My expansion/NFL restructure idea

[Big Unit]

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.

I agree on both points; play everyone is more fair; owners won't go for it. I don't have a problem with divisions; but divisions of 4, in football, isn't enough; too likely for one division to either be dominant or terrible. Haven't figured out a solution yet; but if I were a Colts fan, for example; or (God forbid) Patriots - the regular season would be fun, but diminished in importance; every season would start with the playoffs.

 

[moklerman]

I'm not opposed to the idea, it makes sense in a lot of ways. The only potential drawback is the home/away situation that would arise but alternating year by year would be a decent enough solution.

Not sure if I care about the NFC vs. AFC during the regular season. It could become problematic and create a definite separation between the two conferences which I don't think would ultimately be a good thing. Overall, I think playing a schedule where you only face each opponent once during the year is a good thing though.

The SAME teams invariably are in the playoffs each year and I think that's because they play in the same division and have decade long streaks of dominance. I'd much prefer the Patriots had to face a tougher schedule each year for example. Getting 6 games a year that are relatively winnable seems like an unfair advantage to me.

12 best teams in the playoffs seems like a no-brainer to me. Divisions are arbitrary and a minority of a team's schedule anyway so I don't feel they really advance and improve the game.

Since people are so hung up on divisions, the compromise that I'd like to see are true regional divisions. The California division, the Texas division, etc. I really don't care for the NFL practice of forcing areas to have one AFC team and one NFC team. For the most part, each region could have 4 teams of pretty intense rivalry. I made up a map of how I'd like to see it done a while back but I don't know what I did with it. Seems like Seattle and Denver were the only two teams that wouldn't fit perfectly but for the most part, it would make for 8 really good 4 team rivalries the way I had it set up.

 

[FRO]

I'm not opposed to the idea, it makes sense in a lot of ways. The only potential drawback is the home/away situation that would arise but alternating year by year would be a decent enough solution.

Not sure if I care about the NFC vs. AFC during the regular season. It could become problematic and create a definite separation between the two conferences which I don't think would ultimately be a good thing. Overall, I think playing a schedule where you only face each opponent once during the year is a good thing though.

The SAME teams invariably are in the playoffs each year and I think that's because they play in the same division and have decade long streaks of dominance. I'd much prefer the Patriots had to face a tougher schedule each year for example. Getting 6 games a year that are relatively winnable seems like an unfair advantage to me.

12 best teams in the playoffs seems like a no-brainer to me. Divisions are arbitrary and a minority of a team's schedule anyway so I don't feel they really advance and improve the game.

Since people are so hung up on divisions, the compromise that I'd like to see are true regional divisions. The California division, the Texas division, etc. I really don't care for the NFL practice of forcing areas to have one AFC team and one NFC team. For the most part, each region could have 4 teams of pretty intense rivalry. I made up a map of how I'd like to see it done a while back but I don't know what I did with it. Seems like Seattle and Denver were the only two teams that wouldn't fit perfectly but for the most part, it would make for 8 really good 4 team rivalries the way I had it set up.

I would like to see you division breakdown. The Colts get 4 games against 2 of the 5 worst teams in the league. Like you said, the Patriots have played in a crap division for years.

In college the rivalries still exist and those teams play each other only once a year. I don't think getting rid of divisions hurts rivalries at all. It may actually add new ones.

 

[dieterbrock]

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.

The play everyone format doesn't make any sense. It doesn't improve the game. It doesn't increase player safety. Eliminating divisions doesn't make any sense.
I don't understand where the owners play in to this either. Is the suggestion that the owners want the rivalries to entice attendance? Because if a by product of "play everyone" is lower attendance, why is that a good thing?

 

[dieterbrock]

I would like to see you division breakdown. The Colts get 4 games against 2 of the 5 worst teams in the league. Like you said, the Patriots have played in a crap division for years.

In college the rivalries still exist and those teams play each other only once a year. I don't think getting rid of divisions hurts rivalries at all. It may actually add new ones.

The nfc west was a joke when the GSOT was killin it. Nobody was complaining then

 

[FRO]

The nfc west was a joke when the GSOT was killin it. Nobody was complaining then

The 49ers were a good team in 2001. The Saints were very good in 2000.

 

[dieterbrock]

The 49ers were a good team in 2001. The Saints were very good in 2000.

And the other teams were terrible.
The NFC west was horrible 5 years ago when seattle won the division at 7-9. 3 years later it's the best division in football. It's all ebbs and flow

 

[moklerman]

I would like to see you division breakdown. The Colts get 4 games against 2 of the 5 worst teams in the league. Like you said, the Patriots have played in a crap division for years.

In college the rivalries still exist and those teams play each other only once a year. I don't think getting rid of divisions hurts rivalries at all. It may actually add new ones.

The West: Seattle, Oakland, SF, SD
The Southwest: Arizona, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans
The Midwest: Denver, KC, StL, Tennessee
The Southeast: Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Miami
The North: Minnesota, GB, Chicago, Detroit
The East: Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia
The Northeast: Buffalo, NYJ, NYG, NE
The Mideast: Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Carolina

Don't know if it really matters which is NFC and which is AFC.

