Should the NFL get rid of divisions?

[kskboys]

Not a true d-e, but a modified d-e. Expand to 8 playoff teams per conference & no 1st round byes.

All teams go through to week 2 with the 4 winners play each other week 2. Same for the losers.

The 2 undefeated winners go through to week 3 and a bye.

The 2 losers in the “winners” bracket go through to week 3 as do the 2 winners in the “losers” bracket.

The 4 non-bye teams play each other in week 3. The 2 winners move on.

The 4 teams play week 4. The 2 winners play each other in week 5.

That expands the playoffs from 3 to 5 weeks. I would go back to a 16 week regular season and forego expanding to 18 games. The net would be the same plus you wouldn’t have a bunch of meaningless games between dog teams with no playoff chances.

Sounds boring, and that doesn't address the nature of football. This isn't like baseball or basketball where any team can win. Domination is simply more easily asserted in football. For a "lesser" team to win, they'd have to have a dominating aspect to their team. 07 Giants, for instance.

 

[Diehardblues]

You mean all 6 divisions winners? Yes. W/ 5-6 teams in each division, you'd have to earn the best record. No more 8-8 crapp div winners.

So the winners in each division would still be seeded over WC with better records ?

Not sure how many divisions would matter if we aren’t going to seed better record WC teams ahead of lower record division winners.

 

[mcmvp]

It's not.

It’s not what? Not boring? There are 32 NFL teams. What you are proposing would mean each team only plays 10 different teams of the other 31 during the regular season. Every Sunday would feel like Groundhog Day.

 

[Diehardblues]

It’s not what? Not boring? There are 32 NFL teams. What you are proposing would mean each team only plays 10 different teams of the other 31 during the regular season. Every Sunday would feel like Groundhog Day.

Personally I like the current rotation of the opponents we play. Nothing needs to be adjusted there.

The only adjustment needed is playoff seedings by record , so lower record division winners aren’t seeded above better record WC teams.

 

[DallasEast]

Personally I like the current rotation of the opponents we play. Nothing needs to be adjusted there.

The only adjustment needed is playoff seedings by record , so lower record division winners aren’t seeded above better record WC teams.

I could get partially behind that system for the playoffs. A better record should not be the only criteria for seeding though in my opinion.

Perhaps a better seeding system would use another criteria in conjunction with regular season teams. I would propose regular season record matched with strength of schedule. For example:

A wild card team with both better regular season record and stronger strength of schedule seeded above a divisional winner with a worse regular season record and weaker strength of schedule​

​

But​

​

A divisional winner with a worse regular season record and stronger strength of schedule seeded above a wild card team with a better regular season record and weaker strength of schedule​

​

Combining two criteria benefits a wild card team that beat above average opponents while accumulating a very good regular season regular. The divisional winner does not get the higher seed since they did not capitalize playing weaker opponents but won their division anyway--likely because the rest of their division was just as weak that season.

Likewise, a divisional winner's seeding is not penalized by losing to 'a number of' above average opponents but still won their division. Some wild card teams with great records benefit from not playing 'enough' above average opponents and run the table during the regular season because of it.

Using the above better distributes seeds for postseason teams from best-to-worse based upon what they did throughout the regular season beyond simple win and loss totals. Just my two cents.

 

[Diehardblues]

I could get partially behind that system for the playoffs. A better record should not be the only criteria for seeding though in my opinion.

Perhaps a better seeding system would use another criteria in conjunction with regular season teams. I would propose regular season record matched with strength of schedule. For example:

A wild card team with both better regular season record and stronger strength of schedule seeded above a divisional winner with a worse regular season record and weaker strength of schedule​

​

But​

​

A divisional winner with a worse regular season record and stronger strength of schedule seeded above a wild card team with a better regular season record and weaker strength of schedule​

​

Combining two criteria benefits a wild card team that beat above average opponents while accumulating a very good regular season regular. The divisional winner does not get the higher seed since they did not capitalize playing weaker opponents but won their division anyway--likely because the rest of their division was just as weak that season.

Likewise, a divisional winner's seeding is not penalized by losing to 'a number of' above average opponents but still won their division. Some wild card teams with great records benefit from not playing 'enough' above average opponents and run the table during the regular season because of it.

Using the above better distributes seeds for postseason teams from best-to-worse based upon what they did throughout the regular season beyond simple win and loss totals. Just my two cents.

Yea, but that probably complicates more than needed .

