NFL NFL Re-Alignment

[JeffDunne]

Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16

I actually like gg's suggestion although some of the specifics probably need work. When I first raised the issue in this thread I was really only talking about playoff seedings but the more I think about his suggestion the more I like it.

Where possible I reckon any realignments should maintain existing rivalries, and for the most part merging existing AFC/NFC conferences would do just that. I've always found it a little strange that Dallas is in the NFC Easy while all teams in the South are further East than them. But does it really matter? It's only a name. Having teams grouped geographically does make sense is most instances because a rivalry is probably more natural (alhough I do accept what Reacher & others have said).

As for the playoff seedings, I do think this will change in the near future. It is stupid that teams with a better record don't get home field simply because some other team was gifted a soft division.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16

One of the biggest rivalries in all sport is Texas vs Texas AM....because of regionality. Often you find that Dallas and Houston fans make up a huge proportion of those who barrack for Texas vs those who barrack for A&M.

It would be remiss imo to not reshuffle them all strictly regional. Seeing the end of NYG vs Washington. But, for the sake of complaints and whatnot, you could ease them into it by tweaking my 4 divisions so that you retain the Philly, Wash, Giants, Dallas as part of the one 8 team division. But i dont think it's for the better. But certainly would accept it if the NFL actually did my idea.

 

[Woodson]

Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16

One of the biggest rivalries in all sport is Texas vs Texas AM....because of regionality. Often you find that Dallas and Houston fans make up a huge proportion of those who barrack for Texas vs those who barrack for A&M.

It would be remiss imo to not reshuffle them all strictly regional. Seeing the end of NYG vs Washington. But, for the sake of complaints and whatnot, you could ease them into it by tweaking my 4 divisions so that you retain the Philly, Wash, Giants, Dallas as part of the one 8 team division. But i dont think it's for the better. But certainly would accept it if the NFL actually did my idea.

As for the topic.. 8 team divisions? read my thumbs..

 

[Marklar_33]

Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

Here was gg's idea of no conferences and 4x 8-team divisions

West: Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, St Louis, Kansas City, Arizona, Denver.

North: Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Buffalo.

East: New England, New York, New York, Baltimore, Washington, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.

South: Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, Tennessee, Atlanta.

I would be more inclined, if conferences were abolished, to simply merge current divisions together... NFC North with AFC North etc
Keeps all current rivalries together, and adds a few regional ones to the mix also, without a massive shake-up (well, it would be pretty huge!)

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16

One of the biggest rivalries in all sport is Texas vs Texas AM....because of regionality. Often you find that Dallas and Houston fans make up a huge proportion of those who barrack for Texas vs those who barrack for A&M.

It would be remiss imo to not reshuffle them all strictly regional. Seeing the end of NYG vs Washington. But, for the sake of complaints and whatnot, you could ease them into it by tweaking my 4 divisions so that you retain the Philly, Wash, Giants, Dallas as part of the one 8 team division. But i dont think it's for the better. But certainly would accept it if the NFL actually did my idea.

I think trying to manufacture rivalries, when there are already some of the strongest rivalries in sport is a ridiculous idea.

Theres no way any 'regional' rivalry with the Boys etc. is as hot as the Eagles/Giants/Skins hatred.

 

[11sjw]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

Here was gg's idea of no conferences and 4x 8-team divisions

West: Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, St Louis, Kansas City, Arizona, Denver.

North: Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Buffalo.

East: New England, New York, New York, Baltimore, Washington, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.

South: Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, Tennessee, Atlanta.

I would be more inclined, if conferences were abolished, to simply merge current divisions together... NFC North with AFC North etc
Keeps all current rivalries together, and adds a few regional ones to the mix also, without a massive shake-up (well, it would be pretty huge!)

Most of the other Conferences have an even spread of s**t and cream.

West: Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, St Louis, Kansas City, Arizona, Denver.

That is like a tiny dollop on a big steaming elephant pile!

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

I just don't see the point. If you can't play your Div rivals twice a season over home and away then what's the point of the division.

You can't do it in this situation because that would be 14 games.

Just a silly idea.

What's wrong with the current set up anyway.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

I just don't see the point. If you can't play your Div rivals twice a season over home and away then what's the point of the division.

You can't do it in this situation because that would be 14 games.

Just a silly idea.

What's wrong with the current set up anyway.

I agree.

That and, the thought of breaking up long time traditional and passionate rivalries, just to throw teams into close proximity divisions is completely ridiculous.

You dont manufacture rivalries like you find in the NFC East, north etc.

 

[Marklar_33]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

What's wrong with the current set up anyway.

Eh... probably nothing, I like hypotheticals

In regards to playing 14 div games, make it a 20 week season
17 weeks is gone to quickly!

 

[DevNull]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

I can see some merit in doing away with the 2 conferences but I'm not going to be swayed on regional rivalries being better than historical. The way teams can move cities diminishes the value of it anyway.

