Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Gugny said:

I like MLB's old set up.  In the NFL it would look like this:

 

Two Conferences - AFC/NFC

Two Divisions in Each Conference - East/West

 

Playoffs: 

AFC East Winner vs. AFC West Winner

NFC East Winner vs. NFC West Winner

 

Super Bowl:

AFC Champion vs. NFC Champion

 

Period.

Nah, that's really restrictive and boring.


Even MLB realized that and changed the system because of it.

 

I like the OP's suggestion.

 

I agree there is no need for divisions.

 

Playing certain teams twice a year is boring; I'd rather see a greater variety of opponents than the same team twice.

 

With free agency and the salary cap, team turnover is such that there really are no rivalries anymore anyway.

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, tomur67 said:

The NFL wants to go to a 18 game schedule.  OK, if you're in the AFC, you have 15 AFC opponents.  You play every team once, 8 home games and 7 away games.  The next year you reverse it.  The remaining  3 games would be with NFC teams.  Using the previous year's NFC record, using a drawing, you play 1 game against a team that finished 1st thru 5th in the NFC, one game against a team that finished 6th thru 10th in the NFC, and one game against a team that finished 11th thru 16th in the NFC.  The playoffs would consist of the top four teams in the AFC and  the top four teams in the  NFC with the best records.  There are two real up sides to this.  First, and most important,  in the old format, a real strong team in a weak division, is almost guaranteed 6 wins every year. Their road to the playoffs is quite a bit easier because of it.  ( Unfortunately, we've seen this, first hand)  And secondly, as a fan,  you get to see more teams.  Personally, I think playing the Pats , Jets and Dolphins twice a year, every year  is getting stale.

Hate it. 

Posted

I'm fine with getting rid of the divisions.  No way would I want to only play teams in one conference.  That is dumb.  You want national exposure.  It is too infrequent now for the Bills to play Dallas or Green Bay or Chicago.  It is much better for small market teams to get national exposure.

At a minimum I would recommend two things.  A playoff team must have a .500 record or better to make the playoffs.  No more 7-9 or 7-8-1 division winners.  And they must take away the automatic home field playoff game for division winners.  The top 6 teams should be ranked by record.  It is not fair for a 11-5 Saints team to travel to a 7-9 Seattle.  

Posted
7 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

I'm fine with getting rid of the divisions.  No way would I want to only play teams in one conference.  That is dumb.  You want national exposure.  It is too infrequent now for the Bills to play Dallas or Green Bay or Chicago.  It is much better for small market teams to get national exposure.

At a minimum I would recommend two things.  A playoff team must have a .500 record or better to make the playoffs.  No more 7-9 or 7-8-1 division winners.  And they must take away the automatic home field playoff game for division winners.  The top 6 teams should be ranked by record.  It is not fair for a 11-5 Saints team to travel to a 7-9 Seattle.  

 

Why do you only consider NFC teams as ones with "national exposure"? Why do you think Green Bay isn't a "small market" team?

 

IMHO a team gets national exposure when they become a team who consistently win more than they lose, a team who logically are in play for a playoff spot year in and year out throughout the season regardless of their local market, Green Bay being a case in point. 

Posted
2 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

I mean... good luck.   You play 1 game per week, so staying on the east coast is unreasonable to request.  You'll have teams traveling east to west and back all season long.  Players would absolutely hate it.  Not to mention you no longer get home games against certain teams every year.  

 

This type of thing works for all the other sports with 82 and 162 game schedules.  18 with games one time per week makes it kind of challenging from a logistical standpoint.

I don't think I understand that post at all.  They'd only be traveling east to west when they were playing teams on the west coast.  Have you looked at the NFL cities map?map-of-nfl.jpg

 

The only people with a gripe would be the handful of team west of the Mississippi.  I mean, today we have teams flying to Mexico  You're flying 8 times per year.  Not that big of a deal.  Seems pretty logistically simple to me, for a team that travels 8 times per season vs. 81 times per season. 

Posted

I'd rather see the league go to two, 8 team divisions in each conference:

 

AFC 1 : Buffalo, NY Jets, New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincy, Cleveland, Indy

AFC 2: Miami, J'ville, Tennessee,  Houston, KC, Vegas/Oakland, Chargers, Denver

NFC1: Giants, Philly, Washington, Carolina, Tampa, Atlanta, Saints, Dallas

NFC2: Rams, Seattle, Arizona, SF, Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota

 

17 game schedule: 

7 games vs. division opponents

6 games vs. other division in conference (you play each team 3 times every 4 years)

4 games vs. other conference (play each team once every 4 years)

 

Playoffs: Division winners get a bye, next 4 best records play wild card round. 

