Does the NFL need to be rebalanced?

[G0P4ckG0]

If anything you might justify putting Dallas in the south and Carolina in the east. But more the the point, the reason they are in the east is to keep long-standing rivalries intact, which is an important aspect to fans. How would you feel if we didn't get to beat up on the Bears every year?

I would hope a caveat would be put in place ensuring that 2 rival teams would play each other every year. My ideal realignment/schedule would first consist of geographical aspects like I mentioned above, then only playing your division opponents once per year (alternating home & away every other year). This would allowed teams to play a larger number of opponents and keep the window open for that guaranteed annual rivalry game, no matter the conferences of the teams.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would hope a caveat would be put in place ensuring that 2 rival teams would play each other every year. My ideal realignment/schedule would first consist of geographical aspects like I mentioned above, then only playing your division opponents once per year (alternating home & away every other year). This would allowed teams to play a larger number of opponents and keep the window open for that guaranteed annual rivalry game, no matter the conferences of the teams.

I prefer playing at home vs. the Bears and Vikings every single season over facing a larger number of different opponents.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

I prefer playing at home vs. the Bears and Vikings every single season over facing a larger number of different opponents.

As do I, but playing 40% of regular season games against divisional opponents seems too high because you can't get a good feel for how you stack up against the rest of the league. Now if the regular season was expanded to 18 games, I'd be much more ok with 2 games per year against each divisional opponent.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I would hope a caveat would be put in place ensuring that 2 rival teams would play each other every year. My ideal realignment/schedule would first consist of geographical aspects like I mentioned above, then only playing your division opponents once per year (alternating home & away every other year). This would allowed teams to play a larger number of opponents and keep the window open for that guaranteed annual rivalry game, no matter the conferences of the teams.

That would greatly reduce the importance of division games. It ain't broke, so why fix it?

 

[G0P4ckG0]

That would greatly reduce the importance of division games. It ain't broke, so why fix it?

I wouldn't go so far as to say it would greatly reduce the importance of divisional games. If anything, it would make them more important since you would have only 1 chance to prove you are better than your opponents. It would create a playoff-type atmosphere for each game rather than "we didn't win this time but we'll get revenge in 6 weeks" or "we already beat them once so the next game doesn't really matter".

I think with today's game 4 divisions in each conference is too many IMO. The game would be better with 2 divisions in each conference especially with my scheduling propositions. Plus it would be easier to geographically discern divisional teams.

7 games against divisional opponents, 5 games against same-conference non-divisional opponents, 2 games against outer-conference opponents from each division. In an 18 game season bump the same-conference non-divisional opponents up to 7. That seems perfect to me.

2 division winners (first round bye) plus 4 wildcards make playoffs from each conference. This way every divisional game matters and the best teams from each conference will make the playoffs instead of allowing a team from a weak division to sneak in with an underwhelming record.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it would greatly reduce the importance of divisional games. If anything, it would make them more important since you would have only 1 chance to prove you are better than your opponents. It would create a playoff-type atmosphere for each game rather than "we didn't win this time but we'll get revenge in 6 weeks" or "we already beat them once so the next game doesn't really matter".

I think with today's game 4 divisions in each conference is too many IMO. The game would be better with 2 divisions in each conference especially with my scheduling propositions. Plus it would be easier to geographically discern divisional teams.

7 games against divisional opponents, 5 games against same-conference non-divisional opponents, 2 games against outer-conference opponents from each division. In an 18 game season bump the same-conference non-divisional opponents up to 7. That seems perfect to me.

2 division winners (first round bye) plus 4 wildcards make playoffs from each conference. This way every divisional game matters and the best teams from each conference will make the playoffs instead of allowing a team from a weak division to sneak in with an underwhelming record.

I don't see how any of that improves the game. Also an 18 game schedule has been shot down by the NFLPA and owners alike. Football is already a game with a high injury rate. Add more games and the season becomes nothing more than a battle of attrition. The teams with the fewest injuries wins. It also means players have shorter careers as each game takes a cumulative toll. I think the current system of 6 divisional games, 6 more conference games and 4 inter-conference games is perfect as it is.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

I don't see how any of that improves the game. Also an 18 game schedule has been shot down by the NFLPA and owners alike. Football is already a game with a high injury rate. Add more games and the season becomes nothing more than a battle of attrition. The teams with the fewest injuries wins. It also means players have shorter careers as each game takes a cumulative toll. I think the current system of 6 divisional games, 6 more conference games and 4 inter-conference games is perfect as it is.

Team with fewest injuries wins? Super Bowl 45 says otherwise.

Even an NFL schedule of 4 games will be a battle of attrition. We will never see a "healthy" team win the championship no matter how many games are played. Some teams will incur more injuries than others, but remember this is a TEAM sport; we're not playing tennis, golf, or wrestling. If teams get bombarded with injuries then I suppose the front office and coaches should have a plan A-Z to counter such a situation and be able to adapt. The healthy players should also have the fortitude to overcome any adversity.

Not to mention that careers of players are already becoming shorter even though the amount of games has remained the same, they are playing in fewer preseason games, and are being rested at the end of the season if they have a playoff berth clinched. This didn't happen 20 years ago. Every single player who takes the field knows the risks involved and using the potential injury excuse (short term or lifelong consequences) should hold no merit in regards to increasing the regular season schedule.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Team with fewest injuries wins? Super Bowl 45 says otherwise.