In most cases the lesser record division winner would probably have lesser strength of schedule since the others in their division worse record than them.

 

[KJJ]

Does the NFL actually need divisions or could they just do away with them in favor of two conferences (like the NBA does)? You could do more matchups with the best squads and do away with certain divisions that do not produce enough fierce competition. More matchups of the highest seeds would likely benefit ratings and attendance. Force teams to have a more comprehensive approach to team building. What say you?

Divisions have been a long tradition in the NFL. Division rivalries are a big part of the game.

 

[mcmvp]

Yea, but that probably complicates more than needed . In most cases the lesser record division winner would probably have lesser strength of schedule since the others in their division worse record than them.

It's more complicated than even that. Let's say Burrow stays healthy and the Bengals win the AFC north with only 9 or 10 wins. It's possible that the last place team in that division still won 8 games. A lot of people assume that a bad record division winner is automatically a worse team than the WC team that won 2 more games. I don't look at it that way. Not all records are equal.

When you see a 7 seed go on the road to a 2 seed and dominate, you realize there is really no reason to re-seed anything.

 

[plasticman]

I understand that there are people that like the new, safer, softer, NFL, but don't be surprised if a lot of fans don't like it.

Not only that, but I don't recall so many injuries back then. Is the NFL really safer today?

If you look back, I think you will see that starters played a higher percentage of games back then. Yes, there were less protocols and more players played while hurt, but it just seems like there are more injuries today. They seem more frequent and more serious.

 

[DallasEast]

Yea, but that probably complicates more than needed .

In most cases the lesser record division winner would probably have lesser strength of schedule since the others in their division worse record than them.

Agreed that it complicates but not that it is not needed. It better addresses the fairness of seeding for the playoffs. I would rather keep the current system if it does not address teams getting the correct playoff seed because it simply goes by total number of wins.

For example, Dallas finished with 12 wins and Green Bay 9 wins in the regular season. Was the Cowboys #2 seed actually five times better than the Packers' #7 seed because the latter had three fewer wins? In hindsight, I would definitely say it was certainly not.

I am not sure what the actual strength of schedule was for both Dallas and Green Bay but did look at the calculation pro-football-reference did for both teams. The sites definition for SoS is:

...indicates the combined winning percentages of the opponents this team played in a given year. Higher SoS indicates a tougher schedule, lower indicates easier (link)​

​

P-F-R gave Green Bay a SoS ranking of -0.76 (link). It determined Dallas' SoS as -2.23 (link). P-F-R rankings places the Cowboys 2023 schedule solidly behind the Packers.

There were a number of factors for Dallas getting drummed at home in the playoffs. I consider one of those factors being a Packers' team played a tougher schedule and squeaked out a regular season record just above .500.

12 wins. 9 wins. 41-16 at the end of the third quarter. My proposal is complicated. However, it would have seeded these two particular teams better than just relying on win totals. Heck. It could be argued Green Bay deserved to have hosted that wild card game. Dallas did not do squat with its homefield advantage--less than squat actually.

/rant

 

[JustChip]

Sounds boring, and that doesn't address the nature of football. This isn't like baseball or basketball where any team can win. Domination is simply more easily asserted in football. For a "lesser" team to win, they'd have to have a dominating aspect to their team. 07 Giants, for instance.

More boring than watching Carolina or NE play anybody? Those Thursday night games are, by and large, unentertaining. At least, in this proposal, a playoff game is exchanged for a regular season game (or 2) and be meaningful vs. some or most no so.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m fine staying with the current playoff arrangement with the exception of eliminating the bye. That means the playoff teams would either have to expand to 8 or contract to 6.

 

[KingCorcoran]

And you think the seedings are fine. An 8 win division winner should be seeded above a 12 win WC team.
[/QUOTE
A third of the schedule is devoted to divisional opponents. As long as the schedule is that heavily tilted it is going to count for something. It also gives the league an opportunity to make some games otherwise not important to be significant. If a team is going to win their division with 8 wins that means there were six games that mattered with teams that have losing records. The NBA put less emphasis on the division alignment and because some teams were so far out of a chance to make the playoffs they had to figure a way to keep games important and came up with the “play in” games. 17 games is all the NFL plays. The current division alignment allows the league to keep more games counting and thus more watchable.

 

[RFABR]

With "only" 17 games, the current division schemes and rules are still the best way to bring some parity to the schedule, IMHO

 

[Diehardblues]

It’s really a simple concept.

