The NFL should get rid of divisions

[Kinzu]

I don't mind the divisions so much, but I hate how they determine divisions winners. The division winner should be the team that wins the most games in their division. The NFL likes to use overall record though which makes no sense since every team in the division does not play the same out of division schedule. Division record should determine the winner and overall should determine seed and Wild Card in my opinion.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

I don't mind the divisions so much, but I hate how they determine divisions winners. The division winner should be the team that wins the most games in their division. The NFL likes to use overall record though which makes no sense since every team in the division does not play the same out of division schedule. Division record should determine the winner and overall should determine seed and Wild Card in my opinion.

But what if a team still has a losing record overall? IIRC, 4-5 years ago SF went 6-0 against NFC West opponents but still finished 7-9. By your system SF would make the playoffs, and that doesn't sit well with me.

 

[purguy12]

No way very bad idea. One of the worst ideas ever. Sorry I like having to play seattle 2 times a year.

 

[TheDman875]

So what's the scheduling like? Play each team in your conference once is only 15 games. And alternate home/away games with each team every year? Seems college-like. What other fair scheduling options are there if there were just 2 conferences?

This is an interesting thread topic.

One game against every NFC team. Last game of the season do a conference position round week...1 vs 2, 3 vs 4 and so on which could add more suspense or drama heading in to the post season. All teams get their bye at the midway point after week 8? Rough idea, but there would be a lot of great games in week 17.

The only obvious problem would be evening out the 8 home and away games which would be a problem unless they expanded 2 more teams and just have a flat 16 game conference schedule, but it would stop the shafting of 10-6 teams not making the playoffs over a 7-9 or 8-8 team.

It would bring a mystery aspect in to the fold with plenty of ongoing AFC / NFC strength discussions like the AL and NL before interleague play was incorporated in to baseball. Makes for fun football discussions from a fan standpoint.

 

[apachef4]

The schedule could be any way they want it. No one said you have to play every team in your conference, or that you can't have inter-conference play. Stop trying to make more difficult that it actually is.

The problem is it kinda has to be that difficult. What you are proposing is to make the system that awards teams with a playoff spot more "fair". However, if you don't set the schedule to play each of the other teams in the conference in an equal way, you are making it just as unfair. If I'm judged against another team and play a completely different schedule than them, WHO I play is going to be incredibly important.

The current division system is designed to combat that unfairness. It groups teams (albeit somewhat haphazardly with regards to geography) that play a very similar schedule (2 games are different for each team), and decides a winner between them. The wild-cards still have that same unequal schedule problem, but at some point you just can't escape that with only 16 games in a season.

Overall, I understand the problem you have with it...it seems a bit unfair. I just don't think there is anything that is any less unfair unless you go to a "play against every team in your conference once" system, but that just doesn't seem like as much fun.

 

[purguy12]

Leave it the way it is. This is the best they have. Football is great the way it is with its scheduling. That is why we have no teams in the playoffs every year. Look at KC this year. Or a team like Carolina. This is what makes football so great. Its not the same teams every year.


Every year at the start of a season Fans can say why not us.

 

[erckm510]

The schedule could be any way they want it. No one said you have to play every team in your conference, or that you can't have inter-conference play. Stop trying to make more difficult that it actually is.

The point is it is difficult. The schedule can't be any way they want it. It has to make sense and has to be fair. So you make a thread to say no divisions but no ideas on how to implement that plan.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

There's just no need for them other than to preserve some of the long-standing rivalries (and there are other ways to do that) Because of divisions, we're gonna see a couple of teams more deserving of a playoff spot miss that tournament b/c a team from the NFCE "has" to get in. It really just doesn't make any sense, and it's a system that is NOT putting the absolute best teams possible in the post-season.

How about keep the divisions but don't make winning the division the difference between home field or not… It's kinda ridiculous when a 13-3 team that loses a division should be on the road playing a 8-8 team because they won there division…. NFL should be addressing this… Home field advantage and making the playoffs should always be about the record ….

 

[Kinzu]

But what if a team still has a losing record overall? IIRC, 4-5 years ago SF went 6-0 against NFC West opponents but still finished 7-9. By your system SF would make the playoffs, and that doesn't sit well with me.

That's fine though to me. If you win your division you deserve to be in the playoffs as your divisions representative. At 7-9 though we would have been seeded dead last. If a Wild Card had a better overall record they should have been seeded above us. The NFL could also just expand the playoff pool by 4 teams. The bottom 4 play in the opening round the winners move on to play the #3 and #4 seed and so on. This puts half the NFL in the playoffs every year. You get the 4 division wins based on wins in division, and then the 4 best teams to not win their division. If anyone gets left out after that then oh well they didn't deserve it.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

How about keep the divisions but don't make winning the division the difference between home field or not… It's kinda ridiculous when a 13-3 team that loses a division should be on the road playing a 8-8 team because they won there division…. NFL should be addressing this… Home field advantage and making the playoffs should always be about the record ….

