Myles
Well-Known Member
Vic is an idiot. You don't change a perfectly good system because of an exception.
Leave it the way it is.
Leave it the way it is.
I have no problem with the system. We'll talk the day a 7-9 or 8-8 team makes it into the Conference Championship game. #playdontturnthisintocollegefootball.
Because then what's the point of divisions if there's no perk to winning them?
And you may lose that division rival because you only see them once a year but what you lose in a division rival you gain in a conference rival because you know every top tier team will face off every single year. If you knew every single year we'd see the Chiefs vs Ravens play, the Ravens vs Texans, Chiefs vs Pats, Ravens vs Pats, etc that would create a huge rivalry because those always be great games as long as those teams are still who they currently are.
Plus the "oh X team is only good because they play in a weak division" argument goes out the window because everybody plays each other, if you're good you have to prove it and you can't just skate on by by playing 6 incredibly easy games every year because your division sucks(AFC East).
And you would never see KC V GB, Pats V Saints, Seattle V Ravens, etc outside of the SB. You turn the clock back to the time before the full merger when both leagues only played in their own pool until the SB and lose out on matchups from across the entire league on a guaranteed rotation.Because then what's the point of divisions if there's no perk to winning them?
And you may lose that division rival because you only see them once a year but what you lose in a division rival you gain in a conference rival because you know every top tier team will face off every single year. If you knew every single year we'd see the Chiefs vs Ravens play, the Ravens vs Texans, Chiefs vs Pats, Ravens vs Pats, etc that would create a huge rivalry because those always be great games as long as those teams are still who they currently are.
Plus the "oh X team is only good because they play in a weak division" argument goes out the window because everybody plays each other, if you're good you have to prove it and you can't just skate on by by playing 6 incredibly easy games every year because your division sucks(AFC East).
What about cases where a division has 2 horrible teams (Jets and Dolphins), so that there are 2 teams at the top with 10 and 11 wins. The you have a tough division that all 4 teams have 7+ wins and the division winner is 8-8, but has had a much tougher strength of schedule that the 10 win 2nd place team of the other division. That could be considered not fair to the 8-8 team. They fought a tough schedule and won their division. The other team fought an easy schedule and did not win their division.The perk in this case...winning your DIV with a .500 or worse record...you're in the dance.
I'm not saying it's all bad...some parts of it I would like....my primary point was addressing the home game beef for the .500 DIV winner.
What about cases where a division has 2 horrible teams (Jets and Dolphins), so that there are 2 teams at the top with 10 and 11 wins. The you have a tough division that all 4 teams have 7+ wins and the division winner is 8-8, but has had a much tougher strength of schedule that the 10 win 2nd place team of the other division. That could be considered not fair to the 8-8 team. They fought a tough schedule and won their division. The other team fought an easy schedule and did not win their division.
It could be, but maybe not.Those 2 teams at the top (or at least the Patriots) would be there with or without the Jets and Dolphins. I would argue that a division schedule full of 7 win teams is more mediocre than tough.
And you would never see KC V GB, Pats V Saints, Seattle V Ravens, etc outside of the SB. You turn the clock back to the time before the full merger when both leagues only played in their own pool until the SB and lose out on matchups from across the entire league on a guaranteed rotation.
1 random game a year across the other conference is not the same as every team at least once every 4 years. It's good for fans that live in cities other than where their team plays. It's good for fan travel to different cities to follow their team. It creates interesting matchups that no one can predict before the game happens. Pretty solid chance for your fans to see every star of the game matchup against your team while they are still a star.The way to counter that is every year have wherever you finished 1-16 in your conference you play your equivalent in the other conference. So if the Ravens finish #1 this year, then next year they play whoever finished #1 in the NFC.
That way you’re still having a great team play a great team since most teams don’t completely fall off in one year and you’re pretty much guaranteed a different matchup every year because it’s very rare that someone finishes in the exact same spot they did the year before on both sides.
What about cases where a division has 2 horrible teams (Jets and Dolphins), so that there are 2 teams at the top with 10 and 11 wins. The you have a tough division that all 4 teams have 7+ wins and the division winner is 8-8, but has had a much tougher strength of schedule that the 10 win 2nd place team of the other division. That could be considered not fair to the 8-8 team. They fought a tough schedule and won their division. The other team fought an easy schedule and did not win their division.
And the ODDs are high that 8-8 Team will be on the road in that game.
It could be, but maybe not.
If Miami and the Jets are 3-13 and the AFC East plays a poor AFC South and a poor NFC West, it could mean a drastically easier schedule for the Pats and Bills (in this case). I just think there can be exceptions either way, no need to blow up what most consider a good system for exceptions.
I was really just picking divisions out of thin air, except for maybe the AFC East since it has been poor (outside of New England) for decades. My favorite team, the Colts, had an advantage for many years by being able to play 6 games against the Jag, Texans and Titans. I cannot deny that. Each season would have been 1-2 less wins if they were in a better division.Poor NFC West? Seriously?
I agree that the current system is fine though.
Broncos coach Vic Fangio believes NFL should get rid of divisions altogether, suggests new playoff format.
Instead of getting rid of divisions I wonder if the NFL ever considered a different divisional format.
North (8)--BAL, CHI, CIN, CLE, DET, GB, MIN, PIT
South (8)--ATL, DAL, HOU, JAX, MIA, NO, TB, TEN
East (8)--BUF, CAR, IND, NE, NYG, NYJ, PHI, WAS
West (8)--ARZ, DEN, KC, LAC, LAR, OAK, SEA, SF
Especially if they were to expand to an 18-game season. Keep in mind, I'm not a proponent of that, but if that did get passed it would be interesting. You would play your division opponents twice (14 games) and could play half the teams in the other division once (4 games). Not sure how the conferences would be determined. It'd make sense to do East and North in one conference and South and West in the other I suppose. Personally, I'm for going back to 6 divisions (6-5-5 in each conference). Then, you'd have the two division winners and four best records (or 5 eventually) and seed them 1-6 by W-L record.
(1)BAL (12-2)*
(2)NE (11-3)*
(3)KC (10-4)*
(4)BUF (10-4)
(5)HOU (9-5)*
(6)PIT (8-6)
(1)SEA (11-3)*
(2)SF (11-3)
(3)GB (11-3)*
(4)NO (11-3)*
(5)MIN (10-4)
(6)DAL (7-7)*
*division leader
Me likey.
This would be the simple fix.
I like it only I would swap Baltimore and Indianapolis. Baltimore is a East Coast team so the east makes more sense.
That makes a lot of sense. I totally agree. I left BAL in the North so they wouldn't lose PIT. It would be kick ass to see BAL and WAS square off twice a year, however. I know the Redskins suck right now, but it'd make for a nice, natural geographic rivalry.I like it only I would swap Baltimore and Indianapolis. Baltimore is a East Coast team so the east makes more sense.