My expansion/NFL restructure idea

[FRO]

Ok this isn't a LA/STL thread. I believe both cities should have a team. I don't see the benefit the NFL would get losing a market like St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland, ect. The game is popular enough, why not grow the pie. So I believe the NFL should add 2 teams. Put both in LA. Put one in LA and one in San Antonio, I don't care.

Once you have added the two teams get rid of all divisions. Eliminate cross conference play. With 17 teams in each conference each team could play each other one time. This evens out strength of schedule. It also would eliminate what is happening in the NFC south and what happened in the NFC west in 2010, which is a losing team being in the playoffs AND hosting a playoff game. With no divisions you simply put the top 6 teams in each conference in the playoffs and seed accordingly. I think this is the fairest way of going about things, and it would create very good rivalries.

Thoughts?

 

[Boffo97]

I kind of like the concept of division rivalries, and of playing AFC teams outside of preseason or the Super Bowl.

Plus under such a plan, any further expansion would then be tied to a lengthened season.

 

[PA Ram]

I really really really hope that the NFL does not expand any further.

It's impossible now to find 32 starting caliber quarterbacks. The talent is already too thin. Spreading it further will just dilute the game more.

Having said that, I have no doubt the NFL will expand again.

 

[Young Ram]

Uhh there would be 34 teams. Each team can't play each other once. That would mean that, for example, the rams play all of the AFC and no team from the NFC. That's boring. Would miss out on some rivalries like the stinking whiners and shehawks.

The best thing that can happen is for the NFL NOT to expand. The setup they have now is perfect. Don't mess up a good thing.

Oh and about the NFC south, sure it sucks that a lousy team will get into the playoffs, but this doesn't happen often. Usually there's a winning team in every division.

 

[VegasRam]

Uhh there would be 34 teams. Each team can't play each other once. That would mean that, for example, the rams play all of the AFC and no team from the NFC. That's boring. Would miss out on some rivalries like the stinking whiners and shehawks.

The best thing that can happen is for the NFL NOT to expand. The setup they have now is perfect. Don't mess up a good thing.

Oh and about the NFC south, sure it sucks that a lousy team will get into the playoffs, but this doesn't happen often. Usually there's a winning team in every division.

That's not what fro said. Two conferences of 17 teams, with in-conference play only. 16 games. Simple.

 

[Young Ram]

That's not what fro said. Two conferences of 17 teams, with in-conference play only. 16 games. Simple.

That still would be boring. Playing the same teams every year. It's great to have some AFC opponents to see how you stack up to them.

 

[dieterbrock]

If every team played 1 game vs everyone else, you would only have (need) 1 division.

What's so bad about the way it's set up now?

 

[Big Willie]

If every team played 1 game vs everyone else, you would only have (need) 1 division.

What's so bad about the way it's set up now?

The Rams seem to get one of the toughest schedules each year. The Colts seem to get one of the easiest. What's wrong with it now is that strength of schedule is a determinant of success. If all teams in each league played the same schedule of the others in their league, the only difference would be who you play at home and away. It will never fly because the owners love their historical rivalries.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Ok this isn't a LA/STL thread. I believe both cities should have a team. I don't see the benefit the NFL would get losing a market like St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland, ect. The game is popular enough, why not grow the pie. So I believe the NFL should add 2 teams. Put both in LA. Put one in LA and one in San Antonio, I don't care.

Once you have added the two teams get rid of all divisions. Eliminate cross conference play. With 17 teams in each conference each team could play each other one time. This evens out strength of schedule. It also would eliminate what is happening in the NFC south and what happened in the NFC west in 2010, which is a losing team being in the playoffs AND hosting a playoff game. With no divisions you simply put the top 6 teams in each conference in the playoffs and seed accordingly. I think this is the fairest way of going about things, and it would create very good rivalries.

Thoughts?

I disagree with everything you posted Fro, but you're a good dude
1. Against expansion. Was it good for the NHL? NBA? I say no.
2. I'm all for divisional play(two matchups/season is easy drama and makes for more intense football).
3. Doesn't bother me that a bad team gets into the playoffs every now and then. They were the best team in their division.
4. Not concerned about the LA market at all. @LesBaker had a post that perfectly described the LA market IMO.

LA is a very, very wildly divergent market....the best selling pro sports jerseys of all kinds in the SoCal market. Tops on the list was the Mexican soccer team. College football in a couple of cases even out paced the Lakers.
The NFL is assuming a risk by placing a team there because the competition for sports entertainment in LA is the stiffest in the US and maybe the stiffest in the world. An NFL team is going to be surrounded by a few college teams with HUGE fan bases that will spend their money in those stadiums before they do in an NFL venue, there are millions of immigrants who don't follow the NFL, there are transplants from all over the US that already follow a different team and will probably only go to the stadium to see them when they are in town. There are two NBA teams and two NHL teams and two MLB teams too. Not to mention soccer/lacrosse.

 

[dieterbrock]

The Rams seem to get one of the toughest schedules each year. The Colts seem to get one of the easiest. What's wrong with it now is that strength of schedule is a determinant of success. If all teams in each league played the same schedule of the others in their league, the only difference would be who you play at home and away. It will never fly because the owners love their historical rivalries.

