New seeding proposal

[RyanChristiansen]

The NFL owners meet in Minnesota today, and I heard a report they are considering changing how teams are seeded for the playoffs. My understanding is the seeding would be based on record, which would have changed the seeding for the NFC North situation last season.

I’m for it, but I hope they don’t eventually get rid of divisions in the process. The rivalries are too important.

[CSKreager]

The NFL owners meet in Minnesota today, and I heard a report they are considering changing how teams are seeded for the playoffs. My understanding is the seeding would be based on record, which would have changed the seeding for the NFC North situation last season.

I’m for it, but I hope they don’t eventually get rid of divisions in the process. The rivalries are too important.

We don't need to reward terrible divisions with home playoff games. Like bad divisions should be punished for being bad.

Nobody would miss the 'rivalries' in the weak NFC South.

8-9/9-8 getting a home playoff game over double digit win teams is just not right.

[ShinobiMusashi]

The NFL owners meet in Minnesota today, and I heard a report they are considering changing how teams are seeded for the playoffs. My understanding is the seeding would be based on record, which would have changed the seeding for the NFC North situation last season.

I’m for it, but I hope they don’t eventually get rid of divisions in the process. The rivalries are too important.

We don't need to reward terrible divisions with home playoff games. Like bad divisions should be punished for being bad.

Nobody would miss the 'rivalries' in the weak NFC South.

8-9/9-8 getting a home playoff game over double digit win teams is just not right.

I agree with this. And I would point to the 2002 realignment as the turning point where it felt like winning your division just didn't mean anything anymore, rivalries were already lost with this all taking place just a few years after a bunch of teams moved or changed names and already killed a few rivalries. When you drop from 5 team division to a 4 team division that changes things, at 5 teams those old teams were playing 8 games half the 16 game schedule against division opponents. The old AFC West that had 5 teams was like a mini league within the NFL all of it's own. That was lost when Seattle was moved and it dropped to just 4 teams.

[CSKreager]

The NFL owners meet in Minnesota today, and I heard a report they are considering changing how teams are seeded for the playoffs. My understanding is the seeding would be based on record, which would have changed the seeding for the NFC North situation last season.

I’m for it, but I hope they don’t eventually get rid of divisions in the process. The rivalries are too important.

We don't need to reward terrible divisions with home playoff games. Like bad divisions should be punished for being bad.

Nobody would miss the 'rivalries' in the weak NFC South.

8-9/9-8 getting a home playoff game over double digit win teams is just not right.

I agree with this. And I would point to the 2002 realignment as the turning point where it felt like winning your division just didn't mean anything anymore, rivalries were already lost with this all taking place just a few years after a bunch of teams moved or changed names and already killed a few rivalries. When you drop from 5 team division to a 4 team division that changes things, at 5 teams those old teams were playing 8 games half the 16 game schedule against division opponents. The old AFC West that had 5 teams was like a mini league within the NFL all of it's own. That was lost when Seattle was moved and it dropped to just 4 teams.

If the 5 team AFC West was a mini league within all of its own, then what do you call the 6 team AFC Central?

[sluggermatt15]

The idea makes sense.

Doesn't the NBA do this? They seed by record regardless if a team wins its division. The College Football Playoff just approved a seeding format like this, where the top 4 ranked teams receive first-round byes, regardless if they win a conference championship or not.

[74_75_78_79_]

We don't need to reward terrible divisions with home playoff games. Like bad divisions should be punished for being bad.

Nobody would miss the 'rivalries' in the weak NFC South.

8-9/9-8 getting a home playoff game over double digit win teams is just not right.

I agree with this. And I would point to the 2002 realignment as the turning point where it felt like winning your division just didn't mean anything anymore, rivalries were already lost with this all taking place just a few years after a bunch of teams moved or changed names and already killed a few rivalries. When you drop from 5 team division to a 4 team division that changes things, at 5 teams those old teams were playing 8 games half the 16 game schedule against division opponents. The old AFC West that had 5 teams was like a mini league within the NFL all of it's own. That was lost when Seattle was moved and it dropped to just 4 teams.

