Would you want the NFL to NOT have any conferences? (1 Viewer)

[comfortably numb]

I may be way way in the minority, but lets say the the NFL changed its system completley.

Instead of 2 confrences of 4 divisions, we would start off just

1st place

-

-

-

-

-

32nd place

-Lets say the each team still plays 16 games (8 home/8 away)

-The NFL selects 4 "rivalry" games for each team. Those games will be played at each teams home field once. This way DEN/KC would still meet twice, WASH/DAL, NYJ/MIA, GB/CHI...you get the idea.

-Then the remaining 8 games for each team can be scheduled in a way were each team would play one another at least every 3 or 4 years.

It always is annoying when a team who went 8-8 or 9-7 is awarded a playoff spot for winning it's crappy division, when a 10-6 team is left out.

Or in the case this year, lets say DEN or KC finish 10-6, and NYG or Car team finishes 8-8 get in.

I think football can actually do this as it has no problem with travelling.

At the end of the season top 4 teams get a bye, 5-12 make it in, and the playoffs get seeded accordingly.

So instead of having a Superbowl of the 2 "best" teams

i.e Dallas v's Buffalo

We could have had Superbowl of the 2 "really" best teams

i.e. Dallas v's SF or GB in the laste 90's

I really wish some sport would do this.

There is nothing worse than watching a confrence series, where everyone knows that is the real championship game.

I enjoyed watching my Nets go to the Finals, but even I knew the winner of the Lakers, Kings, Spurs would simply destroy the Nets.

Would anyone like this format?

 

[Gr00vus]

Do you mean Conferences or Divisions?

I voted no, because I like the divisions. Being a Charger fan, winning the AFC West is a big deal, and the rivalries with KC, Den and Oak are the best parts of the season (except the playoffs if you make it there), that have a little extra something because it means so much in winning the division.. I wouldn't want to give that up.

But maybe the conferences could go away, and wild card spots could go to the best records of all the non-division winners. I think that would be good. I don't think there's really any rivalry AFC/NFC that people care about losing that much.

 

[dudaman]

-The NFL selects 4 "rivalry" games for each team. Those games will be played at each teams home field once. This way DEN/KC would still meet twice, WASH/DAL, NYJ/MIA, GB/CHI...you get the idea.

This is the single biggest reason I voted no - even if the NFL were to select (which is a problem in itself) rivalry games, it wouldn't feel like a rivalry. The NFL interferes with play too much (pass interference call changes is my biggest beef) as it is.

 

[comfortably numb]

Do you mean Conferences or Divisions?I voted no, because I like the divisions. Being a Charger fan, winning the AFC West is a big deal, and the rivalries with KC, Den and Oak are the best parts of the season (except the playoffs if you make it there). I wouldn't want to give that up.But maybe the conferences could go away, and wild card spots could go to the best records of all the non-division winners. I think that would be good. I don't think there's really any rivalry AFC/NFC that people care about losing that much.

Winning the AFC west means that much to you as a fan?As a Jets fan, I don't really care if they win the division or not.I can't recall the last time they won the division, but I can recall the last time they were in the playoffs.The Mets won the EAST for the 1st time in 15 years or so, 2 1 month has gone by, and I still don't care. Everyone is different.In my format SD can still play KC, DEN and OAK as their "rivalry" games.They would play each other twice every year, same as now.

 

[comfortably numb]

-The NFL selects 4 "rivalry" games for each team. Those games will be played at each teams home field once. This way DEN/KC would still meet twice, WASH/DAL, NYJ/MIA, GB/CHI...you get the idea.

This is the single biggest reason I voted no - even if the NFL were to select (which is a problem in itself) rivalry games, it wouldn't feel like a rivalry. The NFL interferes with play too much (pass interference call changes is my biggest beef) as it is.

The NFL could choose or each team can choose which ever would work, I am just hypathetically speaking.I guess, I just don't care too much about divisions, when the Jets/Mia game would come on, it would still be as exciting (so i think anyway)Division races can be fun and entertaining, but I would mainly want this done to ensure the top 2 teams in the NFL meet to play the Superbowl.In some cases, clearly the top team, is playing maybe the 3rd or 4th best team.

 

[Gr00vus]

In my format SD can still play KC, DEN and OAK as their "rivalry" games.They would play each other twice every year, same as now.

Yeah, but what's the point? So that they can split their "rivalry" games? What satisfaction is there in that?If you're going to do away with the whole structure, implementing arbitrary "rivalry" games makes no sense - you should attempt to play as many of the other 31 teams as possible to determine who is truly "best." Otherwise you should just keep the divisions.

 

[Godsbrother]

Do you mean Conferences or Divisions?I voted no, because I like the divisions. Being a Charger fan, winning the AFC West is a big deal, and the rivalries with KC, Den and Oak are the best parts of the season (except the playoffs if you make it there), that have a little extra something because it means so much in winning the division.. I wouldn't want to give that up.But maybe the conferences could go away, and wild card spots could go to the best records of all the non-division winners. I think that would be good. I don't think there's really any rivalry AFC/NFC that people care about losing that much.