The Rams play virtually the same schedule as seattle, San fran and arizona. And those teams have been doing just fine.
If every team played every team then why bother having playoffs?

 

[DaveFan'51]

I like the Division Rivalries the way things are set up right now! I don't really want to see the kind of Circus the NFL had when the Panthers, and Jag's were added to the League!

 

[LesBaker]

Ok this isn't a LA/STL thread. I believe both cities should have a team. I don't see the benefit the NFL would get losing a market like St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland, ect. The game is popular enough, why not grow the pie. So I believe the NFL should add 2 teams. Put both in LA. Put one in LA and one in San Antonio, I don't care.

Once you have added the two teams get rid of all divisions. Eliminate cross conference play. With 17 teams in each conference each team could play each other one time. This evens out strength of schedule. It also would eliminate what is happening in the NFC south and what happened in the NFC west in 2010, which is a losing team being in the playoffs AND hosting a playoff game. With no divisions you simply put the top 6 teams in each conference in the playoffs and seed accordingly. I think this is the fairest way of going about things, and it would create very good rivalries.

Thoughts?

It would reduce the drama significantly.

As the season wound down instead of having several divisional races and teams involved in the playoff mix it could be reduced to who is getting the last spot or two in each conference. I don't think the NFL would want to touch that.

 

[Big Willie]

The Rams play virtually the same schedule as seattle, San fran and arizona. And those teams have been doing just fine.
If every team played every team then why bother having playoffs?

Yes, those teams are doing fine with a similar (but not identical) schedule. That's not the question. The question is why should some teams have an easier schedule than others? If every team played all the teams in their division then all playoff games would be re-matches (having played that team in a regular season game). Personally, I think that would be highly interesting.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Not saying expansion is a good thing but it seems almost inevitable at the same time. It sure is shaping up like the next big bite includes Europe.

 

[PARAM]

I like the idea of eliminating divisons but not completely. The way it's set up it's easy to figure a schedule. But if they kept the same number of teams, make two divisons in each conference. With 32 teams, you play the 7 teams in your division, the 8 teams in the other division and 1 teams from the other conference.....the one who finished the previous season in the same slot as you (like they do now with 2 divisons in each conference) alternating each year between the other conferences two divisions. Or shorten the preseason and add 1 game. Then they could play 2 teams from the other conference, one from each division. It might eliminate the situation we have now in the NFC South. A team 3 games under .500 making the postseason.....from a weak division!! Have the top 2 teams from each division make the playoffs and the 2 best records regardless of division with the divison winners getting a playoff bye. There are plenty of ways to better structure the NFL but then you get guys like Jerry Jones whining about only playing Washington, Philly and NY Giants once. By playing everybody in your conference, you don't lose the "rivalry games", so it might float. And maybe the odd number of games (17) might eliminate a few position ties. As far as L.A., send Jacksonville. 3 teams in Florida is too many....oops that would make 4 teams in California. Ah hell, it's a lot bigger than Florida!

 

[Irish]

Part of what makes the Rams schedule the most difficult year in and year out, besides the fact that we play each NFC West team twice, is the the fact that the Rams have to travel and play games that are on the other side of the country, Traveling always sucks, period, but being forced to travel at least 3 games every year that require giants of men to sit in an airplane hours on end each way is ridiculous.

If St. Louis is able to keep the Rams, which is seemingly to be increasingly more likely, then the NFC West thing needs to go. Kansas City, too, for that matter.

Rams-Chiefs-Texans-Titans: the new Central Division

 

[Boffo97]

I hope there's no expansion for a good long time. Right now, this setup of 2 conferences with 4 divisions of 4 each creates the perfect setup where it's hard to argue that a schedule isn't fair (except for game placement of course. I'm going to eat someone's face if the Rams are in Seattle week 17 of next year too...)

 

[VegasRam]

That still would be boring. Playing the same teams every year. It's great to have some AFC opponents to see how you stack up to them.

Not defending it, just explaining what he said. Personally, I like it the way it is as well.

 

[dieterbrock]

Yes, those teams are doing fine with a similar (but not identical) schedule. That's not the question. The question is why should some teams have an easier schedule than others? If every team played all the teams in their division then all playoff games would be re-matches (having played that team in a regular season game). Personally, I think that would be highly interesting.

Because invariably one will always be able to complain that a team had an easier schedule than another.
For example if you played all the teams with winning records on the road and the losing teams at home it would be a "harder" schedule than the reverse

Divisions have been working great for decades in football (and all sports really)
I can't think of a good reason to change that. Win your division, you make the playoffs.

 

[Big Willie]

Because invariably one will always be able to complain that a team had an easier schedule than another.
For example if you played all the teams with winning records on the road and the losing teams at home it would be a "harder" schedule than the reverse

Divisions have been working great for decades in football (and all sports really)
I can't think of a good reason to change that. Win your division, you make the playoffs.

All leagues make changes with the goal of improving the product, or more recently, for player safety. I'd prefer the play everyone format, but as I said, it's a moot point because the owners will never give up their home and home rivalries.