Heh... NFC South, and a possible ironic Seattle - New Orleans redux

Wheelman said:

I've been a huge supporter of the current playoff format. I like the 12 team playoffs, adding another two teams would water it down, not a fan of reseeding either. That being said, I now think a small tweak should be made to the playoff format.

Division Winners always gets to host a playoff game at home and will seed 1 thru 4 as per normal.
However, to be a division winner you must finish with the highest record in your division and finish with a winning record.(9-7 or higher)

If a division fails to have a division winner with a winning record then the remaining division winners will seed 1 thru 3. There will then be 3 wild card teams who will seed 4 thru 6 based on best record. 1st and 2nd seed still get their bye, 4th seed gets to host a playoff game.

Division winners should always host a home playoff game and seed higher than wild card teams, it's the prize for winning your division. I just think you should finish with a winning record to win your division.

Click to expand...

Interesting angle on things, and very well considered, I'd have to say.

I, too, prefer things the way they are, for the most part. I believe that Brother Jamf did such a tremendous job of arguing in favor of the current Format that I cannot improve upon it.

I would not personally embrace the Tweak you suggest, but there's no denying its Merit.

Personally, I love a Spectacle. As much as I've always loved the Lions, I was rooting hard against them a few Years ago, in their Quest for 0-16 Immortality. And for the same reason ~ a gleeful, capering Pleasure in Depravity ~ I am rooting against all NFC South Teams...except the Buccaneers, of course!!

I rooted for Realignment of the Divisions for Decades, and was delighted when they went with the 4 Division Format that I'd always propounded. Only a couple of Changes that I would personally like to see:

01 ~ I believe that Divisions, if possible, should all be geographically homogenous ~ regional, don't you know. As such, I would propose a 3 Way Trade: Miami to the AFC South, IndianaPolis to the AFC North, and Baltimore to the AFC East, bringing all 3 Teams Home, if you will. That would render 31 out of 32 Teams regionally sympatico, in my opinion. You could swap Dallas for Carolina, as well, but that would only be lessening the geographical issue, not eliminating it: You'd still have a Dixie Team in the NFC East...And of course it's not as if it's likely that they'd go for it, anyway, with those Rivalries as old as they are.

02 ~ What I'd really like to see done is a change to the Atrocity that the current TieBreaker Format is. The fact that Strength of Schedule continues to be relegated to #05 or #06, when it's beyond obvious that it should never be anything but #01 or #02, baffles and infuriates me. The idea of a TieBreaker is obviously to deduce which of two (or more) Teams had a Year more worthy than the other(s), and so I ask: What, aside from Head to Head, if that, is a clearer measure of Superiority than Strength of Schedule?? Answer: Nothing.

03 ~ What really irks me about this continuing yearly Atrocity is that, were the TieBreakers not decided upon by drooling Idiots, our Patriots wouldn't've twice gotten screwed out'f Division Titles that they'd earned. True Story. We'd currently be working on our 14th consecutive Divisional Title, which is precisely what our Team earned on the Field of Battle. And while that 2002 Team probably wouldn't've won it all, as we had enormous problems stopping The Run that Year, that 2008 Team was Red Hot in December, and we probably would've laid waste to what was a very weak cluster of PlayOff Contenders that Year, culminating in a Super Bowl Slaughter of the Cardinals, who we'd already annihilated during our December Rampage.

I am okay with the current conference and division setups (though I acknowledge OTG's criticism of the tiebreaker criteria), as well as with the playoff format. I just wish that the NFL would make one change: that being, that any division that does not produce a champion with a winning record forfeits their place in the playoffs to the non-division winner with the third best record.

NormZauchin said:

I am okay with the current conference and division setups (though I acknowledge OTG's criticism of the tiebreaker criteria), as well as with the playoff format. I just wish that the NFL would make one change: that being, that any division that does not produce a champion with a winning record forfeits their place in the playoffs to the non-division winner with the third best record.

Click to expand...

I'm all right with 500 but bounce teams with losing records.

Off The Grid said:

If only Brother Manx had already pointed that out.

Oh...

Wait a moment...

He did!!

Click to expand...

excellent!

since I wasted a post, you get to waste one, too!!

jmt57 said:

If you wanted to be completely fair then you could have two conferences and no divisions, with a schedule where you play every team in your conference once, then one game against a team from the other conference that finished in the same place in the standings the previous year. That makes 16 games, an equal number home and away, and everyone has the same schedule with the exception of that lone non-conference game.

The problem with that scenario is that fans would not have nearly as much interest in their favorite team as they do now with the current setup. Rivalries are created by playing three teams twice every year, and competing against them for a division title. You have four times as much of a chance of finishing first; that creates a lot more interest in your team than finishing fourth or fifth does.

