The NFL should get rid of divisions

[erckm510]

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.

Ok I'm wrong and yet you say nothing to prove that you're right. Please show me where I said that I think that the schedules making sense are based on divisions. I'm asking how the schedule makes sense if there's only 2 conferences. But since all you want is no divisions with no idea on how that can be done and rip everyone who has a comment on defending divisions this is a pointless thread.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Ok I'm wrong and yet you say nothing to prove that you're right. Please show me where I said that I think that the schedules making sense are based on divisions. I'm asking how the schedule makes sense if there's only 2 conferences. But since all you want is no divisions with no idea on how that can be done and rip everyone who has a comment on defending divisions this is a pointless thread.

Because the NFL would be able to create it rotation it likes for the schedules. It doesn't HAVE to be based on divisional alignments that don't even make sense in the first place.

 

[clyde_carbon]

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.

You're in favor of divisions just because of rivalries. That is enough to warrant a comical response. Let me ask you this - you think it's impossible for the NFL is maintain the current rivalries without the divisions?

 

[clyde_carbon]

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.

The NBA is on its way to remove divisions itself. They are starting to recognize that it's just a stupid, nonsensical way of categorizing teams.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...irius-xm-radio-conferences-divisions/3926529/

 

[RoboticDreams]

You're in favor of divisions just because of rivalries. That is enough to warrant a comical response. Let me ask you this - you think it's impossible for the NFL is maintain the current rivalries without the divisions?

Of course they can schedule "rivalry" games. That's not that difficult to comprehend. The problem is this: let's say a "rivalry game" becomes one sided, over a few years. They would then ditch that rivalry for another perceived rivalry. It has no history, it becomes irrelevant. They need the history of rivalries. The owners are trying to make a fast buck, they don't want to wait on a so called "rivalry" to be relevant again.

It's about money.

 

[yossarian]

Call me old fashioned, but I like rivalries, and I think the way to fix is it is to reseed the playoffs after the first round. That being said, our biggest rivals in the 80s and 90s were not teams in our division, they were the Packers, Cowboys, etc., they were the teams we were facing every year in the playoffs.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Of course they can schedule "rivalry" games. That's not that difficult to comprehend. The problem is this: let's say a "rivalry game" becomes one sided, over a few years. They would then ditch that rivalry for another perceived rivalry. It has no history, it becomes irrelevant. They need the history of rivalries. The owners are trying to make a fast buck, they don't want to wait on a so called "rivalry" to be relevant again.

It's about money.

Most rivalries right now are either one sided, or ridiculous NFL-made rivalries that have absolutely no actual bearing on football. Look at the NFCE. All rivalries. All horrible teams, and horrible games. It means jack shit, and if that's the only reason you wanna keep divisions and NOT let the 6 best teams in the playoffs and seed them according to THAT order, then fuck your rivalries, NFL.

Rivalries are all media driven in the first place. Bears-Packers is a decades long rivalry, but do you think it's even remotely as intense as the 49ers-Seahawks rivalry? No, it's not, because at the end of the day, history means nothing.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Call me old fashioned, but I like rivalries, and I think the way to fix is it is to reseed the playoffs after the first round. That being said, our biggest rivals in the 80s and 90s were not teams in our division, they were the Packers, Cowboys, etc., they were the teams we were facing every year in the playoffs.

Then keep your rivalries. Make the 49ers play the Rams/Seahawks/Cardinals twice a year. The rest of the schedule is a rotation with the rest of the NFC/AFC based on a pre-determined schedule. They don't need to label of NFCW or NFCE or whatever on them.

Or if you wanna keep your divisions THAT bad, have them hold no bearing on the playoffs. Put in the 6 best teams regardless of divisional placement.

There is so many ways around it.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Most rivalries right now are either one sided, or ridiculous NFL-made rivalries that have absolutely no actual bearing on football. Look at the NFCE. All rivalries. All horrible teams, and horrible games. It means jack shit, and if that's the only reason you wanna keep divisions and NOT let the 6 best teams in the playoffs and seed them according to THAT order, then fuck your rivalries, NFL.

Rivalries are all media driven in the first place. Bears-Packers is a decades long rivalry, but do you think it's even remotely as intense as the 49ers-Seahawks rivalry? No, it's not, because at the end of the day, history means nothing.

So what is your league model? I'm not going through the entire thread. Are you suggesting that the top 6 records make the playoffs? So when the last two teams are tied by 6 teams you suggest division and conference records are the divider? What if those are equal? Now you go off points scored or points given up?

 

[Kinzu]

So what is your league model? I'm not going through the entire thread. Are you suggesting that the top 6 records make the playoffs? So when the last two teams are tied by 6 teams you suggest division and conference records are the divider? What if those are equal? Now you go off points scored or points given up?

This is why I feel the division winner should be the team that actually won the most games against their division. That gives you 4 playoff teams that were the best team among the teams that played the same schedule. You then have either 2 or 4 Wild Card teams based on overall record to balance out some divisions being weaker than others.

