you can imagine she has to do just a little too much world manipulation and the extras get so pissy that they almost, but not quite, stop our protagonists.

Then when this happened in the 3rd act, oh wait. It doesn't. Juno never again manipulates the world or does anything cool. In fact, she seems pretty pointless for the rest of the film, except to try to act as a shrink to Leo about his dead wife, because chicks like to talk about chick things, not architecture or physics.

Seriously, this super power with a clear limitation and is set up so well is never again used or mentioned.

What do we get instead?

Quit Screen-peeking!
A fucking Bond level from Goldeneye N64. The snow level, you remember the one, where we interrupt this movie to cut to stock footage of Nazis on skis and lots of guns firing for some reason. What?

Then in the middle of this incredibly generic video game level, Leo goes to Juno and tells her they're low on time, so she needs to create a shortcut for them to get to the middle of the maze very quickly. Now instead of opening up a portal, shifting gravity, or even creating some sort of portal in her vagina and making the whole team crowd through it, no, she just thinks about it and then our crew just skis a different route, which to me seems indistinguishable from their original route. Thanks Juno, glad we brought you along.


3. M I S C O N C E P T I O N 


The ending does not make you think.

Here are 3 similar movies that all beat Inception to the punch by a decade.

The Matrix makes you think, just a little bit, but not at the end. The philosophical idea it throws out there is that perhaps you are living in a simulated world and have no idea. And even so, does it really matter? How do you define real?

I'm not calling The Matrix philosophical, but at least these ideas are expressed in some way.
That looks more like the ground floor to me. 

The Thirteenth Floor offers similar ideas. It's about a computer programmer who works on a simulation of a world in the 30's. A world that seems real and you can go inside of and the virtual people inside it think their world is real. SPOILER: At the end, the main character discovers that the present day world is actually a simulation in a computer from 2030-ish. That ending offers up the idea that our world is simulated and we could wake up from it.

Dark City - SPOILER - offers up the possibility that every single day you wake up, you're actually a new person, or a different person, and that all of your memories are fake. How can you know that you existed before you awoke today? For all we know, the universe could have been created 15 seconds ago and we were all just given detailed memories of everything supposedly leading up to this point.

Yeah, Deus Ex was a great game.
Again, these aren't spectacularly philosophical, but at least I can write a paragraph about it.

What's the philosophical question Inception asks?

Ummm...hey, is Leonardo DiCaprio still dreaming or isn't he? Who gives a shit? Maybe the whole idea of Inception and dream heists is just the figment of Leo's imagination in the real world and this whole world and whole universe is one night's, or maybe one coma's dream.

Okay. Cool man. That's interesting I guess.

People can debate whether or not Leo is dreaming still, but there's two big flaws in the whole debate. Leo has a totem, the dradle thing right? And at the end we don't know if it stops or goes on forever.  The camera cuts away. But Leo and the kids and Austin Powers dad are just over there. In a few minutes, THEY WILL KNOW whether this world is real or not. So even if Leo is deluding himself, he can't ignore the spinning top he just left going five minutes ago still spinning.  Problem number 2 is that we see him use the dradle earlier in the film and it stops spinning. So the question isn't whether the seemingly real world of the film is actually a dream, the question is only if Leo has awoken from the big heist mission and that maybe he's still on the plane and doing the heist. You follow?

You see, the film hints at his world not being real, that he jet-sets around the globe, chased by some faceless corporation that someone compares to the subconcious security forces, and pines away for his dead wife who, if she was right, is actually alive in the real world while his world is a dream. So it's hinting at the idea that if Leo dies in what seems to be the real world, that he will wake up to the ACTUAL real world where his wife is still alive and it turns out she was right. This is the ending that a lot of people wanted. In fact, I wanted this ending because if the movie ends with Mal succeeding in convincing him to wake up, and it turns out she's been Inceptioning his ass in the dreams, so that, just like in a lot of heist/confidence movies, the actual con is done on the audience by not giving us the whole picture. So the con isn't that Leo is breaking up some other multi-national corporation for some reason, but Mal inceptioning Leo's ass to wake up to reality.

Which is better, if the movie is about breaking up an energy company for some reason, or if the movie is really about Mal inceptioning Leo to wake him up to reality and her and the kids?