In the off season the concept of improving from third of fourth place to first or second is more realistic; that gives fans of those teams hope and again generates more interest. It wouldn't be the same if fans saw their team that finished in 12th or 13th place.

Having a mediocre team win a division occasionally is a small price to pay for having almost every fanbase thinking that their team has a chance to improve enough to win the division or make the playoffs or make the next season. That's possible with an eight four-team division setup; it wouldn't be the case if the current setup was scrapped.

Click to expand...

I actually like the idea of the Pats playing all of the AFC teams and putting the top 6 teams into the playoffs. To me it's clearly better than trumped up division winners getting a spot because they had a better record than only 3 other teams.

Using the NFC this season as an example, the only difference for the fans is that Detroit, Philly and SF would be fighting for the last two spots of the six instead of Detroit, Philly and Atlanta. In essence, the fans of the 49ers or some other team are paying the price for rewarding the fans of Atlanta for their team's poor performance in a poor division.

RayClay said:

I'm all right with 500 but bounce teams with losing records.

Click to expand...

So it wouldn't matter to you if that .500 team played in the playoffs and the Pats, who finished at 11-5 but lost the division to the Dolphins because Brady went down for a few games, got to sit home with us and watch that team compete for the Lombardi even though the Pats were 3 games better and crushed that .500 "division winner" when they played them? I don't believe that for a minute... from anyone.

I'm actually hoping that Atlanta or NO gets in at 6-10, just to make it more juicy.

Off The Grid said:

01 ~ I believe that Divisions, if possible, should all be geographically homogenous ~ regional, don't you know. As such, I would propose a 3 Way Trade: Miami to the AFC South, IndianaPolis to the AFC North, and Baltimore to the AFC East, bringing all 3 Teams Home, if you will. That would render 31 out of 32 Teams regionally sympatico, in my opinion. You could swap Dallas for Carolina, as well, but that would only be lessening the geographical issue, not eliminating it: You'd still have a Dixie Team in the NFC East...And of course it's not as if it's likely that they'd go for it, anyway, with those Rivalries as old as they are.

Click to expand...

So glad you wrote this. I've wanted this since realignment from the very beginning. And even your concerns are overstated. Dallas, Texas, is geographically right in the middle of the US, so Carolina is far more relevant to the East than the Cowboys. And have you been to the population centers of North Carolina lately? There are more northeasterners there than true southerners. It is more mid-Atlantic than Dixie every day.

With modern travel advances, the need to have divisions grouped geographically is somewhat outdated. These guys travel with more luxuries than I have in my own home. The only reason to keep divisions is the rivalries, which I can certainly understand, but to me the best rivalries don't come from playing a team twice a year, but from two good teams facing each other year after year. I find the Rivalry with Peyton Manning infinitely more fascinating than the one with the Jets (even if I do love beating them just as much).

Wipe out divisions, every one places everyone else within their conference once, and pick your favorite method of choosing which NFC team you play each year (rotation or based on last year's record).

Some of these suggestions are ridiculous. I could maybe agree with a Division winner with a losing record having to forfeit their HFA in the wildcard but to completely remove them from the playoffs is asinine. If you dont get into the playoffs because another division sucks well tough ****. Win. Your. Division. Take care of your own business first. This complaining reminds me of fantasy football players who ***** because they need one team to win and two others to lose so they can slip into the playoffs then throw a fit when it doesn't work out. If you need help getting into the playoffs then that's your own fault for not winning your division.

It sucks for the NFCS because all of their teams hit the skids at exactly the same time and will produce a division winner with a losing record. But I really have no sympathy for other teams and their fans who are whining about their team possibly not making it because they play in a tough division. Win your division and you wont have to worry about that. If you can't beat your Division opponents in the regular season it's not going to get easier in the playoffs. People complained about this with Seattle in 2010 and NO was knocked right on their ass and out of the playoffs. Any Given Sunday anyone can win and winning your division guarantees you a playoff spot. Regardless of record that should not be taken away.

As for removing divisions that is just beyond. It's fine the way it is.

pwes said:

Some of these suggestions are ridiculous. I could maybe agree with a Division winner with a losing record having to forfeit their HFA in the wildcard but to completely remove them from the playoffs is asinine. If you dont get into the playoffs because another division sucks well tough ****. Win. Your. Division. Take care of your own business first. This complaining reminds me of fantasy football players who ***** because they need one team to win and two others to lose so they can slip into the playoffs then throw a fit when it doesn't work out. If you need help getting into the playoffs then that's your own fault for not winning your division.

