Do Away with Divisions

[The Big Cat]

I'm tired of talking about the Jets, and I'm scared to talk about the Ravens. So let's talk about something that may--or may not--have been hashed out here before.

 

Niners, Seahawks, Saints, Falcons, Packers, Bears. Those are the six best teams in the NFC right now, and one of them won't make the playoffs because division winners get an automatic pass.

 

My suggestion:

 

Eliminate divisions. Reduce the regular season schedule to 15 games. Play everyone in your conference once. Top six gets in.

 

Like the days of yore, like the baseball days of yore, AFC and NFC meet in the Super Bowl only.

 

Discuss.

[Captain Hindsight]

I don't hate it. In fact I think its actually a really good idea.

 

My only revision would be to play half the teams in your conference and the other half from the NFC just to make it a bit more interesting

[NoSaint]

dislike the lack of rivalries being established. otherwise, sure it makes sense

[Gugny]

I want the Bills to play the Jaguars 16 times/year. Then I want them to play them again in the playoffs.

[The Big Cat]

I don't hate it. In fact I think its actually a really good idea.

 

My only revision would be to play half the teams in your conference and the other half from the NFC just to make it a bit more interesting

 

See, I kinda like the possibility of a Super Bowl with questions like: can the pass-happy aerial NFC Champ match the physical, pounding style of this year's AFC Champ?

 

It would be cool to see conferences evolve to take on a particular style...

[Captain Hindsight]

See, I kinda like the possibility of a Super Bowl with questions like: can the pass-happy aerial NFC Champ match the physical, pounding style of this year's AFC Champ?

 

It would be cool to see conferences evolve to take on a particular style...

Interesting idea. Do you think each conference would develop their own style or would each team develop their own philosophy?

[silvermike]

I'm not agin' it. You'd also be sure that each playoff game would be a rematch of a regular season showdown. I'd even be OK with expanding to LA and San Antonio and keeping a 16 game schedule. That way you can keep a home/road balance.

[The Big Cat]

Interesting idea. Do you think each conference would develop their own style or would each team develop their own philosophy?

 

It's possible. With 15 different opponents to "plan for" though, it might all be a wash.

[HeHateMe]

The Bills would never again play a game vs the NFC.

[The Big Cat]

I'm not agin' it. You'd also be sure that each playoff game would be a rematch of a regular season showdown. I'd even be OK with expanding to LA and San Antonio and keeping a 16 game schedule. That way you can keep a home/road balance.

 

Yes, the home/road balance is definitely compromised. One idea I thought of to offset it is to play a single flex game every year, but that waters down the schedule fairness.

 

The Bills would never again play a game vs the NFC.

 

Or, they'd play four in a row.

[Gordio]

dislike the lack of rivalries being established. otherwise, sure it makes sense

 

I see what your saying but you would be playing your rivalries every year, just not twice & you would get them home every other year. I kind of like it. The only thing I would change is keep the 16 games & play one team from the NFC. It would depend on how you finish up the year before. AFC #15 would play NFC #15, #14 would play #14 & so on & so on.

[The Big Cat]

I see what your saying but you would be playing your rivalries every year, just not twice & you would get them home every other year. I kind of like it. The only thing I would change is keep the 16 games & play one team from the NFC. It would depend on how you finish up the year before. AFC #15 would play NFC #15, #14 would play #14 & so on & so on.

 

But if final six comes down to record, then not everyone had a shot at the same opponents...

[Gordio]

But if final six comes down to record, then not everyone had a shot at the same opponents...

 

Very true. I just don't think the NFL would ever give up a game unless possibly if the playoffs were expanded to maybe 8 from each league.

[The Big Cat]

Very true. I just don't think the NFL would ever give up a game unless possibly if the playoffs were expanded to maybe 8 from each league.

 

I think the obvious solution, as someone alluded to would be to expand to two more teams and keep the 16 game schedule.

 

Because seriously: what's the point of divisions? Given the original nexus for this idea (that a better team will be eliminated because of division champs): what benefit do divisions bring?

 

As we've already established in previous threads, they're not that geographic (Miami to Boston!?), and because they comprise three extra games on your schedule, teams will get beat up by the same team year in and year out, and those teams that do the beating in a lop-sided division will come into the playoffs with an artificially good record.

[KD in CA]

Football isn't baseball. There isn't same type of distinction in play between the leagues (much less a huge rule difference like the DH) such that it makes sense to have no inter-conference play.

 

I like the way they do the scheduling now -- you see every team in the leauge at least once every 3 years.

 

I do agree however, that there are too many divisions and it leads to undeserving teams making the playoffs. I'm not sure one division per conference makes sense, but at a minumum they should go back to 3.

