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
Despyzer said:
massraider said:
My god, is it really the end of the world if someone gets in with a better record? Happens in EVERY other sport.
I don't think anyone has expressed that it is anywhere close to the end of the world, and I have never thought that the incompetence of others was a very good excuse for not considering improvement.
You're not gonna believe this, but I didn't actually think anyone thought it was the end of the world. As for it being an improvement, what gets improved, and at what cost? We have how many games this weekend that have playoff implications? The playoffs are going to be anticipated no matter what, under the current system division games actually mean something.
Division wins should and do mean something. But winning a terrible division shouldn't be rewarded. For example, a 7-9 division winner doesn't deserve a playoff berth. Period. Arguably, the same applies to an 8-8 winner.The goal should be to get the best teams from the regular season into the playoffs.
Would you say a team that finished 9-7 that plays in a division that happened to play the AFC west and NFC west this season is clearly better than an 8-8 team that happened to play in a division that played the AFC east and NFC east?
How do I know which division is stronger in this example? From the way you're writing, it sounds like the AFC West and NFC West are really bad and the AFC East and NFC East are really good. So if the 9-7 team is from either East division and the 8-8 team is from either West division, then sure.I don't understand why you'd use the word "clearly". I don't think anyone needs to be clearly better; just on average better. If over the course of 50 or 100 NFL seasons, a 9-7 WC team is better than an 8-8 division winner, then why wouldn't you have the WC team get in? I don't get why there needs to be a standard greater than "better".

 
I don't get why there needs to be a standard greater than "better".
But you seem to be the one with the problem that "better" teams may get bumped from the playoffs when a division winner automatically goes to the playoffs.I'm just illustrating the fact that currently the teams inside the same division all played a very, very similar schedule. If you are making the argument that an 8-8 team doesn't belong in the playoffs because a 9-7 team will be left out I don't think you may be seeing the whole picture. If the 8-8 team happened to have the most difficult schedule because of the division it was in that season and the 9-7 team happened to have the easiest schedule because of the division they happen to be in..... every teams record is to some degree a product of their schedule.Certainly a team being +/- a victory or two each year due to their schedule is more plausible than worrying about 6-10 division winners making the playoffs.
 
I don't get why there needs to be a standard greater than "better".
But you seem to be the one with the problem that "better" teams may get bumped from the playoffs when a division winner automatically goes to the playoffs.I'm just illustrating the fact that currently the teams inside the same division all played a very, very similar schedule. If you are making the argument that an 8-8 team doesn't belong in the playoffs because a 9-7 team will be left out I don't think you may be seeing the whole picture. If the 8-8 team happened to have the most difficult schedule because of the division it was in that season and the 9-7 team happened to have the easiest schedule because of the division they happen to be in..... every teams record is to some degree a product of their schedule.Certainly a team being +/- a victory or two each year due to their schedule is more plausible than worrying about 6-10 division winners making the playoffs.
Right. But a 9-7 WC team could have had the hardest schedule ever and the 8-8 division winner could have had the easiest schedule ever. And considering we know the 9-7 team at least played one good team twice a year, that's probably the more likely scenario.I agree, though, that no one wants to get all BCS on the NFL system.
 
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?
Let's see, the Chargers beat an 11 win team despite the fact they were a .500 team.The Cardinals were a 9-7 team in one of the worst divisions in recent memory.... and have now made it to the Superbowl.I'd say it's you.
 
Maybe when we're done fixing the NFLs playoff and seeding problems we can fix Texas Holdem. It's such a travesty when 8-3 off beats pocket Aces.

 
I don't think six divisions is possible because of the number of teams. Sadly, 32 doesn't divide evenly by many numbers, and no one wants to see uneven divisions again.

No one really wants to break up the NFC North or East or the AFC East, North (excluding Baltimore, although they've developed a nice rivalry) or West. Those divisions have had those four teams for seemingly forever. Both Souths don't have much tradition, along with the NFC West.

I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I don't think the NFL's new playoff format/structure is very good.

 
Chase Stuart said:
No one really wants to break up the NFC North or East or the AFC East, North (excluding Baltimore, although they've developed a nice rivalry) or West.
And as someone already pointed out (I think), having the Seahawks back in the AFC West, like they were when it was six divisions, still would not have produced any better of a team from this division.
 
