Something has to change with these divisions

[Broncos6482]

WHEN you play a team matters. WHERE you play a team matters. So no, a list of similar teams doesn't equate to a shared schedule. Pretty much every serious NFL fan knows this.

But anyway, let's just move on. I got nothing personal against you -- we just disagree on this subject, no big deal.

I said it's a similar schedule. And while it isn't perfect, it's closer than two teams that may only play one or two games against the same opponent.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Screw it. Create 4 conferences instead of divisions because you are less likely to get a conference with 3 bad teams coming out of it versus a division.

NFL North / NFL South / NFL East / NFL West

You change the number of regular season games from 16 to 15. I know the NFL doesn't want to eliminate a full weeks worth of income, but since this is just hypothetical to create the most balanced league, who the F cares? Right? haha

You play everyone in your own conference every single year (7 games) then you play one other conference every 3rd year rotating home and away (8 games).

Top 3 teams in each conference get to go to the playoffs (12 total).

Top record in that conference gets a first week week in the playoffs, the #2 and #3 seed have to play in that "Wildcard Round". The winner of that will go on to play the #1 seed at the #1 seeds venue in the "Conference Championship". Their will be 4 winners total coming out here, and home field will be based on a brand new seeding as the team with the best record of those 4 teams during the regular season will play the team with the worst record at home. #2 would then play #3 regardless of conference at home. Winner of that goes on to play each other in a neutral site, top seed still being considered the home team.

NFL North
Cincinnati Bengals 10-2
Green Bay Packers 8 - 4
Minnesota Vikings 8 - 5
Buffalo Bills 6 - 6
Indianapolis Colts 6 - 6
Chicago Bears 5 - 7
Detroit Lions 4 - 8
Cleveland Browns 2 - 10

NFL South
Carolina Panthers 12 - 0
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 6 - 6
Atlanta Falcons 6 - 6
Houston Texans 6 - 6
Miami Dolphins 5 - 7
Jacksonville Jaguars 4 - 8
New Orleans Saints 4 - 8
Dallas Cowboys 4 - 8

NFL East
New England Patriots 10 - 2
New York Jets 7 - 5
Pittsburgh Steelers 7 - 5
Washington Redskins 5 - 7
Philadelphia Eagles 5 - 7
New York Giants 5 - 7
Baltimore Ravens 4 - 8
Tennessee Titans 3 - 9

NFL West
Arizona Cardinals 11 - 2
Denver Broncos 10 - 2
Seattle Seahawks 7 - 5
Kansas City Chiefs 7 - 5
Oakland Raiders 5 - 7
Los Angeles Rams 4 - 8
San Francisco 49ers 4 - 8
San Diego Chargers 3 - 9

We will say for now for example, the home teams win all the games, so not showing any favoritism.

NFL North
Vikings vs. Packers
Packers vs Bengals
Bengals

NFL South
Falcons vs. Buccaneers
Buccaneers vs. Panthers
Panthers

NFL East
Steelers vs. Jets
Jets vs. Patriots
Patriots

NFL West
Seahawks vs. Broncos
Broncos vs. Cardinals
Cardinals

Final 4
#1 Carolina Panthers
#2 Arizona Cardinals
#3 Cincinnati Bengals
#4 New England Patriots

New England Patriots vs. Carolina Panthers
Cincinnati Bengals vs. Arizona Cardinals

Arizona Cardinals vs. Carolina Panthers for the Superbowl

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Screw it. Create 4 conferences instead of divisions because you are less likely to get a conference with 3 bad teams coming out of it versus a division.

NFL North / NFL South / NFL East / NFL West

Bold, radical, but it can work as a skeleton to build from...I like a lot of it.

Continuing with your model...16 gms has to stay. I'm more inclined to get rid of the bye week. Top 3 from ea conf is fine, but there should be a top 32 ranking to handle seeding...if you are below top 12 and you're getting in on a top 3 conf qualifier you are the lowest seed and insert the normal tie breakers to cure tie records.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Bold, radical, but it can work as a skeleton to build from...I like a lot of it.