If you watch this long enough
 you'll find out if you're in a coma. 
So, it seems that it's hinting that this will happen, then leaves us hanging. Except that they fuck this up, because earlier in the film, Leo spins the totem and it falls down, this is in the 2nd act when they are still prepping for the mission. So this, under the broken movie logic as I understand it, means that this world is the real world. And if somehow they make some exception to the totem rule, then it means that whether it stops or keeps spinning at the end doesn't mean anything. So to summarize, at the end, Leo isn't testing if the base world of the movie is real, he's only testing that he's woken up from the big heist in the plane.

See, isn't that kind of retarded? And not at all Philosophical.


The real Inception, the real reverse heist that plants an infectious idea, takes place when millions of people see this movie and then become convinced that it's great.



The Cam Newton Express

Aug 31, 2011
The Carolina Panthers were the worst team in football last year. They were rewarded with the first overall pick which they spent on a 1-year wonder who spent that year running from a pay-to-play scandal all the way to the Heisman and a National Championship. He has all the indications of a draft bust:


1. Athletic QBs Win in College, Suck in the NFL

Just ask Tim Tebow. . . and Jamarcus Russell, and Vince Young, and Pat White, and Eric Crouch. In College, a QB who tucks it under and moves the sticks with his feet is a valuable asset. But in the pros, the defenders are too fast, the schemes too complex, the hits too hard. Scrambling QBs are eaten alive in the NFL. 

Vick: Nimble as a cat
But Michael Vick! you say. Vick is the anomaly. But he isn't even that. Vick was drafted in '01, but didn't get the starting job until '02. In '03 he broke his leg in preseason, came back at the end of the year to play in just a handful of games. Then he played 15 or 16 games in '04, '05, and '06.

So basically in his first 6 seasons, he only played 4 complete seasons. His total numbers in Atlanta looked like this:

930-1730  53.7%    11505 yards  71 TD  52 INT

He never once topped 3000 yards passing and his most TDs in a season was 20. Only since his release from prison and his resurgence in Philadelphia where he has learned how to be a pocket passer has he really found success as a passer. 

Compare to Drew Brees, the 2nd QB taken in the same draft as Vick. Brees was a 2nd round pick. Came in without the obscene athletic skills that Vick had, but was a smart pocket passer. From '01 to '06, Brees played in just a handful of more games than Vick (he sat the entire 01 season). 

Here were Brees' numbers:

1481-2363   62.7%    16766 yards    106 TD   64 INT

Which QB would you rather have? And if you think I'm being unfair for comparing Vick to Brees, remember that the Chargers drafted Rivers to replace Brees and then let him go as a free agent. This ain't exactly a Peyton Manning situation.



2. Auburn ran a simple offense


There is no spoon
If you watch Gruden talk to other incoming rookies and compare, it makes Cam Newton look like a high school kid. 

Playing QB in the NFL is about intelligence. Smart QBs do well. Now I'm not saying Cam is dumb, but the offense he ran in Auburn didn't require him to be intelligent. So he hasn't yet proven he has the mental ability to handle the NFL. 


3. One year wonder. 

It's hard to imagine that one year of success in college is enough preparation to be a starter in the NFL. The Draft history is littered with guys that blew up for one year, landed a high draft spot, then faded into obscurity. 

I got it
I'm looking at you Troy Williamson. 

Peyton Manning was the starter a few games into his freshman year, and never missed a game after that, even returning for a senior season even though he was assuredly a top pick. 

With 3 years and change experience as the starting QB at a major college program, Manning deserved the top pick. Had he skipped his senior year, Manning might very well have ended up a St. Louis Ram. 


4. No Pocket Awareness

In College, if there's nowhere to throw it, you tuck it and run. You can't do that in the pros. You'll be eaten alive. Good quarterbacks are at home in the pocket. They'll make subtle moves to keep the play alive. It's not about how fast you are, it's about knowing where the pressure is instinctively, moving to keep the play alive, and taking as few sacks as possible. 

Know what QB was sacked the least number of times last year? For comparison, I'll tell you that Michael Vick, who only played in 12 games, was sacked 34 times. Even the fast and elusive Vick is sacked about 3 times per game. 
This is what you get when
 you google "Manning's Sack"

The league leader in least sacks was a tie. Peyton Manning and...Eli Manning, were both sacked only 16 times. Or once per game. Peyton accomplished this feat despite having an offensive line made of swiss cheese, and throwing to a decimated receiving corps. It doesn't matter if he's under pressure and has practice squad players running go routes. Peyton Manning just won't be hit or sacked all that often. He's the master of the pocket. 