Chase Stuart said:
I don't think six divisions is possible because of the number of teams. Sadly, 32 doesn't divide evenly by many numbers, and no one wants to see uneven divisions again.No one really wants to break up the NFC North or East or the AFC East, North (excluding Baltimore, although they've developed a nice rivalry) or West. Those divisions have had those four teams for seemingly forever. Both Souths don't have much tradition, along with the NFC West.I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I don't think the NFL's new playoff format/structure is very good.
The only thing I think needs changed is that the division winners get the automatic home playoff game -- other than that it is fine as-is.I really dislike the idea of a division winner not going to the playoffs. If you're going to do that then eliminate the divisions completely and go with a 15 week regular season where you play the everyone in your conference once.
 
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?
Let's see, the Chargers beat an 11 win team despite the fact they were a .500 team.The Cardinals were a 9-7 team in one of the worst divisions in recent memory.... and have now made it to the Superbowl.I'd say it's you.
Any given Sunday... That's part of the problem in some people's opinion. An ok team in a bad division that gets hot wins the Super Bowl? It's a TRAVESTY!
 
Chase Stuart said:
I don't think six divisions is possible because of the number of teams. Sadly, 32 doesn't divide evenly by many numbers, and no one wants to see uneven divisions again.No one really wants to break up the NFC North or East or the AFC East, North (excluding Baltimore, although they've developed a nice rivalry) or West. Those divisions have had those four teams for seemingly forever. Both Souths don't have much tradition, along with the NFC West.I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I don't think the NFL's new playoff format/structure is very good.
The only thing I think needs changed is that the division winners get the automatic home playoff game -- other than that it is fine as-is.I really dislike the idea of a division winner not going to the playoffs. If you're going to do that then eliminate the divisions completely and go with a 15 week regular season where you play the everyone in your conference once.
Would you be happy if they crowned the division winner based solely on division record?
 
Chase Stuart said:
I don't think six divisions is possible because of the number of teams. Sadly, 32 doesn't divide evenly by many numbers, and no one wants to see uneven divisions again.No one really wants to break up the NFC North or East or the AFC East, North (excluding Baltimore, although they've developed a nice rivalry) or West. Those divisions have had those four teams for seemingly forever. Both Souths don't have much tradition, along with the NFC West.I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I don't think the NFL's new playoff format/structure is very good.
The only thing I think needs changed is that the division winners get the automatic home playoff game -- other than that it is fine as-is.I really dislike the idea of a division winner not going to the playoffs. If you're going to do that then eliminate the divisions completely and go with a 15 week regular season where you play the everyone in your conference once.
Would you be happy if they crowned the division winner based solely on division record?
I don't think it is necessary because all teams in division play the same schedule except for 2 games.
 
Chase Stuart said:
I don't think six divisions is possible because of the number of teams. Sadly, 32 doesn't divide evenly by many numbers, and no one wants to see uneven divisions again.No one really wants to break up the NFC North or East or the AFC East, North (excluding Baltimore, although they've developed a nice rivalry) or West. Those divisions have had those four teams for seemingly forever. Both Souths don't have much tradition, along with the NFC West.I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I don't think the NFL's new playoff format/structure is very good.
The only thing I think needs changed is that the division winners get the automatic home playoff game -- other than that it is fine as-is.I really dislike the idea of a division winner not going to the playoffs. If you're going to do that then eliminate the divisions completely and go with a 15 week regular season where you play the everyone in your conference once.
Would you be happy if they crowned the division winner based solely on division record?
I don't think it is necessary because all teams in division play the same schedule except for 2 games.
It's not a fairness of strength of schedule issue. If one team goes 6-0 in the division but 9-7 overall and another team goes 4-2 in the division but 10-6 overall, wouldn't the first team have a valid claim to being the champion of the division?
 
If they had a cap I wouldn't mind, but if it goes uncapped I say leave as is. In the NFC the 4 teams that spend the most are in the same division, and the other divisions are all balanced pretty equally financially.