Continuing with your model...16 gms has to stay. I'm more inclined to get rid of the bye week. Top 3 from ea conf is fine, but there should be a top 32 ranking to handle seeding...if you are below top 12 and you're getting in on a top 3 conf qualifier you are the lowest seed and insert the normal tie breakers to cure tie records.

Well, you could get rid of 1 preseason game, and add one game to make it 17 games total.

You play everyone in your conference 1 time. (7 games)
You play everyone in another conference one time with rotation every 3 years. (8 games)
You play the equally slotted team from the year before in the other two conferences. (2 games)

So we will use my Bengals as an example here with them having to play the entire West conference first year.

They would then have to play the Carolina Panthers and New England Patriots the following year because they both finished 1st in their conferences.

Eliminates 1 preseason game that no one likes anyways, creates only 1 more regular season game and creates better match ups both geographically and competitiveness.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Well, you could get rid of 1 preseason game, and add one game to make it 17 games total.

You play everyone in your conference 1 time. (7 games)
You play everyone in another conference one time with rotation every 3 years. (8 games)
You play the equally slotted team from the year before in the other two conferences. (2 games)

So we will use my Bengals as an example here with them having to play the entire West conference first year.

They would then have to play the Carolina Panthers and New England Patriots the following year because they both finished 1st in their conferences.

Eliminates 1 preseason game that no one likes anyways, creates only 1 more regular season game and creates better match ups both geographically and competitiveness.

The natural boundary rivals would suffer from only playing once a year or perhaps in the playoffs. That's the biggest negative imo...by allowing 3 each conference you still invite a weak sister or two every season, but they won't be playing @ home.

 

[Manster7588]

I'm fine with the division winners getting a playoff spot but it is pretty silly that a 7-9 team gets home field over an 11-5 or 12-4 wild card team.

Were you saying this in 2010?

 

[CrashDavisSports]

The natural boundary rivals would suffer from only playing once a year or perhaps in the playoffs. That's the biggest negative imo...by allowing 3 each conference you still invite a weak sister or two every season, but they won't be playing @ home.

I kinda like the rivalries generated by the new conference alignment.

Miami vs. Jacksonville
Miami vs. Tampa Bay
Jacksonville vs. Tampa Bay
Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia
Dallas vs. Houston
All of California against each other
The J-E-T-S versus the G-Men
Baltimore vs. Washington

You still have a lot of classic rivalries:
Redskins vs. Giants
Giants vs. Eagles
Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh
Cincinnati vs. Cleveland
Packers vs. Bears
Packers vs. Vikings
Packers vs. Lions
Lions vs. Bears
Patriots vs. Jets
Broncos vs. Chiefs
Broncos vs. Raiders
Raiders vs. Chiefs
Cardinals vs. Seahawks

Revive new rivalries and old such as:

Seattle versus Denver

I don't know. It is nice to have that home and away game against a division rival like now, but then you really limit the number of ways to conduct the schedule.

You could always just eliminate divisions, conferences altogether and just take the 12 best teams in football and take them to the playoffs. Top 4 teams get a bye.

#1 Seed - BYE
#2 Seed - BYE
#3 Seed - BYE
#4 Seed - BYE
#12 Seed vs. #5 Seed
#11 Seed vs. #6 Seed
#10 Seed vs. #7 Seed
#9 Seed vs. #8 Seed

Next Round...

Lowest Ranked Seed remaining vs. #1 Seed
etc..

Problem is..how do you conduct the schedule? Maybe having the current system is good enough and you just deal with a stinker here or there making it in.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I kinda like the rivalries generated by the new conference alignment.

Maybe having the current system is good enough and you just deal with a stinker here or there making it in.

I think by the time you weigh all of the pros and cons, the current system is really a good system...where the NFL needs to improve the game is using technology to get the calls right on the field of play...human error has probably always been a factor officiating games, but today with HDTV and 60" screens the average joe at home can see when a call is good or bad.

