The Super Bowl is becoming meaningless

[frankiesfly]

I think the league needs to seriously reevaluate its playoff formula. The imbalance between the conferences is becoming so lopsided that pitting the winners against each other hardly represents "the best vs. the best" at the end of the season.

A playoff tournament bracketing system needs to be established based on won-loss record at the end of the season. This, of course, would require a radical change in alignment, perhaps doing away altogether with the conference format. But when you really think about it, what distinguishes the conferences anyway? It's not like there's a legitimate "rivalry" between the AFC and NFC echoing the old days of the NFL and AFL.

It would be a much better league if, at the end of the season, the two best teams had a shot at facing off in the Super Bowl. I wonder if the league brass has put any thought into this.

I couldn't agree more. What would be better than a Patriots/Chargers superbowl? Or even better a Pats/Colts superbowl. You're right. Its not like it would ruin any type of rivalry that has been in the leauge. Either way to me the Superbowl already is meaningless, unless the Pats are in it. Waiting 2 weeks before the game, dragged out pre game, dragged out 1/2 time show, and washed up musicians, already make it hard for me to watch.

 

[Tunescribe]

I think a lot of you are missing the point. It's not about whether one conference is more dominant than the other, it's about trying to get the seedings right during the playoffs so that the best two teams have a chance of playing each other in the superbowl. Whether that means its two afc teams, two nfc teams or one from each conference, it doesn't matter. What does is, now the two "best" teams will have a chance to play each other in the superbowl.

With that said however, I will say that saying the Superbowl is now meaningless is overboard. It's still the ultimate goal and whether the system stays as it is or is changed in the future, it'll never mean in my mind that it could become meaningless.

Thank you for clarifying my point. I'm not really suggesting that the Super Bowl is now meaningless, just that its status as THE game for deciding the league's best team veered off the mark some time ago. As it stands the game is a vestige of the old AFL vs. NFL, a one-time rivalry that fans no longer care about. Having it devolve into an anti-climax following the conference championship game is what I'd like to see the league avoid.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I say either realign the conferences geographically or do away with them altogether.

That would force both New York teams into the same conference, which I'm sure the league is very hesitant to allow. It would also create one conference without a New York team and considering that it is the biggest market, it won't happen.
IIRC when the merger happened, the Colts, Browns and Steelers were enticed to go to the AFC with the lure that they could succeed in what was perceived as a weaker conference.

 

[Seymour93]

Really? here are the results since 2001:

2001 - AFC wins by 3 over a heavily favored NFC team
2002 - NFC destroys AFC by 20+
2003 - AFC wins by 3 in an extremely competitive game
2004 - AFC wins by 3 in an extremely competitive game
2005 - AFC wins by 11 in an extremely competive game that could've gone the other way but for some terrible officiating.
2006 - AFC by 12 in a game that definitely did not feature the two best teams in the NFL.

So, only last year was there a good argument that the two best teams didn't face off in the SB. In 5 of the last 6 years, either the NFC has won, or the game has been exceedingly competitive right to the end.

Your argument that the competitive imbalance has become so great so as to warrant scrapping the playoff system of the greatest sports league of all time is misplaced to say the least.

I agree with your point of view. The NFL is by far the most popular sport in America and there's no need to jeopardize part of what makes it extremely successful. However I would like to expand on SB results over the last 10 years...

1997 - AFC wins by 7 over heavily favored NFC team
1998 - AFC, who were heavily favored, wins by 15
1999 - NFC wins by 7 in extremely competitive game
2000 - AFC, who were heavily favored, destroys NFC by 20+
2001 - AFC wins by 3 over a heavily favored NFC team
2002 - NFC destroys AFC by 20+
2003 - AFC wins by 3 in an extremely competitive game
2004 - AFC wins by 3 in an extremely competitive game
2005 - AFC wins by 11 in an extremely competive game that could've gone the other way but for some terrible officiating.
2006 - AFC by 12 in a game that definitely did not feature the two best teams in the NFL.

That's pretty impressive, IMO.

 

[godef]

I think the league needs to seriously reevaluate its playoff formula. The imbalance between the conferences is becoming so lopsided that pitting the winners against each other hardly represents "the best vs. the best" at the end of the season.

A playoff tournament bracketing system needs to be established based on won-loss record at the end of the season. This, of course, would require a radical change in alignment, perhaps doing away altogether with the conference format. But when you really think about it, what distinguishes the conferences anyway? It's not like there's a legitimate "rivalry" between the AFC and NFC echoing the old days of the NFL and AFL.

