The NFL should get rid of divisions

[erckm510]

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.

It would make sense for the other sports to get rid of divisions. They play alot of games. Each team to play a team in their conference 3 or 4 times a year and 2 times against the other conference and it would be fair for everyone. Hell the NBA could get rid of conferences altogether and put the best 16 teams in and that would make a better product. But I don't see how it's fair to compare what happens in a 16 game season to an 82 game one.

 

[purguy12]

No divisions is the worst idea ever. If they went to that it would be a mess. it wouldn't be football anymore. Divisions make football great. Love playing Seattle, Rams and Arizona every year 2 times. Those games are so much fun to watch.

 

[RoboticDreams]

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.

Thanks for this, I guess. Let's make something clear: I'm not a malcontent and never troll this board. If I had proven that I was a Toby-like poster then I'm fine with the comment. I made a simple observation and got attacked by the MOD. He needs to settle his jimmies and debate like an adult.

You're a mod? Okay. Act like a moderator and be mature. That's kinda why they get the job as a mod. I hope I made things more clear for you.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

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.

You seem very adamant about having the 6 best teams in the playoffs. I can understand that, but I'm not that as concerned with that as you are. Let's go back to the 2011 NFL season, in which the Denver Broncos made the playoffs at 8-8 as the weakest division leader. The team that didn't make the playoffs were the 9-7 Tennessee Titans. In this case, I agree that the 6 best teams didn't make the playoffs, but what I'm saying is that the drop-off in talent isn't big at all when you're taking the division leader of the weakest division vs the 3RD wildcard team.

On the other side, I still believe that rivalries are preserved with the division system. In your example, the NFC East would still use 6 games to play each of their division rivals twice, but if each of those teams sucks...then they don't have anything tangible to work toward. In the current system, even in a weak division, rivals are still fighting for a ticket into the playoffs, thus making it a more competitive rivalry.

While we don't have a perfect system, I believe that in changing to your idea, there is a great cost and only little reward. Of course, that's based on my opinion that allowing an 8-8 team to make the playoffs instead of a 9-7 team isn't a big deal, unfair as it may be.

 

[deep9er]

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.

think all the questions are indicating it IS difficult? the scheduling cannot be anyway they want it?

the only way to fairly determine the six best records, is if all teams played the same opponents. if you split the NFL into two Conferences, then each team plays the other 15 once. then you can see who the best six are?

anything else changes who each team plays, and the six best records aren't necessarily the six best teams?

 

[deep9er]

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.

then each team in the Conference has a different schedule, some have 'harder' teams, some 'easier'. so the final records won't reflect who the best six are.

 

[erckm510]

think all the questions are indicating it IS difficult? the scheduling cannot be anyway they want it?

the only way to fairly determine the six best records, is if all teams played the same opponents. if you split the NFL into two Conferences, then each team plays the other 15 once. then you can see who the best six are?

anything else changes who each team plays, and the six best records aren't necessarily the six best teams?

 

[EaseUrStorm]

The change that makes the most sense to me is not giving automatic home field advantage to the division winner. It should be the team with the better record gets home field advantage. If a team barely scrapes through in a weak division, they should have to pay for it in the playoffs by going on the road. The division system makes sense in football to help limit travel distance, so I don't mind having it be broken up that way. It was pretty embarrassing for the 49ers to slip through and get home field advantage when they were 8-8, and it would have been totally fair if they had to go on the road that year.

 

[clyde_carbon]

No divisions is the worst idea ever. If they went to that it would be a mess. it wouldn't be football anymore. Divisions make football great. Love playing Seattle, Rams and Arizona every year 2 times. Those games are so much fun to watch.

This is why I get pissed, because people make comments like these without reading the thread.

 

[clyde_carbon]

You seem very adamant about having the 6 best teams in the playoffs. I can understand that, but I'm not that as concerned with that as you are. Let's go back to the 2011 NFL season, in which the Denver Broncos made the playoffs at 8-8 as the weakest division leader. The team that didn't make the playoffs were the 9-7 Tennessee Titans. In this case, I agree that the 6 best teams didn't make the playoffs, but what I'm saying is that the drop-off in talent isn't big at all when you're taking the division leader of the weakest division vs the 3RD wildcard team.

On the other side, I still believe that rivalries are preserved with the division system. In your example, the NFC East would still use 6 games to play each of their division rivals twice, but if each of those teams sucks...then they don't have anything tangible to work toward. In the current system, even in a weak division, rivals are still fighting for a ticket into the playoffs, thus making it a more competitive rivalry.

While we don't have a perfect system, I believe that in changing to your idea, there is a great cost and only little reward. Of course, that's based on my opinion that allowing an 8-8 team to make the playoffs instead of a 9-7 team isn't a big deal, unfair as it may be.

Yes, it's all about getting the 6 best teams into the playoffs, and seeding them accordingly. That should be the #1 priority when it comes to scheduling and getting teams into the post-season, and it should take precedence over divisional alignment.

 

[erckm510]

Yes, it's all about getting the 6 best teams into the playoffs, and seeding them accordingly. That should be the #1 priority when it comes to scheduling and getting teams into the post-season, and it should take precedence over divisional alignment.