In tennis they have a laser to determine is the ball is in or out if the player felt the official missed it...Not comparing games, IDK how often a player can do that in tennis, just noting the desire of the sport to get the correct call. The NFL can do more in that area.

 

[DutchBird]

Yeah but they shouldn't be so rewarded .. guaranteeing a playoff spot is enough, they shouldn't get home-field over a team with a superior record... NFL needs to change that... It doesn't matter whether you should beat them or not, home field is big deal in the game of football...

That is a completely BS argument.

Some teams had the benefit of perennially playing in horrendous divisions - most notably Indianapolis and New England. For years they already had a massive advantage over teams in strong divisions, where teams were all but guaranteed to beat each other up. FTR, the Eagles benefitted from this for a short while as well.

Scheduling plays a massive role as well in the outcome - have the AFC South and (last year) the NFC South scheduled was a whole lot easier than facing the NFC West and AFC North.

Your idea would only have merit if all teams played each other at least once - and the division home and away. Otherwise the influence of scheduling upon your play off seeding, which already is massive would become far too great.

O yeah, there is a good chance the division winner of the NFC East might end up with an 8-8 or 9-7 record.

 

[DutchBird]

I think by the time you weigh all of the pros and cons, the current system is really a good system...where the NFL needs to improve the game is using technology to get the calls right on the field of play...human error has probably always been a factor officiating games, but today with HDTV and 60" screens the average joe at home can see when a call is good or bad.

In tennis they have a laser to determine is the ball is in or out if the player felt the official missed it...Not comparing games, IDK how often a player can do that in tennis, just noting the desire of the sport to get the correct call. The NFL can do more in that area.

Two major things where technology could make for massive improvements:

- Ball tracking. The spotting of balls is absolutely atrocious. So is the determination whether a ball crossed the goal-line or not.

- Ball tracking could (in theory) even be used to change the catch rule, as it can be used to track acceleration of a football, to help determine whether a receiver controlled a ball or not.

- As soon as a play is reviewed, make the whole play reviewable (for instance for penalties). Nice example was yesterday, on the Bill's challenge on whether Cooper was down or not (Bills challenged correctly). Yet on the same play there was a facemask, but that was no part of the review.

- Make - in general - more penalties reviewable, for instance a lineman being illegally downfield. You could even make PI reviewable (as they have done in the CFL this season). The standards of what is reviewable or not is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Two major things where technology could make for massive improvements:

- Ball tracking. The spotting of balls is absolutely atrocious. So is the determination whether a ball crossed the goal-line or not.

- Ball tracking could (in theory) even be used to change the catch rule, as it can be used to track acceleration of a football, to help determine whether a receiver controlled a ball or not.

- As soon as a play is reviewed, make the whole play reviewable (for instance for penalties). Nice example was yesterday, on the Bill's challenge on whether Cooper was down or not (Bills challenged correctly). Yet on the same play there was a facemask, but that was no part of the review.

- Make - in general - more penalties reviewable, for instance a lineman being illegally downfield. You could even make PI reviewable (as they have done in the CFL this season). The standards of what is reviewable or not is absolutely ridiculous.

Agreed...in a game where inches can matter, using technology to spot where the ball was when the player is deemed down, makes too much sense.

I think like anything, the loudest squeaking wheel get greased 1st...Idt think the NFL thinks this a big deal yet, but they must start recognizing that fans care...a simple letter of an apology when they screw up has gotten old.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

That is a completely BS argument.

Some teams had the benefit of perennially playing in horrendous divisions - most notably Indianapolis and New England. For years they already had a massive advantage over teams in strong divisions, where teams were all but guaranteed to beat each other up. FTR, the Eagles benefitted from this for a short while as well.

Scheduling plays a massive role as well in the outcome - have the AFC South and (last year) the NFC South scheduled was a whole lot easier than facing the NFC West and AFC North.

Your idea would only have merit if all teams played each other at least once - and the division home and away. Otherwise the influence of scheduling upon your play off seeding, which already is massive would become far too great.