The problem with the system currently used is they are trying to determine the division winners despite teams in the division not playing similar schedules. If one team goes 12-4 mostly playing sub .500 teams and has a 4-2 division record are they really better than the 10-6 team that played half their schedule against plus .500 teams and had a 6-0 division record? According to the NFL right now they are.

 

[sjballer03]

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.

Don't mean to divert the topic but this guy always throws a tantrum when people don't agree with him. His one saving grace is banning TT. Just for that, he gets a lifelong exemption in my book

 

[RoboticDreams]

Don't mean to divert the topic but this guy always throws a tantrum when people don't agree with him. His one saving grace is banning TT. Just for that, he gets a lifelong exemption in my book

He needs to settle down. I'm a good poster. I generally post on the water cooler threads but come here on a regular basis. I don't need his bs, clique-ish, nonsense. If you disagree with me then present an argument. Don't try to degrade someone because they don't agree with you. That's juvenile.

 

[Toolrulzz]

The Niners may very well finish 12-4 and have to go to Lambeau to face the 9-6-1 Packers in the first round. A team they already beat. Does Green Bay deserve a home game for being lucky enough to be in a crappy division? No, but that's the way things are currently set up and it doesn't make any sense.

 

[RoboticDreams]

And also, imagine the amount of flight we'd have to endure to have no divisions. Flying from Northern California, Seattle and Arizona to the east coast all the time is absurd. In no way is that fair to us or them.

It's a logistical nightmare.

 

[blstoker]

Each of the major 4 sports runs a division system. The reasons are that they work. They make scheduling easier. It makes it easier for fans to get into the games. It allows teams to have something to play for later in the season.

At the end of the 2008 season, Arizona lost in the Super Bowl, a team that won through the playoffs, but may not have even been in the playoffs under a no division system. In 2012, the Tigers went to the world series despite having only the 7th best record in the AL, because they won their division.

There is no perfect system to determine who the best teams should be. Heck, there are Super Bowl winners who weren't the best team in the NFL, but the division system has served the NFL well for over 80 years. It's not gonna change any time soon.

 

[clyde_carbon]

So what is your league model? I'm not going through the entire thread. Are you suggesting that the top 6 records make the playoffs? So when the last two teams are tied by 6 teams you suggest division and conference records are the divider? What if those are equal? Now you go off points scored or points given up?

Yes, the top 6 teams from each conference get to make the playoffs. Tie-breakers can include SOS, if the two teams played the outcome of that matchup, point differential, etc. There are many ways to determine a tie breaker.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Don't mean to divert the topic but this guy always throws a tantrum when people don't agree with him. His one saving grace is banning TT. Just for that, he gets a lifelong exemption in my book

I'm sorry, who are you? And I wasn't throwing a tantrum, but I expect someone to actually read the thread before making a comment. I had answered his question three or four times before that post.

 

[clyde_carbon]

And also, imagine the amount of flight we'd have to endure to have no divisions. Flying from Northern California, Seattle and Arizona to the east coast all the time is absurd. In no way is that fair to us or them.

It's a logistical nightmare.

There's no reason not to consider logistics without divisions. That's just a lazy way to do it.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Each of the major 4 sports runs a division system. The reasons are that they work. They make scheduling easier. It makes it easier for fans to get into the games. It allows teams to have something to play for later in the season.

At the end of the 2008 season, Arizona lost in the Super Bowl, a team that won through the playoffs, but may not have even been in the playoffs under a no division system. In 2012, the Tigers went to the world series despite having only the 7th best record in the AL, because they won their division.

There is no perfect system to determine who the best teams should be. Heck, there are Super Bowl winners who weren't the best team in the NFL, but the division system has served the NFL well for over 80 years. It's not gonna change any time soon.

1. No, they don't. Scheduling without divisions can be just as easy, if not easier. The amount of games isn't changing. The 32 teams/locations aren't changing.

2. Just because it's been done forever doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. Rules and regulations change all the time, as we see with the NBA considering taking out divisions completely - and removing divisions does NOT mean you're taking out the rivalries. In fact, it might give teams to spawn newer, better rivalries.

 

[Arete Tzu]

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.

I personally enjoy it when Mods aren't business like. Unfair bans suck, but discussion shouldn't be regulated. In my opinion a good Mod makes sure people aren't spamming or doing shit to hurt the site, but they generally only go after obvious trolls. This is how Clyde acted before being a mod, and he has stayed the same. I honestly appreciate it. As far as I know he isn't getting paid to do it. It ain't a job.

I have a ridiculous amount of experience on forums on both sides. I've seen too many great ones die and become wastelands. Your expectations tend to make things bland. My take on it, is it's the internet and people say shit on the internet. Deal with it. Sometimes you just gotta let your nuts hang.

It's part of why I hate the official 49er forum. It feels to polished and comfortable. There is a lot of validation seekers and people living in candy land there. It feels more real over here.