2014 NFC South: New Worst Division Ever?

[ChrisBabcock]

The problem is not the four-team divisions, the problem is that these teams only play 6 of 16 games in their division. It would make more sense, I think, for each team to play three games against each team in the division, two at home and one away, or one at home and two away against each other team, and it alternates each season. This way, Pittsburgh would play at Baltimore twice in one year and once the next year, and vice versa. In this system, each team would play nine games inside the division and seven outside the division. One way to schedule the other games is that you would play an entire division in the other conference as we currently have, but you would play three the three other teams in your conference who finished the same as you did last year. For example, if the Broncos win the AFC West, the next season they would play all three AFC division winners, and second place teams would play the other second place teams. We currently have that system in place.

Increasing the number of divisional games would greatly reduce the probability of a sub-.500 division winner.

This is an intriguing concept. I like it. It would definitely reduce the possibility of 8-8 and under division champs.

In the meantime, assuming no tweaking of the regular season takes place, I say leave the playoff formula alone except that if you're a division champion, you also have to be above .500 to get into the playoffs. Otherwise, a third WC gets in, provided they are above .500. If there aren't any >.500 teams available, then the original lame division champ gets in. (same concept that JuggernautJ and rihickok mentioned but fleshed out a bit) I first thought of this back in 2010 when the 7-9 Seahawks got in.

So that year, instead of the NFC seeding looking like this...
1. Falcons
2. Bears
3. Eagles
4. Seahawks
5. Saints
6. Packers

...it would look like this...
1. Falcons
2. Bears
3. Eagles
4. Saints
5. Packers
6. Giants

[ChrisBabcock]

The 8-8 Tebow Broncos in 2011 wouldn't get in using that plan either. The 9-7 Titans would get in as a 3rd WC team.

[Reaser]

The problem is not the four-team divisions, the problem is that these teams only play 6 of 16 games in their division ...
Increasing the number of divisional games would greatly reduce the probability of a sub-.500 division winner.

You get more division games with more teams in the division. Plus it's harder to win - in theory meaning the winner is better - the division with more teams.

Adding 3 more division games (what if one year Baltimore and Pittsburgh win the H2H games at home and Baltimore wins division based on 2-1 against Pittsburgh?) would be odd, and at best be a band-aid fix. A 6-10 division winner changing to 8-8 because of more games against bad divisional opponents doesn't change the fact that a bad team would still be making the playoffs nor does 2 more hypothetical wins change them from a poor to a great team. 4-team divisions are too small, because it's more likely you'll have 4 bad teams in a division than 5, and it's more likely you'll have 5 bad teams in a 5-team division than 6, etc ... Largest division sizes to where you can still play each divisional opponent home and away and fit within a 16-game schedule, that is what weeds out the weak and produces the best teams and in that case the best teams would have the best records because it's a larger sample size.

[Byron]

I don't have a problem with more division games but, as mentioned, I think a better idea is to enlarge to 3 divisions of 6 teams each in each conference (add two teams to each conference). Just my thoughts though.

[Reaser]

I think with the NFL and with College football, it isn't illogical for a WC team to be World Champion, because sometimes the schedules aren't balanced and a team can benefit from an easier schedule. To me, College football is a complete mess ....

Our High School playoff setup in Illinois is also ridiculous.

In the NFL teams sharing a division play 14 (counting the two against eachother) of 16 games against common opponents. That's close enough - especially in football - to having a balanced schedule.

Agree with everything you said about college football conferences, as a kid I never understood why in the Pac-10 that there would be one team every year that the Huskies or Cougars wouldn't play, didn't make sense, 9 conference opponents to play but would only play 8 conference games ... They finally fixed that, for a bit before they destroyed the conference by adding two teams that don't fit at all and even worse, divisions and a conference championship game. That said, example I used Alabama lost to LSU in the 'regular' season, so it did defy logic that they could not even play in their own conference championship game yet were selected to play in the NC game. The Big XII (joke conference that doesn't play defense) is the only major conference crowning a true conference champion now.

