Proposal: No Divisions
-
It works in european sports, and there are plenty of rivalries. They tend to be more organic, rather than forced (by being in the same conference). Either way, the browns would have a rivalry with the ravens, naturally, and the bengals. Steelers? Not so sure, maybe geographically. Patriots will have a rivalry with the colts and seahawks the next few years.
It works in european sports, and there are plenty of rivalries. They tend to be more organic, rather than forced (by being in the same conference). Either way, the browns would have a rivalry with the ravens, naturally, and the bengals. Steelers? Not so sure, maybe geographically. Patriots will have a rivalry with the colts and seahawks the next few years.
The rivalries here are usually definitely geographic base. Cleveland vs. Pittsburgh and vs. Cincinnati definitely are. The Ravens rivalry is "history based" more than geographic.
What could be tweeked is the development of rivalries now that are not so frequent because of placement of teams in different conferences. The obvious natural rivalry of the Jets/Giants say...or the Raiders/49ers (though not as much of the Raiders move to LA)....and the Redskins/Ravens. or same state rivals like Cowboys/Texans. Rams/Chiefs Dolphins/Bucs
-
I like the division set up as is.
Division winners should go into the playoffs, regardless of record.
Whether they should get home-field over a WC with a better record is the question...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Some of the bigger rivalries here come from teams competing against each other over a period of time. So Patriots and Ravens, have both been going after the AFC crown for years/decades now, and would be (are?) big rivals.
-
I like the division set up as is.
Division winners should go into the playoffs, regardless of record.
Whether they should get home-field over a WC with a better record is the question...
I like the division set up as is.
Division winners should go into the playoffs, regardless of record.
Whether they should get home-field over a WC with a better record is the question...
Spoilsport. Old Fogey. Guy in a rut..
-
Some of the bigger rivalries here come from teams competing against each other over a period of time. So Patriots and Ravens, have both been going after the AFC crown for years/decades now, and would be (are?) big rivals.
Some of the bigger rivalries here come from teams competing against each other over a period of time. So Patriots and Ravens, have both been going after the AFC crown for years/decades now, and would be (are?) big rivals.
Yea, to me, that is NOT a rivalry. That is just two teams that happen to be good at the same time. I used this before: there is NO real rivalry between the Colts and Patriots. They just by happenstance were good at the same time.
There was no real rivalry back in the 80s between the Browns and Broncos. They just happened to be the best two teams in the AFC at the time.
Do the Cowboys and the Steelers have a real rivalry? No....they just happen to be the two teams that have played each other most in the Super Bowl. Most rivalries are backyard varieties....you compete over the same territory sometimes. Browns/Steelers compete for the Youngstown area. Browns/Bengals for Columbus. Proximity helps. Similarity of lifestyle helps. Cleveland and Pittsburgh/Cincy/Buffalo have that. Not so much Cleveland and NY/San Fran/Boston (Oakland? Maybe). There is no similarity between Boston and Indy....other than that the two cities have had great QBs at the same time.
-
Spoilsport. Old Fogey. Guy in a rut..
And?
-
I'm in a rut too, I don't like changing out of a division format. The NFL is obviously unique, as the 16 game schedule makes every game mean something. 3/8 of the schedule is in the division and heightens the importance. To me, games against Tennessee, Jacksonville, Miami for example just don't have any appeal, probably never will.
NBA, NHL, MLB have so many games that it does make some sense to eliminate divisions.
Karlis Missed -
Also, don't overestimate the fact that a team with the record like the Panthers winning the division happens very infrequently. Since '02 it's only happened twice and both times that team actually won (seahawks, panthers). I'm with the idea that keep divisions the way they are and division winners get playoffs, but home field is determined by record.
I also really like the way the NFL is set up now because it affords a ton of parity in playoff teams. Gipper could fill this in better, but it's something like 2-4 teams from the previous year of playoffs aren't in and new teams are. That has a lot to do with the way scheduling is made up currently.
-
I'm in a rut too, I don't like changing out of a division format. The NFL is obviously unique, as the 16 game schedule makes every game mean something. 3/8 of the schedule is in the division and heightens the importance. To me, games against Tennessee, Jacksonville, Miami for example just don't have any appeal, probably never will.
NBA, NHL, MLB have so many games that it does make some sense to eliminate divisions.
I'm in a rut too, I don't like changing out of a division format. The NFL is obviously unique, as the 16 game schedule makes every game mean something. 3/8 of the schedule is in the division and heightens the importance. To me, games against Tennessee, Jacksonville, Miami for example just don't have any appeal, probably never will.
NBA, NHL, MLB have so many games that it does make some sense to eliminate divisions.
OK, this thread does not ask you if you want to stay with the current setup or switch. It asks what you think of the proposed set up...how you think it would work. How it could be tweeked. You are to make an assumption that a non-divisional setup would be in existed.......and how it could be implemented.
It is obviously for shits and giggles as it would never be adopted. (though....like I said....some....including probably team owners, are not happy with the losing teams making the postseason....so something could happen in that regard)
-
Spoilsport. Old Fogey. Guy in a rut..
Yes, we are.
You are to make an assumption that a non-divisional setup would be in existence...............
Heresy.
-
Also, don't overestimate the fact that a team with the record like the Panthers winning the division happens very infrequently. Since '02 it's only happened twice and both times that team actually won (seahawks, panthers). I'm with the idea that keep divisions the way they are and division winners get playoffs, but home field is determined by record.
