The NFL should get rid of divisions

[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.

And the 8-8 team might be better then the 10-6 team. It's called strength of schedule. It's a thing. Might want to look into it.

 

[deep9er]

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.

it is NOT only rivalries, but we're not evaluating the existing system. we're evaluating if your idea is valid, workable, reasonable, etc.

so per the bolden above retaining rivalry games, the Cardinals play the 49ers twice, and Dallas plays the Giants twice. if the Cardinals lose both games and Dallas wins both, is Dallas better than Arizona?

lets extend this by adding another former Division rival......Cardinals play the 49ers twice and the Seahawks twice. Dallas plays the Giants twice and the Redskins twice. Arizona loses four games and Dallas wins four, is Dallas better than Arizona?

if we extend this for the formerly third Division rival, don't we end up with Divisions?

 

[clyde_carbon]

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.

It works the other way too. An undeserving 8-8 team gets into the playoffs over a 9-7 or a 10-6 team, or a 9-7 team gets home-field advantage over a 10-6 or an 11-5 team.

1) Can you definitively say that an 8-8 team with a .45 SOS is a better team than a 9-7 with a .40 SOS. No, you can't.

2) Why are you punishing the 9-7 team b/c of their schedule? Why should they garner a lower playoff seed and lost home field advantage to a team with a worse record?

It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[clyde_carbon]

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.

I'm not answering your questions because your question doesn't make any sense, and it erects a problem that doesn't exist.

Maybe you need to rephrase it.

 

[clyde_carbon]

And the 8-8 team might be better then the 10-6 team. It's called strength of schedule. It's a thing. Might want to look into it.

The key word there. Might. They MIGHT be better. You have no freakin' idea whether they are or not. So why are you punishing the 10-6 team in favor of a .500 team just because they played tougher opponents?

Should the 10-6 team lose their chances at the playoffs b/c of that? Should they have to go on the ROAD against that 8-8 because of that?

Yhea, sounds like BS to me. Thanks for clearing it up. :rollseyes:

 

[clyde_carbon]

it is NOT only rivalries, but we're not evaluating the existing system. we're evaluating if your idea is valid, workable, reasonable, etc.

so per the bolden above retaining rivalry games, the Cardinals play the 49ers twice, and Dallas plays the Giants twice. if the Cardinals lose both games and Dallas wins both, is Dallas better than Arizona?

lets extend this by adding another former Division rival......Cardinals play the 49ers twice and the Seahawks twice. Dallas plays the Giants twice and the Redskins twice. Arizona loses four games and Dallas wins four, is Dallas better than Arizona?

if we extend this for the formerly third Division rival, don't we end up with Divisions?

No, we don't. We don't have 8-8 division winners getting better seeding than 10-6/11-5 Wildcards. We don't have 8-8 teams making the playoffs over 10-6 teams because they won their lousy divisions.

And, like I said, you want to call it divisions to feel better about it, go ahead, and but it shouldn't hold any value when it comes to the top-6 teams making the playoffs.

 

[deep9er]

No, we don't. We don't have 8-8 division winners getting better seeding than 10-6/11-5 Wildcards. We don't have 8-8 teams making the playoffs over 10-6 teams because they won their lousy divisions.

And, like I said, you want to call it divisions to feel better about it, go ahead, and but it shouldn't hold any value when it comes to the top-6 teams making the playoffs.

in your vision, the seeding will be by best records right?

but in your Divisionless format, 'not so good' teams can still end up with better records than 'better teams'. How? by playing better teams on their schedule. I illustrated this above where Arizona will end up with a worse record than Dallas. so even in your vision, the six best records aren't the six best teams. the seeding won't be in the order of best to worse.

the closest way to avoid this is one team plays the other 15 one time each. there will still be issues (eg home field), but that is the closest to a fair schedule.

anyway, my guess is you do see the point but not going to concede? that is fine cause your opinion is your opinion.

 

[clyde_carbon]

in your vision, the seeding will be by best records right?

but in your Divisionless format, 'not so good' teams can still end up with better records than 'better teams'. How? by playing better teams on their schedule. I illustrated this above where Arizona will end up with a worse record than Dallas. so even in your vision, the six best records aren't the six best teams. the seeding won't be in the order of best to worse.

the closest way to avoid this is one team plays the other 15 one time each. there will still be issues (eg home field), but that is the closest to a fair schedule.

anyway, my guess is you do see the point but not going to concede? that is fine cause your opinion is your opinion.

That still happens when you have divisions, and not only does it affect who gets INTO the playoffs, but playoff seeding and home-field advantage.

This year, a team like Philly or Dallas will get a home game in the playoffs and we wont, despite us being the better team. How does that solve anything?

 

[HighTopFade]

Here's a pretty good article.

With controversy looming, NFL must reconsider playoff structure - NFL.com

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

Here's a pretty good article.

With controversy looming, NFL must reconsider playoff structure - NFL.com

I agree with Clyde a bit here. I know I'll be very mad if the day comes that we miss the playoffs with a great record like the cardinals just might. I do see both sides as I love the division games right now. Honestly the scheduling excuse isn't very good. That crap happens every year even with divisions. There's so much parity in this league that even though you end up playing the team you that got in the same place as you did last year doesn't mean they will be good the next year. Example: our next game vs falcons that was supposed to be a hard game at the beginning now not so much.

Honestly I think having no divisions can make even more rivalries, the games outside the division now are not very exciting compared to the division games. Taking the division away might make every game in your conference All the more important when it comes down to seeding instead some teams only have to worry about the division.

If they at least won't do that than I agree with billick at least have the better records get home field.