 

[Xponentialchaos]

I completely disagree with taking out divisions.

I think it's great that the division system creates most of the long-standing rivalries. Even in years where both rivals are not competitive, you'll see some of the best football entirely because of that long-standing tradition of hating each other and competing against them. While each game is meaningful in an NFL season, those division games mean just a little bit more. Taking out the division system would, in my opinion, water down the rivalries over time because they wouldn't be in direct competition like they are now.

While it's true that the best teams don't always make the postseason, I'd rather preserve that element of division rivals instead of keeping what would essentially be the 3rd wildcard team in a conference.

 

[clyde_carbon]

The point is it is difficult. The schedule can't be any way they want it. It has to make sense and has to be fair. So you make a thread to say no divisions but no ideas on how to implement that plan.

If you think divisions are what makes scheduling make sense, then you're just flat-out wrong. Honestly, the only reason the NFL is keeping division is JUST to preserve long running rivalries.

 

[clyde_carbon]

How about keep the divisions but don't make winning the division the difference between home field or not… It's kinda ridiculous when a 13-3 team that loses a division should be on the road playing a 8-8 team because they won there division…. NFL should be addressing this… Home field advantage and making the playoffs should always be about the record ….

Well, that's exactly my point. But then, what would be the point in winning your division? Just take divisions out completely.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I completely disagree with taking out divisions.

I think it's great that the division system creates most of the long-standing rivalries. Even in years where both rivals are not competitive, you'll see some of the best football entirely because of that long-standing tradition of hating each other and competing against them. While each game is meaningful in an NFL season, those division games mean just a little bit more. Taking out the division system would, in my opinion, water down the rivalries over time because they wouldn't be in direct competition like they are now.

While it's true that the best teams don't always make the postseason, I'd rather preserve that element of division rivals instead of keeping what would essentially be the 3rd wildcard team in a conference.

If the only reason you're keeping divisions is just to maintain the long standing rivalries, then it's an absolutely horrible reason and it undermines the entire process of actually have the 6 best teams from every conference make the playoffs.

Assign teams 6 games in which they play their rivals (3 teams, twice a year) and the rest of the schedule could be a rotation based on the alphabet for all I fucking care.

 

[Kinzu]

Well, that's exactly my point. But then, what would be the point in winning your division? Just take divisions out completely.

The point of winning your division is to get in the playoffs. Once in though seeding should be based on record.

 

[clyde_carbon]

The point of winning your division is to get in the playoffs. Once in though seeding should be based on record.

Really? So if we take out the divisions, why can't the top 6 teams, RECORD WISE, get into the playoffs? Why does there HAVE to be divisions?

 

[RoboticDreams]

There's just no need for them other than to preserve some of the long-standing rivalries (and there are other ways to do that) Because of divisions, we're gonna see a couple of teams more deserving of a playoff spot miss that tournament b/c a team from the NFCE "has" to get in. It really just doesn't make any sense, and it's a system that is NOT putting the absolute best teams possible in the post-season.

I'm sorry but, no. The league needs divisions. The 8-8 or 7-9 divison winner, rarely happen. The rivalries are what make the money, other than individual players. Networks pay money for these rivalry type games. The don't pay money to see us play Jacksonville, but they do to see us play Seattle.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I'm sorry but, no. The league needs divisions. The 8-8 or 7-9 divison winner, rarely happen. The rivalries are what make the money, other than individual players. Networks pay money for these rivalry type games. The don't pay money to see us play Jacksonville, but they do to see us play Seattle.

For God sakes, you can still have you damn rivalries WITHOUT the divisional alignment. Stop being so fucking dense.

 

[yossarian]

In the NBA don't they have the division winners take the top spots, but after the first round the playoffs get reseeded, so the top record gets the home game? Whether it's true or not in the NBA they could do that in the NFL. The division winners get the top seeds, but after the first round it depends on the record, so if we wind up 12-4, play Philly in the first round, then advance but we have a better record than New Orleans, we get them at Candlestick.

 

[RoboticDreams]

For God sakes, you can still have you damn rivalries WITHOUT the divisional alignment. Stop being so fucking dense.

This is a stupid thread, period. If your idea was at all relevant, it would be changed at the NFL level. As I said, the .500 division winner rarely happens. By the way, you are one of the worst mods here. You routinely cuss out your members and act like a dick. Do you understand what moderate means? Maybe you need to calm down and be a little more even with your responses. Toby deserved to be banned but I've done nothing to merit this bullshit from you. I am simply debating you. Relax, dude.