What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should the NFL go back to 6 divisions? (1 Viewer)

Should the NFL go back to 6 divisions?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe - after expansion

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Max Power

Footballguy
Is it me or does it just seem wrong to let potentially .500 teams make the playoffs while 10 win teams are getting sent home? Don't we want the best of the best in the playoffs and not just the winner of a sorry division?The following was a sporting news article from November that I have altered slightly to bring it up to date.

The current NFL structure screams neat, tidy, and safe. Two conferences, four divisions each. Four teams per division. As a result, one of each of those four teams secures an automatic berth in the playoffs every year, with two wild-card spots available for the field of 12 second-place (and, in some years, third-place) teams. The present alignment also favors a convenient scheduling formula, which ensures every team will play every other team at least once every four years, and that every team will host every other team at least once every eight years. Competitively, however, the use of eight four-team divisions creates a periodic train wreck. This season, for example, the most deserving champion of the AFC West currently isn't Denver or San Diego or Oakland or Kansas City, but "none of the above." The current eight-by-four system also makes expansion less likely. With only four teams in each division, it's too easy for a team with seven losses to win a division and host a playoff game. In the past four years, it's happened three times. In the final 13 years of the old six-division format, seven loss was good enough for a division championship only three times. So let's go back to three divisions per conference and award three wild cards, like it used to be. Gone would be the North and the South divisions, replaced by a resurrected AFC and NFC Central. The Colts would return to the AFC East, the Jaguars and Titans would be shipped back to the AFC Central. The Seahawks would flock to the AFC West, and the Texans would be shipped to the NFC. In the NFC, a major geographical shakeup would be needed, since there are only a few teams truly in the "West." At a time when there's talk of "reseeding" the playoff field to prevent a situation where, a 12-4 team would go on the road to play a 9-7 team, it makes sense to reduce the number of teams that get automatic home games based solely on being the best (or least bad) of a four-team group, and to award more wild-card berths to the best of the teams that don't win their division. Apart from screwing up the current scheduling formula, this approach would result in more games within the division, and thus fewer opportunities to play other teams. But with a two-game expansion to the season coming, the fact that most teams would play two more division games makes it a wash. And a return of the three-division approach also would allow opportunities for gradual expansion of the league. With two six-team divisions and four with five, there would be space for four more teams. The chances of any of this happening is slim. But it's a far better approach than the notion of reseeding. The mere fact reseeding even is on the table tells us that folks in the NFL realize there's something wrong with automatically guaranteeing a playoff spot to one of four not-so-good teams.
I thought this article brought up some good points. Personally I wouldn't mind going back to the 6 divisions.thoughts?
 
I wish they had never gone to 32 teams, as this would be easy to do. I'm not sure I want to see 36 teams.

I could see going to 4 divisons - having the division winners get byes, and having 4 wild cards. Scheduling would be:

7 teams in-division, once around.

4 teams in other divison.

5 teams in other conference.

 
One year does not a trend make. It is fine the way it is. As far as expansion goes, when, where, why?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Less playoff teams meaning less playoff games? Sure, I could see the NFL owners bypassing the extra revenue.

 
The NFL is going to expand to 18 games.

You could go

12 divisional games - 2 home 2 away against the the other 3 teams in your division.

That leaves 6 games.

3 games against the other teams in your conference that "placed" the same as you i.e. if you were a first place team in 2008, you play the other 3 first place teams in your conference in 2009.

That leaves 3 games for non conference. You play 3 of the 4 teams in a non-conference division. The division of choice rotates every 4 years. You could determine which 3 by "placing" again.

If you finished in first place, you draw the 1, 2, 3 in the nonconference division.

2nd place, you draw the 1, 2, 4.

3rd place, you draw the 1, 3, 4.

4th place, you draw the 2, 3, 4.

You'd make it far less likely to win a division at 8-8. They almost have to do something like this when they go to 18 games, because if you play 6 division games and then 12 out of the division, you could very easily wind up with entire divisions under .500.

 
One year does not a trend make. It is fine the way it is. As far as expansion goes, when, where, why?
Soon, LA and Toronto, Money.
I would easily give you 10:1 odds that any city, if the NFL is even considering expanding at this time vs. moving teams, that LA nor Toronto gets one of the teams. On the eve of a team going 0-16, the NFL is not considering expanding when the bottom of the barrel is that much worse off in the game of parity. If the NFL wants to expand the playoffs by adding a 7th team, fine, but I see that happening before the NFL expands into more teams. That would give two more playoff games which will undoubtedly be on the good old NFL network.