If the 5 team AFC West was a mini league within all of its own, then what do you call the 6 team AFC Central?

Once again...I loved that 6-team AFC Central crammed with rivalries - old and new! A shame it only lasted three measly years.

For the umpteenth time, I wish the 2002 change never happened. And why have divisions if the winner can't automatically get the higher seed over the wild card team from the other division? That's why you have a 5-6-5 conference format (preferably with just 5 or 6 teams making it)! Of course there may be some times when a better record WC visits a lesser record division winner. But this format simply reduces the chances of that by quite a bit!
Yes, tougher for the schedule-makers, but still.

[ShinobiMusashi]

Agreed on the 6 team AFC Central from 1999 to 2001. That was something special. Wasnt there like a Jaguars vs Browns feud that developed those years organically? You had the bottlegate game and then the rematch the next season both teams went after each other like it was a playoff game(and they both had losing records iirc).

[Crazy Packers Fan]

I am fully on board with the Lions' proposal to change seeding - wild cards should be able to get higher seeds than division winners, as long as division champions still get in the playoffs. However, I can't agree that the 2002 realignment ruined division rivalries. Nearly every rivalry stayed intact after the move to 32 teams.

Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans - moved from NFC West to (new) NFC South
Jacksonville and Tennessee - moved from AFC Central to (new) AFC South

The only ones who really moved were Indianapolis, Arizona, Seattle, and Tampa Bay. Of those, all were the "misfits" of the division who either were out of place geographically, or didn't have as many roots with rivalries with their divisional foes. (The Patriots-Colts rivalry of the 2000s happened after they were in different divisions.)

Seattle and San Francisco quickly became rivals. Indianapolis did the same with Tennessee, and Tampa Bay fit perfectly into the NFC South. And Arizona was never really rivals with anyone in the NFC East to begin with.

tl;dr Rivalries haven't really been lost since the 2002 realignment.

[ShinobiMusashi]

I am fully on board with the Lions' proposal to change seeding - wild cards should be able to get higher seeds than division winners, as long as division champions still get in the playoffs. However, I can't agree that the 2002 realignment ruined division rivalries. Nearly every rivalry stayed intact after the move to 32 teams.

Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans - moved from NFC West to (new) NFC South
Jacksonville and Tennessee - moved from AFC Central to (new) AFC South

The only ones who really moved were Indianapolis, Arizona, Seattle, and Tampa Bay. Of those, all were the "misfits" of the division who either were out of place geographically, or didn't have as many roots with rivalries with their divisional foes. (The Patriots-Colts rivalry of the 2000s happened after they were in different divisions.)

Seattle and San Francisco quickly became rivals. Indianapolis did the same with Tennessee, and Tampa Bay fit perfectly into the NFC South. And Arizona was never really rivals with anyone in the NFC East to begin with.

tl;dr Rivalries haven't really been lost since the 2002 realignment.

I think I probably meant more that the 2002 realignment killed the feel that 5 team divisions had where they were like a mini league within the NFL. To me something about that was lost with only 4 teams per division. But looking closer at it I think that realignment coming so soon after franchises moving/changing did kill a certain element of rivalries in the NFL.

Oilers moving to Tennessee seemingly almost instantly killed the vibe of Oilers vs Steelers even though they played in the same division for a few more years, certainly didn't have the same energy as true Houston vs Pittsburgh glory days. Then separating those two teams with the 2002 realignment killed it altogether. Steelers vs Oilers was a good one.

Oilers moving to Tennessee also instantly killed Oilers vs Cowboys, while not a big rivalry it was still a thing. The Tennessee Oilers played Dallas one of those seasons 97-98 if I remember right and it just felt off big time, like nowhere near a big of a deal.

Oilers vs Bengals and Browns also meant something and both killed off with the Oilers move/name change then realignment splitting them apart 5 years later with the realignment.