 
Chase Stuart said:
I don't think six divisions is possible because of the number of teams. Sadly, 32 doesn't divide evenly by many numbers, and no one wants to see uneven divisions again.No one really wants to break up the NFC North or East or the AFC East, North (excluding Baltimore, although they've developed a nice rivalry) or West. Those divisions have had those four teams for seemingly forever. Both Souths don't have much tradition, along with the NFC West.I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I don't think the NFL's new playoff format/structure is very good.
The only thing I think needs changed is that the division winners get the automatic home playoff game -- other than that it is fine as-is.I really dislike the idea of a division winner not going to the playoffs. If you're going to do that then eliminate the divisions completely and go with a 15 week regular season where you play the everyone in your conference once.
Would you be happy if they crowned the division winner based solely on division record?
I don't think it is necessary because all teams in division play the same schedule except for 2 games.
It's not a fairness of strength of schedule issue. If one team goes 6-0 in the division but 9-7 overall and another team goes 4-2 in the division but 10-6 overall, wouldn't the first team have a valid claim to being the champion of the division?
They've both played the virtually the same schedule and the 10-6 came out with the better record so I have no problem crowning them champions.
 
Chase Stuart said:
I don't think six divisions is possible because of the number of teams. Sadly, 32 doesn't divide evenly by many numbers, and no one wants to see uneven divisions again.No one really wants to break up the NFC North or East or the AFC East, North (excluding Baltimore, although they've developed a nice rivalry) or West. Those divisions have had those four teams for seemingly forever. Both Souths don't have much tradition, along with the NFC West.I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I don't think the NFL's new playoff format/structure is very good.
The only thing I think needs changed is that the division winners get the automatic home playoff game -- other than that it is fine as-is.I really dislike the idea of a division winner not going to the playoffs. If you're going to do that then eliminate the divisions completely and go with a 15 week regular season where you play the everyone in your conference once.
Would you be happy if they crowned the division winner based solely on division record?
I don't think it is necessary because all teams in division play the same schedule except for 2 games.
It's not a fairness of strength of schedule issue. If one team goes 6-0 in the division but 9-7 overall and another team goes 4-2 in the division but 10-6 overall, wouldn't the first team have a valid claim to being the champion of the division?
They've both played the virtually the same schedule and the 10-6 came out with the better record so I have no problem crowning them champions.
I don't have a *problem* with it, either. But I see both sides of the coin.I understand that people think winning your division should be "worth" something. They make the same argument in college football, but there they actually use the intraconference record. At that point, it does mean something. The biggest reason that division champs get autoberths is because we want to reward them for doing something, even if that something is relatively arbitrary. But if we're going to crown the AFC North winner based on overall record and regardless of how they do in the AFC North, it seems unnecessary. If you have one really, really strong division, it's possible that they'll all beat each other up (although at least one should go 4-2). Maybe the winner will go 6-4 in their other games, although that's somewhat arguing against how great that team must be. That said, I can see wanting to make sure that team is in the playoffs, and not all 10 teams make it.But what's the point of division winners if it's not based on their division record? You might as well say one out of "Miami, Cincinnati, San Diego and Houston" must make the playoffs each year. I know I'm in the minority here, but it just strikes me as odd. Yes, division record is part of overall record but it's a relatively small part. And no, I'm not suggesting that we crown division winners based on division record only. I'm not sure what the right solution is.I do think the current playoff system is bad. It wouldn't take a genius to improve on it. But we might need to wait until LA, Memphis, San Antonio and Brooklyn get a team, because then we can have 3 divisions of 6 teams each with 3 wild cards. That's pretty good and the likelihood of a bad division winner is small. But right now, the 4 divisions, 4 teams, 2 conferences, 2 WC teams set up just doesn't work very well IMO.
 
I like it as is. Division winners get in and get a home game even if they are 6-10. Just makes it more interesting and exciting with all the possibilities.

 
Everyone knows the old saying, "if it aint broke, don't fix it". To me, the NFL clearly is not broken. In fact I think it is better than it has ever been, and I would guess that NFL owners, players, and employees would agree. I know there is always room for improvement, but the idea of changing a very successful format seems silly to me.

 
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.
How inconsistent can you be?So this was your opinion in December, but once the Eagles got into the NFC Championship game (with Arizona) you argued night and day how the playoff teams deserved to be there and had to be the best in the NFL simply because they were still playing.Remind me to ignore in the future.
 
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?
The flaw is the tiny divisions; 4 teams?Here is a radical approach; 4 divisions (North, East, West and South) of 8 teams and NO conferences.

14 divisional games and 2 games out of the division. Division winners (each gets a bye) and 8 wild cards make the playoffs. Wild Cards can come from any division. All 12 teams are seeded and the last two standing play in the SB.

Makes for any possible SB match-up and could be very intriguing. Probably too radical for the NFL.