That's the rub. The 6 best teams wouldn't all be playing the same schedules so how do you know they are the best teams? Is it fair for a team to get a #1 seed because they got the play the 8 worse teams in the league and a team to miss the playoffs because they had to play the best 8 teams? Or does that not matter?

Divisions provide a schedule that is mostly equal.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

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

You would still have the rivalries that way…. You could still technically make the divisions important if you award a playoff spot for the winner regardless of record BUT that shouldn't give them and automatic home playoff game if there record is worse than the wildcard teams record…. If the NFL did that it would make more sense as far as seeding anyway….

 

[clyde_carbon]

That's the rub. The 6 best teams wouldn't all be playing the same schedules so how do you know they are the best teams? Is it fair for a team to get a #1 seed because they got the play the 8 worse teams in the league and a team to miss the playoffs because they had to play the best 8 teams? Or does that not matter?

Divisions provide a schedule that is mostly equal.

Wait, you're argument is that you can't tell if a 10-6 team is better than an 8-8 team because they don't play the same opponents? Not only is that a ridiculous point and a complete reach, but would divisions solve that?

So, explain how that would work, and how it would be different than scheduling without divisions?

The floor is yours.

 

[yossarian]

Here's a question Clyde, what is it that happened recently that has got you all hot and bothered about this issue? I'm just curious. I really do think that the NBA model about giving the top seeds to the division winners then reseeding once the playoffs start or after the first round is the best solution.

 

[clyde_carbon]

You would still have the rivalries that way…. You could still technically make the divisions important if you award a playoff spot for the winner regardless of record BUT that shouldn't give them and automatic home playoff game if there record is worse than the wildcard teams record…. If the NFL did that it would make more sense as far as seeding anyway….

Honestly, the only semi-legitimate argument anyone has for being pro-divisions are the long standing rivalries. That's a non-issue. The NFL can easy set 6 fixed games a year based on who was in their division, and then just abolish the divisional alignment, or at the very least, make the divisions JUST for scheduling and NOT for playoff seeding.

There are plenty of ways to solve this. To say this is a bad idea just b/c you wanna maintain rivalries is just purely lazy.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Here's a question Clyde, what is it that happened recently that has got you all hot and bothered about this issue? I'm just curious. I really do think that the NBA model about giving the top seeds to the division winners then reseeding once the playoffs start or after the first round is the best solution.

I've always been against divisions, or at the very least, the current playoff seeding schedule based on those divisions. It's just ridiculous this year with how bad the NFCE is. An NFCE team would get a HOME GAME over us just because they won their division, despite us having a better record and a better team. That's just not good system, and using media-enhanced "rivalries" as your only counter-argument to taking away divisions is in itself ridiculous.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

Wait, you're argument is that you can't tell if a 10-6 team is better than an 8-8 team because they don't play the same opponents? Not only is that a ridiculous point and a complete reach, but would divisions solve that?

So, explain how that would work, and how it would be different than scheduling without divisions?

The floor is yours.

Erckm made a point that I was thinking about, that you responded to here. Yes, divisions at least somewhat address this issue of uneven schedules.

Let's say we have two teams: an 8-8 team that had an incredibly difficult schedule that takes 1st place in its division and a 9-7 team with a really easy schedule that ends up last in its division, having lost all 6 of its games against division opponents.

With divisions, the 8-8 team makes it into the playoffs and rightfully so after clawing its way to the top of a bloody division battle. Without divisions, the 9-7 team glides its way into the playoffs over the 8-8 team. So yea, divisions address this more adequately. It's not perfect, but it's still better imo.

You could resort to a BCS system kind of thing...but we all know how awesome that works out.

 

[-AC-]

I don't mind divisions...

But there is an injustice when teams with clearly better records and rosters miss out on the shot at winning a title because a less superior team is automatically awarded a spot. There should be a bar of standards. There should be a two win buffer clause. This would keep things relatively formatted and eliminates the obvious elephant in the room...

 

[geezer]

At the beginning of the season, every team has the same goal. Win your division and you get into the playoffs. We got the best division in football and I believe that makes all of these teams better. Yes, the wild cards get hosed sometimes having to go on the road against a lessor team, but I am pretty certain nobody wants a home game against the Niners this post season. When the hawks got a home playoff game at 7 and 9, that was the talk. they didn't deserve to be there. It was totally unfair and it was almost comical listening to all the talking heads wanting to change the rules.
But they did what they had to do per the rules that season. They won a weak division. The Saints were a good team. Just not good enough to beat a team with a losing record on the road.

 

[erckm510]

Wait, you're argument is that you can't tell if a 10-6 team is better than an 8-8 team because they don't play the same opponents? Not only is that a ridiculous point and a complete reach, but would divisions solve that?

So, explain how that would work, and how it would be different than scheduling without divisions?

The floor is yours.

You're pretty dense if you can't see my argument clearly. I'm not even arguing for or against divisions. I'm asking how you solve the problem of unbalanced scheduling which you can't give an answer. It's one of the reasons there are divisions(Rivalries/Money are the biggest reasons). It's the reason conferences in college split into divisions after taking more teams. So the schedule would be more balanced and strong teams wouldn't have to face weaker teams on a rotational basis. If you can't see how NFL divisions create a balanced schedule then this is a pointless debate. For some reason you fail to see how that works when other people in the thread seem to see it fine.

But I guess you way of debating is to basically call people stupid and mock them for it. Good for you.