Here are the QBs that were sacked the fewest times (who actually played all year)

The Mannings 16
Matt Ryan 23
Drew Brees 25
Tom Brady 25
Carson Palmer 26

The worst list:
Jay Cutler 52
Cutler Drops Back To Punt
Joe Flacco 40
Philip Rivers 38
Donovan Mcnabb 37
Sam Bradford 34
Kyle Orton 34
Michael Vick 34

Notice a trend?
The 6 best QBs have between a Super Bowl record of 6-2. In fact, the 2 losses they suffered were Brady's in '07 and Manning's in '09, when they were up against another QB on the list. The 7 worst have between them a Super Bowl record of 0-1. 

Cam Newton has taken 4 sacks so far in preseason while attempting about 50 passes. Do some extrapolation and you figure he'll be sacked 30-45 times. However, this is in preseason where defenses aren't throwing complex blitzes at you. I'd put his sack total this year, if he plays the full season, at about 55. 



So you put that all together, and I have serious doubts that Cam Newton will be a successful NFL QB. 

But...I might be wrong. Especially in the NFC South. 

I wrote this before the start of last season:


The NFC South was created in 2002 during the 8 division re-alignment.
NFC South 2002
(2) Tampa Bay Buccaneers 12 4
(6) Atlanta Falcons 9 6 1
New Orleans Saints 9 7
Carolina Panthers 7 9
In First season, Buccaneers win it all. Panthers finish last.
NFC South 2003
(3) Carolina Panthers 11 5
New Orleans Saints 8 8
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 7 9
Atlanta Falcons 5 11
Panthers go from last to first and a trip to the super bowl where they are beaten by Adam Vinatieri's 2nd SB winning field goal. The Falcons finish last at 5-11.
2004
(2) Atlanta Falcons 11 5
New Orleans Saints 8 8
Carolina Panthers 7 9
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 5 11
Falcons go from worst to first. Buccaneers finish last 5-11.
2005
(3) Tampa Bay Buccaneers 11 5
(5) Carolina Panthers 11 5
Atlanta Falcons 8 8
New Orleans Saints 3 13
Buccaneers go from worst to first. This is the year of Katrina and the last place Saints.
2006
New Orleans Saints 10 6
Carolina Panthers 8 8
Atlanta Falcons 7 9
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 4 12
Saints go from worst to first, Buccaneers finish last.
2007
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 9 7
Carolina Panthers 7 9
New Orleans Saints 7 9
Atlanta Falcons 4 12
Buccaneers go from worst to first. Falcons finish last...draft Matt Ryan.
2008
(2) Carolina Panthers 12 4
(5) Atlanta Falcons 11 5
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 9 7
New Orleans Saints 8 8
And here ladies and gentlemen, is the first year that the worst to first trend doesn't hold true. The falcons were the worst, and they did NOT win the division. Although, they finished 11-5, and got the 1st wild-card. The Falcons lost in the first round, and the Panthers lost at home after their first round bye, both were defeated by the eventual Super Bowl losing Arizona Cardinals. The Saints finished last at 8-8
2009
(1) New Orleans Saints 13 3
Atlanta Falcons 9 7
Carolina Panthers 8 8
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 3 13
Saints go from last in their division, to number 1 overall seed in the NFC and Super Bowl Champions.
Buccaneers finish 3-13 in last place. As crazy as it might have seemed. The NFC South History tells us that the Buccaneers have a good shot at winning the division.


And the Buccaneers failed to live up to prophecy, however they did finish 10-6 and just barely miss the playoffs due to a tie-breaker (The 10-6 Packers won the whole damn thing).
Cam Newton and Tim Tebow
Saw a spider. 

So looking back at 2010:
Atlanta Falcons 13-3
New Orleans Saints 11-5
Tampa Bay Bucs 10-6
Carolina Panthers 2-14

How can anyone possibly think the Panthers will have a winning record in this division? Well, history says otherwise. 

Bandwagoneers, be ready to hop on the Cam Newton Express. 

Playoffs!?!?

August 17, 2011


Who dat?
When the playoffs began last year, the 7-9 Seahawks opened the postseason at home hosting the 11-5 defending champion New Orleans Saints. 