 
Here is a radical approach; 4 divisions (North, East, West and South) of 8 teams and NO conferences.

14 divisional games and 2 games out of the division. Division winners (each gets a bye) and 8 wild cards make the playoffs. Wild Cards can come from any division. All 12 teams are seeded and the last two standing play in the SB.

Makes for any possible SB match-up and could be very intriguing. Probably too radical for the NFL.
On first glance, I kinda like it.
 
Despyzer said:
DropKick said:
Here is a radical approach; 4 divisions (North, East, West and South) of 8 teams and NO conferences.

14 divisional games and 2 games out of the division. Division winners (each gets a bye) and 8 wild cards make the playoffs. Wild Cards can come from any division. All 12 teams are seeded and the last two standing play in the SB.

Makes for any possible SB match-up and could be very intriguing. Probably too radical for the NFL.
On first glance, I kinda like it.
Here are your divisions:NORTHEAST

Baltimore Ravens

Buffalo Bills

Cleveland Browns

New England Patriots

New York Giants

New York Jets

Philadephia Eagles

Pittsburgh Steelers

MIDWEST

Chicago Bears

Cincinnati Bengals

Detroit Lions

Green Bay Packers

Indianapolis Colts

Kansas City Chiefs

Minnesota Vikings

St. Louis Rams

SOUTH

Atlanta Falcons

Carolina Panthers

Jacksonville Jaguars

Miami Dolphins

New Orleans Saints

Tampa Bay Bucs

Tennessee Titans

Washington Redskins

WEST

Arizona Cardinals

Dallas Cowboys

Denver Broncos

Houston Texans

Oakland Raiders

San Diego Chargers

San Francisco 49ers

Seattle Seahawks

 
Despyzer said:
DropKick said:
Here is a radical approach; 4 divisions (North, East, West and South) of 8 teams and NO conferences.

14 divisional games and 2 games out of the division. Division winners (each gets a bye) and 8 wild cards make the playoffs. Wild Cards can come from any division. All 12 teams are seeded and the last two standing play in the SB.

Makes for any possible SB match-up and could be very intriguing. Probably too radical for the NFL.
On first glance, I kinda like it.
Here are your divisions:NORTHEAST

Baltimore Ravens

Buffalo Bills

Cleveland Browns

New England Patriots

New York Giants

New York Jets

Philadephia Eagles

Pittsburgh Steelers

MIDWEST

Chicago Bears

Cincinnati Bengals

Detroit Lions

Green Bay Packers

Indianapolis Colts

Kansas City Chiefs

Minnesota Vikings

St. Louis Rams

SOUTH

Atlanta Falcons

Carolina Panthers

Jacksonville Jaguars

Miami Dolphins

New Orleans Saints

Tampa Bay Bucs

Tennessee Titans

Washington Redskins

WEST

Arizona Cardinals

Dallas Cowboys

Denver Broncos

Houston Texans

Oakland Raiders

San Diego Chargers

San Francisco 49ers

Seattle Seahawks
I would feel bad for the Cleveland, Buffalo, and NY Jets fans in the NE division. Nice idea but it is still lopsided.
 
Despyzer said:
DropKick said:
Here is a radical approach; 4 divisions (North, East, West and South) of 8 teams and NO conferences.

14 divisional games and 2 games out of the division. Division winners (each gets a bye) and 8 wild cards make the playoffs. Wild Cards can come from any division. All 12 teams are seeded and the last two standing play in the SB.

Makes for any possible SB match-up and could be very intriguing. Probably too radical for the NFL.
On first glance, I kinda like it.
Here are your divisions:NORTHEAST

Baltimore Ravens

Buffalo Bills

Cleveland Browns

New England Patriots

New York Giants

New York Jets

Philadephia Eagles

Pittsburgh Steelers

MIDWEST

Chicago Bears

Cincinnati Bengals

Detroit Lions

Green Bay Packers

Indianapolis Colts

Kansas City Chiefs

Minnesota Vikings

St. Louis Rams

SOUTH

Atlanta Falcons

Carolina Panthers

Jacksonville Jaguars

Miami Dolphins

New Orleans Saints

Tampa Bay Bucs

Tennessee Titans

Washington Redskins

WEST

Arizona Cardinals

Dallas Cowboys

Denver Broncos

Houston Texans

Oakland Raiders

San Diego Chargers

San Francisco 49ers

Seattle Seahawks
I don't think you want to split the Cowboys, Redskins and Dolphins from their rivals. Why not just do this?East: AFCE + NFCE

North: NFCN + AFCN

South: AFCS + NFCS

West: AFCW + NFCW

 
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.
Going to 18 games may be a good idea.That being said, I have no issue with the way it is now. The idea that a 10-6 team id better than a 9-7 team is not necessarily correct though. If your division is very tough and you beat each other up and the 10-6 team gets 6 free wins, but goes 4-6 against any real competition (let alone the possibility that their schedule might have been a ton easier) isn't any better.