 

 

 

Posted
3 hours ago, tomur67 said:

The NFL wants to go to a 18 game schedule.  OK, if you're in the AFC, you have 15 AFC opponents.  You play every team once, 8 home games and 7 away games.  The next year you reverse it.  The remaining  3 games would be with NFC teams.  Using the previous year's NFC record, using a drawing, you play 1 game against a team that finished 1st thru 5th in the NFC, one game against a team that finished 6th thru 10th in the NFC, and one game against a team that finished 11th thru 16th in the NFC.  The playoffs would consist of the top four teams in the AFC and  the top four teams in the  NFC with the best records.  There are two real up sides to this.  First, and most important,  in the old format, a real strong team in a weak division, is almost guaranteed 6 wins every year. Their road to the playoffs is quite a bit easier because of it.  ( Unfortunately, we've seen this, first hand)  And secondly, as a fan,  you get to see more teams.  Personally, I think playing the Pats , Jets and Dolphins twice a year, every year  is getting stale.

 

What about a 19 game season and you play your division 3 times. Winner of best of 3 from the year prior gets the extra home game.

 

Image result for talk amongst yourselves meme

Posted
5 hours ago, tomur67 said:

The NFL wants to go to a 18 game schedule.  OK, if you're in the AFC, you have 15 AFC opponents.  You play every team once, 8 home games and 7 away games.  The next year you reverse it.  The remaining  3 games would be with NFC teams.  Using the previous year's NFC record, using a drawing, you play 1 game against a team that finished 1st thru 5th in the NFC, one game against a team that finished 6th thru 10th in the NFC, and one game against a team that finished 11th thru 16th in the NFC.  The playoffs would consist of the top four teams in the AFC and  the top four teams in the  NFC with the best records.  There are two real up sides to this.  First, and most important,  in the old format, a real strong team in a weak division, is almost guaranteed 6 wins every year. Their road to the playoffs is quite a bit easier because of it.  ( Unfortunately, we've seen this, first hand)  And secondly, as a fan,  you get to see more teams.  Personally, I think playing the Pats , Jets and Dolphins twice a year, every year  is getting stale.

Hate this idea.  Rivalry games are the best. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Tenhigh said:

I don't think I understand that post at all.  They'd only be traveling east to west when they were playing teams on the west coast.  Have you looked at the NFL cities map?map-of-nfl.jpg

 

The only people with a gripe would be the handful of team west of the Mississippi.  I mean, today we have teams flying to Mexico  You're flying 8 times per year.  Not that big of a deal.  Seems pretty logistically simple to me, for a team that travels 8 times per season vs. 81 times per season. 

 

Right - i guess... NFLPA would probably be against it though. Seattle now has their own 9 home games, and the only away games even close to them would be possible ones with SF, ARI, DAL, or NOLA (which may already be home games.  There's a chance they're going to Tampa, Atlanta, Carolina, NY, Philly, green bay, and like random 3 aFC games on the east.  

 

West coast teams are already logging the most air-miles and this would just make the problem even worse.

 

Posted
4 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

Changing up divisions might be a good idea to get closer rivalries. I could see a couple divisions like so ...

 

Buffalo

Pittsburgh

Cleveland

Detroit

 

or

 

LA Rams

LA Chargers

London/Jacksonville

New England

 

Love this division for us. Would be a lot of fun craziness. 

Posted
19 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

How about, for now, swapping the Bills and Ravens? Us in the AFC North with CLE, PIT and CIN. That's a division that makes sense.

I've thought about that one for awhile. Pitt and Cleveland are less than 3.5 hours from Buffalo by car, and Cincinnati's a 7-hour drive. It would enable Bills fans to attend all division games, and vice versa; we wouldn't have to worry about not selling out the Ralph (not that it's a problem now). CIN, PIT and CLE are also similar cities to Buffalo, with promising rivalries.

 

BLT in the AFC East would be a good move for them, also. 

Posted (edited)

Ive always been a huge advocate of buffalo-pittsburgh-cleveland along with either detroit, cincy, or baltimore.

 

 

Imo, the Miami thing is dead and buried and never coming back unless both teams are good at the same time for multiple seasons.... but thats the case with ANY divisional teams in the league. 

