Brady -> Mahomes AFC dominance is best case for league realignment

[Peevo]

One of the few malleable things about the league is that we all accept how the schedule isn't the same for every team.  Yet it's by CHOICE they do it this way. 

 

League owners and operatives could simply change it.  

 

You can't control player injuries, free agency, draft positioning, salary cap, etc. There's a lot of randomness that affects results.  The scheduling system is by design, and I'd argue has a massive impact on what teams make the Superbowl every year.  

 

31 games (every team plays each other once) is never gonna happen.  So what are some better options than the current system?

 

Brady and the Pats went to 8 consecutive AFC Championships (2011 - 2018).  Not even counting their pre-2011 runs.  The Chiefs have appeared in 6 straight conference championships.  2018 - 2023 & counting.  

 

The AFC domination transferred from Brady to Mahomes in the span of a season.  Now the conference is Mahomes' to dominate until he retires.

 

We just accept this as a reality.  The NFL could just change it.  Why is it this way?  Because they decided to in 1967.  

 

If the conferences are unevenly matched due to the presence of a generational talent, it creates a competitive disadvantage for 15 teams simply because of league logistics.  Again, they choose to have it this way.  

 

NFL fans accept the reality that their teams play almost all the same teams every year, and expect DIFFERENT results.  I'm burnt out on the same teams every year.  And of course I know as I'm writing this that IT WILL NEVER CHANGE.  Doesn't mean we can't at least have the conversation, right?

 

 

[chongli]

So now we need the league to save us and help get Allen a SB?

[Bills!Win!]

Even though I knew there was A 10% chance the lions would beat the chiefs in the Super Bowl I still wanted the Lions to win. Fresh blood

 

It’s going to be a weird day when we see the Texans, Jaguars, Browns, Commanders or Texans make the Super Bowl. I don’t think the nfl could let it happen 

Edited January 29 by Bills!Win!

[RkFast]

And in ten years when the NFC is "dominant" again?

[MJS]

This is just dumb.

[Dick_Cheney]

1 minute ago, RkFast said:

And in ten years when the NFC is "dominant" again?

Realign the realignment!

[Nephilim17]

What exactly are you suggesting? That the Cheifs be moved to the NFC to let other AFC teams get a shot at the Super Bowl?

Wouldn't that, if the logic follows, then be a severe disadvantage to all the NFC teams? I don't get how to make this "fair."

Let's see if they're still unbeatable in a couple years without Kelce and Jones.

Edited January 29 by Nephilim17

[corta765]

This might be the early clubhouse leader for worst idea on the board in 2024

Edited January 29 by corta765

[GunnerBill]

Hang on, what is the argument here? If Mahomes was in the NFC - i.e. the weaker conference for opposing Quarterbacks - then your theory might support moving him to the AFC to face more competition. But how does moving the best Quarterback out of the stronger Quarterback conference and into the weaker one promote competition?

 

If Mahomes was in the NFC he'd make the Superbowl every year with even less jeopardy. 

[BRH]

This has to be a troll.... doesn't it?

[MJS]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Hang on, what is the argument here? If Mahomes was in the NFC - i.e. the weaker conference for opposing Quarterbacks - then your theory might support moving him to the AFC to face more competition. But how does moving the best Quarterback out of the stronger Quarterback conference and into the weaker one promote competition?

 

If Mahomes was in the NFC he'd make the Superbowl every year with even less jeopardy. 

The argument is he wants the Bills to have an easier path to the superbowl. That's really all.

[Mr. WEO]

how long has this been corroding the OP's brain?

 

In 1967, the NFL decided to align the conferences so that, 50-60 years later, 2 teams would dominate the SB?---and they should simply "mix it up" a bit if one conference dominates the SB?

 

lol--in the pantheon of bad TBD idea, this may be its apex.