I like the idea of the conferences going away -- it made sense after the merger but that was 40 years ago.The only problem would be how it would affect the all-important Pro Bowl game...

 

[Gr00vus]

I like the idea of the conferences going away -- it made sense after the merger but that was 40 years ago.The only problem would be how it would affect the all-important Pro Bowl game...

The two head coaches do rock paper scissors for each roster spot, winner chooses first

 

[comfortably numb]

In my format SD can still play KC, DEN and OAK as their "rivalry" games.They would play each other twice every year, same as now.

Yeah, but what's the point? So that they can split their "rivalry" games? What satisfaction is there in that?If you're going to do away with the whole structure, implementing arbitrary "rivalry" games makes no sense - you should attempt to play as many of the other 31 teams as possible to determine who is truly "best." Otherwise you should just keep the divisions.

That would be fine, each team would play 15 different teams then.The point would be to get the top team in the NFL into the playoffs, every year in every sport teams are left out of the playoffs because their division is alot tougher, while others get in with a below average team.Basketball, The west would have 2 or 3 teams left out of the playoffs that are very good teams, while the east would let in 2 or 3 teams, that barely break 500.A few years ago, Boston Celtics made the playoffs, being 10 GAMES under 500 NBA may be different as more teams make the playoffs, but its the same point I am trying to make

 

[comfortably numb]

Do you mean Conferences or Divisions?I voted no, because I like the divisions. Being a Charger fan, winning the AFC West is a big deal, and the rivalries with KC, Den and Oak are the best parts of the season (except the playoffs if you make it there), that have a little extra something because it means so much in winning the division.. I wouldn't want to give that up.But maybe the conferences could go away, and wild card spots could go to the best records of all the non-division winners. I think that would be good. I don't think there's really any rivalry AFC/NFC that people care about losing that much.

I like the idea of the conferences going away -- it made sense after the merger but that was 40 years ago.The only problem would be how it would affect the all-important Pro Bowl game...

Good point, Mods please delete

 

[Gr00vus]

That would be fine, each team would play 15 different teams then.The point would be to get the top team in the NFL into the playoffs, every year in every sport teams are left out of the playoffs because their division is alot tougher, while others get in with a below average team.Basketball, The west would have 2 or 3 teams left out of the playoffs that are very good teams, while the east would let in 2 or 3 teams, that barely break 500.A few years ago, Boston Celtics made the playoffs, being 10 GAMES under 500 NBA may be different as more teams make the playoffs, but its the same point I am trying to make

But if you simply did away with the conferences and kept the divisions I think you end up with the best of all possible worlds. You get the 8 division winners (while keeping the extra rivalries, traditions, excitement of divisional play) plus 6 at large bids which I should think would be more than sufficient to capture "deserving" teams that didn't win a division.Re: Basketball - the truly best teams do make it every year, and are almost always the ones that end up in the conference and league finals.

 

[bigfeet_88]

What is the tie breaker in this system? Most playoff tie breakers now rely on conf/division wins. What if every single team finished 8-8?

 

[comfortably numb]

That would be fine, each team would play 15 different teams then.The point would be to get the top team in the NFL into the playoffs, every year in every sport teams are left out of the playoffs because their division is alot tougher, while others get in with a below average team.Basketball, The west would have 2 or 3 teams left out of the playoffs that are very good teams, while the east would let in 2 or 3 teams, that barely break 500.A few years ago, Boston Celtics made the playoffs, being 10 GAMES under 500 NBA may be different as more teams make the playoffs, but its the same point I am trying to make

But if you simply did away with the conferences and kept the divisions I think you end up with the best of all possible worlds. You get the 8 division winners (while keeping the extra rivalries, traditions, excitement of divisional play) plus 6 at large bids which I should think would be more than sufficient to capture "deserving" teams that didn't win a division.Re: Basketball - the truly best teams do make it every year, and are almost always the ones that end up in the conference and league finals.

I guess I could live with the 8 divisions, as long as they would be seeded according to their record, and the 2 best teams met in the Superbowl.I don't know how you can say the best teams make the playoffs in basketball.3 years ago when Boston made the playoffs 10 games under the 7th seed (NY) was 4 games under.In the 3 Lakers Championships, they played the Pacers, 76ers, and NetsI think the teams that the Lakers beat (Kings, Spurs??) would also have each beaten up on the teams the Lakers beat, and in those cases the final 2 teams, are clearly not the 2 best teams.

 

[comfortably numb]

What is the tie breaker in this system? Most playoff tie breakers now rely on conf/division wins. What if every single team finished 8-8?

That would be the big problem wit this format I think.Every year the last 3 or 4 teams to get in, would be split via tie breaker method.I would say the team with the best opponent winnig percentage ??