papazoid Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 One better: let's expand the season to 62 weeks so you can play everybody twice - once at home, and once on the road. Now, I know what you're thinking: there are only 52 weeks in a year! Psshh. What else are doubleheaders for! i like where your going.....
Nitro Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) I say leave it alone. Make a change in that no team with a losing record can make the play offs. Seed the play offs by record. Ensuring a 11 or 12 win wild card team can host a game against a division champ with a lesser record. Arizona is playing well but will get screwed by the current system. It happens ever so often. Realignment into geographic regions was debated last time and some teams (Dallas) wanted to maintain status quo because long established rivalries. Miami made more sense in the AFC South and Indy in the AFC East but that was thwarted at that time too. Edited December 24, 2013 by Nitro
BigBuff423 Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 I would like something along these lines to keep it more about geography, to an extent: Buffalo, Indianapolis, Detroit, and Green Bay New England, Baltimore, Jets, and Redskins Pitt, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Giants Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City, and Minnesota Denver, Cincinnati, Arizona, and St. Louis Miami, Jacksonville, Carolina, and New Orleans San Diego, San Fran, Seattle, and Oakland Tennessee, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, and
oman128 Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 The divisions all need to be realigned think of the money that teams could save, and the new rivalries created. the Jets and the Giants play each other twice a year in the Battle of NYC. Oakland and San Francisco in the Battle of the Bay, Washington and Baltimore in the bureaucrat bowl. Some of the divisions just don't make any sense at all I mean why do the Dallas Cowboys play 3 North East teams in New York , Philly and Washington? Why do the Dolphins play with the Jets, Bills and Pats? I totally favor realignment every 10 years to keep things fresh and interesting.
nucci Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 I think one of two options A- expand to 34 teams. Divide the teams into 2 geographic confrences either north vs south or east vs west. 17 teams per conference. You play everyone in your conference once and the team in the other division that finished same in that division the previous season. That would be a total of 17 regular season games. Reduce pre season to 2or 3 games against the other conference. 2- keep same format but do a drastic revision to current divisions. Take advantage of natural geographic rivals. Ex... put buffalo in division with Cleveland and Pittsburg... why the duck is Dallas in the n fc east and st Louis in the west? Makes so sense. Totally blow all divisions up and logically make new ones. Get creative. Indianapolis Chicago Cincinnati and Detroit. That could be a cool division. St Louis. Kc. Dallas and Houston. As another Tennessee Carolina Atlanta and Jacksonville the SEC division Etc... Teams move.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 Teams move. change the divisions to make sense!!!
BUNCH OF MULARKEY Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 I strongly agree with the op. Although I'm usually a traditionalist the current setup is simply unfair. Not only do teams with better records get screwed from time to time, there's situations like buffalo where teams can get almost locked out for a decade because there's a career hall of fame quarterback in your division. Posters that want to see the conferences changed is a bit too radical for me. I think it's right that the jets and giants, Houston Dallas etc. represent each conference. Afc east and afc west works for me. Bills play everyone in the afc east every year, home field alternates yearly. Do whatever they do to decide the rest of the games, records, etc.
mattsox Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 Would anyone like it if the NFC and AFC went to a East/West only division lineup? This would mean two 8 team divisions with the winners making the playoffs and each conference having 4 wild card teams. It would prevent Dallas/GB/Chi/Phi from making the playoffs while the Cardinals are at home at potentially 11-5 watching an 8-7-1 team HOST a playoff game. I do think it would make scheduling difficult. No Way!!! If you wanna be in the playoffs, you gotta win games. Simple as that. Keep it as is. This should be the best teams competing for the Lombardi Trophy!