 
One year does not a trend make. It is fine the way it is.
Since when is this a one year thing? It happens all the time, and it's crazy that year after year we see 8-8 and 9-7 teams getting in over 10-6 teams.
Your argument would hold a lot more weight if you gave specific "year after year" examples instead of just saying it.
I was curious after you made your point. I searched it out to help inform FreeBaGel and his/her misguided thinking.I am not sure when the NFL went to a 12-team playoff schedule but using the 12-team assumption, the following years teams with 10+ wins did not make the playoffs:
2007 - 1 team with 10 wins did not make the playoffs.2005 - 1 team with 10 wins did not make the playoffs.2003 - 1 team with 10 wins did not make the playoffs.1991 - 2 teams with 10 wins did not make it into the playoffs.1989 - 1 team with 10 wins did not make it into the playoffs.
Now, here is the real kicker to the above quote. Each team with 10 wins that did not make the playoffs was because there were 6 other teams in the conference with 10 or more wins. None, zero, zilch of the times did a 9 win team that won their division get in over a 10 win team that did not win their division. I admit, I checked these numbers in about 5 minutes so I may be mistaken. But, you can check pro-football-reference and double check my work.
 
Imagine the Arizona Cardinals back in the NFC East.

They would be the doormat this year.

And they call themselves a playoff team! The audacity of those frauds!

 
The balanced schedule is too nice to give away. 36 teams seems like too many, and the scheduling possibilities aren't as great. I do think 36 would likely end up with this schedule:

10 games (home and away) with your division foes

3 games with the top or bottom half of one of the other divisions in the conference

1 game with the team that placed where you did in the other division in the conference

3 games with the top or bottom half of one of the opposite conference divisions

---

17 games

I think 36 teams would demand something happen to widen the sport beyond the US, though. You could probably justify two more teams in the US. That leaves two for overseas somewhere (which would almost certainly mean Canada).

 
Each team with 10 wins that did not make the playoffs was because there were 6 other teams in the conference with 10 or more wins. None, zero, zilch of the times did a 9 win team that won their division get in over a 10 win team that did not win their division. I admit, I checked these numbers in about 5 minutes so I may be mistaken. But, you can check pro-football-reference and double check my work.
I had already checked too, but I was hoping the poster that made the assertion would come back and realize he was wrong. Actually, I doubt he would follow up after he realized he was so far off base. Perhaps, perhaps not.
 
Each team with 10 wins that did not make the playoffs was because there were 6 other teams in the conference with 10 or more wins. None, zero, zilch of the times did a 9 win team that won their division get in over a 10 win team that did not win their division. I admit, I checked these numbers in about 5 minutes so I may be mistaken. But, you can check pro-football-reference and double check my work.
I had already checked too, but I was hoping the poster that made the assertion would come back and realize he was wrong. Actually, I doubt he would follow up after he realized he was so far off base. Perhaps, perhaps not.
:goodposting:
 
.... and then one year all the best teams will happen to be in once conference so a few good teams in the good conference will get left out and a few bad teams in the bad conference will get in, and there will be a cry that it's not fair!

I guess if you want fair the whole league would be in one division and play every other team in the league. Wouldn't bother me, but I doubt it's ever going to happen.

To me this whole discussion is about nothing... we are supposed to get all upset because a Jet or Patriot team might not make the playoffs and a team like SD might get in? Ummmmm, SD beat both NE and the Jets by 19+ this year. People act like they KNOW there's a lot separating these teams. There's not. Just like every year between the teams that squeak into the playoffs and those that narrowly miss the playoffs.

Grow up.

 
32 divided by 6 = 5.3 ... yeah, that won't work. going to 36 would be ridiculous. the problem with the nfl is the talent is already too diluted. but it is the only sport that could get away with adding 4 teams and further diluting the talent pool. we'd still watch.

 
Is it me or does it just seem wrong to let potentially .500 teams make the playoffs while 10 win teams are getting sent home? Don't we want the best of the best in the playoffs and not just the winner of a sorry division?

