The NFL should get rid of divisions

[clyde_carbon]

I dont have a problem with the division, my problem is why cause your won a division does that make you rank in position higher? win the division and you are in the playoffs, but seeding should be based soley on your record. The 12-4 team is #3 and the 9-7 team is #6. Seems completely fair.

So you don't have a problem with the divisions, but you have a problem with how divisions dictate playoff seeding?

Oh, wait. I think that's what my thread is about.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

I had a more thorough response ready to send a week ago or so, but my computer ate it lol.

Clyde, I think you have a valid point with the seeding itself. But I think your system is sacrificing the meaning and importance behind the rivalries for the sake of sending a THIRD wildcard team into the playoffs. Yes, I know you've mentioned that your system would still allow for 6 "divisional games" to preserve those rivalries, but I find them substantially less significant if they aren't playing for SOMETHING other than their rivalry.

In short, I think you're sacrificing something relatively big (rivalries) for something relatively small (sending in what would be a 3rd wildcard team into the playoffs). Not worth it in my opinion. Of course, in my opinion, it's not absolutely imperative that the 12 best teams make it into the playoffs, which we disagree on already.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I had a more thorough response ready to send a week ago or so, but my computer ate it lol.

Clyde, I think you have a valid point with the seeding itself. But I think your system is sacrificing the meaning and importance behind the rivalries for the sake of sending a THIRD wildcard team into the playoffs. Yes, I know you've mentioned that your system would still allow for 6 "divisional games" to preserve those rivalries, but I find them substantially less significant if they aren't playing for SOMETHING other than their rivalry.

In short, I think you're sacrificing something relatively big (rivalries) for something relatively small (sending in what would be a 3rd wildcard team into the playoffs). Not worth it in my opinion. Of course, in my opinion, it's not absolutely imperative that the 12 best teams make it into the playoffs, which we disagree on already.

See, this is what I'm talking about.

1. I never said I want to send a THIRD wildcard team into the playoffs. In fact, I'm against expanding (and in fact watering down) the playoffs.

2. I want the 6 best teams from each conference to be able to play in the postseason, regardless of where they placed in their division. I don't want teams to be punished for playing in a strong division, and teams to be rewarded for playing in a weak one.

3. Furthermore, divisions should NOT dictate seeding. The 49ers should NOT have to go to Dallas or Philly to play a playoff game when we're clearly the better team. The KC Chiefs should not be the 5th seed when they have the 2nd best record in the AFC, and so on.

4. I don't think you need strict divisional alignments to have rivalries. The 49ers developed rivalries with the Cowboys and Packers in the 80s/90s and neither team was in our division. THAT SAID, if people feel that strongly about current rivalries, then you can keep your divisions and use them strictly for scheduling purposes. Allow playoff seeding to take place under a different system.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

See, this is what I'm talking about.

1. I never said I want to send a THIRD wildcard team into the playoffs. In fact, I'm against expanding (and in fact watering down) the playoffs.

2. I want the 6 best teams from each conference to be able to play in the postseason, regardless of where they placed in their division. I don't want teams to be punished for playing in a strong division, and teams to be rewarded for playing in a weak one.

3. Furthermore, divisions should NOT dictate seeding. The 49ers should NOT have to go to Dallas or Philly to play a playoff game when we're clearly the better team. The KC Chiefs should not be the 5th seed when they have the 2nd best record in the AFC, and so on.

4. I don't think you need strict divisional alignments to have rivalries. The 49ers developed rivalries with the Cowboys and Packers in the 80s/90s and neither team was in our division. THAT SAID, if people feel that strongly about current rivalries, then you can keep your divisions and use them strictly for scheduling purposes. Allow playoff seeding to take place under a different system.

1. I'm not saying anything about expanding the playoffs to more teams. I'm saying that in place of sending a weak division leader that didn't earn it's way in, you'd be sending, what would currently be considered a 3rd wild card team. When a team just barely gets screwed out of the playoffs despite having a better record, that team would be the 3rd wildcard team, having lost both the division and to the other 2 wildcard teams.

2. Suppose a very good team in a very difficult conference ends up with a very difficult schedule done by "alphabetical order" like you jokingly mentioned earlier. Let's say they end up winning their "division" with a 9-7 record after playing against mostly playoff-caliber teams. Suppose a mediocre team in a mediocre conference ends up 4th in it's "division" but plays against the other worst teams in the league and coasts through at a 10-6 record. Which team was better? In my opinion, the first team was despite its record. According to the divisional system, this team makes it in and according to your system, the 10-6 team makes it in. According to your system, the Strength of Schedule is not considered at all. In our current system, it's not perfect, but this is at least addressed by comparing this 9-7 team to the other teams in its division with similar opponents and a similar SOS.

