sinfony
4361
Divisions are only one way of manufacturing rivalries. Saying that they are a “big psychological part of the game” is not really a strong point in their favor. Why not just have teams play a couple games a year against their geographically-closest opponents and do the rest by strength of schedule from the previous year?
Divisions work because then the same 4 teams end up with pretty much the same schedule and you can compare their records and know that you’re comparing apples to apples. Give the winner a playoff spot and you know they deserve it over the other 3. It’s the fairest way to run things when you can only play 16 games. Don’t win your division and don’t cry about not making the playoffs. The Wild Cards aren’t supposed to have anything going for them - they’re lucky they even made the playoffs.
Football right now is closer to baseball than basketball/hockey where they want the regular season to be meaningful and only let a few teams in to the playoffs. Basketball lets in teams with losing records all the time and there’s not much outrage.
sinfony
4363
“Just win your division” is such a wonderfully meaningless thing to say. Really, that’s the most fair way to do it? You don’t have to have every team playing every other to know that every team in the NFC West was shitty and that a number of teams who are out right now would have cleaned up if they got six games against that putrid bunch.
And think about what the system you’re defending produces. Do you really want to watch the Saints go to Seattle for a playoff game? Wouldn’t you rather see the Eagles going into New Orleans, or Tampa Bay going to Chicago? And how is it fair that Baltimore has a better season than Kansas City, but has to go to KC simply because Baltimore plays in the same division as Pittsburgh and KC plays in the same division as fuck-all? Furthermore, how often do we have to hear about (and endure) teams tanking their last few games because their seeding is locked up? Divisions make the regular season matter less, because there’s often nothing to play for in the last couple of weeks. That doesn’t happen if you go purely on record in determining playoff spots.
So what’s your solution? Somehow involve a BCS-esque strength of schedule calculation to figure out if a (hypothetical) 10-6 Buffalo team that had to play New England and the Jets twice each is better than a 11-5 San Fran that got to play Seattle and Arizona twice each and lucked into the rest of their schedule being easy? That may result in getting a better 5th and 6th seed into the playoffs but I doubt people would be happy with it.
And think about what the system you’re defending produces. Do you really want to watch the Saints go to Seattle for a playoff game? Wouldn’t you rather see the Eagles going into New Orleans, or Tampa Bay going to Chicago?
So this year we have one bad team in the playoffs? It isn’t the end of the world. The NFC has maybe 4 teams that are worthy of going to the Superbowl and they’re all in the playoffs. I’m not going to lose sleep over not getting to see Tampa Bay. They shouldn’t have lost twice to Atlanta. Why should I be excited about getting to see them lose a third time?
And how is it fair that Baltimore has a better season than Kansas City, but has to go to KC simply because Baltimore plays in the same division as Pittsburgh and KC plays in the same division as fuck-all?
Baltimore shouldn’t give a shit about KC. They weren’t as good as Pittsburgh. End of story. If a team plays the same schedule as you and gets more wins, they’re better than you and you shouldn’t get to go to the playoffs. If you get to go, you should be happy and not whine about having to play on the road.
Furthermore, how often do we have to hear about (and endure) teams tanking their last few games because their seeding is locked up? Divisions make the regular season matter less, because there’s often nothing to play for in the last couple of weeks. That doesn’t happen if you go purely on record in determining playoff spots.
I’m not sure this is true. With no divisions New England still could have tanked and you get the benefit of making St Louis-Seattle an unwatchable, meaningless game instead of the Sunday Night matchup. Maybe there would be slightly less tanking, but I’m not sure.
sinfony
4365
Schedule real rivalries and even things out using strength of schedule from the previous year. Six best records in each conference make it. Is that too easy?
Tampa shouldn’t have lost twice to the top seed in the conference? Kansas City shouldn’t have lost to Oakland twice, but they’re in the playoffs with a home game.
What if a team plays a worse schedule than you and gets fewer wins? They should go to the playoffs ahead of you, and should get a home game against a better team? This doesn’t make any sense. I should also point out that Baltimore and Pittsburgh each won on the other’s field by 3 points, and they have the same record overall. Maybe check those facts next time.