It would be a much better league if, at the end of the season, the two best teams had a shot at facing off in the Super Bowl. I wonder if the league brass has put any thought into this.

Actually, I'd like to seem them eliminate the crappy little 4-team divisions. Winning a division has lost it's meaning since you ought to be able to do it every 4th year based on average alone.

Going with the idea of "eliminating" conferences, I suggest four 8-team divisions. You would play each division opponent on a home or away basis (home one year, away the next, like college and high school). Then there would be a 3-year rotation of round-robin play with another division to get the game count up to 15. For the 16th game, you play another team in the same position (1st vs 1st, 2nd vs 2nd, etc) from one of the other two remaining divisions, also on rotation.

Just one possible alignment ... these are more or less geographical (North, South, East, West), but I figured the NFL would try to keep the NY teams apart, so among other things, I moved the Giants to the north where they might renew some historic rivalries such as vs Cleveland...

NFL East - New England, Buffalo, Miami, NY Jets, Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
NFL North - NY Giants, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, Green Bay, Indianapolis
NFL South - Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Houston, St Louis
NFL West - Arizona, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, Oakland, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego

Or you can throw some geography out the window and combine the NFC East and North, the AFC East and North, AFC and NFC South, AFC and NFC South... consider that nrotheast teams would still travel less than south or west teams...

NFL East - Buffalo, Miami, New England, NY Jets, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh
NFL North - Dallas, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota
NFL South - Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Houston, Tennessee
NFL West - Denver, Kansas City, Oakland, San Diego, Arizona, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle

But now this really begs to get Dallas relocated... perhaps swap Dallas and Indy...

 

[alamo]

I'm all for seeding all 12 teams together. Back in 90's that would have produced many great Dallas vs SF superbowls in place of Buffalo and imagine NE vs Indy last year or this coming year.

And how is that so much better than having those teams meet in the conference championship, like they did?

For me, the improvement isn't even close to worth the diminishment of rivalries and in-season rooting interest that eliminating the present format would cause. You are improving (arguably) the Super Bowl but making the rest of the season much less interesting.

 

[Tunescribe]

That would force both New York teams into the same conference, which I'm sure the league is very hesitant to allow. It would also create one conference without a New York team and considering that it is the biggest market, it won't happen.
IIRC when the merger happened, the Colts, Browns and Steelers were enticed to go to the AFC with the lure that they could succeed in what was perceived as a weaker conference.

No, I believe the Colts, Browns and Steelers went to the AFC to balance the number of teams in the two conferences. Just thinking theoretically here: From a network television standpoint I understand what you're saying. But competitively speaking, what real difference would it make if both New York teams were in the same conference? It would only heighten the rivalry.

Consider two, 16-team conferences, East and West, where each team plays every other team in its conference once each season (15 games) plus one opponent from the other conference. The top six teams in each conference then are seeded into conference playoff tournaments at the end of the season, with conference winners facing off in the Super Bowl. Advantages: development of additional regional rivalries, facing more teams during a season (removing home/away divisional play), less cross-country travel. Disadvantages: Playing teams from the other conference only once every 16 years (except of course in the Super Bowl), New York teams not traveling for one "road" game each season.

To increase inter-conference exposure, all preseason games would be scheduled against teams in the other conference.

EAST

New England
Buffalo
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
New York Jets
New York Giants
Miami
Tampa Bay
Atlanta
Carolina
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Jacksonville
Baltimore

WEST

Seattle
Oakland
Denver
Houston
Dallas
Kansas City
Arizona
San Diego
San Francisco
Detroit
Chicago
Green Bay
Minnesota
New Orleans
Indianapolis
St. Louis

 

[RoughingthePasser]

kind of like the nba?



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

UGH, please...just no. the NFL is two conferences. Just because one of them sucks right now is no reason to go mucking with the most popular game in the country.

Someday the AFC will suck, and the NFC will win a few. That was the case, not too long ago.

exactly the point of the poster. The two top teams in the NFL...the NFL should be there not the two top teams from each conference....the two top teams in the NFL

...in the NFL

I think it sucks personally.

Think of a New Endland - Denver, New England - San Diego, New England - Colts, New England - Baltimore, New England - Cincinnati

That would be a real Superbowl.

 

[godef]

... the Colts, Browns and Steelers were enticed to go to the AFC with the lure that they could succeed in what was perceived as a weaker conference

No, I believe the Colts, Browns and Steelers went to the AFC to balance the number of teams in the two conferences. ...

Actually, you're both right.

 

[everlong]

And how is that so much better than having those teams meet in the conference championship, like they did?