I thought this article brought up some good points. Personally I wouldn't mind going back to the 6 divisions.

thoughts?
let me guess, Patriot or Raven fan? Dolphins? Jets? my money says your a frustrated fan of a team that might have a record like 11-5/10-6/9-7, and that team might fail to make the post season..

I understand your point, but winning a division hast to mean something,otherwise, why have divisions in the first place?

 
Tanner9919 said:
let me guess, Patriot or Raven fan? Dolphins? Jets?
I don't know what team he is a fan of, but I know he really hates the Chargers, so I'll guess Patriots.
 
Enforcer said:
FreeBaGeL said:
Mario Kart said:
One year does not a trend make. It is fine the way it is.
Since when is this a one year thing? It happens all the time, and it's crazy that year after year we see 8-8 and 9-7 teams getting in over 10-6 teams.
Your argument would hold a lot more weight if you gave specific "year after year" examples instead of just saying it.
It hasn't happened year after year, but it did occur in 1985 when we had (wait for it)... six divisions. The Browns won the AFC Central with an 8-8 record and the 11-5 Broncos had to stay home. Interestingly enough, the Browns played well in the playoffs against the 12-4 Dolphins on the road, only losing by 3.
 
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=453

JKL wrote that great post last year about the problems realignment have caused. This is a real problem that's going away.

I think getting rid of the auto-berth is the way to go. The least controversial way would be to make it a requirement that a division winner go at least 8-8. A little more controversial would be to make it a requirement that a division winner at least have a winning record. But I guarantee a 7-9 team will win their division soon, and it won't be too long before a 6-10 team makes the playoffs.

Who really benefits from a 6-10 team making the playoffs?

I don't think the NFL should go back to 6 divisions and I definitely don't think we need expansion. I'd be happy with simply changing the playoff structure, which as JKL points out, seems to happen every few years anyway.

 
For the record, I am in favor of any realignment that will fix that stupid "Dallas in the East" thing. Boy, that's annoying!

 
Absolutely they should. The playoffs are so watered down right now.

Arizona will be playing at home, and there are 5 or 6 teams on the outside looking in who would bury them by 20+ points.

Same with the Denver/San Diego winner. There's going to be a freakin' .500 team in the playoffs. It's becoming the NHL.

 
Mario Kart said:
Enforcer said:
FreeBaGeL said:
Mario Kart said:
One year does not a trend make. It is fine the way it is.
Since when is this a one year thing? It happens all the time, and it's crazy that year after year we see 8-8 and 9-7 teams getting in over 10-6 teams.
Your argument would hold a lot more weight if you gave specific "year after year" examples instead of just saying it.
I was curious after you made your point. I searched it out to help inform FreeBaGel and his/her misguided thinking.I am not sure when the NFL went to a 12-team playoff schedule but using the 12-team assumption, the following years teams with 10+ wins did not make the playoffs:
2007 - 1 team with 10 wins did not make the playoffs.2005 - 1 team with 10 wins did not make the playoffs.2003 - 1 team with 10 wins did not make the playoffs.1991 - 2 teams with 10 wins did not make it into the playoffs.1989 - 1 team with 10 wins did not make it into the playoffs.
Now, here is the real kicker to the above quote. Each team with 10 wins that did not make the playoffs was because there were 6 other teams in the conference with 10 or more wins. None, zero, zilch of the times did a 9 win team that won their division get in over a 10 win team that did not win their division. I admit, I checked these numbers in about 5 minutes so I may be mistaken. But, you can check pro-football-reference and double check my work.
Yeah, I just went back and double checked also and you're right.I just remember the Dolphins always coasting into the playoffs in the old format, then having trouble getting in with the new format even though they were putting up similar records as before (up until the last few years) so I made the leap of faith that it was lousy division winners doing the deed, but it would appear that's not the case and this year is the outlier.I guess I reap what I sow for not checking my facts first.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arizona will be playing at home, and there are 5 or 6 teams on the outside looking in who would bury them by 20+ points.Same with the Denver/San Diego winner. There's going to be a freakin' .500 team in the playoffs. It's becoming the NHL.
If SD wins next week, I think a lot of AFC teams will be dreading the prospect of playing them.If Denver wins, there will not be "a freakin' .500 team in the playoffs" because the Broncos already have 8 wins.
 