If they were going to do away with the conferences I don't mind Marlars merging idea but I'd still want to play our traditional AFC North opponents twice, the NFC North once and then one of the other divisions on a rotational basis - gives an 18 week regular season.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

will someone think of the pro-bowl!

 

[DevNull]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion


How remiss of us, forgetting about the crown jewel of the NFL season that is a shining beacon on how the game is meant to be played by the best players the game has to offer.
This debate is over.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

Goodell wants to remove 2 of the 4 preseason games and make it an 18 game season.
My idea has a schedule where you...
Play your 7 divisional rivals twice and half of another division once (total 18).
Meanwhile, my idea allows all teams to play all teams every 6 years.
The current schedule with conferences etc, does it in 11 years.

Marklar made a good suggestion where you could just combine the existing divisions without reshuffling the teams around into new regions. This would at least allow all existing rivalries to continue WHILST adding in some extra ones.

For instance the combined West would re-unite the Oakland-Seattle rivalry, and bring about a new Oakland-San Francisco rivalry.

Remember, in the last re-alignment, the NFL tore apart a festering heated rivalry between Tennessee and Baltimore. And it moved teams like Atlanta from the NFC West to the South. Moved Arizona Cardinals from the NFC East to the NFC West....both instances where it moved teams away from decades of divisional rivalry PURELY for regional rivalry reasons.

So, i say....why not re-shuffle all the divisions then on strict regions? That would be the aim of the thing anyway---to really make it a regional national war too---region v region in trash-talk and bragging rights.

Pro-Bowl could be set up as two matches on rotating basis....East vs West, North vs South....then next year East vs South and North vs West....etc.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

Goodell wants to remove 2 of the 4 preseason games and make it an 18 game season.
My idea has a schedule where you...
Play your 7 divisional rivals twice and half of another division once (total 18).
Meanwhile, my idea allows all teams to play all teams every 6 years.
The current schedule with conferences etc, does it in 11 years.

Marklar made a good suggestion where you could just combine the existing divisions without reshuffling the teams around into new regions. This would at least allow all existing rivalries to continue WHILST adding in some extra ones.

For instance the combined West would re-unite the Oakland-Seattle rivalry, and bring about a new Oakland-San Francisco rivalry.

Remember, in the last re-alignment, the NFL tore apart a festering heated rivalry between Tennessee and Baltimore. And it moved teams like Atlanta from the NFC West to the South. Moved Arizona Cardinals from the NFC East to the NFC West....both instances where it moved teams away from decades of divisional rivalry PURELY for regional rivalry reasons.

So, i say....why not re-shuffle all the divisions then on strict regions? That would be the aim of the thing anyway---to really make it a regional national war too---region v region in trash-talk and bragging rights.

Pro-Bowl could be set up as two matches on rotating basis....East vs West, North vs South....then next year East vs South and North vs West....etc.

The cards were always the weak link in the NFC East though.

Ill tell you one reason why they'll never break those four teams up... from a pure business sense, you manage to combine four of the biggest markets (if not the biggest) in continual year round head to head match ups. From a ratings standpoint, its huge for them.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

I agree that the NFC East is the sticking point in this. It happens to be THE division that wrecks all the regionality and requires the most reshuffling. And the ratings/money in those 3 games is huge. Like Marklar said, you could just combine the existing divisions as they are and that would work well still. I think the idea I have has merit. Especially as I've shown how conferences are redundant now really. They stopped being important once the leagues aligned, and they lost even more significance when the most recent re-shuffle occured as well. It's only there for posterity now. But that posterity doesnt really matter to the fan. There's no "yeah, we're the AFC man, we better than you NFC people". Footbal is about rivalry and the conferences is a more MANUFACTURED rivalry than my proposal of regions. No matter the sport, that's always genuine.

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

One thing I like about your suggestion gg is teams won't be gifted a playoff spot simply because they are in a weak division. I reckon it's a joke teams can win a division with an 8-8 record (or worse) and teams with a greater record can miss out entirely.

No doubt you'll still have divisions that are stronger than others but I doubt you'll get a division with 8 crappy teams.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

One thing I like about your suggestion gg is teams won't be gifted a playoff spot simply because they are in a weak division. I reckon it's a joke teams can win a division with an 8-8 record (or worse) and teams with a greater record can miss out entirely.

No doubt you'll still have divisions that are stronger than others but I doubt you'll get a division with 8 crappy teams.

Although, as pointed out, the combined 'West' is pretty ugly this year.

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

Although, as pointed out, the combined 'West' is pretty ugly this year.

Well at least the Cards would have a better record and would probably avoid most of those East Coast games that cause them problems.