Let's say that again. In the playoffs, the Seahawks, with a losing record, opened the playoffs at HOME, hosting an 11-5 team. It is immediately obvious that whatever system came up with this matchup is clearly broken. 


In the offseason the NFL Competition Committee came back with some new rules to fix this. Just kidding, instead they moved the kickoff to the 35 yard line (going to result in two to three times more touchbacks) and made ALL scoring plays automatically under review by the officials. Way to go NFL. 


Since they apparently don't see an issue with the playoffs, then let me tell you what's wrong with it. 






1. Divisions are Screwy


There are 8 divisions with 4 teams each. The winner of each division is guaranteed not only a playoff spot but a home playoff game. This means that a losing team, such as the 2010 Seahawks, can finish 7-9 or even worse, and win their division and host a playoff game. Well, they won the division, they earned it. Really? They went 7-9, playing in a division with the 7-9 Rams, 6-10 49ers, and 5-11 Cardinals. Their division as a whole went 25-39. The New Orleans Saints finished 11-5 playing in a division the Falcons won at 13-3, and with the Buccaneers who missed the playoffs at 10-6 (and the dismal 2-14 Panthers). The NFC South as a division went 36-28 (with half of those losses from just the Panthers). So the reward for the 7-9 winner of a losing division is a home playoff game against a team that went 11-5 in a division that went 36-28?


Basically, the Saints were punished for playing in a tough division and the Seahawks were rewarded for playing in a shitty division. 


While the losing Seahawks were playing at home in the playoffs the following teams were at home watching because they missed the playoffs:


These guys clearly belong in the playoffs.
8-8 Raiders
8-8 Jaguars
9-7 Chargers
10-6 Giants
10-6 Buccaneers


Know who else was 10-6? Oh yeah the Packers. They got in over the Giants and Bucs thanks to a tie-breaker formula...


The Seahawks played 8 regular season games against teams that finished 8-8 or better. Their record in those games?  2-6


This madness is not a fluke.


"Go deep!" He yells at the fullback. 
In 2008, The Patriots finished 11-5, but the 11-5 Dolphins won the division via a tie-breaker. Jets finished 9-7, the Bills went 7-9. The AFC East finished 38-26. 


The Chargers won the AFC West at 8-8, via tie-breaker over the 8-8 Broncos. Raiders were 5-11, Chiefs were 2-14. The AFC West finished 23-41. 


Which team deserves a playoff spot? The 8-8 Chargers, who finished 8-8 playing in a division that finished 16 games below .500? Or the 11-5 Patriots who played in a division that finished 12 games above .500?


Not only did the Chargers get in and the Patriots didn't (and four 9-7 teams), the Chargers opened the playoffs at home, hosting the 12-4 Indianapolis Colts, who were a wildcard because they played in the same division as the 13-3 Titans. 


Once again, automatic rewards for division winners punishes teams that play in good divisions and rewards teams that play in shitty ones. 






2. At the end of the year, some teams have nothing to play for.


Painter shows off his accuracy. 
In 2009, the Colts got to 14-0 and had the AFC's #1 seed sewn up. They sat down their starters for the last 2 games and lost them both. No big deal right? They were winning against the Jets when the starters came out, The Curtis Painter Express came in and blew the lead. The Jets would go on to beat the Colts JV team, finish 9-7 and make the playoffs. Meanwhile, the Texans also finished 9-7 (having lost to the Varsity Colts twice) and missed the playoffs. If the Colts had something to play for, Manning would have finished the game. The Jets go 8-8, the Texans get their first playoff berth. We simply can't have teams treating the last two weeks of the season as preseason games.






3. Byes are Bullshit
The Breast Cancer Awareness Sweet Sixteen. 


The first round bye has become a staple of the NFL so it's rarely questioned, but let me show you why it sucks. 


A. No team should be given a free pass. I don't care if you went 16-0, you don't get a free pass to the second round. The NCAA should just put the #1 seeds into the sweet sixteen. They deserve it. Bullshit. 


B. Earning a first round bye often means a team hasn't played a meaningful game in a while. Maybe the last few weeks of the regular season, then the first round of the playoffs. Then they have to turn it on and play real football. Guess who they are playing against: a team that has already won a playoff game and has probably been playing for their lives for the last weeks of the season. By definition, the first round bye guarantees that the visiting team comes in with the momentum. They do get some rest, but what's more important? Momentum, continuity, and playoff experience, OR a week off and home field advantage? Hard to say. 