Yes, that St. Louis-Seattle game was a real treat. Really high-quality game right there. Somehow, it’s better that the game was unwatchable but meaningful? That justifies putting a garbage team in the playoffs with a home game? And yes, New England could have tanked their last two games under my preferred system, but nobody else could have.
I’m really unclear on exactly what you are proposing here sinfony, and how it would be an improvement over the status quo. The status quo is imperfect but mostly works. This year was fluky but I’m not sure one bad result is sufficient justification for change.
Every year there are always a few deserving teams that don’t make it and a few undeserving teams that do. A 7-9 team getting in is weird, but it’s only happened once so far in decades of football. I don’t really see shaking up the system to ensure it never happens again.
Besides, if the Rams had won and gotten in at 8-8, or say they even managed to finish 9-7, the same arguments about a 10-6 team not getting in would be made. A 7-9 team just dramatizes it.
sinfony
4368
Even in years where no obviously horrific team makes the playoffs, it’s fucked that an obviously inferior team that gets to play in a bad division hosts a playoff game against an obviously superior team that has the bad fortune to play in a good division. It undercuts the importance of the regular season when, for instance, you send 11-5 Green Bay in a good division to 10-6 Arizona in a weak division, and seems unfair when Green Bay loses a wild game in overtime when you would expect them to win it if they got the home field.
How would your system have made the St. Louis/Seattle game a better game? You mean it wouldn’t have been flexed into primetime? It was a competitive game. What guarantee is there that any game will be good? Last year the Ravens destroyed the Pats in a lopsided playoff game. Not exactly edge of your seat stuff there.
The problem with scheduling rivalries is that rivalries change. There was a time when there was no Indy-NE rivalry. Now they have one. In a few years that may be over.
And if you make it the top six teams and eliminate divisions, it may mean more teams are eliminated earlier – not sure, but that’s my gut feeling about it. Fans lose interest when their team is no longer in the hunt. Divisions are nice because you’re guaranteed games against a team that may be ahead of you so you have a chance to beat them and gain ground. Fans also like to think along lines of their team winning the division.
sinfony
4370
Nothing can make a game between two bad teams a good game. Nor is there any way to guarantee that a particular matchup will produce a good game. However, it seems reasonable to assume that Tampa Bay at Chicago or Philadelphia at New Orleans would be a better, more interesting game than New Orleans at Seattle.
That’s not a divisional rivalry, so how does clinging to the divisional system create or preserve it? That’s the best kind of rivalry: two perennially good teams that have played a lot of great playoff games against each other in the last several years. I’ll take that over the derp-derp bullshit of Bears-Packers, but if you want to keep the mouthbreathers on board, keep up the geographical rivalries.
Then keep the divisions and let people be division winners and congratulate themselves on a meaningless accomplishment. Determine the playoffs by record alone. Congratulations, 2010 Seattle Seahawks, here are your stupid hats and t-shirts. Go home. You accomplished nothing worth celebrating or rewarding.
What’s a ‘real rivalry’? Again, rivalries emerge over time (as pointed out, Indy vs. NE) and older rivalries become almost irrelevant.
Six best records in each conference make it. Is that too easy?
Well, why have conferences at all? Take the top two teams and go straight to the SuperBowl!
The “six best records in each conference” thing would be a BCS-like mess almost every year. Here are the top ‘6’ NFC teams in 2008:
NYG - 12-4
CAR - 12-4
ATL - 11-5
MIN - 10-6
ARI - 9-7
TAM - 9-7
DAL - 9-7
CHI - 9-7
PHI - 9-6-1 (made playoffs)
Except it started as a divisional rivalry when they were both AFC East teams prior to the reorganization.
Yeah, except the last shitty divisional winners to not win at least 10 games were SD (8-8) and Arizona (9-7) in 2008. SD won their 1st playoff game and Arizona went to the Super Bowl.