In fact I reckon the West to East travel factor is probably a reason why these teams struggle *cluches for more straws*

What shits me is when the Saints were in the NFC West we had to face some pretty handy teams. No wonder Benson wanted to move the team West before Katrina knocked some sense into him.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

Just because the West is weaker now doesnt mean it will always. Any division can get weaker/stronger.

And yeah, there wont be any gifts. Because there's 8 in a division, youre looking at 4 Division winners and then the next best 4 WCs. So it could be all 4 from the East one year, or 1 from each another year, or 2 from one division, etc.

But because it's "the next best records" then you're gonna get that integrity of best records being seeded higher ALWAYS.

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

True gg, I just don't think it would be as easy as it is now.

Personally I reckon the NFL will change the playoff seedings before there's any re-alignment. The TV networks want it and so too do most of the money franchises.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

Never underestimate the Goodell factor! And his relationship with Kraft! The East would be jam-packed with interest for the elitist East Coast power-center. That could include just the current divisions all merged, no re-shuffling, and you'd have massive games like New England, Giants, Jets, Giants, New England, Dallas. The networks will cream themselves.

 

[Riggy1]

Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16

I love the current format and wouldnt change it.
But...if I were...I'd want there to be no conferences, just 4 divisions of 8 teams in South, East, North, West, that were geographically correct too.
14 games against own division, 4 games against 1 half of another division once every year.
End up playing all teams in 6 years, not 10.
And it would have a more regional rivalry to it.

But that's only IF i changed the format, i'd do something like that.

What do you mean not 10. they play every team in a 4 year period, and both home and away every 8 seasons.

It should change, unfair currently. Think of this hypathetically. 1 division is so good that all 4 teams only lose to each other, and considering only 2 wildcard positions can make it in, it is possible for a 13-3 team to miss out. What would happen if one division is so s**t at the exact same time. And all 4 teams in the division can only beat eachother. It is possible for a 3-13 team to make the playoffs as the divisional champs.

What would be the reaction if a 3-13 team seeded #4 hosted a 13-3 team seeded #5. This is the only way the procedure would change, its to unfair at the moment.

But because there are so many teams, it is to hard to make it fair. I say the seedings should be changed so a wildcard (Cowboys this year) are able to host (cardinals this year). Just because 1 team is in a s**t division and gets the divisional championship dosnt mean they should have an advantage over a better team.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: 2008 - NFL Week 16

I agree with you about the 3-13 vs 13-3 scenario. It's possible. The key thing you mention is how only 2 WCs from a division at most can make it. So hypothetically there's always a risk that the 4th team has a better record than a winner from another division. It's pretty much always like this with the NFC East's 4 teams all being playoff worthy and the NFC West or North often an 8-8 kinda team.

This is part of a problem with any divisional structure---even my own. Where in mine 4 WCs can all come from the one division. But if that's a tough division of 8 teams, there's just as much likelihood that another division that's all crap could have a 10-6 team that beat a bunch of creampuffs make the playoffs over a team with a 9-7 record that beat a bunch of contenders.

Everyone is welcome to put their thinking-caps on. Despite the problems with divisions, i think divisions (and regional ones) are the best idea for sport tho. The "winner" from each region essentially compete for the ultimate prize of the best in the nation.

It's just the Wild Card concept itself that is always a problem imo.

 

[Riggy1]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

Why dont we just do this the easy way. have the current 16 game structure. then have a 16 team knockout tournoment. and the 8 best records in every conferance go through to their half of the knockout. The problem is too many teams, and to keep baseball happy for their summer.

I still cant believe how i got ripped off in Madden 07 with a 11-5 team seeded 4 in my division, and a 6-10 Chicago team gets in. That was when i realsied the current system is s**t.

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: Possible Re-Allignment Discussion

The easist way to fix the playoff seedings is to seed teams based on W/L rather than division winners and WC's. While it wouldn't be perfect and you'd still have some teams miss out on playoffs with a better record than some that make it, we'd at least have the 6 that do ranked more fairly.

The flip side to this argument though is that not all records are equal because all schedules aren't equal. The aspect of the current system that is equal, is that to be guaranteed to make playoffs, every team only needs to beat out three other teams to make it. At the start of each season the equation is pretty simple, get a better record than the three other teams in your division.

As Australians we view finals pretty simplistically, that is the best 5,6 or 8 teams play off in finals. It is why the current AFL 'fixture' creates so much angst. It's against what we view as the natural order of sports. The NFL playoffs have never been about having the best 12 teams playoff in a finals format. It's more comparable to the draw in a tennis open, you need to win through your side of the draw and often some of the best players are eliminated prior to finals even being played. Rarely do the best two teams playoff in the ultimate final as happens in the NFL.

That's what I like about the concept of merging the NFC & AFC and having 4 divisions. It's gets closer to the concept of pooling the best teams in a playoff format but still relies on everyone having the same formula in making finals given the schedule will never be equal with 32 teams.