OT: Scrap the division imo

[eagle eye]

I've been thinking about this for quite a while now.

The divisional system really gets to me. Like its actually possible that in one season the four best teams in the NFL could be in one division. I think its an unfair system because of that.

Every team plays 16 games per season at the present time. So why not just have the NFC and the AFC? Every team in each conference plays each other once and the best six qualify for the playoffs. Ties on a home one year, away the next year basis, 8 of each per season of course. You can use most of the tiebreakers that already exist in case of ties.

Has this been discussed before? I can't find a thread about it.

 

[aurakilla]

well that woulda helped us last year.................but i think playing the jets bills and dolphins twice a year helps the pats record stay better tehe

 

[efin98]

Two things wrong with that:
One, you lose a game by that reasoning. 16 teams in the conference and each team playing the other teams in the conference once means they play 15 games.
Two, what do you do about seeding? Tie breakers? Homefield advantage?

To me that line of thinking is essentially undoing the 1970 merger by removing all the interconference games, you also remove the home and home aspect of the divisions and you also undo 77 years of history. It doesn't make sense to do it just because every few years one team gets screwed out of a chance to play in the playoffs.

 

[eagle eye]

My bad, you would lose a game(shudders at the thought of it) as for the history thing, that is not a concern. Tiebreakers would take some working out, but a basic one would be that if you beat a team you are ahead of them, clearly there would have to be many more.
Having said that losing a game is a no no for me. How did I make that mistake? rollseyes to himself

 

[fnordcircle]

Terrible idea that would sacrifice half of the fun and drama of the final weeks of the season for little gain.

Having half of the league still have a mathematical shot at a playoff berth is way more interesting for fans and better for ratings than having only 5 or 6 teams in the hunt for a playoff spot.

 

[Pats726]

I like the idea of rivalry with teams..and that would disappear with another non-divisional system...for football it really works OK...

 

[RoughingthePasser]

I've been thinking about this for quite a while now.

The divisional system really gets to me. Like its actually possible that in one season the four best teams in the NFL could be in one division. I think its an unfair system because of that.

Every team plays 16 games per season at the present time. So why not just have the NFC and the AFC? Every team in each conference plays each other once and the best six qualify for the playoffs. Ties on a home one year, away the next year basis, 8 of each per season of course. You can use most of the tiebreakers that already exist in case of ties.

Has this been discussed before? I can't find a thread about it.

Remember....not so long ago we had INDY in the AFC East.


Imagine if they never left the division.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Even after the Pats have been left out of a weak playoff field with an 11-5 record because of divisons...... I still prefer the divison system.

 

[Ryan]

My bad, you would lose a game(shudders at the thought of it) as for the history thing, that is not a concern. Tiebreakers would take some working out, but a basic one would be that if you beat a team you are ahead of them, clearly there would have to be many more.
Having said that losing a game is a no no for me. How did I make that mistake? rollseyes to himself

Maybe they could schedule 1 AFC vs. NFC game per year? Or if they do extend the schedule make it 2 or 3.

I don't mind divisions, but I actually like this idea. I think it makes it a little harder to get into the playoffs and would do a better job of truly separating the good teams from the mediocre teams. If a team has to play everyone in their conference, there can't be any dodging the good teams and getting in based on an easy schedule. It puts everyone on an even level.

I don't think the rivalries would disappear at all either. Look at NE/Indy. When Indy left the East they actually became a bigger rival. All it takes are a few big games between two teams over the course of a year or two to get rivalries going.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Really, if they want to "add excitement," what the NFL should consider is guaranteeing that the last 2-3 weeks consist of nothing but divisional games. That would ensure that 30 of 32 teams (everyone except IND and TEN ) would take them seriously.

 

[Kontradiction]

You would also lose two great, hard hitting, divisional games. I don't know about you, but I really enjoy playing the Dolphins, Jets, and Bills twice a year. If we lose, it sucks (of course) but the course of the game is still fun.

 

[farn]

NFL's got a good system going. I like the divisions. Don't change it. If anything, change the way we "randomly" get Indy every year.

 

[Kontradiction]

NFL's got a good system going. I like the divisions. Don't change it. If anything, change the way we "randomly" get Indy every year.

By next year, they'll be back here for a three year homestand... assuming they finish in the same place as we do in their division.

 

[jmt57]

I think there are more reasons to keep the current setup than to switch for the sake of making it more fair due to all teams having the same schedule. The current setup creates stronger rivalries within the division as those are not only teams you play twice each year, but those games have a huge impact on winning the division title and making the playoffs. There's also the issue of not getting to see your team play teams from the other conference.

The current setup still allows for other rivalries with the two at-large games between clubs that finished first (or 2nd vs. 2nd, 3rd vs. 3rd, etc.) In other words if the Colts, Steelers and Patriots all go on extended streaks of excellence for several years, they're all going to end up playing each other every year anyways, even if they're not in the same division. The result is those rivalries can flourish as well.

The biggest reason is really from a business perspective. With just four teams in each division, the majority of NFL fans can genuinely be excited about their team's chances to win a division title every offseason and for a good portion of the regular season. Change to a conference without divisions and much of that excitement is lost; there's a whole lot less pride in finishing 4th or 5th versus finishing 1st, even if in the grand scheme of thinhs it works out the same. All that results in more interest, which translates to more ticket and related product (jersey, souvenir) sales.

Sure, sometimes there is an anomaly like last year when an 8-8 team makes the playoffs but an 11-5 team does not, but I say the benefits of the current system to NFL fans is worth it. Last year there were sixteen teams, half the league, that were still shooting for first place in their division well in to December. Vying for fourth place in your conference just doesn't create the same buzz.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

By next year, they'll be back here for a three year homestand... assuming they finish in the same place as we do in their division.

That's also assuming they don't tweak the schedule a bit; after all, they reordered the West divisions so that teams can't have four West Coast road trips. . . .

 

[Kontradiction]

That's also assuming they don't tweak the schedule a bit; after all, they reordered the West divisions so that teams can't have four West Coast road trips. . . .

True. I'm sure Polian will put that suggestion in to his buddy Baddell.

 

[Scouse Patriot]

I like the division games, your own personal little league to add that bit of spice.