[maddenboy]

I'm tired of talking about the Jets, and I'm scared to talk about the Ravens. So let's talk about something that may--or may not--have been hashed out here before.

 

Niners, Seahawks, Saints, Falcons, Packers, Bears. Those are the six best teams in the NFC right now, and one of them won't make the playoffs because division winners get an automatic pass.

 

My suggestion:

 

Eliminate divisions. Reduce the regular season schedule to 15 games. Play everyone in your conference once. Top six gets in.

 

Like the days of yore, like the baseball days of yore, AFC and NFC meet in the Super Bowl only.

 

Discuss.

 

And the NFL, which is trying to increase the number of games, will back this . . . why?

 

And to the substance of your outside-the-box idea, I also think the NFL likes to preserve rivalries, in order to put asses in seats. They are already having a hard time fighting against the livingroom 55 inch plasma experience.

 

Lastly, how does that benefit US, exactly. Not to be all selfish, but I havent been to the playoffs in 13 years. I'm all about ME right about now.

[The Big Cat]

And the NFL, which is trying to increase the number of games, will back this . . . why?

 

And to the substance of your outside-the-box idea, I also think the NFL likes to preserve rivalries, in order to put asses in seats. They are already having a hard time fighting against the livingroom 55 inch plasma experience.

 

Lastly, how does that benefit US, exactly. Not to be all selfish, but I havent been to the playoffs in 13 years. I'm all about ME right about now.

 

Well, each year would swap a game against the Pats for a game against a team like Jacksonville.

 

And a game against the Jets (who have our goat, big time) for a game against a team like Cleveland.

[boyst]

The Niners are not the best of the top 6 in the NFC.

 

Could you put KC over Denver?

 

 

[Cash]

I'm tired of talking about the Jets, and I'm scared to talk about the Ravens. So let's talk about something that may--or may not--have been hashed out here before.

 

Niners, Seahawks, Saints, Falcons, Packers, Bears. Those are the six best teams in the NFC right now, and one of them won't make the playoffs because division winners get an automatic pass.

 

My suggestion:

 

Eliminate divisions. Reduce the regular season schedule to 15 games. Play everyone in your conference once. Top six gets in.

 

Like the days of yore, like the baseball days of yore, AFC and NFC meet in the Super Bowl only.

 

Discuss.

 

Great, then let's have the AFC play with an extra eligible receiver (4 OL) and the NFC stay the same. Whichever Super Bowl team had the better regular season record gets to decide which rule is in effect for the big game.

 

Your idea seems like it would be a big hit with old-school baseball fans, which I am not. I respectfully pass. But I am enjoying the thread and appreciate the topic.

 

I think the obvious solution, as someone alluded to would be to expand to two more teams and keep the 16 game schedule.

 

Because seriously: what's the point of divisions? Given the original nexus for this idea (that a better team will be eliminated because of division champs): what benefit do divisions bring?

 

As we've already established in previous threads, they're not that geographic (Miami to Boston!?), and because they comprise three extra games on your schedule, teams will get beat up by the same team year in and year out, and those teams that do the beating in a lop-sided division will come into the playoffs with an artificially good record.

 

Divisions bring additional fan attention. It is a fair argument to say they shouldn't, because why should I care more about playing the Jets because they're in our division? But the fact of the matter is, they do. Even if the divisional alignments were 100% arbitrary, just the nature of playing X teams twice every year vs. all the other teams 0-1 times per year will create rivalries and fan interest.

 

I would be interested in seeing a reduction to maybe 3 divisions again, or even just 2 if possible. (Caveat: no, it's not possible in the real world, but I mean possible in a hypothetical world where the NFL was more open to change.) There weren't many times in the 3-division era when an inferior team got to host a playoff game by virtue of winning their crappy division, and not as many times when a superior team missed the playoffs in favor of a division winner. If we could go to 2 divisions, both of those possibilities would be very low.

 

The problem with my idea is the scheduling. If we kept the league at 32 teams, we could do 4 total divisions of 8 teams each. Playing each divisional opponent twice puts us at 14 games, which only leaves 1 game each for cross-division and cross-conference foes. That's pretty weak, and mostly destroys any concept of a conference. If you play everyone in your division just once, that leaves us with 9 games left. Maybe 5 vs. the other division & 4 vs. a division in the other conference? Or 6 & 3? Or 5, 2, & 2? None of these sound great. Not impossible, though.