I like the unbalanced schedule of playing twice in your division and then getting something for winning your division. If another team finished 2nd out of 4 teams the argument can be made that they already have proved they are not better than at least one team so why let them into the playoffs? That is a little extreme, but it is accurate. The 9-7 team from the other division may be better than this other team, but they haven't played.



The divisions will ebb and flow with talent, that is fine and the way the playoffs are done is very fine. The argument that because you have a better record than a team that won its division that you should be home is offset by the FACT you didn't even win your own division. Division winners should be rewarded!

 
Here is a radical approach; 4 divisions (North, East, West and South) of 8 teams and NO conferences.

14 divisional games and 2 games out of the division. Division winners (each gets a bye) and 8 wild cards make the playoffs. Wild Cards can come from any division. All 12 teams are seeded and the last two standing play in the SB.

Makes for any possible SB match-up and could be very intriguing. Probably too radical for the NFL.
On first glance, I kinda like it.
Here are your divisions:NORTHEAST

Baltimore Ravens

Buffalo Bills

Cleveland Browns

New England Patriots

New York Giants

New York Jets

Philadephia Eagles

Pittsburgh Steelers

MIDWEST

Chicago Bears

Cincinnati Bengals

Detroit Lions

Green Bay Packers

Indianapolis Colts

Kansas City Chiefs

Minnesota Vikings

St. Louis Rams

SOUTH

Atlanta Falcons

Carolina Panthers

Jacksonville Jaguars

Miami Dolphins

New Orleans Saints

Tampa Bay Bucs

Tennessee Titans

Washington Redskins

WEST

Arizona Cardinals

Dallas Cowboys

Denver Broncos

Houston Texans

Oakland Raiders

San Diego Chargers

San Francisco 49ers

Seattle Seahawks
It's safe to say if you win one of those divisions, you've accomplished something!The more I think about the structure, the more I like it. It would be very conducive to an additional game. Then you could have 3 intra-division games, one game against each other division. This could be rotating so you play every team at least once every 8 years or based on equivalent standings. So if you finish 1st, you would play all 3 other division winners the following season.

It would be much harder to clinch early or cruise (ala Arizona) late in the season; wild-cards would be in jeopardy until very late in the season.

 
Here is a radical approach; 4 divisions (North, East, West and South) of 8 teams and NO conferences.

14 divisional games and 2 games out of the division. Division winners (each gets a bye) and 8 wild cards make the playoffs. Wild Cards can come from any division. All 12 teams are seeded and the last two standing play in the SB.

Makes for any possible SB match-up and could be very intriguing. Probably too radical for the NFL.
On first glance, I kinda like it.
Here are your divisions:NORTHEAST

Baltimore Ravens

Buffalo Bills

Cleveland Browns

New England Patriots

New York Giants

New York Jets

Philadephia Eagles

Pittsburgh Steelers

MIDWEST

Chicago Bears

Cincinnati Bengals

Detroit Lions

Green Bay Packers

Indianapolis Colts

Kansas City Chiefs

Minnesota Vikings

St. Louis Rams

SOUTH

Atlanta Falcons

Carolina Panthers

Jacksonville Jaguars

Miami Dolphins

New Orleans Saints

Tampa Bay Bucs

Tennessee Titans

Washington Redskins

WEST

Arizona Cardinals

Dallas Cowboys

Denver Broncos

Houston Texans

Oakland Raiders

San Diego Chargers

San Francisco 49ers

Seattle Seahawks
I didn't know you hated the Cowboys that much. :goodposting: Dallas would flat out refuse that assignment.
 
I didn't know you hated the Cowboys that much. :pics: Dallas would flat out refuse that assignment.
I think I'd just tell the Cowboys they could find another football league that was a little more willing to kiss their butts.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top