 

[moklerman]

I'd probably go with:
AFC Northeast, AFC East, AFC Southeast AFC Southwest
NFC North, NFC Mideast, NFC Midwest, NFC West

I think the travel would be relatively equal that way.

Oh, I'm not sure about expansion either. On the one hand, I do think things can be watered down at times but I also think that if you add two more teams that might actually create more parity. But if it stays at 32, then each team plays everyone in their conference and gets one non-conference game randomly selected.

 

[FRO]

I'd probably go with:
AFC Northeast, AFC East, AFC Southeast AFC Southwest
NFC North, NFC Mideast, NFC Midwest, NFC West

I think the travel would be relatively equal that way.

I like it. I think it would be better for rivalries.

 

[Big Willie]

The play everyone format doesn't make any sense. It doesn't improve the game. It doesn't increase player safety. Eliminating divisions doesn't make any sense.
I don't understand where the owners play in to this either. Is the suggestion that the owners want the rivalries to entice attendance? Because if a by product of "play everyone" is lower attendance, why is that a good thing?

We just disagree...which is fine by me.

 

[rickrawk]

Ya'll made some good points and some not so good points. IMO, the current setup is about as good as it can get without dilution. No need to try and fix a good thing. Only thing I would change is the moron that's in charge of scheduling. I mean, final regular season game @ Seattle every year??? He needs to be punched in the dick.

GO RAMS!!!!

 

[moklerman]

The play everyone format doesn't make any sense. It doesn't improve the game. It doesn't increase player safety. Eliminating divisions doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense to me. Frankly, I'd prefer the Rams playing every team in the NFC than division rivals that are essentially arbitrary at this point. If the divisions were re-aligned and region came more into play, maybe I'd amend that opinion.

But I don't see any reason to reward teams that wind up with poor records. Good teams are left out of the playoffs each year because of arbitrary "divisions". The only way I would support that happening is if each division faced it's own more than 6/16 games. To that end, I could see four 8 team divisions. That would make division games important. 14/16 games would make winning your division mean something.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Again, what about Europe? It's pretty obvious the NFL has growth plans there. Also, for that matter, I've always wondered why the NFL seems to prefer jumping the pond verse Toronto Canada or Mexico City, for example. Those are huge cities and would seem to be easier pickings and have a significant fan base that is pretty familiar with the sport.

 

[dieterbrock]

It makes sense to me. Frankly, I'd prefer the Rams playing every team in the NFC than division rivals that are essentially arbitrary at this point. If the divisions were re-aligned and region came more into play, maybe I'd amend that opinion.

But I don't see any reason to reward teams that wind up with poor records. Good teams are left out of the playoffs each year because of arbitrary "divisions". The only way I would support that happening is if each division faced it's own more than 6/16 games. To that end, I could see four 8 team divisions. That would make division games important. 14/16 games would make winning your division mean something.

I'm sure glad they had divisions when the Rams snuck in to the 1979 playoffs
I don't think its an every year occurrence. In the last 10 years I only saw 2 teams who missed the playoffs while having a better record than a division winner in their conference. Arizona last year and the Giants when Seattle won the division.

Edit- 4 teams in 10 years. Pats in the Cassell year and the bucs also missed when Seattle went 7-9

 

[moklerman]

I'm sure glad they had divisions when the Rams snuck in to the 1979 playoffs
I don't think its an every year occurrence. In the last 10 years I only saw 2 teams who missed the playoffs while having a better record than a division winner in their conference. Arizona last year and the Giants when Seattle won the division.

Edit- 4 teams in 10 years. Pats in the Cassell year and the bucs also missed when Seattle went 7-9

I agree that it doesn't happen a "lot" but is there any reason other than familiarity to keep the setup as it is? The way that it's set up now is just a mish-mosh based on tradition. The divisions and conferences are, at best, arbitrary. At worst, they are set up to benefit select teams.

They're trying to have it both ways. They want NFC vs. AFC but it doesn't really mean anything. There isn't a difference between the conferences. It's all just "NFL". In which case, it should be the best records get into the playoffs instead of divisions which mean nothing. They aren't actually regional or dome vs. outdoor or DH vs. Pitcher or shirts vs. skins or anything.

I think the four 8-team divisions idea is the best compromise.

I can't think of a way to really differentiate the NFC and AFC like the NL and AL. I was thinking dome vs. open but only about 25% of the league has domes. Grass vs. synthetic? In the old days, it made sense. The NFL was more of a "run-first" league and the AFL was more of a "passing league". When they met in the Super Bowl it was kind of a clash of two styles. But the two leagues quickly became homogenized and now all these years later, the AFC vs. NFC is basically meaningless.

That's why I'd like to see less AFC vs. NFC during the regular season. The only thing to really play up is the regional battles. It doesn't have to be completely eliminated but it should just be a small taste until the Super Bowl.