3. Not sure why you're bring up this point. I agreed with you on it...

4. I haven't argued that rivalries are exclusive to divisions. Only that if you water down the implication of what they are playing for in those divisions, it will ultimately water down those rivalries.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

Why do people keep thinking that only division create the rivalries? There will be plenty more rivalries if every team doesn't have to fall back on winning there division. We have played the packers the last 2 years in the playoffs I believe we have slowly created a rivalry with them. Even the damn giants and falcons we have sort of created a rivalry with.

Playoffs IMO create the best rivalries.

Nobody had still answered my question on why is it okay we reward crappier teams and punish the better ones? For exp: rewarding any one of Dallas, Chicago, Green Bay, and philly and punishing arizona? Id love to hear a great answer as to how that shit can be acceptable?

 

[erckm510]

Why do people keep thinking that only division create the rivalries? There will be plenty more rivalries if every team doesn't have to fall back on winning there division. We have played the packers the last 2 years in the playoffs I believe we have slowly created a rivalry with them. Even the damn giants and falcons we have sort of created a rivalry with.

Playoffs IMO create the best rivalries.

Nobody had still answered my question on why is it okay we reward crappier teams and punish the better ones? For exp: rewarding any one of Dallas, Chicago, Green Bay, and philly and punishing arizona? Id love to hear a great answer as to how that shit can be acceptable?

Playoffs make the best rivalries because the stakes are much bigger. Divisions create those rivalries on a smaller scale.

I don't think there would be more rivalries if there weren't divisions. The Niners and Bucs(or mostly any other team) would have a rivalry if they were both good at the same time and met in the playoffs but that rivalry would disappear quickly if either of those teams sucked. But for the fans the division rivalries are what would count more. There's more hatred and passion when a good Niners team plays a good Seahawks/Cards/Rams team then if they play the Packers or Saints.

Nobody is answering your question because there's no good answer for you. It's just the system the NFL has and all the teams have accepted. There's no simple fix for it either. Changing a few things would create problems elsewhere.

 

[SY8goat]

Why do people keep thinking that only division create the rivalries? There will be plenty more rivalries if every team doesn't have to fall back on winning there division. We have played the packers the last 2 years in the playoffs I believe we have slowly created a rivalry with them. Even the damn giants and falcons we have sort of created a rivalry with.

Playoffs IMO create the best rivalries.

Nobody had still answered my question on why is it okay we reward crappier teams and punish the better ones? For exp: rewarding any one of Dallas, Chicago, Green Bay, and philly and punishing arizona? Id love to hear a great answer as to how that shit can be acceptable?

Why?

Because I'm a NFL owner of a mediocre team and come mid-November I want my fan base to still be interested in my shitty team.

The NFL is a business. They will stick to a system that generates the most amount of revenue for all 32 teams and I'd say this current system is doing pretty well of generating revenue.

What if the 49ers were eliminated from playoff contention by mid season? Would any of you still watch?

Without divisions, this game, St. Louis Rams vs. Seattle Seahawks - Recap - January 02, 2011 - ESPN would not have been a prime time game.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

Playoffs make the best rivalries because the stakes are much bigger. Divisions create those rivalries on a smaller scale.

I don't think there would be more rivalries if there weren't divisions. The Niners and Bucs(or mostly any other team) would have a rivalry if they were both good at the same time and met in the playoffs but that rivalry would disappear quickly if either of those teams sucked. But for the fans the division rivalries are what would count more. There's more hatred and passion when a good Niners team plays a good Seahawks/Cards/Rams team then if they play the Packers or Saints.

Nobody is answering your question because there's no good answer for you. It's just the system the NFL has and all the teams have accepted. There's no simple fix for it either. Changing a few things would create problems elsewhere.

Why?

Because I'm a NFL owner of a mediocre team and come mid-November I want my fan base to still be interested in my shitty team.

The NFL is a business. They will stick to a system that generates the most amount of revenue for all 32 teams and I'd say this current system is doing pretty well of generating revenue.

What if the 49ers were eliminated from playoff contention by mid season? Would any of you still watch?

Without divisions, this game, St. Louis Rams vs. Seattle Seahawks - Recap - January 02, 2011 - ESPN would not have been a prime time game.

Nobody could answer it with a good reason. Why is this acceptable. Oh just cuz it's the way it has been? Horrible reasoning. Not acceptable.

 

[JDM]

Because it is the best system any league has ever done. It is the picture of perfection.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Let's go BCS system, guise. It's been very successful in the minors. Rivalries create themselves, history be damned. Divisions should be tossed out in favor of the 6 best records from each conference. That will be a HUGE money making mechanism and all owners will be in favor of said system.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

Because it is the best system any league has ever done. It is the picture of perfection.

