The NFL should get rid of divisions

[520GGATO]

Don't put us all in the same boat. It's only our "friendly" neighborhood mod that feels this way.

No not all of you. Just the cry babies.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Last time I checked the team that could very well win the NFCE(Eagles), beat the Cardinals. If you don't like it then win more games. Its as simple as that. There's always next season.

And the Arizona Cardinals just beat the Seattle Seahawks...IN Seattle. What's your point?

It seems to me that people are pro-divisions because they're simply scared of change and are content with the status-quo. That's not good enough for me.

 

[clyde_carbon]

setup works imo...I wouldn't focus so much on the record...parity, injuries, cap all impact records...if you win your DIV in the NFL, or just make the playoffs, history shows that it's possible to win the tournament.

Why it works...the NFL aside from the betting aspect is pretty much a regional product....a handful of teams have national appeal...DIV gms twice a yr allows rivalries to grow and develop in some cases into national appeal games.

SF - SEA is a good example...that's a prime time game now but it wasn't 5 yrs ago.

Two questions:

1. Does developing rivalries take priority over getting the 6 best teams from each conference into the playoffs?

2. Are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[clyde_carbon]

You realize the patriots have been negatively affected by this perfect setup) missed the playoffs at 11-5), but have generally been ~2-3 seed and not seriously benefited from it, right?

Win your division. Wildcards existing was the compromise. That's all you get. If you can't earn one, too bad.

Translation: Punish the teams in stronger divisions, and reward teams in the weaker divisions.

Yhea, fuck that.

 

[clyde_carbon]

"If you don't agree with then you're stupid and I hate you!" -clyde_carbon

Let me know when you actually have something to contribute to the discussion.

Until then, stop being so mad.

 

[520GGATO]

And the Arizona Cardinals just beat the Seattle Seahawks...IN Seattle. What's your point?

It seems to me that people are pro-divisions because they're simply scared of change and are content with the status-quo. That's not good enough for me.

its alright dude. Don't cry. Dry your eye.

 

[JDM]

Two questions:

1. Does developing rivalries take priority over getting the 6 best teams from each conference into the playoffs?

2. Are the two mutually exclusive?

1. Yes. The NFL puts a far better product on the field with rivalries in place.

2. No. The current system is as likely as any other system to put the best 6 teams from each conference in the playoffs. But why stop at two conferences? Then you punish the teams in the stronger confererence.


The only other remotely doable alternative is to round robin each conference completely, and have one singular inter-conference game per team. That's awful. Please feel free to propose a better system, but it's guaranteed to have more flaws than the current one.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Let me know when you actually have something to contribute to the discussion.

Until then, stop being so mad.

I already did. You did, as per the norm, called me names because I don't agree with you. There needs to be divisions. The system isn't perfect but what you are proposing makes much less sense. I guess we could have a college-style ranking system. We could go off, imagined, strength of schedule and have a BCS type bowl system.

I'm not going back through the entire thread, so what is your proposition as to a better system?

 

[JDM]

That would be awesome. It makes college a joke so lets do it in the NFL too.

 

[clyde_carbon]

its alright dude. Don't cry. Dry your eye.

Lol...what are you, 12? You should think of something better to contribute when talking to adults, kid.

 

[clyde_carbon]

1. Yes. The NFL puts a far better product on the field with rivalries in place.

2. No. The current system is as likely as any other system to put the best 6 teams from each conference in the playoffs. But why stop at two conferences? Then you punish the teams in the stronger confererence.


The only other remotely doable alternative is to round robin each conference completely, and have one singular inter-conference game per team. That's awful. Please feel free to propose a better system, but it's guaranteed to have more flaws than the current one.

1. Rivalries, most of the time, are artificially inflated and media promoted more than anything else. If you think rivalries are more important to the league than actually playing towards the most competitive post-season possible, then your priorities need to be readjusted.

2. Not, it's not. There IS a better system to putting the 6 best teams into the playoffs - and if you MUST have your rivalries, there's still a way for that too.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I already did. You did, as per the norm, called me names because I don't agree with you. There needs to be divisions. The system isn't perfect but what you are proposing makes much less sense. I guess we could have a college-style ranking system. We could go off, imagined, strength of schedule and have a BCS type bowl system.

I'm not going back through the entire thread, so what is your proposition as to a better system?

Enough of the hypersensitivity. If you want to get involved in a debate with me, have enough respect to actually read the thread before commenting. Now you're getting bent out of shape because I called you out on your bullshit and the fact that you didn't even bother reading the thread. Get the fuck over yourself.

What's a better system? Well, easy. The 6 absolute best records from each conference make the playoffs, regardless of which division they "belong" in. Tie-breakers are issued through a) head-to-head match-ups, b) SoS, and C) point for/against differential.

There's absolutely NO reason why an 8-8 team should make the playoffs over an 11-5 team because they were lucky enough to be a weaker division, and there's absolutely NO reason why a 12-4 team should travel TO a 9-7 team just because that team won that division by de facto.

 

[JDM]

1. Rivalries, most of the time, are artificially inflated and media promoted more than anything else. If you think rivalries are more important to the league than actually playing towards the most competitive post-season possible, then your priorities need to be readjusted.

2. Not, it's not. There IS a better system to putting the 6 best teams into the playoffs - and if you MUST have your rivalries, there's still a way for that too.

They are what makes the league successful. Without them, the NFL doesn't exist.