Arizona will be playing at home, and there are 5 or 6 teams on the outside looking in who would bury them by 20+ points.Same with the Denver/San Diego winner. There's going to be a freakin' .500 team in the playoffs. It's becoming the NHL.
If SD wins next week, I think a lot of AFC teams will be dreading the prospect of playing them.If Denver wins, there will not be "a freakin' .500 team in the playoffs" because the Broncos already have 8 wins.
I agree that all five AFC playoff teams would much rather play Denver than San Diego.
 
stevegamer said:
I wish they had never gone to 32 teams, as this would be easy to do. I'm not sure I want to see 36 teams.

I could see going to 4 divisons - having the division winners get byes, and having 4 wild cards. Scheduling would be:

7 teams in-division, once around.

4 teams in other divison.

5 teams in other conference.
You could check how Major League Baseball does it.
 
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=453

JKL wrote that great post last year about the problems realignment have caused. This is a real problem that's going away.

I think getting rid of the auto-berth is the way to go. The least controversial way would be to make it a requirement that a division winner go at least 8-8. A little more controversial would be to make it a requirement that a division winner at least have a winning record. But I guarantee a 7-9 team will win their division soon, and it won't be too long before a 6-10 team makes the playoffs.

Who really benefits from a 6-10 team making the playoffs?

I don't think the NFL should go back to 6 divisions and I definitely don't think we need expansion. I'd be happy with simply changing the playoff structure, which as JKL points out, seems to happen every few years anyway.
I could understand not giving division winners the top 4 seeds and instead basing it on overall record and head to head. However I don't like the idea of a division winner not making the playoffs under any circumstance. If you are the champions of a division then you deserve to go to the playoffs regardless of records. Otherwise just do away with divisions entirely.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Mario Kart said:
One year does not a trend make. It is fine the way it is.
It happens all the time, and it's crazy that year after year we see 8-8 and 9-7 teams getting in over 10-6 teams.
It's not crazy.It's the rules.It's how it works.This fairness thing is almost as overrated in the NFL as it is in Fantasy.If it were 6 divisions instead of 8, there's still be division winners with better records than wild cards and also-rans.The logic (fairness) behind a reduction from 8 to 6 divisions would be best served by the elmination of divisions altogether.Come to think of it, in many years one conference is much better than the other, making that conference's Conference Championship game the de facto Super Bowl. That's not fair. It's not even best for the game. So, let's get rid of conferences altogether.You know what. Letting 12 out of 32 teams into the playoffs isn't really fair. Let's have a playoff between the 13th and 14th seeds for the 13th spot. That'll make it fair (to everybody byt the 15th seed).This is getting really silly. We all know that the biggest unfairness out there is that a win by 1 point counts just as much as a win by 31 points. Head-To-Head is totally unfair! While we can continue to keep track of who "wins" and "loses" a particular NFL contest (for the fans), playoff participation should be based solely on points scored.
 
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=453

JKL wrote that great post last year about the problems realignment have caused. This is a real problem that's going away.

I think getting rid of the auto-berth is the way to go. The least controversial way would be to make it a requirement that a division winner go at least 8-8. A little more controversial would be to make it a requirement that a division winner at least have a winning record. But I guarantee a 7-9 team will win their division soon, and it won't be too long before a 6-10 team makes the playoffs.

Who really benefits from a 6-10 team making the playoffs?

I don't think the NFL should go back to 6 divisions and I definitely don't think we need expansion. I'd be happy with simply changing the playoff structure, which as JKL points out, seems to happen every few years anyway.
I could understand not giving division winners the top 4 seeds and instead basing it on overall record and head to head. However I don't like the idea of a division winner not making the playoffs under any circumstance. If you are the champions of a division then you deserve to go to the playoffs regardless of records. Otherwise just do away with divisions entirely.
Are you really the champions of anything just because San Francisco, St. Louis and Seattle are (supposed to be) close to you?
 
FreeBaGeL said:
Mario Kart said:
One year does not a trend make. It is fine the way it is.
It happens all the time, and it's crazy that year after year we see 8-8 and 9-7 teams getting in over 10-6 teams.
It's not crazy.It's the rules.
I think we all understand what the rules are. But most of us realize the NFL changes these rules all the time, especially when they're silly.
 
