The folly of the 4 team divisions

[1960Pats]

I've been railing against this idiotic 4 team "division" setup from the beginning. It was bad enough that the NYFL went away from two divisions per conference to three, but the last change was the one that put me over the top. They might as well create 8 two-team divisions in each conference, expand the playoffs to 16 teams and take all of the division winners.

Once they changed to this setup in 2002 it looked okay for a while. They still had teams getting into the playoffs based off of totally different schedules, but at least the teams getting into the playoffs had better records or the same record but won on tie-breakers.

From 2002 thru 2007 that was the case.
2008 - The floodgates opened and the stupidity of this setup started to show it's ugly face. That was the first time that a team made the playoffs over another team with a better record. At least the 8-8 San Diego Chargers, the "champion" of the AFCW, had beaten the 9-7 Jets during the season, but they still had a worse overall record and may have had an easier schedule.
2009 - We caught a break from the idiocy.
2010 - This is the best example of all of how ridiculous this setup is. The 7-9 Seattle Seahawks, masters of the putrid AFCW's 3 other teams, were in the playoffs over two 10-6 teams, The Giants and TB, both of whom crushed the Seahawks on the field that year by a combined score of 79-22.
2011 - Denver gets in at 8-8 while Tennessee is out in spite of a better record and a win over Denver.
2012 - Another break. Our last.
2013 - Gren Bay is in at 8-7-1 and Arizona is out at 10-6.
2014 - Carolina is in at 7-8-1 while Philly at 10-6 stays home in spite of crushing the Panthers that year by a 45-21 score. The 8-8 49ers were also out but who cares.
2015 - Houston is in at 9-7 and and the Jets are out at 10-6.
2016 - This could turn out to be my favorite season of all concerning the 4 team divisions. We may end up with 3 or 4 teams with worse records in the playoffs than another 3 or 4 teams who miss out.

Nothing would make me happier than to see some of the other teams get burned by this craziness.

 

[JMC00]

Ditch divisions (honestly no one would care if they ditched division champions), expand the playoffs by 1 team

#1 seed gets the bye
#2 vs #7
#3 vs #6
#4 vs #5

 

[Joey007]

Shoot I remember it being 3 divisions, but 2 is a bit before my time..

I think they do it because of the perfect math that they have at 32 teams. Both conferences are split evenly, and it allows the division to be split evenly. It also creates a perfect schedule rotation where every team always faces off at least once every four years. In the old rotation it was crazy with weird rotations that would lead to teams playing only once every ten years.

I agree that the seeding thing could use a look at, though. Wouldn't be opposed to the whole idea of getting rid of divisions all together, actually.

 

[Brick27]

If they aren't looking to makes changes to the divisions, I think they could atleast look at the seeding format. Maybe instead of having the 4th seed automarically go to a division winner, it could go to a wildcard team if they have a better record. If both the 4th division winner and highest wildcard team have identical records, the tie goes to the division winner.

 

[anditsgood]

This is what happens when you want to expand the playoffs and create more games for more revenue

I personally dont mind a team being 8-8 and getting in the playoffs because you won a ****ty division

BUT

if you are going to change it, i would go with two divisions per conference and get rid of the wild card, top 4 make it (2 in each division)

This, you were almost good enough so we give you a special status of wild card, is almost like everyone gets a trophy

meh, what ever

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

2008 had one team finish 11-5 and miss the playoffs....

 

[borg]

Every team has 3 opportunities to land in the playoffs

1) Best divisional record
2) Wild card #1
3) Wild card #2

Boo hoo to the rest.

 

[fightingirish595]

The only change I think is needed is second round seeding. re seed based on record. So keep wild card round the way it is but reseed the divisional round based on record. So for example in 2010 the one seed Atlanta would have gotten to play seattle instead of green bay

 

[50-yard-line]

If you have an 8-team division, you'll play the other 7 teams what? Once?

Twice, with only two other games?

 

[tasmlab]

I half wonder if having all of the divisions is just to make more opportunities for more teams to be a "winner" at some point in the season. Hats and t-shirt games, as I've heard the Pats call them.

As a fan, I put no weight in them. I'd be fine having record determine who is in and seeding.

 

[1960Pats]

2008 had one team finish 11-5 and miss the playoffs....

I had that blocked from my memory. Thanks for jogging it for me.

 

[1960Pats]

This is what happens when you want to expand the playoffs and create more games for more revenue

I personally dont mind a team being 8-8 and getting in the playoffs because you won a ****ty division

BUT

if you are going to change it, i would go with two divisions per conference and get rid of the wild card, top 4 make it (2 in each division)

This, you were almost good enough so we give you a special status of wild card, is almost like everyone gets a trophy

meh, what ever

I like this one and with a little tweaking it might work. It's definitely better than 4 divisions. I have to think about this one a little more.