Please, share your improved league format. I could use a good laugh.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Enough of the hypersensitivity. If you want to get involved in a debate with me, have enough respect to actually read the thread before commenting. Now you're getting bent out of shape because I called you out on your bullshit and the fact that you didn't even bother reading the thread. Get the fuck over yourself.

What's a better system? Well, easy. The 6 absolute best records from each conference make the playoffs, regardless of which division they "belong" in. Tie-breakers are issued through a) head-to-head match-ups, b) SoS, and C) point for/against differential.

There's absolutely NO reason why an 8-8 team should make the playoffs over an 11-5 team because they were lucky enough to be a weaker division, and there's absolutely NO reason why a 12-4 team should travel TO a 9-7 team just because that team won that division by de facto.

Okay, lets take the NFCW. We have arguably the toughest division in the NFL. Lets say we beat up on each other but have excellent records outside of the division. You would prefer and 8-8 NFCW division winner, who has performed well against everybody outside the division, to miss the playoffs, but a team that finishes 10-6 to make it, even though they played a much less difficult schedule?

It's just a hypothetical, just for fun. Don't get so sensitive about debate.

 

[clyde_carbon]

They are what makes the league successful. Without them, the NFL doesn't exist.

Please, share your improved league format. I could use a good laugh.

You know who says that? People who are scared of change. People who always think the status-quo is the best option just b/c it's been that way for a while.

Rivalries develop overtime by playing meaningful games. 49ers-Cowboys in the 80s/90s was the biggest rivalry, and the two teams weren't even in the same division. They developed their rivalry by playing in the postseason over and over again.

Even in the 2000s, who was the Pats' biggest rival? Was it anyone in their division? Nope. Their biggest rival was Peyton Manning's Colts. This is how NATURAL rivalries develop. Based on postseason meetings and success, not because they play in the same division together.

Five years ago a49ers/Seahawks match-up doesn't mean shit because both teams were pedestrian. Today it means a lot not because they play in the same division, but because they are actually good teams who are poised to meet in the PLAYOFFS.

I'm not gonna explain the format I want AGAIN. I've said it about 8 times in this thread. Thanks for proving that you don't read what you argue against, though.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

its alright dude. Don't cry. Dry your eye.

Snoop reference?

 

[clyde_carbon]

Okay, lets take the NFCW. We have arguably the toughest division in the NFL. Lets say we beat up on each other but have excellent records outside of the division. You would prefer and 8-8 NFCW division winner, who has performed well against everybody outside the division, to miss the playoffs, but a team that finishes 10-6 to make it, even though they played a much less difficult schedule?

It's just a hypothetical, just for fun. Don't get so sensitive about debate.

Me? Get sensitive about debate? I'm not the one who got sensitive my dude.


And your hypothetical doesn't make sense because:

1- The NFCW wouldn't exist if it were up to me (there would be no divisions)

2- You play 6 division games a year. That leaves 12 outside the division games. If an NFCW team ends up 8-8 beating up on teams outside the division, that means he was beat up on INSIDE the division.

3- If everyone beats on everyone in the NFCW, is it fair to assume that everyone would be .500 in the division? That means a 3-3 record for everyone. That would mean that 8-8 NFCW team would have to have gone 5-5 OUTSIDE the division.

Highly unlikely hypothetical, if not impossible.

 

[JDM]

You know who says that? People who are scared of change. People who always think the status-quo is the best option just b/c it's been that way for a while.

Rivalries develop overtime by playing meaningful games. 49ers-Cowboys in the 80s/90s was the biggest rivalry, and the two teams weren't even in the same division. They developed their rivalry by playing in the postseason over and over again.

Even in the 2000s, who was the Pats' biggest rival? Was it anyone in their division? Nope. Their biggest rival was Peyton Manning's Colts. This is how NATURAL rivalries develop. Based on postseason meetings and success, not because they play in the same division together.

Five years ago a49ers/Seahawks match-up doesn't mean shit because both teams were pedestrian. Today it means a lot not because they play in the same division, but because they are actually good teams who are poised to meet in the PLAYOFFS.

I'm not gonna explain the format I want AGAIN. I've said it about 8 times in this thread. Thanks for proving that you don't read what you argue against, though.

The current system encourages interdivision rivalries by matching team ranked the same in each division up every year as well. The regular season games were as big a part of those rivalries as the postseason.

 

[JDM]

Me? Get sensitive about debate? I'm not the one who got sensitive my dude.


And your hypothetical doesn't make sense because:

1- The NFCW wouldn't exist if it were up to me (there would be no divisions)

2- You play 6 division games a year. That leaves 12 outside the division games. If an NFCW team ends up 8-8 beating up on teams outside the division, that means he was beat up on INSIDE the division.

3- If everyone beats on everyone in the NFCW, is it fair to assume that everyone would be .500 in the division? That means a 3-3 record for everyone. That would mean that 8-8 NFCW team would have to have gone 5-5 OUTSIDE the division.

Highly unlikely hypothetical, if not impossible.

It's not impossible for a team to have a very good out of division record but a poor division record, and suffer consequences for that. Division games are more competitive than out of division games.

 

[520GGATO]

Lol...what are you, 12? You should think of something better to contribute when talking to adults, kid.

everytime someone does contribute something you talk down on it. Stop whining like a 12 year old and get over it. So far you have contributed nada but what you want and what you think with no logic or basis behind it. I think it's time you go to sleep. Let the adults talk, kid.