 

People in miami dont care about buffalo

 

Jets.... dont care.  The titans afl history is cool and all i guess

 

Patriots, i hate, but the entire league does.  

 

 

Im at the point where im just fatigued by the divisional games against ne, ny, and mia.  The nfl has had the same alignment for almost 20 years, which is an eternity as far as these formats go

Edited by May Day 10
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
18 hours ago, Tenhigh said:

I don't think I understand that post at all.  They'd only be traveling east to west when they were playing teams on the west coast.  Have you looked at the NFL cities map?map-of-nfl.jpg

 

The only people with a gripe would be the handful of team west of the Mississippi.  I mean, today we have teams flying to Mexico  You're flying 8 times per year.  Not that big of a deal.  Seems pretty logistically simple to me, for a team that travels 8 times per season vs. 81 times per season. 

 

 

That map is wrong...

Posted (edited)

Don't get rid of divisions, but lets make them make more sense:

 

AFC North - Bills / Jets  / Giants  / Pats

 

AFC East - Ravens / Redskins / Steelers / Eagles

 

AFC West- Browns / Bengals / Colts / Titans

 

AFC South - Dolphins / Buccaneers / Jags / Falcons 

 

 

NFC North - Packers / Bears / Vikings / Lions

 

NFC South - Cowboys / Saints / Texans / Chiefs

 

NFC West - Rams / Chargers / 49ers / Raiders

 

NFC Leftovers -  Cardinals / Seahawks / Broncos / Panthers 

 

 

That keeps some traditional rivalries intact while also creating plenty of opportunity for new more fierce geographic rivalries.

 

 

Edited by Chuck Wagon
Posted
20 hours ago, Gugny said:

I like MLB's old set up.  In the NFL it would look like this:

 

Two Conferences - AFC/NFC

Two Divisions in Each Conference - East/West

 

Playoffs: 

AFC East Winner vs. AFC West Winner

NFC East Winner vs. NFC West Winner

 

Super Bowl:

AFC Champion vs. NFC Champion

 

Period.

To keep it similar to the current playoff format

 

Week 1

2nd place AFC East vs 3rd place AFC East

2nd place AFC West vs 3rd place AFC West

2nd place NFC East vs 3rd place NFC East

2nd place NFC West vs 3rd place NFC West

 

Week 2

2/3 place AFC East vs 1st Place AFC East

2/3 place AFC West vs 1st Place AFC West

2/3 place NFC East vs 1st Place NFC East

2/3 place NFC West vs 1st Place NFC West

 

Week 3

1/2/3 AFC East vs 1/2/3 AFC West

1/2/3 NFC East vs 1/2/3 NFC West

 

Week 4 

Superbowl!

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Don't get rid of divisions, but lets make them make more sense:

 

AFC North - Bills / Jets  / Giants  / Pats

 

AFC East - Ravens / Redskins / Steelers / Eagles

 

AFC West- Browns / Bengals / Colts / Titans

 

AFC South - Dolphins / Buccaneers / Jags / Falcons 

 

 

NFC North - Packers / Bears / Vikings / Lions

 

NFC South - Cowboys / Saints / Texans / Chiefs

 

NFC West - Rams / Chargers / 49ers / Raiders

 

NFC Leftovers -  Cardinals / Seahawks / Broncos / Panthers 

 

 

That keeps some traditional rivalries intact while also creating plenty of opportunity for new more fierce geographic rivalries.

 

 

Geographically these make complete sense, but tv market wise ($) it would limit interest too much.

 

For example, when the Redskins play now there are very interested parties in Dallas, New York, and Philly. Probably add Ravens fans to that who either have a 2nd team, or hate the neighbor team.

 

When Ravens/Redskins play in your new scenario you actually shrink your interested tv market (by not playing opponents outside the area).

Posted

Teams are ranked 1-16 in conference based on record and tiebreakers.

 

Scheduling: 

1,5,9,13

2,6,10,14

3,7,11,15

4,8,12,16 

these are (division clusters) for the home and away [6].

 

play vs your column [3].

 

play against another “division” cluster within your conference [3] (you’ve already played 1 in column).

 

play vs same “division” cluster in other conference [4].

 

if you switch to 18 games - add 2 vs other conference. 

 

Rivilaries are built by playing laying against other consistent good teams. NE and Indy weren’t in same division. Neither is NE and Pittsburgh. SF vs Dallas or Green Bay in 90’s. 

×
×
  • Create New...