 

[1960Pats]

I half wonder if having all of the divisions is just to make more opportunities for more teams to be a "winner" at some point in the season. Hats and t-shirt games, as I've heard the Pats call them.

As a fan, I put no weight in them. I'd be fine having record determine who is in and seeding.

Right. That's clearly the best approach. If you win more games you and your fans deserve that trip to the dance.

 

[1960Pats]

Every team has 3 opportunities to land in the playoffs

1) Best divisional record
2) Wild card #1
3) Wild card #2

Boo hoo to the rest.

What's an easier accomplishment, 1, 2 or 3?
Is it easier for Seattle to have a better record than San Fran, Arizona and LA only or a better record than those three teams plus 12 more?
If a team can't finish among the top six teams in won-lost record then it should be boo hoo to them, no matter which 4 team "division" they call home.

 

[luuked]

This will sound pretty controversial put personally I'd do away with all pre-season games, add a second BYE and increase the number of games to 18 with the following setup:

As it is right now everyone plays their division twice, but then the other 12 games are against the remaining 12 teams in the conference. This way every team in a conference plays almost the same schedule (except for 3 additional division games) which makes their conference records more comparable and fair.

To account for the lack of NFC/AFC matchups the playoffs would be not conference exclusive anymore which would give us also the chance of seeing pure AFC or NFC matchups in the Superbowl.


Like I pointed out the main aim here is to make the records within a conference more balanced and comparable.

I am not really satisfied with the lack of diversity of the schedule on a year-by-year basis (because of the lack of AFC/NFC team matchups) but don't see how to add address this without once again losing the comparability.

Fire away..

 

[Chevy]

Every team has 3 opportunities to land in the playoffs

1) Best divisional record
2) Wild card #1
3) Wild card #2

Boo hoo to the rest.

I'll go one further ...


Drop WC #2

#1 Seed gets the bye

Win your Division, win your Conference, win the Super Bowl.

 

[deroc5050]

I half wonder if having all of the divisions is just to make more opportunities for more teams to be a "winner" at some point in the season. Hats and t-shirt games, as I've heard the Pats call them.

As a fan, I put no weight in them. I'd be fine having record determine who is in and seeding.

This is an example of how spoiled we are.. division champs means nothing lol.. Its honestly fine the way it is. Do I have a problem with a 10-6 team missing the playoffs over a 7-9 team, yes I do but there really isn't much you can do about it.

Win your Division first thats every teams goal.

We are just so use to winning the division, that its become a forgone conclusion, before the season starts.

 

[1960Pats]

This will sound pretty controversial put personally I'd do away with all pre-season games, add a second BYE and increase the number of games to 18 with the following setup:

As it is right now everyone plays their division twice, but then the other 12 games are against the remaining 12 teams in the conference. This way every team in a conference plays almost the same schedule (except for 3 additional division games) which makes their conference records more comparable and fair.

To account for the lack of NFC/AFC matchups the playoffs would be not conference exclusive anymore which would give us also the chance of seeing pure AFC or NFC matchups in the Superbowl.


Like I pointed out the main aim here is to make the records within a conference more balanced and comparable.

I am not really satisfied with the lack of diversity of the schedule on a year-by-year basis (because of the lack of AFC/NFC team matchups) but don't see how to add address this without once again losing the comparability.

Fire away..

Very interesting. I really like the part about playing the same schedule. That's the truest way to judge a team vs another using w/l records and has been my main beef from the start.

The playoff setup you offer up is also an interesting way to go. I'm not a fan of the NFC anyway and would welcome the possibility of an all AFC SB. Pretty good ideas.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Simpler solution is to keep the seeding the same but give the home game in round one to the team with the better record. If wild card #1 (#5 seed) say 11-5 has a better record than the #4 seeded division champ at 9-7, they get the home game. It gives an advantage to the team with the better record who might play in a tougher division..............

 

[1960Pats]

This is an example of how spoiled we are.. division champs means nothing lol.. Its honestly fine the way it is. Do I have a problem with a 10-6 team missing the playoffs over a 7-9 team, yes I do but there really isn't much you can do about it.

Win your Division first thats every teams goal.

We are just so use to winning the division, that its become a forgone conclusion, before the season starts.

I've been against this setup from the start, long before the Pats got burned by it in 2008 and long before I had time to be used to the Pats beating out Buffalo, Miami and the Jets for a championship every year.

I'm enjoying being used to it now though. As a matter of fact, a big grin is building up on my face as I think about how truly dominant this team has been in the B&B era.

The problem is fixable, but the NYFL will never do it. This thread is just a way to find a possible solution. I just read and responded to a pretty good one from @luuked a few posts ago.