 

[deep9er]

That still happens when you have divisions, and not only does it affect who gets INTO the playoffs, but playoff seeding and home-field advantage.

This year, a team like Philly or Dallas will get a home game in the playoffs and we wont, despite us being the better team. How does that solve anything?

wait, that is MY point, Divisionless doesn't change the problem....which is record alone doesn't indicate who the best teams are? so why eliminate it?

since your issue is really play-off seeding, MAYBE they can come up with a strength of schedule formula after 16 games? doesn't solve it 100%, but might move it a little closer to your goal? in any case, you don't have to eliminate Divisions to tweak the seeding?

anyway, mahalo for your comments, I'd better leave this alone already.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I agree with Clyde a bit here. I know I'll be very mad if the day comes that we miss the playoffs with a great record like the cardinals just might. I do see both sides as I love the division games right now. Honestly the scheduling excuse isn't very good. That crap happens every year even with divisions. There's so much parity in this league that even though you end up playing the team you that got in the same place as you did last year doesn't mean they will be good the next year. Example: our next game vs falcons that was supposed to be a hard game at the beginning now not so much.

Honestly I think having no divisions can make even more rivalries, the games outside the division now are not very exciting compared to the division games. Taking the division away might make every game in your conference All the more important when it comes down to seeding instead some teams only have to worry about the division.

If they at least won't do that than I agree with billick at least have the better records get home field.

That's exactly right. The Arizona Cardinals are 9-5 and there's a strong chance they don't get into the playoffs because they are in the wrong the division. They are basically being punished for being in a strong division, and I'd be livid if I was a fan of theirs.

If maintaining rivalries takes priority over getting the 6 best teams into the playoffs - AND IN THE RIGHT ORDER - then I want nothing to do with them. Most of the them are artificially created by the media anyways.

 

[clyde_carbon]

wait, that is MY point, Divisionless doesn't change the problem....which is record alone doesn't indicate who the best teams are? so why eliminate it?

since your issue is really play-off seeding, MAYBE they can come up with a strength of schedule formula after 16 games? doesn't solve it 100%, but might move it a little closer to your goal? in any case, you don't have to eliminate Divisions to tweak the seeding?

anyway, mahalo for your comments, I'd better leave this alone already.

But, it does. Obviously it's never going to be perfect, but record IS the best way of showing who's the best - and most consistent - team. Take out the divisions and you don't have 8-8 teams making the playoffs over 9-7 and 10-6 teams, and you don't have 9-7 teams hosting playoff games against 11-5 and 12-4 teams.

 

[clyde_carbon]

From the Billick article, this is what divisions do:

» The 9-5 Arizona Cardinals are presently on the outside looking in, despite the fact that they have a better record than two NFC division leaders (Philadelphia Eagles and Chicago Bears).

» The Kansas City Chiefs could finish tied with the Denver Broncos for best record in the AFC ... and still wind up with the fifth overall seed.

» Wild-card weekend might have an awkward feel when the visitors have better records than the hosts in (at least) three of four games. (For the record, this phenomenon has occurred in 15 wild-card games since 2002.)

It's such BS throughout. It is compromising the integrity of the seeding, home-field advantage, and the entirety of the playoffs.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Unfortunately, this principle runs headlong into the larger and more persuasive case that teams with better records should be rewarded. It just isn't fair that San Francisco could win 12 games and end up hitting the road to face a 9-7 NFC East winner. It's also ludicrous that Kansas City could finish in a tie for the best AFC record at 13-3 and not only be denied a bye, but also be relegated to the No. 5 seed.

Yup.

 

[MHSL82]

With 8 divisions now instead of 6, you get a more watered down division champion. As such the notion that simply having a record better than 3 other teams that happen to play in your division should not be enough to determine postseason seeding. Plus in the old 6 division format, the best wild card team got a home game. Am I wrong here?

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

After yesterday games and not one team in that NFC north wanting to take that division. I think divisions are crap. Imagine if we were in the cardinals shoes right now. I wouldn't be very happy to miss the playoffs like that.

They still have a shot. But they need help.

 

[deep9er]

After yesterday games and not one team in that NFC north wanting to take that division. I think divisions are crap. Imagine if we were in the cardinals shoes right now. I wouldn't be very happy to miss the playoffs like that.

They still have a shot. But they need help.

yes, wouldn't be happy either, but they aren't the first and won't be the last. every team knows the Division format and know they must win their Division. at least there are two 'outs' for non-Divisional winners with good seasons? IF the Cards don't get in, then they're not even the two best non-Division winners.

the Division format isn't perfect, but don't see positives for removing it? if you remove Divisions, you'd still have inequities with records and thus, inequities with making the play-offs and seeding? so you wouldn't really address the problem of good teams not making it in, or good teams with poorer seeding.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

yes, wouldn't be happy either, but they aren't the first and won't be the last. every team knows the Division format and know they must win their Division. at least there are two 'outs' for non-Divisional winners with good seasons? IF the Cards don't get in, then they're not even the two best non-Division winners.

the Division format isn't perfect, but don't see positives for removing it? if you remove Divisions, you'd still have inequities with records and thus, inequities with making the play-offs and seeding? so you wouldn't really address the problem of good teams not making it in, or good teams with poorer seeding.

And that should be inexcusable of a format for a league.

If it can be changed it should. There's always a way, I will be honest that I'm not 100% sure of the process and it might not be easy but it's a pretty shitty situation. Teams with lesser records should never be in over teams with better records. Just doesn't sit right.

 

[JDM]

This system is 100% perfect. If you aren't good enough to win your division or one of the two wildcard slots you don't deserve to make the playoffs. No exceptions; win more games.