Teams don’t play the same schedule out-of-division and shit happens. Some teams play easier schedules and some teams play harder schedules. Some teams get lucky on when they play other teams. Some divisions are up, some are down. Things aren’t fair in the NFL. What a team can control is whether they win on a given week or not. And if you can’t win your division, you got nothing to complain about. Notice that the Giants and the Bucs aren’t bitching about the system. They had their chances and they didn’t capitalize.
Heck, if you want the top 6 teams in each division, then you’d have the same problem. A 10-6 AFC team could be sitting at home while a 9-7 NFC team goes to the playoffs. Is it fair to the AFC that the NFC teams got to beat up on the dreadful NFC West more than the AFC did?
In fact, where was all this bitching when SD won the AFC West with an 8-8 record? Or speaking of dreadful, when TB won the NFC South with a 9-7 record in 2007? Heck, I remember back in the late 80s when the AFC Central Divisional Champ only won 9 games two years in a row (same thing happened to the NFC Central 3 out of 4 years in the early 80s, I think).
The system works. If you don’t win your division, don’t complain. That’s the first goal of every team entering the season. End of story.
sinfony
4374
It’s exactly the same mess in the current system.
Rimbo
4375
The whole discussion will seem silly if Seattle somehow miraculously defeats New Orleans. It could happen.
I don’t think the divisional model is perfect, but it is far, far better than this alternative.
The talent level on teams change from year to year. You shouldn’t get as much credit in 2010 for beating Cincinatti as for beating New England. Now you’re proposing a system that is less fair. Nice work. The only way to make that as fair as the current system is to balance it out with some kind of in-season strength of schedule calculation and nobody wants that.
sinfony
4377
You cannot just assert this and declare the conversation over. How is it that you have nothing to complain about if you don’t win your division and a team that is obviously much worse than you does? You have everything to complain about. You were a better team. You played better. You took control of the one thing you can take control over: whether you win in a given week or not. And you don’t go to the playoffs, because something beyond your control means that a team that couldn’t take care of the only within its control gets to go instead of you.
It’s more fair than the current system. Personally, I would be fine with ditching the conferences and just going to a straight-up seeded tournament, but, you know, baby steps.
Everywhere. Really, you don’t remember that? The 11-5 Patriots stayed home because the 8-8 Chargers made it. It was all over sports radio, ESPN, and I recall reading many frothing columns on the subject. Here’s TMQ on the subject in 2008.
And here you are hand-waving again. The system does not work. Bad teams go to the playoffs while good teams stay home. We lose out on potential playoff games that would be more interesting than what we’re getting. The first goal of every team entering the season is not to win the division, it’s to win the Super Bowl. You’re robbing superior teams of their chance to do that in order to preserve the divisions because…why, exactly? What’s so wonderful about divisions that we can’t just change it to seeded tournaments? It can’t be that the system ensures fairness, optimal playoff matchups, or makes the regular season more meaningful.
sinfony
4378
Then do it randomly. Come up with another method. The current system is hardly a bastion of fairness.
dwolfe
4379
You might want to take your meds, sinfony. Or at least calm down a bit. Why not just have one NFL game, the Super Bowl, each year and that’s it, by your way of thinking? What a waste to watch derp-derp games from anyone but your favourite two teams!
The point of geographic rivalries is that opposing teams’ fans can travel to that game and be a significant presence. Mouth breathers, indeed! How about playing twice a year, every year, and being able to play spoiler to your rival (i.e. Cleveland keeping Pittsburgh out of the playoffs last year, a significant moral victory even though Cleveland didn’t make the playoffs)?
Division winners getting a playoff berth, but not home-field advantage unless their record deserves it, makes the divisions meaningful. Playing the same team often develops rivalries over time (i.e Pittsburgh/Cleveland or Ravens, or Indy/New England) regardless of why you play.
The NFL is already slowly making changes (more divisional games in week 16/7 this year) to try to tweak what already was working pretty well for most fans, to make the game better, by making the last games of the year meaningful.
Luck is a part of sports, at all levels, from a single play to the divisional breakdown. It’s part of the game.
So you’re proposed system is admittedly now…exactly as bad as the system you want to replace?