May Day 10 Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 Rivalries are all situational these days anyways. New England indy/balt. San Francisco vs seattle, Pitts balt. No roster limits. 100 games. Separate men from boys
Mark Vader Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 change the divisions to make sense!!! How's this: Atlantic: New England, NYG, NYJ, Philadelphia North: Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh Mid-Atlantic: Baltimore, Carolina, Tennessee, Washington Southeast: Atlanta, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa Bay Midwest: Chicago, Green Bay, Minnesota, Saint Louis Mid-South: Cincinnati, Dallas, Indianapolis, New Orleans Mountain: Arizona, Denver, Houston, Kansas City Pacific: Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle
vorpma Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 I think the Bills should be in a division with Cleveland, Pitt and Detroit. Local fans could easily drive to road games. I think mass re alignment is a good idea. There are a bunch of natural rivalries the NFL could take advantage of. I like it, a Great Lakes Division - Buffali, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh; a new black and blue conference. Great post.
Nitro Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 If I was going to realign the NFL this my take: AFC EAST: New England, NY Jets, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. WEST: Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Tennessee, Green Bay and Minnesota. NFC EAST: Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Miami, New Orleans, Carolina, St Louis and Kansas City. WEST: Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Arizona, Denver, Houston and Dallas. This is about as closely geographic as you can get. Not that this will ever happen but it is fun to indulge in this game of "what if".
Sumin Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 I think geographic arguments carry some weight, but what happens when a team relocates? Additionally, divisional rivalries have been imbued into football for some time now, and to shake those up.. not a huge fan. A more practical change would be to make playoffs be based on record. If a division sucks any given year, winning your division just gives you a sense of satisfaction. Perhaps if two teams have the same record and are vying for a final spots in the playoffs, divisional ranking would determine which team would make it in. It really sucks for Arizona, though..
KRT88 Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) Would anyone like it if the NFC and AFC went to a East/West only division lineup? This would mean two 8 team divisions with the winners making the playoffs and each conference having 4 wild card teams. It would prevent Dallas/GB/Chi/Phi from making the playoffs while the Cardinals are at home at potentially 11-5 watching an 8-7-1 team HOST a playoff game. I do think it would make scheduling difficult. How would scheduling work with that arrangement? 7x2 = 14 and then what, two none conference games? You can't re-arrange the conferences without figuring out how scheduling works. If I was going to realign the NFL this my take: AFC EAST: New England, NY Jets, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. WEST: Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Tennessee, Green Bay and Minnesota. NFC EAST: Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Miami, New Orleans, Carolina, St Louis and Kansas City. WEST: Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Arizona, Denver, Houston and Dallas. This is about as closely geographic as you can get. Not that this will ever happen but it is fun to indulge in this game of "what if". I think the networks would get upset with this idea. TV networks would need to be involved. How exactly do we have Cleveland and Detroit in a west division. Edited December 24, 2013 by KRT88
PromoTheRobot Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 We should swap with Baltimore and move to the AFC North.
Mark Vader Posted December 25, 2013 Posted December 25, 2013 It's fine. Leave it alone IMHO My feelings exactly.
Nitro Posted December 25, 2013 Posted December 25, 2013 (edited) To answer KRT88: in this alignment the AFC is the geographic areas of the NE and the Great Lakes. NFC is the SE (including St Louis and KC) and west of Dallas. Split the US in 4 parts and there you go. It will never happen and I am in the leave it lone camp. Edited December 25, 2013 by Nitro
SouthernMan Posted December 25, 2013 Posted December 25, 2013 (edited) 31 game? No, actually it's a brilliant idea. In fact, I've been thinking about this...why not 40 weeks? September through June. No preseason. BUT...here's the rub...the rosters have 140 players, and each man can only play in 16 games, not including playoffs. Obviously, the talent would be somewhat watered down but the gamesmanship would be interesting. Do we dress our best QB for this New England game, or save him for a different matchup? 9 months of NFL football! Fk Yeah! Edited December 25, 2013 by SouthernMan
Max997 Posted December 25, 2013 Posted December 25, 2013 (edited) I thought the league was perfect with 30 teams and 3 divisions of 5 teams in each conference. I did not like it when they expanded and added teams in Houston and Cleveland 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference is too much and ends up penalizing the good divisions since there is one less wildcard spot now with the extra division Edited December 25, 2013 by Max997
Recommended Posts