 

 

 

[Peevo]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Hang on, what is the argument here? If Mahomes was in the NFC - i.e. the weaker conference for opposing Quarterbacks - then your theory might support moving him to the AFC to face more competition. But how does moving the best Quarterback out of the stronger Quarterback conference and into the weaker one promote competition?

 

If Mahomes was in the NFC he'd make the Superbowl every year with even less jeopardy. 

 

All i'm saying is after all the games are played, we're stuck with the Chiefs in the AFC title again, what's the point of all of this?

 

The Bills got their skulls crushed by the Pats for 20 years, and we all just accepted it without complaint.  Now the Chiefs have ascended and there's virtually 0 hope for all AFC teams until he's retired.

 

How is it fair?  That's all I'm saying.

[corta765]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

how long has this been corroding the OP's brain?

 

In 1967, the NFL decided to align the conferences so that, 50-60 years later, 2 teams would dominate the SB?---and they should simply "mix it up" a bit if one conference dominates the SB?

 

lol--in the pantheon of bad TBD idea, this may be its apex.

 

 

 

 

NFL in 1967 "Aight so Brady and the Pats will dominate from 2001-2018 at which the great handoff will happen between future Chiefs QB Pat Mahomes (mind you isn't born yet nor is his father) so KC can themselves go on a 6 year reign of terror and who knows after"

 

NFL Owners "Sounds great the divisions are approved!

[Peevo]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

how long has this been corroding the OP's brain?

 

In 1967, the NFL decided to align the conferences so that, 50-60 years later, 2 teams would dominate the SB?---and they should simply "mix it up" a bit if one conference dominates the SB?

 

lol--in the pantheon of bad TBD idea, this may be its apex.

 

 

 

 

But why is change so bad?  I'm genuinely asking.

 

Until all the teams play each other we will never really achieve competitive balance in the schedule.

 

 

[WhoTom]

1 minute ago, Peevo said:

 

All i'm saying is after all the games are played, we're stuck with the Chiefs in the AFC title again, what's the point of all of this?

 

The Bills got their skulls crushed by the Pats for 20 years, and we all just accepted it without complaint.  Now the Chiefs have ascended and there's virtually 0 hope for all AFC teams until he's retired.

 

How is it fair?  That's all I'm saying.

 

What solution do you have in mind?

 

 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Peevo said:

 

All i'm saying is after all the games are played, we're stuck with the Chiefs in the AFC title again, what's the point of all of this?

 

The Bills got their skulls crushed by the Pats for 20 years, and we all just accepted it without complaint.  Now the Chiefs have ascended and there's virtually 0 hope for all AFC teams until he's retired.

 

How is it fair?  That's all I'm saying.

 

How is it fair that the best team keeps winning? I mean that's sports. You live in the hope that one year they don't. 

[KDIGGZ]

Hey, if you can't beat 'em...

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Peevo said:

 

But why is change so bad?  I'm genuinely asking.

 

Until all the teams play each other we will never really achieve competitive balance in the schedule.

 

 

 

But how would that help in this scenario? Mahomes is playing in the tougher conference. He has another very good QB in his division that he plays twice. I'm not sure how making him play teams with worse Quarterbacks more often achieves more competitive balance?

[Warcodered]

I have no idea what this is and I'm guessing it's dumb, obviously just beat him it's not impossible it's in fact happened multiple times already.

 

I mean what ridiculous suggestion is there to have the Chiefs alternate conferences every year? I think I'd rather die than cede this kind of self defeatist attitude to them.

Edited January 29 by Warcodered

[Peevo]

1 minute ago, WhoTom said:

 

What solution do you have in mind?

 

 

 

I'm already getting lambasted for this so what the hell.

 

Eliminate all divisions and conferences.  

 

31 games, everyone plays everybody once.  Alternate home and away every other year.  Who ever is in 1st place wins the championship.  If there's a tie at the end, fine 1 championship game to decide between the 2 top teams.

 

You want 17 games?