 

For a return to 3 divisions per conference, we'd need to add teams, probably all the way up to 36 total teams. (Hmm, 2 in LA, 1 in San Antonio, and 1 in Ft. Worth just to piss off Jerry Jones.) That gives us 6 teams per division, and a whopping 10 divisional games if we keep the current 2x format. Not impossible, but I doubt we could get buy-in for having divisional games be over half the schedule. I guess it works well enough in college, so maybe? This scenario leaves 6 games for cross-division or cross-conference matchups. You could play 1 whole division I guess. Or 3 from one division in your conference and 3 from one division in the other conference. (Probably the top 3 teams play each other and the bottom 3 play each other.) Our other option would be to chop divisional games down to 5. This makes divisional tiebreakers easy, because someone will have won head-to-head (unless 2 division co-leaders wind up tying in their game). It also gives us 11 additional games, which isn't a very convenient number. So I say we chop 2 games off, go back to a 14 game schedule (this is very plausible), and play 3 games each against the other divisions in your conference and one rotating division in the other conference. Again, top 3 finishers from last year play each other, and same with bottom 3. This is a winning idea that is 100% impractical and impossible.

[The Big Cat]

Great, then let's have the AFC play with an extra eligible receiver (4 OL) and the NFC stay the same. Whichever Super Bowl team had the better regular season record gets to decide which rule is in effect for the big game.

 

Your idea seems like it would be a big hit with old-school baseball fans, which I am not. I respectfully pass. But I am enjoying the thread and appreciate the topic.

 

 

 

Divisions bring additional fan attention. It is a fair argument to say they shouldn't, because why should I care more about playing the Jets because they're in our division? But the fact of the matter is, they do. Even if the divisional alignments were 100% arbitrary, just the nature of playing X teams twice every year vs. all the other teams 0-1 times per year will create rivalries and fan interest.

 

I would be interested in seeing a reduction to maybe 3 divisions again, or even just 2 if possible. (Caveat: no, it's not possible in the real world, but I mean possible in a hypothetical world where the NFL was more open to change.) There weren't many times in the 3-division era when an inferior team got to host a playoff game by virtue of winning their crappy division, and not as many times when a superior team missed the playoffs in favor of a division winner. If we could go to 2 divisions, both of those possibilities would be very low.

 

The problem with my idea is the scheduling. If we kept the league at 32 teams, we could do 4 total divisions of 8 teams each. Playing each divisional opponent twice puts us at 14 games, which only leaves 1 game each for cross-division and cross-conference foes. That's pretty weak, and mostly destroys any concept of a conference. If you play everyone in your division just once, that leaves us with 9 games left. Maybe 5 vs. the other division & 4 vs. a division in the other conference? Or 6 & 3? Or 5, 2, & 2? None of these sound great. Not impossible, though.

 

For a return to 3 divisions per conference, we'd need to add teams, probably all the way up to 36 total teams. (Hmm, 2 in LA, 1 in San Antonio, and 1 in Ft. Worth just to piss off Jerry Jones.) That gives us 6 teams per division, and a whopping 10 divisional games if we keep the current 2x format. Not impossible, but I doubt we could get buy-in for having divisional games be over half the schedule. I guess it works well enough in college, so maybe? This scenario leaves 6 games for cross-division or cross-conference matchups. You could play 1 whole division I guess. Or 3 from one division in your conference and 3 from one division in the other conference. (Probably the top 3 teams play each other and the bottom 3 play each other.) Our other option would be to chop divisional games down to 5. This makes divisional tiebreakers easy, because someone will have won head-to-head (unless 2 division co-leaders wind up tying in their game). It also gives us 11 additional games, which isn't a very convenient number. So I say we chop 2 games off, go back to a 14 game schedule (this is very plausible), and play 3 games each against the other divisions in your conference and one rotating division in the other conference. Again, top 3 finishers from last year play each other, and same with bottom 3. This is a winning idea that is 100% impractical and impossible.

 

Nice post.

 

How bout: No divisions. No conferences. Lottery schedule. Some teams play 5 games. Some teams play 20.

 

It's a stretch, but I'll bet we'd learn to love it.

[Bills!Win!]

The divisions don't really make sense. How are the Cowboys NFC east and the dolphins AFc east? They should both be south

[Cash]

Nice post.

 

How bout: No divisions. No conferences. Lottery schedule. Some teams play 5 games. Some teams play 20.

 

It's a stretch, but I'll bet we'd learn to love it.

 

I like it. Get Goodell on the phone and I'll pitch it to him.

[djp14150]

If you want to go with the 2 conferences /one division...then go to a 19 game schedule...then you play 15 intraconference and 4 interconference games

[boyst]

We would still play the patriots after every bye week they had

[silvermike]

If you want to go with the 2 conferences /one division...then go to a 19 game schedule...then you play 15 intraconference and 4 interconference games

 

Hmm, too many games, too many injuries if they're all in a row. Let's just have every team play every other week, from March through December. Then go to the playoffs, take February off for the draft and free agency, and start it again.

[bladiebla]

I think that is a much better way to go about it then how it is now, even creates room for expansion.