FreeBaGeL said:
Mario Kart said:
One year does not a trend make. It is fine the way it is.
It happens all the time, and it's crazy that year after year we see 8-8 and 9-7 teams getting in over 10-6 teams.
It's not crazy.It's the rules.
I think we all understand what the rules are. But most of us realize the NFL changes these rules all the time, especially when they're silly.
Point taken. (Doesn't knock me off my knee-jerk reaction to fairness being used as basis for proposed change.)
 
FreeBaGeL said:
Mario Kart said:
One year does not a trend make. It is fine the way it is.
Since when is this a one year thing? It happens all the time, and it's crazy that year after year we see 8-8 and 9-7 teams getting in over 10-6 teams.
This article is from 2005, I am not sure about 2006 and 2007 but:http://archive.salon.com/news/sports/col/k...iday/index.html

St. Louis Rams (8-8, wild card) at Seattle Seahawks (9-7, NFC West champs), 4:30 p.m. EST, ABC: The last time an 8-8 team made the playoffs was in 1999, when the Lions and Cowboys both got in as wild cards and both got pounded in the first round. The Saints made it as an 8-8 wild card in 1990 and lost in the first round.
 
Keep the 8 divisions as they are - the league was able to keep traditional rivalries intact, and create new strong rivalries along the way like the NFC South - I'd hate to see the divisions broken up again. And I also hope the league never expands beyond 32 teams.

However, a division winner shouldn't necessarily get an automatic playoff spot. I think the NFL should enact a "bowl eligible"-type of standard to keep 8-8 teams out. I don't really have a problem with a 9-7 playoff team, so to keep it somewhat conversative, you need a minimum of 8.5 wins to qualify for the playoffs (i.e. 8-8 you're out, but 8-7-1 is still in). If a division winner finishes 8-8, they are replaced by the 3rd-ranked wild card team in that conference, and everyone else moves up one spot.

The only snag would be if for some reason, there were no more than 5 teams with records greater than 8-8 in a given season, which is probably mathematically possible if inter-conference play is ridiculously one-sided, but I'm not sure. I guess in that case the 8-8 division winner would be back in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Keep it at 8 divisions, but a division winner shouldn't necessarily get an automatic playoff spot. I think the NFL should enact a "bowl eligible"-type of standard to keep 8-8 teams out. I don't really have a problem with a 9-7 playoff team, so to keep it somewhat conversative, you need a minimum of 8.5 wins to qualify for the playoffs (i.e. 8-8 you're out, but 8-7-1 is still in). If a division winner finishes 8-8, they are replaced by the 3rd-ranked wild card team, and everyone moves up one spot.

And I also hope the league never expands beyond 32 teams.
Then what is the point of having divisions?
 
even under this re-alignment plan adding the seahawks back into the AFC west would not have made a difference.

sometimes there are weak divisions. It all evens out. some times 8-8 get in, sometimes 10-6 gets left out

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Keep it at 8 divisions, but a division winner shouldn't necessarily get an automatic playoff spot. I think the NFL should enact a "bowl eligible"-type of standard to keep 8-8 teams out. I don't really have a problem with a 9-7 playoff team, so to keep it somewhat conversative, you need a minimum of 8.5 wins to qualify for the playoffs (i.e. 8-8 you're out, but 8-7-1 is still in). If a division winner finishes 8-8, they are replaced by the 3rd-ranked wild card team, and everyone moves up one spot.

And I also hope the league never expands beyond 32 teams.
Then what is the point of having divisions?
Keeps interest high thanks to rivalries, rewards teams that win tough divisions and gives automatic playoff berths in most situations.
 
Keep it at 8 divisions, but a division winner shouldn't necessarily get an automatic playoff spot. I think the NFL should enact a "bowl eligible"-type of standard to keep 8-8 teams out. I don't really have a problem with a 9-7 playoff team, so to keep it somewhat conversative, you need a minimum of 8.5 wins to qualify for the playoffs (i.e. 8-8 you're out, but 8-7-1 is still in). If a division winner finishes 8-8, they are replaced by the 3rd-ranked wild card team, and everyone moves up one spot.

And I also hope the league never expands beyond 32 teams.
Then what is the point of having divisions?
Keeps interest high thanks to rivalries, rewards teams that win tough divisions and gives automatic playoff berths in most situations.
what if 8-8 is a good as it gets regardless of division winner or wildcard ???
 