Ravens vs Titans was the best rivalry in the NFL to me starting with the 1999 games spilling into the trilogy of games in 2000 that got me back into the NFL after a few years of not really caring for it. To me my favorite trilogy of games in NFL season ever. That was the real Super Bowl in 2000, they split that apart with the realignment is a big one that was lost.

Moving the Colts out of the East split apart all of the potential trilogies of Manning vs Brady we could have had, with division titles on the line. We lost that due to the 2002 realignment, also Colts vs Pats was kind of a thing, while not a real heated rivalry, something to me was really lost when you split up Colts vs Jets, Colts vs Dolphins, Colts vs Bills, and Colts vs Pats.

While on the subject I'm a huge hater of the AFC South they created. It was basically the Manning division, custom made for him. He was the chosen face of the league and for good reason, but that division seemed to set him up for a pretty nice career, 2X vs warm weather/indoor expansion team that was set to fail at the beginning(Texans), annual trip to his alma matter(Tennessee), and annual road game to nice weather Jacksonville. Indianapolis Indiana is pretty far from being in the south, this division makes no sense now that the golden boy it was created for has been retired for a few years. I like that the Texans and Titans are in the same division but hate that Indy and Jacksonville are in it.

What rivalry is really there with Indy vs Tennessee or Indy vs Jacksonville? Both sound gross and make no sense to me. With the AFC South I feel like you could make a strong case to realign the teams again. Indy being in the AFC South is equally as geographically incorrect as Atlanta and Carolina being in the NFC West, at least it was cool and made sense to see Falcons/Panthers vs 49ers/Saints/Rams, that all just worked. Indy vs Tennesse and Jacksonville doesn't for me.

Moving over to the NFC I have always really really hated seeing Seattle in the NFC. It's the equivalent of seeing Johnny Unitas in a Chargers uniform or what have you. Taking them out of their rivalries with Denver, the Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs, those are classic matchups for Seattle. The 4 team AFC West we have now is not the same without Seattle being in the mix, several seasons where that division was really it's own thing within the NFL(1999 was a fun year for that division for example). Seattle vs NFC teams doesn't work for me brother. Seeing them in the NFC playoffs or Super Bowl is just plain gross.

Also not a fan of Tampa being moved away from Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, and Minnesota, same applies to Seattle and the AFC West, that 5th team being Tampa made that more interesting than it is now. We also lost San Fran vs Atlanta those teams had a good history, San Fran vs Carolina was instant rivalry as soon as Panthers entered the league that had wheels that were lost. New Orleans vs San Fran also was something good that was lost. Definitely a whole lot more lost than gained from that 2002 realignment for me.

Also forgot about the Cardinals, splitting them apart from their biggest rivals the Cowboys. That could have been good for the franchise though since there were more Cowboys fans in Arizona than Cardinals. But Cardinals vs Cowboys was definitely a thing that had history, Cards vs Eagles also I liked that and history was there. You could argue that they didn't have any strong rivals in the NFC east(I would argue that Dallas vs AZ was there was always at least AZ's highest drawing game as far as attendance anyways, the owner complained about the realignment when it happened because they lost the annual Cowboys game that made them a ton of money) but I would counter by asking is AZ vs SF/LA/Sea really anything any more meaningful? At least with Philly and Dallas there was some legit history there.

[74_75_78_79_]

I am fully on board with the Lions' proposal to change seeding - wild cards should be able to get higher seeds than division winners, as long as division champions still get in the playoffs. However, I can't agree that the 2002 realignment ruined division rivalries. Nearly every rivalry stayed intact after the move to 32 teams.

Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans - moved from NFC West to (new) NFC South
Jacksonville and Tennessee - moved from AFC Central to (new) AFC South

The only ones who really moved were Indianapolis, Arizona, Seattle, and Tampa Bay. Of those, all were the "misfits" of the division who either were out of place geographically, or didn't have as many roots with rivalries with their divisional foes. (The Patriots-Colts rivalry of the 2000s happened after they were in different divisions.)