O yeah, there is a good chance the division winner of the NFC East might end up with an 8-8 or 9-7 record.

I disagree... It's a great argument... Playoff seedings should be based on record PERIOD... If your 7-9 you should not host a team that's 12-4 in the wildcard round... that's BS ... The team that's 7-9 only got into the playoffs because there division sucks ... We benefited from that in 2010 vs the Saints and I even said back then this is unfair for the Saints... you should have to EARN home-field advantage..

 

[WizardHawk]

I disagree... It's a great argument... Playoff seedings should be based on record PERIOD... If your 7-9 you should not host a team that's 12-4 in the wildcard round... that's BS ... The team that's 7-9 only got into the playoffs because there division sucks ... We benefited from that in 2010 vs the Saints and I even said back then this is unfair for the Saints... you should have to EARN home-field advantage..

Negative.

This argument has been made over and over and it's still wrong IMO.

Playing teams in the NFCW twice is NOT the same as playing the teams in the NFCE twice... This year. It wasn't that long ago that the NFCW was fucking garbage and a 7-9 Seattle team won it and was awarded a home game. Sure, they won that home game and yet ultimately didn't make it to the SB. So the system didn't reward an unworthy team with the win of their conference.

Things are setup about as fair as they can possibly be. Coming out second in a shit division with a higher record than a teams division winning record from a better one shouldn't be rewarded for their mediocrity.

The goal of the regular season is to win your division. Period. Just doing better than every other team in that division gives you one home game. That's it. The top two also get a bye week. That rewards the better division record winners. Top team gets guaranteed home throughout. A crap 7-9 team can't host more than one home game unless a wildcard makes it to the NFCCG against them and in that event they still deserve it.

Not only do you reward teams for winning their division, but you must punish teams for not winning it. Runners up should be penalized regardless of what the winners of other divisions had. You didn't win shit. Sit down and shut up and be thankful you got a seat at the table at all.

Seahawks are probably going to be the 5th seed and play whatever shit stain comes out of the east. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest that it will be a road game because we didn't do what we had to do to get a home game. Letting Arizona win the division means we simply don't deserve it. Period.

 

[WizardHawk]

Let me put it another way,

If you are an 11-5 wild card team forced to travel to a 7-9 division winner and you really are a much better team then just fucking prove it and win. You weren't good enough to beat your own division winner. So go out now and beat teams on the road to prove you deserve a shot at the conference championship game.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Negative.

This argument has been made over and over and it's still wrong IMO.

Playing teams in the NFCW twice is NOT the same as playing the teams in the NFCE twice... This year. It wasn't that long ago that the NFCW was fucking garbage and a 7-9 Seattle team won it and was awarded a home game. Sure, they won that home game and yet ultimately didn't make it to the SB. So the system didn't reward an unworthy team with the win of their conference.

Things are setup about as fair as they can possibly be. Coming out second in a shit division with a higher record than a teams division winning record from a better one shouldn't be rewarded for their mediocrity.

The goal of the regular season is to win your division. Period. Just doing better than every other team in that division gives you one home game. That's it. The top two also get a bye week. That rewards the better division record winners. Top team gets guaranteed home throughout. A crap 7-9 team can't host more than one home game unless a wildcard makes it to the NFCCG against them and in that event they still deserve it.

Not only do you reward teams for winning their division, but you must punish teams for not winning it. Runners up should be penalized regardless of what the winners of other divisions had. You didn't win shit. Sit down and shut up and be thankful you got a seat at the table at all.

Seahawks are probably going to be the 5th seed and play whatever shit stain comes out of the east. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest that it will be a road game because we didn't do what we had to do to get a home game. Letting Arizona win the division means we simply don't deserve it. Period.

I disagree... I feel your wrong and I stand by that... seeding should be by record, not simply because you won a shitty division ... I felt it was wrong then, I feel it's wrong now... NFL needs to change it, and I feel they will eventually..

 

[WizardHawk]

I disagree... I feel your wrong and I stand by that... seeding should be by record, not simply because you won a shitty division ... I felt it was wrong then, I feel it's wrong now... NFL needs to change it, and I feel they will eventually..