4 of the last 6 Super Bowl Winners did not have a first round bye. 






2005 Steelers 
Won the Lombardi Trophy from a wildcard spot. They opened the playoffs at the Bengals. Carson Palmer blows out his knee in the first quarter. The Steelers win 31-17. They then go to Indianapolis to face the #1 seed, the 14-2 Colts, who don't have momentum or a playoff win to build on. They go into the RCA dome and win 21-18. The Colts offense never really gets going. 


2006 Colts 
Won the Super Bowl from the 3 seed, no bye. They opened the playoffs against the Chiefs who limped into the RCA dome and lost 23-8. The Colts then go to Baltimore to play the Ravens. Colts win 15-6. The Ravens offense never gets going. 


2007 Giants
Won the super bowl from a wildcard spot. They finished 10-6 in a tough NFC East that looked like this:


13-3 Cowboys
10-6 Giants
9-7 Redskins
8-8 Eagles


Only the Eagles missed the playoffs of the bunch. The Cowboys got a bye. The Giants went to Tampa to play the 9-7 Bucs who won a poor NFC South that finished 27-37. 


Giants beat the Bucs and then travel to Dallas to play the #1 seed Cowboys. The Giants come in with momentum and and beat Dallas 21-17. They'd go on to beat the Packers in Lambeau and the undefeated Patriots. 




2008
The Steelers win the Super Bowl from the 2 seed with a bye. But who did they face? The Arizona Cardinals (who very nearly won the Super Bowl). 


The 2008 Cardinals won a bad NFC West at 9-7. The division as a whole went 22-42. They opened the playoffs in round 1 at home against the 11-5 Falcons who didn't win their division because the Panthers went 12-4 (The Bucs went 9-7 and the Saints went 8-8 for a division record of 40-24). 


The Cardinals manage to upset the Falcons and move on. They face the Panthers who gave them the game on a platter, then they hosted the NFC title game against Philly who had a better record than them, but didn't win their division (read: played in a tougher division). 


So the Cardinals play in a shitty division, and win it, and get 2 playoff home games against teams with better records who played in tougher divisions, and beat a team with a bye because they completely choked and had no momentum...Are we sensing a pattern. 
Go Barnstormers.


The #1 seeds in 2008 were the 12-4 Giants and 13-3 Titans. How'd they fare in their opening playoff games at home in round 2 after a bye? They scored a combined 21 points. Their offenses never really got going. 


2010
The Packers won the super bowl from a wild card spot. 






So take that all in, then tell me that it's better to have a week off than it is to have momentum and to already have won a playoff game. 


The first round bye rewards great teams with a free pass to round 2, which ends up being a handicap in many cases. Then it punishes lesser teams by making them play an extra playoff game, which ends up giving them an easier first matchup and momentum going into round 2. 






The Field General


So those are the problems with the way the playoffs are set up now. How can it be fixed?


Expand the Playoffs to 16 teams. Seed them 1-16, regardless of division or conference. Go. 






1. A team could win its division at 7-9, and unless it's in the top 16, it misses the playoffs, and rightly so. This problem is solved, plus they won't be guaranteed home games. In '08, the 8-8 Chargers made the playoffs while the 11-5 Patriots and FOUR 9-7 teams missed the playoffs. This problem is solved.

16 and d'oh






2. Teams always have something to play for. Even in 2009 when the Saints and Colts ran away with the regular season, they would still have been competing with each other for the #1 seed. No more of those JV games. 






3. No Bye. No more easy opening playoff wins for lesser teams. Instead, the best teams are rewarded with the easiest first playoff games. The 16 seed has to go to the 1 seed. 






The Great AFC/NFC Rivalry




4. The Super Bowl is no longer AFC vs. NFC. 


BUT, shouldn't the Super Bowl pit the 2 best teams against each other? Instead, we get the best AFC team against the best NFC team. It's roughly a 50-50 proposition that the 2 best teams would be in the same conference or in opposite conferences. Put it another way: We could've had 49ers vs. Cowboys Super Bowls in the 90's. Steelers vs. Dolphins in the 70's. Colts vs. Patriots in the 00's.






5. More playoff teams!? That makes the regular season mean less!


Does it?
The NFL Tie-breaking formula. 