Seattle and San Francisco quickly became rivals. Indianapolis did the same with Tennessee, and Tampa Bay fit perfectly into the NFC South. And Arizona was never really rivals with anyone in the NFC East to begin with.

tl;dr Rivalries haven't really been lost since the 2002 realignment.

I think I probably meant more that the 2002 realignment killed the feel that 5 team divisions had where they were like a mini league within the NFL. To me something about that was lost with only 4 teams per division. But looking closer at it I think that realignment coming so soon after franchises moving/changing did kill a certain element of rivalries in the NFL.

Oilers moving to Tennessee seemingly almost instantly killed the vibe of Oilers vs Steelers even though they played in the same division for a few more years, certainly didn't have the same energy as true Houston vs Pittsburgh glory days. Then separating those two teams with the 2002 realignment killed it altogether. Steelers vs Oilers was a good one.

Oilers moving to Tennessee also instantly killed Oilers vs Cowboys, while not a big rivalry it was still a thing. The Tennessee Oilers played Dallas one of those seasons 97-98 if I remember right and it just felt off big time, like nowhere near a big of a deal.

Oilers vs Bengals and Browns also meant something and both killed off with the Oilers move/name change then realignment splitting them apart 5 years later with the realignment.

Ravens vs Titans was the best rivalry in the NFL to me starting with the 1999 games spilling into the trilogy of games in 2000 that got me back into the NFL after a few years of not really caring for it. To me my favorite trilogy of games in NFL season ever. That was the real Super Bowl in 2000, they split that apart with the realignment is a big one that was lost.

Moving the Colts out of the East split apart all of the potential trilogies of Manning vs Brady we could have had, with division titles on the line. We lost that due to the 2002 realignment, also Colts vs Pats was kind of a thing, while not a real heated rivalry, something to me was really lost when you split up Colts vs Jets, Colts vs Dolphins, Colts vs Bills, and Colts vs Pats.

While on the subject I'm a huge hater of the AFC South they created. It was basically the Manning division, custom made for him. He was the chosen face of the league and for good reason, but that division seemed to set him up for a pretty nice career, 2X vs warm weather/indoor expansion team that was set to fail at the beginning(Texans), annual trip to his alma matter(Tennessee), and annual road game to nice weather Jacksonville. Indianapolis Indiana is pretty far from being in the south, this division makes no sense now that the golden boy it was created for has been retired for a few years. I like that the Texans and Titans are in the same division but hate that Indy and Jacksonville are in it.

What rivalry is really there with Indy vs Tennessee or Indy vs Jacksonville? Both sound gross and make no sense to me. With the AFC South I feel like you could make a strong case to realign the teams again. Indy being in the AFC South is equally as geographically incorrect as Atlanta and Carolina being in the NFC West, at least it was cool and made sense to see Falcons/Panthers vs 49ers/Saints/Rams, that all just worked. Indy vs Tennesse and Jacksonville doesn't for me.

Moving over to the NFC I have always really really hated seeing Seattle in the NFC. It's the equivalent of seeing Johnny Unitas in a Chargers uniform or what have you. Taking them out of their rivalries with Denver, the Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs, those are classic matchups for Seattle. The 4 team AFC West we have now is not the same without Seattle being in the mix, several seasons where that division was really it's own thing within the NFL(1999 was a fun year for that division for example). Seattle vs NFC teams doesn't work for me brother. Seeing them in the NFC playoffs or Super Bowl is just plain gross.

Also not a fan of Tampa being moved away from Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, and Minnesota, same applies to Seattle and the AFC West, that 5th team being Tampa made that more interesting than it is now. We also lost San Fran vs Atlanta those teams had a good history, San Fran vs Carolina was instant rivalry as soon as Panthers entered the league that had wheels that were lost. New Orleans vs San Fran also was something good that was lost. Definitely a whole lot more lost than gained from that 2002 realignment for me.