Keep it at 8 divisions, but a division winner shouldn't necessarily get an automatic playoff spot. I think the NFL should enact a "bowl eligible"-type of standard to keep 8-8 teams out. I don't really have a problem with a 9-7 playoff team, so to keep it somewhat conversative, you need a minimum of 8.5 wins to qualify for the playoffs (i.e. 8-8 you're out, but 8-7-1 is still in). If a division winner finishes 8-8, they are replaced by the 3rd-ranked wild card team, and everyone moves up one spot.

And I also hope the league never expands beyond 32 teams.
Then what is the point of having divisions?
Keeps interest high thanks to rivalries, rewards teams that win tough divisions and gives automatic playoff berths in most situations.
Exactly- the rivalries and the rotating schedules I think are good things that shouldn't be altered. The only issue is really 8-8 teams making the playoffs, and that is something that is easily corrected without massive realignment.
 
Keep it at 8 divisions, but a division winner shouldn't necessarily get an automatic playoff spot. I think the NFL should enact a "bowl eligible"-type of standard to keep 8-8 teams out. I don't really have a problem with a 9-7 playoff team, so to keep it somewhat conversative, you need a minimum of 8.5 wins to qualify for the playoffs (i.e. 8-8 you're out, but 8-7-1 is still in). If a division winner finishes 8-8, they are replaced by the 3rd-ranked wild card team, and everyone moves up one spot.

And I also hope the league never expands beyond 32 teams.
Then what is the point of having divisions?
Keeps interest high thanks to rivalries, rewards teams that win tough divisions and gives automatic playoff berths in most situations.
what if 8-8 is a good as it gets regardless of division winner or wildcard ???
I revised my post for that possiblity. Not sure if it's mathematically possible, but if it is, then I would give preference to the division winner.
 
Then what is the point of having divisions?
Strengthens rivalries while reducing travel expenses (in most cases).A .500 team has only won their division once in the history of the NFL, so it's not like this exception would keep presenting itself over and over.
 
In 1985 there were 6 divisions. The Cleveland Browns won AFC Central with a record of 8-8. Your proposal solves nothing.

Not that I think anything needs solving. A division winner is a division winner no matter what their record is and they should be in the playoffs. I don't see it as a crime if a 10-6 2nd or 3rd place team misses the playoffs.

While we're at the BCS game should be limited to only conference champions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In 1985 there were 6 divisions. The Cleveland Browns won AFC Central with a record of 8-8. Your proposal solves nothing.

Not that I think anything needs solving. A division winner is a division winner no matter what their record is and they should be in the playoffs. I don't see it as a crime if a 10-6 2nd or 3rd place team misses the playoffs.

While we're at the BCS game should be limited to only conference champions.
A team with a better record is a team with a better record no matter who the other teams in their division are and they should be in the playoffs. I don't see it as a crime if a 6-10 division winner misses the playoffs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A team with a better record is a team with a better record no matter who the other teams in their division are and they should be in the playoffs.
I agree. This is kind of like the discussion in the Pro Bowl thread where some people have argued that Favre deserves his spot over Rivers simply because he's Favre. The guys who should be there are the ones who've earned it.
 
Then what is the point of having divisions?
Strengthens rivalries while reducing travel expenses (in most cases).A .500 team has only won their division once in the history of the NFL, so it's not like this exception would keep presenting itself over and over.
That's one way of looking at it.Another is that in the history of the NFL, one 8-8 team ever won their division before the '02 realignment. This year we might have two 8-8 division winners. It's pretty obvious that this problem was largely academic before and systematic now. We're going to have 8-8 division winners every two or three seasons.The autoberth also leads to a ton of meaningless games, which is a problem the NFL should be concerned about.
 
A team with a better record is a team with a better record no matter who the other teams in their division are and they should be in the playoffs. I don't see it as a crime if a 6-10 division winner misses the playoffs.
It's just a fundamental disagreement. I think there is a value in a automatic bid to be won by competing with your regular rivals. It creates more intensity in those divisional rivalries and I think that's good for the sport. No matter what system you use, there's always going to be some example you could come up with that would seem unfair to someone. That's life. At least under the current system you know at the beginning of the season if you win your division you're in.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top