Honest question: what exactly is the difference? I guess I always assumed that those were synonymous concepts.
They aren't. "Backing into the playoffs" is almost always synonymous with losing towards the end of the season and still getting into the playoffs. Getting help down the stretch means just that: Getting specific teams to win or lose their games in such a fashion that ultimately helps your team make the playoffs. They are two separate phenomena that may or may not happen concurrently. edit: For example, imagine a team that started the season 0-7, but then suddenly caught fire and went on an amazing run, winning their last 9 games to finish the season at 9-7. Now, imagine that team needed a certain other team to lose in week 17, in order to make the playoffs. And, suppose that is in fact what happened. Then, our hypothetical team would have made the playoffs on a 9 game winning streak, and yet, still would have "gotten help" in week 17. One could hardly say that this team "backed in" to the playoffs on a 9 game-winning streak, but would also have to acknowledge that this team "got help."
i was at that game. People started ripping seats out and brought them home since it was the last game at the meadowlands hahha
It's just frustrating when the phrase is used with the Jets because it seems like it's not always used with teams. It's also commonly used with the Mets. If you've won more games than the other team and don't necessarily need a win in week 17 why is that backing in? You already did the dirty work to get in.
If I remember correctly the Bengals benched their starters at halftime after they were down 24-0. I know the Colts the week before benched their starters from the start......... EDIT 74 wrote above... Seats from the Old Meadowlands is something I wouldn't want. More bad memories than good ones plus it was Giants Stadium really......
There is no such thing as "backing" into the playoffs. What exactly does that mean? If you make the playoffs, you earned it. If you make the playoffs because another teams loses when they need to win to get in, you didn't back in. The other team blew it. I freakin' hate the term "backing" into the playoffs. The only thing that truly bothers me and what I consider "backing in" is teams that earn a playoff spot by winning a division with a record under .500. That is the epitome of a team that does not belong. This year there will two horrible division winning teams in the playoffs - one in each conference. That should not be permitted. There should be a rule that prohibits an under .500 team from making the playoffs, even as a division champ. There should be three wild cards in that scenario, with the WC with the best record getting the 4th seed and the home game. Why should Washington, or Philly, or the Giants (God forbid) and Indy, Houston, or Jacksonville be in the playoffs with a home game while a 10 or 11 win team sits at home?????? That's what I call backing in.
i get your point, but a team that runs out to a 10-2 record and finishes 11-5/10-6 is backing in. atleast thats what i think of when i hear the term
A perfect example of backing into the playoffs was the 1986 New York Jets, who started the season a promising 10-1 and then went on to self-destruct, losing the final five games. I think this is the only team to make the playoffs by losing five consecutive games to end the season. Eventually, after a Wild Card victory over the Chiefs, the roller coaster season ended infamously the following week on a dreary Cleveland Saturday afternoon.
The reason why division winners under .500 are permitted into the playoffs is because the current system guarantees at least one playoff entrant from each division. I agree with the merits of not allowing such mediocre teams into the playoffs, however, from an economic perspective it guarantees playoff games in all the regions which are represented by the divisions. It is basically a parity concept which has been adopted by most major sports leagues from their inception. Since, for the most part, teams with winning records usually win their respective divisions, the potential risks in tinkering with the existing playoff formula may outweigh the need.
Agreed. The whole "backing in" thing, with all due respect to those who have posted explanations, is bunk, particularly the business about needing to be on a losing streak. That said, commentators do perpetuate it by saying it and mean only that you get into the playoffs because another team that would be in isn't in because they lose or because the tie-breaking formulas swing in your favor following week 17's games.