Also forgot about the Cardinals, splitting them apart from their biggest rivals the Cowboys. That could have been good for the franchise though since there were more Cowboys fans in Arizona than Cardinals. But Cardinals vs Cowboys was definitely a thing that had history, Cards vs Eagles also I liked that and history was there. You could argue that they didn't have any strong rivals in the NFC east(I would argue that Dallas vs AZ was there was always at least AZ's highest drawing game as far as attendance anyways, the owner complained about the realignment when it happened because they lost the annual Cowboys game that made them a ton of money) but I would counter by asking is AZ vs SF/LA/Sea really anything any more meaningful? At least with Philly and Dallas there was some legit history there.

Here's what I posted almost ten years ago...https://profootballresearchers.com/foru ... php?t=3282

It basically echoes all that you just opined only that, sometime since, I changed to wishing that in 2002 the new Houston Texans would have simply been placed into the NFC East, making it the NFC 6-team division, and call it a day. Yes, Houston would have served as an extra '5th-wheel' with the Cardinals (and those two would have to have been one of the least-intriguing division-rivalries ever; perhaps weaker than...https://profootballresearchers.com/foru ... ies#p54547), but it would have been better than breaking everything else up and, FWIW (again, FWIW), you have two Texas teams in the same division playing each other twice a year.

Of course Seattle truly belonged in the AFC West all along! The simple back-to-back 9-7 campaigns/sweeping Raiders in each '78 & '79 whilst being in the thick of those sick division races immediately punched their ticket to forever belong in that division! And they were no less a rivalry with each of the other four than any two from that original quartet were to each other. At first, as that old post states, I would have had the Texans go into that very division if the NFL would go back to 3-divisions-per-conference. Houston not being far from KC and Chiefs originally having their name I used as a reason. No, that would not have been necessary.

A little other reason for me initially opining Texans going to the AFC West was because this would be a years after-the-fact issue - if, in 2015, it could simply "go back" to 3-divisions-per. I guess the attitude was if Seattle already DID move to the NFC, and already made new rivalries with those others, then simply keep it that way. It's like my logic about the Rams, already under the Arch the last 20+ years and establishing the 'Greatest Show' nostalgia to boot, to simply stay in St. Louis (no NFL team in LA the past 20+ years anyway). In both cases, it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but if each already did happen, and has been going on for many years now...

Tampa Bay was the '5th-wheel' in the 'black-and-blue' northern cold weather division. But they were already there since the late-'70s, and the rivalries they established with the four were just good-enough, head-above-water (same with Cards in the NFC East, good-enough), until Dungy hopped on thus jacking things up for they were now a contender. Yes, the obvious geography, but they should have stayed in the NFC Central.

And, yes, Atlanta and New Orleans went well with LA and San Fran! Panthers stepping in, and posting that 12-4/2nd-seed/NFCCG-berth in just their second year (Kevin Greene with Car & SF, etc). Those five should have stayed together into the 21stC!

Manning & Brady in the same division? The only problem with that would have been too little CCG showdowns, if any at all, and too many plain old divisional round ones instead. But that does not prevent me from continuing to wish that a simple addition of the Texans to the NFC East and nothing else is all I wish took place in 2002. I always opined that if Indy simply wouldn't have allowed yet another silly upset to the Chargers in 2007, that they eliminate the Pats in the NFCCG (thus a Manning-vs-Manning SB). So if I have that opinion, then I certainly think that had both been in the same division that very year, we don't have a 16-0 regular season finisher. Instead, we get a SICK "real"-Super Bowl rubber-band 14-2@15-1 divisional match that would have put Ravens/Titans '00 to shame!

As both these threads below touch on, the Colts were a bit of an "odd-man-out" in the AFC East from the get-go joining the four AFL division mates in 1970. Baltimore and Atlanta, two Southern cities, had the makings of a potential rivalry while both were in the Coastal together. But, again, the Colts should have stayed in the AFC East in 2002-and-beyond IMO.

https://profootballresearchers.com/foru ... lry#p59563

https://profootballresearchers.com/foru ... php?t=7835

Simply type in "rivalries" in the search engine and many (ten pages of) posts/threads related to this subject matter. Here's one of them...

https://profootballresearchers.com/foru ... 910#p56910