Right cuz you can compare 16 games to 82 or 162.....

8-8 is always better than 10-6. Lmao right right

 

[RoboticDreams]

All you've been posting for the last 5 pages are gifs and pictures. Your hypersensitivity has really manifested itself after being called out for not actually reading the thread.

If that's all you're good for, carry on son.

Fair enough. Tomorrow I will go through the entire thread and make sure I have complete understanding of your idea, of a better way to do it.

 

[SY8goat]

Nobody could answer it with a good reason. Why is this acceptable. Oh just cuz it's the way it has been? Horrible reasoning. Not acceptable.

It is unacceptable for a business to make $$$ and maximize profits. Great logic.

I wonder what thetv ratings were for the NFC East and NFC North Division Championship games? Those 2 games would have been meaningless without divisions.

I'd like to see the top six teams with the best records make the playoffs, but it will never happen, unless it leads to more $$$$$$.

 

[joshuar56]

I really think they should go to 2 divisions per conference. Both division winners get the bye, the 4 best teams after that are your wild card teams.

 

[RoboticDreams]

So far I haven't seen one acceptable change. The system isn't perfect and can be tweaked. To surmise that it's a failure is shortsighted. Two conferences and two divisions? The NFL is about making money. It's not about appeasing distraught fans. If an 8-8 team is a division winner is the worst thing that happens, they'll easily accept that.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

It is unacceptable for a business to make $$$ and maximize profits. Great logic.

I wonder what thetv ratings were for the NFC East and NFC North Division Championship games? Those 2 games would have been meaningless without divisions.

I'd like to see the top six teams with the best records make the playoffs, but it will never happen, unless it leads to more $$$$$$.

So you want the nfl to make money and could care less at all that the better teams are sitting at home instead of being in the playoffs? Do you work for the nfl? Wtf are these logics? The nfl will make money regardless they are and will always be the best sport out there.

Yet we still punish better teams and reward the shittier ones. Cardinals played in the toughest division and are getting punished cuz they didn't win there division. Yet the 8-7-1 packers are in because of there shitty division.

Yet this is ok with everyone? Lol let's throw all logic out the window that an 8-7-1 record is better than 10-6. Right right. It's acceptable because this is the way it has always been right? Lol give me a break.

 

[SY8goat]

I really think they should go to 2 divisions per conference. Both division winners get the bye, the 4 best teams after that are your wild card teams.

I think they'll end up expanding the number of playoff teams. The NFL has been talking about lengthening the season, right? Well adding additional playoff games is one way of doing it. This would increase the total # of NFL games in season. Probably even side steps the CBA.

Of course more games = more revenue (which is the only thing that matters)

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

So far I haven't seen one acceptable change. The system isn't perfect and can be tweaked. To surmise that it's a failure is shortsighted. Two conferences and two divisions? The NFL is about making money. It's not about appeasing distraught fans. If an 8-8 team is a division winner is the worst thing that happens, they'll easily accept that.

You must be another one that works for the nfl cuz you want it to make money. Yet you agree it's not perfect. Well why the hell is it not perfect? Why do we reward Shittier teams and punish better teams?

That's unacceptable. The nfl will make money regardless.

A tema is 10-6 sitting at home and a 8-7-1 team is not. Lol gtfo

 

[BoBlake]

So you want the nfl to make money and could care less at all that the better teams are sitting at home instead of being in the playoffs? Do you work for the nfl? Wtf are these logics? The nfl will make money regardless they are and will always be the best sport out there.

Yet we still punish better teams and reward the shittier ones. Cardinals played in the toughest division and are getting punished cuz they didn't win there division. Yet the 8-7-1 packers are in because of there shitty division.

Yet this is ok with everyone? Lol let's throw all logic out the window that an 8-7-1 record is better than 10-6. Right right. It's acceptable because this is the way it has always been right? Lol give me a break.

I wonder if AZ fans were pissed when their 9-7 team went to the Super Bowl and the 11-5 Patriots sat at home watching the playoffs.

 

[RoboticDreams]

You must be another one that works for the nfl cuz you want it to make money. Yet you agree it's not perfect. Well why the hell is it not perfect? Why do we reward Shittier teams and punish better teams?

That's unacceptable. The nfl will make money regardless.

A tema is 10-6 sitting at home and a 8-7-1 team is not. Lol gtfo

Dude, I'm using realism to support opinion. Sure, we can come up with a perfect system so that all deserved teams make the playoffs. The problem is it's unreasonable. This league is built around making money. That being said, we have to devise a plan that still allows maximum profits and still makes us happy. If you want me to be unrealistic, then sure I'm all for a top 6 team schematic, that only awards the top 6 records in a given conference.

What difference does that make? It's not going to happen.