Even an NFL schedule of 4 games will be a battle of attrition. We will never see a "healthy" team win the championship no matter how many games are played. Some teams will incur more injuries than others, but remember this is a TEAM sport; we're not playing tennis, golf, or wrestling. If teams get bombarded with injuries then I suppose the front office and coaches should have a plan A-Z to counter such a situation and be able to adapt. The healthy players should also have the fortitude to overcome any adversity.

Not to mention that careers of players are already becoming shorter even though the amount of games has remained the same, they are playing in fewer preseason games, and are being rested at the end of the season if they have a playoff berth clinched. This didn't happen 20 years ago. Every single player who takes the field knows the risks involved and using the potential injury excuse (short term or lifelong consequences) should hold no merit in regards to increasing the regular season schedule.

***** and moan about it all you want. It isn't going to happen no matter how much you want it to. The NFLPA as well as the majority of the owners are NOT interested in doing it. End of story. Move on already.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

***** and moan about it all you want. It isn't going to happen no matter how much you want it to. The NFLPA as well as the majority of the owners are NOT interested in doing it. End of story. Move on already.

Sounds like someone needs a Snickers.

Where did I say I want 18 games? I was just elaborating on a discussion about scheduling and team realignments where 18 games could fit a theoretical proposition. Regardless, 18 (or more) games will still be in play for the next CBA. Money talks and if the networks, owners, and players know they can make more money with 18+ regular season games, they will always consider going that route.

 

[adambr2]

As do I, but playing 40% of regular season games against divisional opponents seems too high because you can't get a good feel for how you stack up against the rest of the league. Now if the regular season was expanded to 18 games, I'd be much more ok with 2 games per year against each divisional opponent.

Used to be 8, not 6. So at that time it was half your games. I'm good with what it's at now. 3 is not enough division games IMO.

 

[XPack]

I prefer playing at home vs. the Bears and Vikings every single season over facing a larger number of different opponents.

Gods forbid, but I really find that horrible!

I'd rather fancy us playing the likes of Cowboys, Falcons and Seahawks. Giants, Eagles, Cardinals, Eagles etc are so much more fun than playing Lions and Bears repeatedly imo. At least Vikings provide for a more interesting game nowadays!

 

[adambr2]

Gods forbid, but I really find that horrible!

I'd rather fancy us playing the likes of Cowboys, Falcons and Seahawks. Giants, Eagles, Cardinals, Eagles etc are so much more fun than playing Lions and Bears repeatedly imo. At least Vikings provide for a more interesting game nowadays!

If you're playing each division opponent once and 4 AFC opponents, you're playing every single team in your conference besides 3.

At that point you might as well just do away with divisions because they would really serve no purpose.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Winning your division carries too much weight to only play divisional teams once. 6 out of 16 games to determine the pecking order and a playoff spot within your division needs to stay IMO. The other 10 games, I would prefer most of them staying within your own conference. Once again, that can potentially influence who gets into the playoffs. Not to mention, I get far more pumped up for a game against the Cowboys, Seahawks, Falcons, etc. then I do playing the Dolphins, Bills, Browns, etc.

 

[adambr2]

Sounds like someone needs a Snickers.

Isn't that for when you want to get away? Or is it for when you're not yourself? I can't keep track.

 

[gopkrs]

I like divisions and the rivalries they create. You really get to know opposing players on divisional teams. Baseball did away with divisional rivalries and imho not for the good. It was mainly for the owner's pocketbooks. Not sure if that really made a difference. Things end up balancing. An easy division today is a tough one tomorrow. And no more playoff teams. Basketball did that ... so I only watch the playoffs there. It's like the regular season does not mean much in basketball.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Isn't that for when you want to get away? Or is it for when you're not yourself? I can't keep track.

I thought "when you want to get away" was from Cheers?

"Wouldn't you like to get away? Sometimes you want to go. Where everybody knows your name, and they're always glad you came. You wanna be where you can see, our troubles are all the same"

hmmm...Snickers...all I can think of is “You're not you when you're hungry”

 

[Mondio]

how do you get away when everybody knows your name?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

how do you get away when everybody knows your name?

"Norm"!!

You get away to where nothing matters but friends, cold drinks and Cliff's interesting facts.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Sounds like someone needs a Snickers.

That's actually kind of what I was thinking.

Where did I say I want 18 games? I was just elaborating on a discussion about scheduling and team realignments where 18 games could fit a theoretical proposition. Regardless, 18 (or more) games will still be in play for the next CBA. Money talks and if the networks, owners, and players know they can make more money with 18+ regular season games, they will always consider going that route.

And it will be shot down for many very good reasons as it always is.

 

[Poppa San]

I thought "when you want to get away" was from Cheers?

Didn't southwest airlines steal this?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As do I, but playing 40% of regular season games against divisional opponents seems too high because you can't get a good feel for how you stack up against the rest of the league. Now if the regular season was expanded to 18 games, I'd be much more ok with 2 games per year against each divisional opponent.

There's no way the NFLPA agrees to the season being expanded by another two games.

I'd rather fancy us playing the likes of Cowboys, Falcons and Seahawks. Giants, Eagles, Cardinals, Eagles etc are so much more fun than playing Lions and Bears repeatedly imo. At least Vikings provide for a more interesting game nowadays!

That's cyclical as well though. I definitely prefer facing division rivals twice a year even if those opponents or dare I say it the Packers aren't as competitive as other teams in the league.