I also really like the way the NFL is set up now because it affords a ton of parity in playoff teams. Gipper could fill this in better, but it's something like 2-4 teams from the previous year of playoffs aren't in and new teams are. That has a lot to do with the way scheduling is made up currently.
Also, don't overestimate the fact that a team with the record like the Panthers winning the division happens very infrequently. Since '02 it's only happened twice and both times that team actually won (seahawks, panthers). I'm with the idea that keep divisions the way they are and division winners get playoffs, but home field is determined by record.
Don't underestimate the fact that owners hate that those losing team making the playoffs even those few times.
I also really like the way the NFL is set up now because it affords a ton of parity in playoff teams. Gipper could fill this in better, but it's something like 2-4 teams from the previous year of playoffs aren't in and new teams are. That has a lot to do with the way scheduling is made up currently.
My proposal could actually create even more parity.
You would have the 4 winningest teams in one conference playing the 4 winningest teams in another conference....plus they would automatically play the 3 winningest teams from their own conference. In other words, the 8 winningest teams in the league one year would be playing a round robin the next year......and the same for the 8 losingest teams. Some teams are definitely going to slide down and some are definitely going to slide up.
Does that seem fair? No.....but then it is not supposed to be, is it.
-
I like it the way it is now. Football has far fewer games than basketball obviously, so having the same type of playoff structure wouldn't be good.
-
I like it the way it is now. Football has far fewer games than basketball obviously, so having the same type of playoff structure wouldn't be good.
I like it the way it is now. Football has far fewer games than basketball obviously, so having the same type of playoff structure wouldn't be good.
Any one that wants to say "I like it the way it is now" Just shut the fuck up. You are just being lazy and not responding to what this thread is about.
-
If you went with the pod setup, you might run into problems with teams tanking towards the end of the season to get into an easier pod for the next year. You'd also run into the argument from consistently good teams that they are being punished with tougher schedules for being successful.
I think the best option would be to keep the divisions but remove the seeding, if that hasn't been done already, and/or requiring at least a .500 record to make it into the playoffs. However, as jrb noted, it is infrequent and hasn't reached a point where any changes are really necessary.
-
Like it the way it is now.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Me, too DH... what do you like best about it?
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Tradition.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
If you went with the pod setup, you might run into problems with teams tanking towards the end of the season to get into an easier pod for the next year. You'd also run into the argument from consistently good teams that they are being punished with tougher schedules for being successful.
I think the best option would be to keep the divisions but remove the seeding, if that hasn't been done already, and/or requiring at least a .500 record to make it into the playoffs. However, as jrb noted, it is infrequent and hasn't reached a point where any changes are really necessary.
If you went with the pod setup, you might run into problems with teams tanking towards the end of the season to get into an easier pod for the next year. You'd also run into the argument from consistently good teams that they are being punished with tougher schedules for being successful.
I think the best option would be to keep the divisions but remove the seeding, if that hasn't been done already, and/or requiring at least a .500 record to make it into the playoffs. However, as jrb noted, it is infrequent and hasn't reached a point where any changes are really necessary.
Like I said...the owners of NFL teams that go 10-6 while a 7-9 record makes it may not agree with you that it hasn't reached a point where a change in necessary.
And while you are right about the pod situation....teams tank now for draft positions.
And, again, while you say "lose the seeding" what do you mean? That the divisional setup should be kept for scheduling only, but that for determining who makes the playoffs only the 6 best teams make it? If that were the case last year only 1 change would have happened: Carolina out, Eagles in.
But then....if you win a division yet don't get a playoff berth....what is the point of having a division? Again, just scheduling?
AFC would have been fine, looking like this:
New England Patriots (1) 12 4 0 East Champion head-to-head record
Denver Broncos (2) 12 4 0 West Champion
Pittsburgh Steelers (3) 11 5 0 North Champion head-to-head record
Indianapolis Colts (4) 11 5 0 South Champion
Cincinnati Bengals (5) 10 5 1 Wild Card #1
Baltimore Ravens (6) 10 6 0 Wild Card #2
Houston Texans 9 7 0 conference win percentage
Kansas City Chiefs 9 7 0 head-to-head record
San Diego Chargers 9 7 0 head-to-head record
Buffalo Bills 9 7 0
Miami Dolphins 8 8 0
Cleveland Browns 7 9 0
New York Jets 4 12 0
Jacksonville Jaguars 3 13 0 win percentage in common games
Oakland Raiders 3 13 0
Tennessee Titans 2 14 0
-
NFC came out like this:
Tm W L T Position Reason
Seattle Seahawks (1) 12 4 0 West Champion conference win percentage
Green Bay Packers (2) 12 4 0 North Champion conference win percentage
Dallas Cowboys (3) 12 4 0 East Champion
Carolina Panthers (4) 7 8 1 South Champion
Arizona Cardinals (5) 11 5 0 Wild Card #1 head-to-head record
Detroit Lions (6) 11 5 0 Wild Card #2
Philadelphia Eagles 10 6 0
San Francisco 49ers 8 8 0
New Orleans Saints 7 9 0 head-to-head record
Minnesota Vikings 7 9 0
Atlanta Falcons 6 10 0 conference win percentage
New York Giants 6 10 0 head-to-head record
St. Louis Rams 6 10 0
Chicago Bears 5 11 0
Washington Redskins 4 12 0
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2 14 0
Carolina would have finished behind the 49ers.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login