[Rubes]

I think just the prospect of annual Buffalo-Cleveland and Buffalo-Jacksonville games would be enough to kill this idea dead in the eyes of the league.

 

[The Big Cat]

I think just the prospect of annual Buffalo-Cleveland and Buffalo-Jacksonville games would be enough to kill this idea dead in the eyes of the league.

 

Just think: we'd also have a Rams Bucs game too!

 

We'd also have annual matchups between Brees and Rodgers, Brady and Manning.

[Max997]

Don't like it

 

I like divisions and having rivalries but not a fan of only playing teams in your conference

 

The mistake that was made was expanding the league to 32 teams and creating 4 divisions of 4 teams instead of 3 divisions of 5 teams in each conference

[SoggyHog]

What if you had 1 Conference and 4 Divisions. North, South, East and West. Each Division had 8 teams. Regular season would consist of not playing your division, but 2 others. North vs South and East, South vs. North and West, East vs. North and West, West vs. East and South. That's 16 games to determine your position in your division against division foes facing the same teams but not each other. Everyone would have the same bye week, say in the middle of the season. The playoffs would be in a bracket style playoff system. Everyone makes the playoffs. You play within your division. 1's vs. 8's, 2,s vs. 7's and so on. Final 4 (Division champs) would be North vs. South, East vs. West to determine the Super Bowl. The next year, you just mix-up the regular (North vs. East and West.... ect) and playoffs (North vs. West, South vs. East). This way, you play a team 2 years in a row, 1 year off, except in your own division where you may face them every year, or not for years. The Super Bowl will most likely be two teams that have already played that year (sucks) but we have that possibilty now anyway. This schedule would give the NFL 20 more games a year (I think) and a chance for fans to fill out brackets while hoping their team (The Bills) could pull-off the upset of the year!

 

Don't kill me on this....... just thinking out-loud.

[Nathan]

I don't mind the current format except the some of the teams don't make sense in their respective divisions such as the Cowboys in the NFC East, or even the dolphins in the AFC East (I know they're on the East coast, but they don't fit in a division with 3 other northeast teams).

[May Day 10]

am sick of the alignments in MLB and NFL. Was sick of the NHL and glad to see a change, but I liked the owners' proposal that was shot down last year better. The NFL never likes to move around too much, but it gets stale IMO.

I do think that the recent concussion settlement may result in more support among the owners for expansion (which is great IMO and may save the Bills in Buffalo).

 

For hypothetical, let's say they expanded to 2 cities, that is 34 teams

 

AFC

East

Jets

Giants

New England

Baltimore

Washington

Philadelphia

Carolina

London

 

Central

Bills

Steelers

Browns

Bengals

Colts

Lions

Packers

Bears

Vikings

 

NFC

South

Atlanta

Tampa Bay

Tennessee

New Orleans

Miami

Jacksonville

Houston

Dallas

St Louis

 

West

49ers

Oakland

Los Angeles

Seattle

San Diego

Denver

Arizona

Kansas City

 

 

Done, and awesomeness. You would hear crying from Dallas... but rivalries these days are mainly built situationally.

 

Treat each Division kind of like a Conference in NCAA. Play each team 1x and rotate the Home and Away every season.

Edited September 27, 2013 by May Day 10

[Rubes]

We'd also have annual matchups between Brees and Rodgers, Brady and Manning.

 

We already do. It's called the playoffs.

[Georgia Bill]

The Bills would never again play a game vs the NFC.

One could always dream (not much different from today)

 

I think just the prospect of annual Buffalo-Cleveland and Buffalo-Jacksonville games would be enough to kill this idea dead in the eyes of the league.

Well for the last several years, that's not been much worse than a 2x annual matchup between Buffalo and Miami.

[benderbender]

I like the schedule where we don't play Cleveland, Kansas City, and Jacksonville every year.

[Pirate Angel]

dislike the lack of rivalries being established. otherwise, sure it makes sense

they use to be rivalries, now it more like an ass whoopin on the way

[run dat back]

After the Seahawks got in with a losing record, yeah, divisions should go. Probably no chance of that happening, though.

 

I had exactly the same idea, except keeping it at 16 and playing your arch rival home and away, which keeps a little bit of the rivalry thing going. I even thought you could alternate playing the rest of your conference one season and all of the other the following one. But that wouldn't be good for rivalries. Playing every opponent is one of the things I like about soccer leagues and is very democratic. Not sure there would be a big appetite for it here.

[ChallengeHistory]

The Niners are not the best of the top 6 in the NFC.

 

Could you put KC over Denver?

 

KC is playing well but I think Denver would smack the **** out of them to be honest.

 

In fact I think only Seattle could match up well with Denver at this point.

 

Once they get Von back... I would not want to play them. They're better than the 07 Pats..