Question on NFL's Future Schedules

[MHSL82]

Everyone knows that the NFL is a business and they will make decisions that affect football for the almighty dollar.

I was wondering if you think in 40-50 years, if the NFL hasn't collapsed yet, if they will do away with divisions as teams move, possible expansion, etc.? The best 6 from each conference go, under this scenario.

I understand the football importance of divisional rivalries and the pros for division crowns, etc., but I could also see the NFL maybe making bigger ratings games if they focused more on either parity (previous year's record-based) or just big names or team rivalries.

Rivalries, over time, would develop without divisions. Fewer teams would share the same distaste for two common foes, but they'd still exist. You could still schedule the Dallas-Washington games if you'd like. As long as each team had three rivalries somewhere in the league, it would exist - assuming the same teams aren't picked on by everyone. Jaguars, Miami, and Tampa Bay could have their own rivalry, without the divisions, as they already are in different divisions.

Everyone is playing for something, unless they are out of that Top 6 contention. Division champions as they currently are help keep teams in weak divisions fighting, but there still are 12-15 teams that are just out of the running either way. You'd be trading a 5-7 team fighting to win a weak division for a 8-4 team who is second in their strong division fighting to get the top 6 of the conference.

As teams move and expand, making divisions less geographically based, there are less financial reasons to have divisions (you'd like a market from all corners of the country). So keeping them together makes less sense.

 

[MHSL82]

BTW, I'm against removing them and would have to be convinced for changing them, I just thought about it.

 

[JDM]

You make valid points but I would be strongly against removing them. Occasional reworking them is ok if rivalries are considered, but divisions allow teams to focus on a few rivals and force the good teams to have a few lesser teams built to knock them out. For example, the Jets may not be a great team, but their defense was built on stopping the pats, and it worked fairly well until Revis got hurt.

Super Bowl contenders need to be built to handle 3 teams built to exploit their weaknesses, plus other playoff contenders built differently. It brings much more balance that way than two conferences ever could.

 

[MHSL82]

You make valid points but I would be strongly against removing them. Occasional reworking them is ok if rivalries are considered, but divisions allow teams to focus on a few rivals and force the good teams to have a few lesser teams built to knock them out. For example, the Jets may not be a great team, but their defense was built on stopping the pats, and it worked fairly well until Revis got hurt.

Super Bowl contenders need to be built to handle 3 teams built to exploit their weaknesses, plus other playoff contenders built differently. It brings much more balance that way than two conferences ever could.

Great points. I agree with you in that I would not want them to remove the divisions. I guess my question was more cynical in wondering if the NFL would ever find a financial reason to do this, though there would be some negatives financially, too. I listed the reasons above to illustrate why I think in a few decades, they might change it, but those aren't real reasons why they should.