It sucks for the NFCS because all of their teams hit the skids at exactly the same time and will produce a division winner with a losing record. But I really have no sympathy for other teams and their fans who are whining about their team possibly not making it because they play in a tough division. Win your division and you wont have to worry about that. If you can't beat your Division opponents in the regular season it's not going to get easier in the playoffs. People complained about this with Seattle in 2010 and NO was knocked right on their ass and out of the playoffs. Any Given Sunday anyone can win and winning your division guarantees you a playoff spot. Regardless of record that should not be taken away.

As for removing divisions that is just beyond. It's fine the way it is.

Click to expand...

The goal should be to have the playoffs represent the best teams in the league. Some leeway due to divisions is fine, but if the current format allows a 6-10 team to get in (which is a possibility), it needs to be changed. It doesn't matter if it only happens once a generation, the fact that it happens at all is a disgrace.

jmt57 said:

The problem with that scenario is that fans would not have nearly as much interest in their favorite team as they do now with the current setup. Rivalries are created by playing three teams twice every year, and competing against them for a division title. You have four times as much of a chance of finishing first; that creates a lot more interest in your team than finishing fourth or fifth does.

Click to expand...

I know the "creating rivalries" is the point, but it seems most of the Pat's real rivalries in the last 15 years or so mostly come from natural competition. Colts-Steelers-Chargers in the mid-oughts, then it seemed to be the Ravens for bit, now it's the Broncos.

And the Jets usually just seem like a pity party.

I'm not sure divisions are needed to create rivalries.

IMO.

tasmlab said:

I know the "creating rivalries" is the point, but it seems most of the Pat's real rivalries in the last 15 years or so mostly come from natural competition. Colts-Steelers-Chargers in the mid-oughts, then it seemed to be the Ravens for bit, now it's the Broncos.

And the Jets usually just seem like a pity party.

I'm not sure divisions are needed to create rivalries.

IMO.

Click to expand...

Actually, divisions are needed to create the competitive rivalries you cite. If all teams were grouped together into one of the two conferences, they could not play a 16 game schedule with more than one game against a team from the other conference. (Fifteen in-conference games and one out of-conference game.) Most fans like the inter-conference games (see the Pats-Packers ratings), though they don't occur frequently enough to generate rivalries. So, to have at least four inter-conference games per team, you would need to drop several in-conference matchups. These might be games with rivals. The way the schedule is now, division champs play the other division winners, creating the rivalries that we anticipate and remember.

To clarify and amplify on my comment above and the responses:

The most 'fair' method would be to have as many teams as possible to have as similar a schedule as possible. To that end, eliminate the divisions, and have every team in a conference play each other once. Another alternative would be four eight-team divisions and play each other twice (home and away, to keep it 'fair), with two at large games (one within your conference and one inter-conference game).

I still feel that for the NFL as a whole that's a bad idea compared to the current setup - even though it is more fair. For the fanbase of a third of fourth placed team in the current setup, they look at the standings and see that their team doesn't have far to go.

With a 16-team conference, you're not going to be as excited about your 12th-placed team's future chances as you would be with a 3rd-place team. With a 16-team conference you are not going to be as excited about your 8th-placed team's current season as you would be if you looked at the standings and saw them in second place. More excitement and positivity creates more interest, which results in both higher attendance at games as well as more viewers for televised games. This equates to more profits for both the owners as well as the league's business partners (the networks).

An equal schedule may be more fair, but the current eight-division setup makes better business sense.

jmt57 said:

What I found really odd was that until yesterday's games, the entire NFC South was still in contention for the division title, and at the same time all four teams were also still in contention for the number one overall pick in the draft - with just four games left to play.
.

Click to expand...

Slghtly OT here but what's weird is that there are no AFC teams with 3,4,5 or 6 wins ....

The NFL isn't set up to be fair, for example 1st place schedules clearly disadvantages conference champs. It's set up to spur competition and interest. The problem with college football is they are trying to get an equitable outcome from an inequitable system. The NFL isn't trying to be equitable.

I'm rooting for Dallas to travel to 6-9-1 Carolina for a WC game, and to lose on a Tony Romo 4th quarter pick six.

Under the current system, you can host a playoff game with a grand total of 3 wins.

Yes, its a mathematical oddity, and would probably never happen, but its possible.

Sfpat said:

The NFL isn't set up to be fair, for example 1st place schedules clearly disadvantages conference champs. It's set up to spur competition and interest. The problem with college football is they are trying to get an equitable outcome from an inequitable system. The NFL isn't trying to be equitable.

Click to expand...

"The NFL isn't set up to be fair, for example 1st place schedules clearly disadvantages conference champs. It's set up to make money for the owners."

Fixed it for ya.