Regardless of structure it is illogical for a team to not be 'champion' in their own group of 10-14 teams but be deemed to be National Champion. How can you be the best out of everyone if you're not the best out of a small percentage of teams? Defies logic. It's on the conferences themselves that they have flawed ways of determining a conference champion (I agree 100% with you on how much of a mess it is) ...

Was going to try to explain our WA HS playoffs but it's also a convoluted mess. Short version: Each classification has roughly 64 teams in it and 32! qualify for the district playoffs ... 9 regular season games, one round of district playoffs then 16 teams qualify for state playoffs. With the state playoff bracket being pre-slotted before the season starts. So a couple years ago the two best teams in the state played in the first round of the state playoffs because that's where their district spots were slotted (semi-randomly) that year. We rarely ever get the two best teams in the state championship, the real state championship game often happens in the QF's or SF's most years.

[Mark L. Ford]

I'd like to see a very simple change: A team with a record below .500 cannot get into the playoffs, even if it wins its division.

That's a very appealing idea. All teams would know that the moment they lost 8 games, a tie or a loss would end their season. What was outrageous in 2010 was not so much that 7-9-0 Seattle made the playoffs, but that they got the home team advantage when an 11-5-0 team went to visit them. Poetic justice, I suppose, that the Bountygate Saints lost the game. After that, Gregg Williams probably said "That's it, no more Mr. Nice Guy!!"

[ChrisBabcock]

Slight change of subject, but based on the title of this thread... If not this year's NFC South, what is the worst division ever, in everyone's opinion?

[Reaser]

Slight change of subject, but based on the title of this thread... If not this year's NFC South, what is the worst division ever, in everyone's opinion?

We once had a great discussion about the worst divisions, on the old forum ... After a couple of the obvious (2010 NFC West) were posted I remember I posted:

In three seasons (1946-1948) the AAFC Eastern Division only had 3 teams have winning records (Yankeesx2 and Bills once) and none in 1948. Lost in all 3 championship games, including the '48 blowout.

[3243]

it would be nice to have a caveat in the rules that if a division winner has a losing record an additional in-Conference Wild Card qualifies instead (or something to that effect).

I wouldn't like that either. The sole problem is the size of the divisions, 4-teams is too small. The answer is never more WC teams though, I cannot stand wild cards in any sport at any level, especially football. It's illogical that a team can be "World Champion" after finishing 2nd (or possibly 3rd) out of a group of 4 teams.

Always been annoying to me, all levels of football. Like Alabama not even being SEC runner-up yet played in and won the National Championship. They not only didn't win their own conference championship they didn't even qualify to play in it! Equally annoying at the High School level, my 3 years of varsity we won 3 league championships but 3 of the 9 teams in our league made the playoffs every year so every year two other schools/towns close to us - that we beat - got to act as if they were on equal ground or had an equal accomplishment - making it to the playoffs. Ridiculous. Only district/league/conference/division champions should qualify for football playoffs, otherwise it defeats the purpose of playoffs, and thus becomes a randomized tournament.

As flawed as having a team in the playoffs with a losing record would be (again), I'de much prefer a 7-9 Division champion over a 9-7 third place team, as the latter already proved that they weren't the best in the league, since they're already behind two others, while the division champion will have proved that they were the best out of 4 teams that essentially play equal schedules (outside of 2 games) ... Of course, in my world of pure competition, I'de prefer four 8-team divisions with just those 4 division winners making the playoffs.

I agree that if you win your division (even if you're 1-15), you should be in the playoffs.

And I'm okay with the Wild Card concept (and the NFL should NOT add any more Wild Card teams). What irritates me in other sports is the "play-your-way-in" game idea, such as in college basketball. Either you were good enough to make the postseason, or you weren't. Period. You do your playing-your-way-in during the regular season, same as everybody else.