 

Fine - eliminate the divisions and everyone in the AFC plays each other once.  15 games.  2 games out of conference every year.  If they go to 18 games, you can play 3 out of conference games.

 

If you want to get real nuts have the bottom feeders in each conference forced to realign into the conference.  You want 8 divisions?  Force the 4th place team to "realign" or "relegate" to the opposite conference or something.  You don't want to be in the NFC East?  Fine, don't suck.

 

I don't have every machination of every scenario worked out here.  All I'm saying is we accept the current system as is, with all of its various flaws, and "im the worst post ever" candidate for merely suggesting we can change it.

 

 

[Buffalo03]

35 minutes ago, Peevo said:

One of the few malleable things about the league is that we all accept how the schedule isn't the same for every team.  Yet it's by CHOICE they do it this way. 

 

League owners and operatives could simply change it.  

 

You can't control player injuries, free agency, draft positioning, salary cap, etc. There's a lot of randomness that affects results.  The scheduling system is by design, and I'd argue has a massive impact on what teams make the Superbowl every year.  

 

31 games (every team plays each other once) is never gonna happen.  So what are some better options than the current system?

 

Brady and the Pats went to 8 consecutive AFC Championships (2011 - 2018).  Not even counting their pre-2011 runs.  The Chiefs have appeared in 6 straight conference championships.  2018 - 2023 & counting.  

 

The AFC domination transferred from Brady to Mahomes in the span of a season.  Now the conference is Mahomes' to dominate until he retires.

 

We just accept this as a reality.  The NFL could just change it.  Why is it this way?  Because they decided to in 1967.  

 

If the conferences are unevenly matched due to the presence of a generational talent, it creates a competitive disadvantage for 15 teams simply because of league logistics.  Again, they choose to have it this way.  

 

NFL fans accept the reality that their teams play almost all the same teams every year, and expect DIFFERENT results.  I'm burnt out on the same teams every year.  And of course I know as I'm writing this that IT WILL NEVER CHANGE.  Doesn't mean we can't at least have the conversation, right?

 

 

The best way for the Bills to win a championship. Put them in the AFC South and let them play all 3 division opponents and no other NFC conference but the NFC South for 5 years. I love it. I'm gonna write Goodell 

[BuffaloBillyG]

Let's just ship Mahomes to the new XFL/USFL league and banish him because he always wins and hurts the OP's feelings.

[sullim4]

I will say that it is interesting that the longest dynasties have occurred post-2002, when the NFL realigned into the 4-team division setup.  With smaller divisions, it is harder to overcome a single, dominant team in a division.  It's harder to attract free agents, for instance, if you're playing Brady or Mahomes twice a year versus seeing them once every three or four years.

 

I do think there is a competitive issue when the first place team in the division and the last place team in the division play identical schedules aside from three games (the two cross-division in-conference games, and the 17th cross-conference game).  I wouldn't mind seeing them juggle things a bit here.

Edited January 29 by sullim4

[MJS]

5 minutes ago, Peevo said:

 

I'm already getting lambasted for this so what the hell.

 

Eliminate all divisions and conferences.  

 

31 games, everyone plays everybody once.  Alternate home and away every other year.  Who ever is in 1st place wins the championship.  If there's a tie at the end, fine 1 championship game to decide between the 2 top teams.

 

You want 17 games?

 

Fine - eliminate the divisions and everyone in the AFC plays each other once.  15 games.  2 games out of conference every year.  If they go to 18 games, you can play 3 out of conference games.

 

If you want to get real nuts have the bottom feeders in each conference forced to realign into the conference.  You want 8 divisions?  Force the 4th place team to "realign" or "relegate" to the opposite conference or something.  You don't want to be in the NFC East?  Fine, don't suck.

 

I don't have every machination of every scenario worked out here.  All I'm saying is we accept the current system as is, with all of its various flaws, and "im the worst post ever" candidate for merely suggesting we can change it.

