Proposal: No Divisions
-
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.
-
Like it the way it is now.
Like it the way it is now.
You mean with my dick in your mouth?
-
-
Tradition.
Tradition.
What traditions the two of you have in the privacy of your own bedroom is between you.
-
When have they even been a huge problem outside of last year?
-
When have they even been a huge problem outside of last year?
I would have to study it, but I think that just about every year or maybe every other year one team with a better record than another is left out of the playoffs.
-
Well, here is the study. I only went back to 2000 to determine if one team got into the playoffs over another with a better record. What I found was that it is starting to happen more frequently. Going to 4 divisions is the likely cause of this phenomena:
2014 Panther 7-8-1 got in over Eagles 10-6
2013 Packers 8-7-1 got in over Cardinals 10-6
2011 Broncos 8-8 got in over Titans 9-7
2010 Seahawks 7-9 got in over Bucs and Giants both 10-6
2008 Chargers 8-8 got in over Pats 11-5 and Jets 9-7
........Cardinals 9-7 got in over Falcons 11-5 and Buccaneers also 9-7 but who would have gotten in with better conf. record
2003 Ravens 10-6 got in over Dolphins 10-6 (but better conf. record.)
So, the switch to 4 divisions IS creating the phenomena of teams with better records staying home while teams with lesser records make the playoffs.
And, by the way this is NOT "Tradition"......per se. This started in 2002 when the league went to those 4 division setup.
The question is: is this what the NFL Owners want......or are these unintended consequences.
-
Your Fantasy is showing, Gip...
"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 -
-
It makes sense in the surface but then someone will argue, "that team doesn't play anyone, let's let the computers decide"
-
That's a turd of an idea.
WSS
-
Surely a team from one conference will make the playoffs with a worse record than a team from the other that did not make the playoffs. Guess we should get rid of conferences.
EOT.
-
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...
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.
Nothing is ever going to be perfect- not even your suggestion Gip. I'm with Tour- if you have a losing record- you can never host a playoff game. Then again what happens if two division winners have losing records, and have to play each other in the playoffs?
I'm all for realigning the divisions- or conferences. That's certain to happen anyway assuming the market meisters have their way and relocate a team (or two) to La-La land. Kick the Ravens over to the AFC East- where they belong and add Indy or Buffalo. KC and Oakland have nothing in common geographically- other than a long standing fan hatred. Ditto the Cowboys and Redskins- blame Jerry Jones for that one.
LOL you could create a "Central division" with the Rams, Chiefs, Colts, and Cowboys. Jerrah might be old enough to remember the 'Pokes used to have a rivalry with the Chiefs.
Young 'Uns don't remember that the Browns and Giants used to have a long standing rivalry- that's so far in the past, I can't see it anymore.
-
Gipper, your system would work. As somebody said before it works pretty well in EU sports.
Only it would make a lot more games meanigless and December would become a boring month for many fans.
So, I would not "vote" for it.
All the way from Torino to Cleveland: GO BROWNS!!!!!!! -
Gipper, your system would work. As somebody said before it works pretty well in EU sports.
Only it would make a lot more games meanigless and December would become a boring month for many fans.
So, I would not "vote" for it.
Gipper, your system would work. As somebody said before it works pretty well in EU sports.
Only it would make a lot more games meanigless and December would become a boring month for many fans.
So, I would not "vote" for it.
I think you're right there. Our soccer leagues for example can be all sorted a month before the end, or they can be down to the wire. American sports have engineered it to be down to the wire every season. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing can be argued, but I wouldn't change it back to the potentially boring mode.
-
It makes sense in the surface but then someone will argue, "that team doesn't play anyone, let's let the computers decide"
It makes sense in the surface but then someone will argue, "that team doesn't play anyone, let's let the computers decide"
No, that would screw Ohio State. Won't happen.
Oh, sorry. Wrong venue. LOL!
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