Winning division still secures a seed but not a top 4 seed pending record.

No need for any other changes.

 

[Blitzen]

Divisions have been a long tradition in the NFL. Division rivalries are a big part of the game.

Eh-I would much rather the Cowboys play KC once than watch the Cowboys play Washington twice this year.

How about if the divisions were gone and the two conferences stayed, BUT for tradition sake they still played one game vs their old division teams each season? The other matchups could be based on the previous season performance. More best teams versus best teams hopefully. Also more comprehensive-could matchup with 8 AFC/8 NFC opponents with one random matchup.

Conference seeding would determine home playoff teams and wildcard teams. The division games don’t mean as much unless they are ultra competitive and there are so many divisions where the divisions are made up of 1-2 good teams and 2-3 poor/mediocre teams.

 

[Flamma]

Not only that, but I don't recall so many injuries back then. Is the NFL really safer today?

If you look back, I think you will see that starters played a higher percentage of games back then. Yes, there were less protocols and more players played while hurt, but it just seems like there are more injuries today. They seem more frequent and more serious.

That didn't go unnoticed by me either. I would talk about that with people whenever I got the chance. I got an interesting answer one time. I have no idea if it's true or not. Back in the day the only thing you really did was stay in shape. Just make sure you didn't tire easily. Today they stretch every muscle and tendon to their max. Then when you push it further.......

 

[camelboy]

Or make it interesting, random 4 teams form a division each year,lottery type.can really help parity, Dynasties like Pats in a weak division can be avoided

That's the one. I posted years ago a suggestion that NFL start mixing things up with teams. Adding an annual "NFL Draw" event would be great hit for them and generate more eyeballs and attention that so-called rivalries. Something similar to event like UEFA Champions League Draw, World Cup Draw and so forth.
No one cares about rivalries that much, although, the new NFL Draw would still put traditional rivals in the same division.

Keep the divisions format with two conferences, at the end of the season, rank teams in 4 levels and each division would get one team from each level. Imagine the anticipation of who our division would be, who would we be facing outside the division, outside the conference, etc.

Someone like Jerry might be against it since his Cowboys would lose trips and coverage from big markets like NY, PHI, and DC. But hey, you are looking for fresh ideas, $$$ generation, excitement, and, I would say, more fair team alignment.

 

[JustChip]

That's the one. I posted years ago a suggestion that NFL start mixing things up with teams. Adding an annual "NFL Draw" event would be great hit for them and generate more eyeballs and attention that so-called rivalries. Something similar to event like UEFA Champions League Draw, World Cup Draw and so forth.
No one cares about rivalries that much, although, the new NFL Draw would still put traditional rivals in the same division.

Keep the divisions format with two conferences, at the end of the season, rank teams in 4 levels and each division would get one team from each level. Imagine the anticipation of who our division would be, who would we be facing outside the division, outside the conference, etc.

Someone like Jerry might be against it since his Cowboys would lose trips and coverage from big markets like NY, PHI, and DC. But hey, you are looking for fresh ideas, $$$ generation, excitement, and, I would say, more fair team alignment.

That’s an interesting concept. I’m a traditionalist, but I wouldn’t outright reject this.

 

[_sturt_]

Relevant recent conversation, mainly had with myself, but evidently a lot of people considered it interesting enough to read nonetheless :

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/re-...eason-to-be-even-better.521252/#post-13438321

 

[KJJ]

Eh-I would much rather the Cowboys play KC once than watch the Cowboys play Washington twice this year.

How about if the divisions were gone and the two conferences stayed, BUT for tradition sake they still played one game vs their old division teams each season? The other matchups could be based on the previous season performance. More best teams versus best teams hopefully. Also more comprehensive-could matchup with 8 AFC/8 NFC opponents with one random matchup.

Conference seeding would determine home playoff teams and wildcard teams. The division games don’t mean as much unless they are ultra competitive and there are so many divisions where the divisions are made up of 1-2 good teams and 2-3 poor/mediocre teams.

I like playing teams twice and having divisions. I grew up with it and don’t ever want to see it change. If Washington’s new QB pans out it’s going to get a lot more interesting playing them twice. Division games mean a lot because winning your division sets you up for a good playoff run with a home playoff game. Winning their division gave the Bucs a home playoff game despite a 9 win season. It led to a playoff win for them. The strength of divisions change every few years. In 2022 the Cowboys, Eagles and Giants made the playoffs and each team won a playoff game, with Philly ending up in the SB.