Nobody has a problem with you suggesting a change to how the NFL is structured. They have a problem with your reasons. You don't change something because a team is good and keeps winning.

[Peevo]

1 minute ago, sullim4 said:

I will say that it is interesting that the longest dynasties have occurred post-2002, when the NFL realigned into the 4-team division setup.  With smaller divisions, it is harder to overcome a single, dominant team in a division.  It's harder to attract free agents, for instance, if you're playing Brady or Mahomes twice a year versus.

 

I do think there is a competitive issue when the first place team in the division and the last place team in the division play identical schedules aside from three games (the two cross-division in-conference games, and the 17th cross-conference game).  I wouldn't mind seeing them juggle things a bit here.

 

 

See, I'm not the only one who thinks the system could be reformed! Thank you @sullim4!  

 

And for the record, I know this stuff will never change.  But there really is no good reason besides "we've always done it this way" to the NFL alignment and scheduling system.

 

It's never made sense.  There's conference realignment all the time in college.  I don't know why it's such a third rail with the NFL.  

[ddaryl]

you want to be the best you have to beat the best.

 

[LeGOATski]

I'm all for just 2 conferences, no divisions. The rivalries would still happen. But you'd have more diverse schedules. It'd be awesome.

[RiotAct]

17 minutes ago, corta765 said:

 

NFL in 1967 "Aight so Brady and the Pats will dominate from 2001-2018 at which the great handoff will happen between future Chiefs QB Pat Mahomes (mind you isn't born yet nor is his father) so KC can themselves go on a 6 year reign of terror and who knows after"

 

NFL Owners "Sounds great the divisions are approved!

“… and the Bills will be completely screwed!!!”. 

 

:: All other owners turn to Ralph and laugh maniacally::

[Warcodered]

11 minutes ago, Peevo said:

 

I'm already getting lambasted for this so what the hell.

 

Eliminate all divisions and conferences.  

 

31 games, everyone plays everybody once.  Alternate home and away every other year.  Who ever is in 1st place wins the championship.  If there's a tie at the end, fine 1 championship game to decide between the 2 top teams.

 

You want 17 games?

 

Fine - eliminate the divisions and everyone in the AFC plays each other once.  15 games.  2 games out of conference every year.  If they go to 18 games, you can play 3 out of conference games.

 

If you want to get real nuts have the bottom feeders in each conference forced to realign into the conference.  You want 8 divisions?  Force the 4th place team to "realign" or "relegate" to the opposite conference or something.  You don't want to be in the NFC East?  Fine, don't suck.

 

I don't have every machination of every scenario worked out here.  All I'm saying is we accept the current system as is, with all of its various flaws, and "im the worst post ever" candidate for merely suggesting we can change it.

 

 

Well it's never going to happen, in that there has to be playoffs that's money and the league is not eliminating money no way no how.

 

Honestly all of this is obviously never going to happen you're never going to get the kind of votes you'd need from ownership.

 

As a fun exercise the idea of an end of the season reshuffle is kind of interesting putting the bad teams together in divisions and the good teams together as well, really force some balance and competition. With something like that I guess there's a lot of tiers of things you're competing for each year. Competing to be in the top division, to win the division, win in the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. But it's all a lot of craziness.

Edited January 29 by Warcodered

[Peevo]

2 minutes ago, MJS said:

Nobody has a problem with you suggesting a change to how the NFL is structured. They have a problem with your reasons. You don't change something because a team is good and keeps winning.

 

The reason for change is because one team (Pats and now Chiefs) have monopolized the system to a point where it is non-competitive.

 

It is a fact monopolies are bad for economies. That is a fact, right? They suppress competition.  How can we (the league) create more equitable results?  Break up the monopoly.  (AT&T in the 80's, Standard Oil).  This is not a new idea.

[RobbRiddick]

People keep talking about Mahomes. To me it's more Andy Reid. Now I know Reid didn't win a SB before Mahomes but he nearly won one with Donovan ***** McNabb and also went to about a 1000 championship games. 