In 2008, 15 teams finished 9-7 or better. 4 of them didn't make the playoffs, while the 8-8 Chargers made it. The current system waters down the regular season by allowing bullshit like that to happen. Plus, in any given year, the 12 playoff teams will include some 9-7 teams, while a few 9-7 teams don't make it because they lost out on tie-breakers because of their Divisional Record or Conference Record or point differential. We are letting tie-breakers decide who moves on, and you're saying that adding 4 more playoff games and deciding things on the field would make the season matter less?





6. More Games


Remember before the lockout when the NFL wanted to add more games to the season and it looked like an 18 game season was a real possibility? Then that issue disappeared during the lockout. Well, here's a proposal that adds 4 playoff games, makes more games at the end of the season matter (since more of the playoff teams will have something to play for, plus 4 more spots means more teams fighting for their playoff lives).






Here's how the 2010-11 Playoffs would have looked in this system. 


Seeds:

1 Patriots 14-2
2 Falcons 13-3
3 Steelers 12-4
4 Ravens 12-4
5 Jets 11-5
6 Saints 11-5
7 Bears 11-5
8 Packers 10-6
9 Eagles 10-6
10 Giants 10-6
11 Colts 10-6
12 Buccaneers 10-6
13 Chiefs 10-6
14 Charger 9-7
15 Jaguars 8-8
16 Raiders 8-8


17 Dolphins
18 Seahawks
19 Rams

I've chosen to break ties by giving the tie to the team that finished LOWER in its division. For example, the Jets, Saints, and Bears all finished 11-5. But the Jets played in the AFC East with the 14-2 Pats, the Saints played in the NFC South with the 13-3 Falcons, while the Bears had the best record in their division. I have rewarded the teams that played in tougher divisions. 

And if you think 16 playoff teams will lead to a lot of 7-9 or worse playoff teams, I've done the math.

Stupid Texans, ruining my stats. 
Here's how many teams finished 8-8 or better each of the last 10 years:
2010 16
2009 20
2008 21
2007 16
2006 20
2005 18
2004 17
2003 16
2002 19 (12 of the 16 AFC teams)
2001 15 (Only 31 teams in the league at the time)

So under my plan only 2001 when the Texans didn't yet exist did a 7-9 team sneak in. Even if a 7-9 team snuck in they won't get a home playoff game, no, they go on the road to face the #1 seed. Good luck. 







One of the most common complaints to my concept is that abandoning division championships and ignoring conferences in the playoffs will lessen rivalries, and lead to matchups that have no history. So let's just see. 


2010 Playoffs Part Deux

Pick against the Raiders. It's called the Suck Rule.
16 Raiders at 1 Patriots


Have these two ever played before?  I'm taking the Pats. 







15 Jaguars at 2 Falcons
Newlyweds and their cake...

















His Ball Cradling Skills are a 99 in Madden
These two apparently scrimmage against each other in training camp. Might be interesting. I'm taking the Falcons. 


14 Chargers at 3 Steelers


While the Chargers are talented, they struggled all year to stay consistent. But the Playoffs are one and done, and you know that old saying, on any given Sunday, Monday, Saturday, and sometimes Thursday... I'm picking the Steelers though. 




Lewis Shows Cassell his Moat. 

13 Chiefs at 4 Ravens



In reality, the Ravens were a wildcard team because they played in a tough division. In my system they are a top 4 team, and host the Chiefs instead of going to Arrowhead. If you watched that playoff game last year, then you know the Ravens deserved to have that game in their house, not the other way around. Ravens win. 




12 Bucs at 5 Jets

Notice the 12 seed Bucs missed the actual playoffs. Here instead they play the Jets with the chance for an upset. Jets win. 
Tiki Barber Fumbles AGAIN







11 Colts at 6 Saints

Do these two have any history?  Doesn't this make way more sense than sending the Saints to Seattle to play the 18 seed? 



10 Giants at 7 Bears


Da Bears. 



Insert Dog Fighting Joke.
Something about a Long-Haired Chihuahua?






9 Eagles at 8 Packers


This matchup actually happened, except it was in Philly. Packers win in either case. 




















The Snatch




ROUND 2 - FIGHT!


10 Giants at 1 Patriots


Would actual Giants beat actual Patriots? What if David faces Goliath, but David is called the Giants? And he has a football magnet on his head...What? Patriots I guess? Is this thing on?




Matty Ice should stick to Beer Pong



8 Packers at 2 Falcons


Packers at Falcons, which actually happened in round 2, and the Packers won. Now maybe the Packers won because they had the momentum, having already won a road playoff game, but I'm going to project a Packers upset that actually happened. 