For me, the improvement isn't even close to worth the diminishment of rivalries and in-season rooting interest that eliminating the present format would cause. You are improving (arguably) the Super Bowl but making the rest of the season much less interesting.

You would have had the two best teams meet in the SB. Indy could have still killed the Bears in the semi finals while we would have faced SD in the other semi. So both semi final games are better too.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

NOTHING is more MEANINGLESS than the NCAA College Bowls instead of a legitimate national championship tournament.

 

[Dr Pain]

Cross over the wildcard teams.....

This is a brilliant idea. We could have a Patriots Jets SB

 

[AzPatsFan]

Yeah, but the conferences don't mean anything anyway -- why even have them? They're not even separated from each other geographically. There's no longer any legitimate tradition to preserve between the two, it's been nearly 40 years since the AFL and NFL merged. How is it "mucking" with the most popular game in the country to ensure that the two best teams have a chance at meeting for the league championship?

The National Leage and American League wars date to the first decade of the 20th century, a hundred years ago. Why the World Series??

 

[PromisedLand]

I love the system the way it is now. Leave it alone.

 

[maseehpat]

im salivating thinking of a indy nepats superbowl

 

[Vern]

Thank you for clarifying my point. I'm not really suggesting that the Super Bowl is now meaningless, just that its status as THE game for deciding the league's best team veered off the mark some time ago. As it stands the game is a vestige of the old AFL vs. NFL, a one-time rivalry that fans no longer care about. Having it devolve into an anti-climax following the conference championship game is what I'd like to see the league avoid.

If anything, the game is far MORE on par with picking the best team than the original SuperBowls ever were when the merger first occurred.

But Conferences and Divisions generate interest. We care about the Jets game a lot more than usual this weekend not because they are from New York, or some historical rivalry, but because they are a division opponent, and thus "worth more of a win" than just a division game. Similarly, even the Cleveland game holds some interest as Conference game, more so than say Washington game. Or at the other end of the spectrum from year, the Colts game having far more interest than the Bears game. I know I follow the AFC teams much more heavily than the NFC teams purely because of the importance of the Conference in the outcome of the playoffs.

The league wants different levels of interest like that far more than they want "the best opponents" in the final game. Think about it, the final game is just one game - no matter how great it is there is only so much ad space to sell in one game. But all the OTHER games that happen all year long benefit from stronger interest generated by conferences and divisions. Think about how many casual fans decide to put off something else to watch that key division or conference game = more ratings and more ad $ that week.

Hell, the Colts Pats regular season game would be FAR less critical if you knew the Pats and Colts were probably going to end up being #1 seeds on their own anyway in some reconfigured seeding system. Now, it could decide the SB winner. That game alone might account for a huge chunk of the entire regular seasons ratings totals. And with your system, this wouldn't be a one time thing. The Pats and Colts would be hyped at best as a "tune up" game every year for the SB. Possibly the same with SD Pats, or Colts SD, etc.

That's a lot of incremental regular season ratings losses you'd have to make up for all in the SB (which is basically at peak ratings anyway).

 

[Tunescribe]

The National Leage and American League wars date to the first decade of the 20th century, a hundred years ago. Why the World Series??

The baseball leagues remained segregated, the football leagues did not. One of the stupidest things MLB ever did (among many others) was institute regular-season interleague play, which waters down the contrast between the leagues and takes a bit of novelty out of the World Series.

Because the baseball leagues were segregated, they developed distinctively different styles of play with which they were identified -- National League emphasis on speed, base stealing, fastball pitchers, high-average singles hitters, etc,; American League tendency toward breaking-ball pitchers, homerun hitters, etc.

The AFL and NFL had contrasting styles of play as well before the merger. Style of play is now homogenized leaguewide. Can you think of any identifying factors distinguishing the AFC from the NFC? I can't.

 

[drpatriot]

Thank you for clarifying my point. I'm not really suggesting that the Super Bowl is now meaningless, just that its status as THE game for deciding the league's best team veered off the mark some time ago. As it stands the game is a vestige of the old AFL vs. NFL, a one-time rivalry that fans no longer care about. Having it devolve into an anti-climax following the conference championship game is what I'd like to see the league avoid.

Quite arguably the Patriots weren't the best team in the league in 2001. Did that make the game less interesting?

Just because the past two years have had bad Super Bowls (other than the Devin Hester kickoff return) doesn't mean that it's devolving.

 

[PATRIOT64]

And the Patriots were far from the best team in 1985 as well,Without the wild card they would not have made it in - although the SB result was less than satisfying to say the least.