 

IMO that team will be favorites every year until Reid retires. The way he makes adjustments with whatever offensive personnel is at his disposal is just incredible (and look at how Mahomes was playing before those changes kicked in - he was forcing balls, trying to do too much, basically trying to play like Allen but wasn't as good at doing that). 

 

Reid uses his pieces on offense the same way Belichick used whatever pieces he was dealt with on defense. The Pats often started badly but as his changes took root they'd gradually round into form.

 

There's rumours that Reid will retire if they win this SB, I'm not convinced but if he does I can honestly say I'm no longer fearful of KC. They'll always be good with Mahomes but once Reid is gone they stop being scary

[Peevo]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Well it's never going to happen, in that there has to be playoffs that's money and the league is not eliminating money no way no how.

 

Honestly all of this is obviously never going to happen you're never going to get the kind of votes you'd need from ownership.

 

As a fun exercise the idea of an end of the season reshuffle is kind of interesting putting the bad teams together in divisions and the good teams together as well, really force some balance and coemption. With something like that I guess there's a lot of tiers of things you're competing for each year. Competing to be in the top division, to win the division, win in the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. But it's all a lot of craziness.

 

 

Correct.  This creates a system more in line with relegation/promotion.  Teams have more to play for than just division titles and early playoff exits.  It's a more "open" system than the closed system they currently have.  That's really all I'm getting at.

[Governor]

51 minutes ago, chongli said:

So now we need the league to save us and help get Allen a SB?

Hey, they did it for Payton Manning. Why not Josh? Lol

[LeGOATski]

10 minutes ago, Peevo said:

 

The reason for change is because one team (Pats and now Chiefs) have monopolized the system to a point where it is non-competitive.

 

It is a fact monopolies are bad for economies. That is a fact, right? They suppress competition.  How can we (the league) create more equitable results?  Break up the monopoly.  (AT&T in the 80's, Standard Oil).  This is not a new idea.

The NFL IS the monopoly. Just like every other major sports league.

 

Dynasties are actually good for the leagues. That's how you gain a global audience and the outskirts of you audience of bandwagon fans: consistent globally recognized brands. Think Lakers, Celtics, Cowboys, Yankees....Manchester United...Barcelona... all those types of big dynasties with big stars for people to idol-worship.

 

If you really want to break up the monopoly, you have to support the other leagues, like the UFL (USFL/XFL)

[90sBills]

Why can’t we kick that athletic kid off the team so my kid can have more success? It’s so not fair! He’s monopolizing all the talent and it’s not good for the game!

 

Of all the crazy ideas to get the Bills to a superbowl this has to take the cake. 

[Gregg]

I am hoping Harbaugh does a good job with the Chargers so maybe the Chiefs will have some competition in the division for a change. On the negative side is the Bills will have to deal with another good team in the AFC if he does.

[May Day 10]

I say it every time this comes up...

 

Im all for realignment.  I am bored to death of New England, the Jets, and Miami covering 1/3 of the schedule every season.  

 

 

 

The 8-division, 32 team structure is really good and solid as far as scheduling.  

 

 

In some sort of dystopian society, the NFL would hold a 'draw' in March, where they pick the 8 Divisions World Cup style.

[JDubya76]

To be the man, you gotta beat the man.

 

 

Beat the man.

[LeGOATski]

2 minutes ago, 90sBills said:

Why can’t we kick that athletic kid off the team so my kid can have more success? It’s so not fair! He’s monopolizing all the talent and it’s not good for the game!

 

Of all the crazy ideas to get the Bills to a superbowl this has to take the cake. 

My wife coaches middle school volleyball and, I kid you not, got an email like that from a parent.

 

Her daughter, who's just learning volleyball and is relegated to the bench, deserves as much playing time as the best players ....

 

No surprise, she got a big fat NO from my wife and subsequently pulled her daughter off the team.