Towel in the Breeze
6 Saints at 3 Steelers




I'm going to project the Steelers to win. The Saints weren't playing great down the stretch and lost at Seatlle in reality. 






















Black Spiderman?


5 Jets at 4 Ravens

Rex Ryan versus his old team. In reality, round 2 had the Jets knocking the Patriots out while the Ravens fell to the Steelers. I'm going to project a Jets victory here, but that would have been a great game. 












Round 3. 
Notice, it's possible to have a Patriots Steelers or Patriots Jets super bowl. 


Pictured: Reggie White attempting to invent Tom Brady
8 Packers at 1 Patriots
See, a flaw in my plan. These two have never played a meaningful game before. In reality, the Pats lost because the Jets figured them out and got to Brady. Do the Packers accomplish that? Looks like a shootout between Brady and Rodgers. Hard to say.













This is how Yoda does push-ups


5 Jets at 3 Steelers

Jets and Steelers was the actual AFC championship game and the Steelers won 24-19. So let's project a Steelers win. 














That makes the Super bowl either Steelers vs. Patriots or Steelers vs. Packers. 

Either way I'm watching. And so are you. 







Potential Criticisms:


1. Divisions don't matter!!!


The Thrill of Victory
Yeah, and, so what? Do people really care that much about division titles? This is one area where American Sports and European Soccer leagues differ greatly. Premier leagues tend to have several championships, one for the regular season champs, one for a the winner of a playoff, and then there's the champions league, etc. When a team can sweep all 3 or more championships, that's how you know they're dominant. In American sports, nobody really gives a shit if a team has the best regular season record. In the NHL there's the President's Trophy, given to the team with the best regular season record. But if a team fails to win the Stanley Cup, you won't hear a player say, "yeah but at least we won the President's trophy." Instead it's embarassing to them that they didn't go on to win the cup. Each conference champion is given a trophy, the Prince of Wales Trophy for the East and the Clarence S. Campbell Trophy for the West. It's considered bad luck to even touch the trophies when the team wins them. You shake the guys hand, take a picture (trying to look as unimpressed as possible), then you go try to win the cup. It's because in America we care only about winning the whole damn thing. All or nothing. So does anyone really give a shit if the Chiefs won the AFC West? No. 


Okay, well, the division championships don't matter, but what about rivalries, if they don't compete for a division title, then why be rivals?


Well, it's true that they won't be directly competing for a division title, but the teams would still play each other twice a year, every year, and that's how rivalries are born. It's not about which column on the standings sheets teams are in, it's about meeting on a regular basis. 




2. Letting in more Playoff teams will dilute the regular season.
You Play to Win The Playoffs!?


Will it? I already mentioned above that every year there will be ties of 9-7 or 10-6 teams that end up being settled by a tie-breaking formula. Why let a formula decide who goes home? Decide it on the field. Every team already knows going into the season that they need to win 10 or 11 games to make the playoffs. That's usually enough. Every few years a 10 win or 11 win team will miss the playoffs because of a tiebreaker. Which way is unfair? To me, sending an 11 win team home because of a formula dilutes the meaning of the regular season. 






I originally suggested this playoff revamping last year on www.reddit.com/r/nfl and was quickly downvoted. Several people criticized the move from 12 to 16  teams. In my proposal, I decried the possibility of a 7-9 division winner getting a home game a few months before it actually happened. There was this response: 


"A 7-9 team has never happened before, and while it is feasibly possible, the odds are very, very low.

I enjoy divisional competition throughout the season. The goal should be to just be better then your team in your division; this creates great rivalries."


It's opinions like this that keep us from preventing foreseeable problems. "Well it's never happened before, therefore it probably won't happen." And really? The goal for a team is to be the best team in its division. There's 32 teams in the league, and your goal is to be better than 3 particular teams you happen to play twice? Come on man. 




Follow this link to see Bleacher Report make my case for me while they do some mental gymnastics. NFL Playoffs: Get Over It, 7-9 Teams Deserve To Make the Postseason


I'll leave you with a final thought. 


What if instead of automatically matching up the seeds (16 vs. 1, 15 vs. 2, etc.), what if there was a draft. The 1 seed picks their opponent. Then the 2 seed picks their opponent and so on. Twitter would explode.