If they do they are breaking a system that works and is as balanced as it can be given the number of games they play. I think far more people agree with that than look at it your way.

You can't simply reseed based on wins given the entirely unbalanced schedules of those outside of the same division. Either you keep it as is, or you blow up the whole thing and entirely redo the schedules and not rely so much on double playing teams in your own division.

Teams that can't even win their own division shouldn't bitch about which seat at the table they end up with. Win your division if you want home games. It's just that simple.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Negative.

This argument has been made over and over and it's still wrong IMO.

Playing teams in the NFCW twice is NOT the same as playing the teams in the NFCE twice... This year. It wasn't that long ago that the NFCW was fucking garbage and a 7-9 Seattle team won it and was awarded a home game. Sure, they won that home game and yet ultimately didn't make it to the SB. So the system didn't reward an unworthy team with the win of their conference.

Things are setup about as fair as they can possibly be. Coming out second in a shit division with a higher record than a teams division winning record from a better one shouldn't be rewarded for their mediocrity.

The goal of the regular season is to win your division. Period. Just doing better than every other team in that division gives you one home game. That's it. The top two also get a bye week. That rewards the better division record winners. Top team gets guaranteed home throughout. A crap 7-9 team can't host more than one home game unless a wildcard makes it to the NFCCG against them and in that event they still deserve it.

Not only do you reward teams for winning their division, but you must punish teams for not winning it. Runners up should be penalized regardless of what the winners of other divisions had. You didn't win shit. Sit down and shut up and be thankful you got a seat at the table at all.

Seahawks are probably going to be the 5th seed and play whatever shit stain comes out of the east. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest that it will be a road game because we didn't do what we had to do to get a home game. Letting Arizona win the division means we simply don't deserve it. Period.

I disagree. The goal is to win the SB.
Why not award teams with the best record within the division? The Cowboys have the best record in their division right now. If it stays that way, they are technically the best in the division yet they will miss the playoffs because of a lesser record overall against different teams.

They should reseed based on record. The 7-9 division winner should still make the playoffs. They should just have to play the team with the better record in the road.

 

[WizardHawk]

I disagree. The goal is to win the SB.
Why not award teams with the best record within the division? The Cowboys have the best record in their division right now. If it stays that way, they are technically the best in the division yet they will miss the playoffs because of a lesser record overall against different teams.

They should reseed based on record. The 7-9 division winner should still make the playoffs. They should just have to play the team with the better record in the road.

Again, none of us are going to change either others mind. It's entirely a philosophical difference and everyone is fully entrenched in their views.

If you are going to make teams play 6 of their games against the same 3 teams and every other division in your conference plays an entirely different mix of other divisions, there is no way to compare a 10-6 runner up of a division to a 9-7 division winner. They are not on anything that resembles equal footing to compare. The one who won their division did better than the other 3 on a more equal footing. It's fair. It's entirely fair. And it's fair on every single level IMO.

And no, the ultimate goal is the SB, but every team will tell you their first goal all year is to win their division. And the reasons are obvious.

To me there is no argument that even comes close to putting a team that couldn't win their division above ANY team that did. Couldn't be more against that idea in any form. It would just be wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

If they do they are breaking a system that works and is as balanced as it can be given the number of games they play. I think far more people agree with that than look at it your way.

You can't simply reseed based on wins given the entirely unbalanced schedules of those outside of the same division. Either you keep it as is, or you blow up the whole thing and entirely redo the schedules and not rely so much on double playing teams in your own division.

Teams that can't even win their own division shouldn't bitch about which seat at the table they end up with. Win your division if you want home games. It's just that simple.

Were gonna disagree on this and that's ok .. I just feel if you win 13 games but still lose your division because another team wins 14 it's pretty unfair that a 13 win teams travels on the road to play a 7 win team simply because they won there weak division ... Even when we benefited from it back in 2010 I disagreed with it... We didn't deserve it ...