Drastic Realignment

[MarbleEye]

Twice since the NFL switched to 4 team divisions 2 losing teams have won Division titles. Seattle at 7-9 and Carolina at 7-8-1. Denver also did so at 8-8, as did Cleveland under the old alignment, but still in a 4 team division. When the NFL had 4 team divisions from 1967 to 1969 you had the Colts sitting out the 1967 playoffs despite not losing a game until their final game of a 14 game schedule. Colts go 11-1-2, so do the Rams and the Rams get the title on a tiebreak. Colts are unbeaten thru 13 games and 1 loss only knocked them out of the playoff field. Admittedly, this scenario is never likely to ever happen again since the addition of the Wild Card concept.

To prevent these scenarios I would suggest 1 of 2 possible changes. Either: Expand the League to 36 teams and go back to 3 divisions per conference top 2 in each division qualify with 2 wild cards per conference. If no expansion, split the 32 team league into 4 8 team divisions and have a "Shaughnessy Playoff" in each Division.

A "Shaughnessy Playoff" is named after former baseball minor league President Frank "Shag" Shaughnessy, who while presiding over the Class "AAA" (AA in those days but still the top classification) baseball minor league, the International League, came up with a playoff system to help marginal teams stay in the pennant race longer and deeper into the season... giving them something to play for and a reason for the fans to stay interested and keep coming out to the ballpark.

How it works is of 8 teams in the league (back in the 1930's), top 4 make playoffs with first place facing fourth and second facing third. Higher seeded teams have home field advantage. Winners face each other for the IL championship and the right (in those days) to advance to the League's berth in the "Junior World Series" against the American Association. (The PCL got left in the cold on this deal, perhaps because they used to play such a longer season in the warm California climate.)

If this was done in the NFL even teams 5 and 6 possibly 7 too would have a playoff chance till deeper in the season. Plus The Division champs would (should anyway) all have winning records. Once the playoffs start, you need to win 2 to take the Division's berth in the semi-final or Conference Championship game, depending on how you set this up. Winners of course advance to the Super Bowl.

Please comment, discuss.... What does anyone think?

[ChrisBabcock]

I like the current setup but it is obviously flawed with 7 or 8 win teams winning divisions. I say leave it alone... except if an 8 win or less team finishes in first in a division, they miss the playoffs and a third WC team would then get in if that team is above .500. All playoff seedings would slide upward. (the 3 WC teams would be seeded 4-6) Another idea that's less drastic would be instead of removing that crappy division "champion" from the playoffs just drop them all the way to the 6 seed.

[Reaser]

WIth 32 teams the only structure I'de propose is four 8-team divisions, 14 game season, 2 division winners from each conferences West and East division play for the conference championship, winners play in Super Bowl. That'll never happen for business interests and because most people have a losers mentality where they think it's acceptable to finish 2nd in their division and think that somehow makes them deserving of a chance at a championship.

Otherwise, in terms of division winners and where they're slotted, leave it as is. Everyone knows the deal before the season: win your division, that's the first championship goal. There's nothing wrong with that and it's much better than finishing 3rd out of ONLY 4 teams and getting to go to the playoffs.

[Bob Gill]

WIth 32 teams the only structure I'de propose is four 8-team divisions, 14 game season, 2 division winners from each conferences West and East division play for the conference championship, winners play in Super Bowl.

I think you've said this before, and I think I've seconded it before too, but I'll do it again anyway.

[NWebster]

I've always liked this.

32 teams, 16 games. Break the AFC and the NFL into two great big 16 team divisions. You play every team in your division (which is now a conference) and each team gets one rival (Steelers and Ravens, Cowboys and Redskins, etc. that they play twice or that they play in the other division 49ers and Raiders). That's 16 games. You take the top teams in each division / conference and send them to the playoffs, it's physically impossible under this setup to have a losing team make the playoffs and strength of schedule is a non-issue as all teams play 15 of the exact same teams, and only one different one. But this is just too simple for Roger to sign up for, right?

[MarbleEye]

WIth 32 teams the only structure I'de propose is four 8-team divisions, 14 game season, 2 division winners from each conferences West and East division play for the conference championship, winners play in Super Bowl. That'll never happen for business interests and because most people have a losers mentality where they think it's acceptable to finish 2nd in their division and think that somehow makes them deserving of a chance at a championship.

Otherwise, in terms of division winners and where they're slotted, leave it as is. Everyone knows the deal before the season: win your division, that's the first championship goal. There's nothing wrong with that and it's much better than finishing 3rd out of ONLY 4 teams and getting to go to the playoffs.

The ONLY reason I didn't advocate this very thing was because (your stated reason) for business reasons it will never fly. With TV these days you don't need inter-league play, everyone gets to see all the stars on TV anyway. 4 LEAGUES under a common umbrella and a common draft to keep the talent even. Like you said, it will never happen, NFL would lose 2 rounds of playoffs and 2 regular season games and the owners would sooner slash their own wrists before they'd ever allow that to happen.

Finish first (in a decent size grouping) and you are in. What a novel idea. Plus geographic realignment could be done also so that teams play everyone close to them. Love to see it, won't hold my breath.

[MatthewToy]

Instead of realignment, if a division winner has a losing record they don't get a home game.

[Mark L. Ford]

That would be more fair-- an 11-5-0 team shouldn't have to travel to play at the home stadium of one that finished 7-8-1, although I don't think that the Cards would have done much better in Arizona yesterday. Still, it wouldn't have prevented the injustice that the Panthers got to go, but the Eagles had to stay home. Until the U.S. Department of Justice files suit to break the NFL into four leagues of 8 teams each, maybe there should be an 11-member committee to pick the four best teams in the league, and pit #2 vs. #3 and #1 vs. #4, and the winners play for the championship.

[Rupert Patrick]

I'm not exactly sure how the odds would work out, but from 1970-2001 you had 74 four-team divisions (1982 excepted) and in those 74 divisions there were zero situations where there was a less than .500 team making the postseason. From 2002-14 there have been a total of 104 four-team divisions, and two had a less than .500 team winning the division. I'm guessing there is between a one and one and a half percent chance of a less than .500 team winning a four-team division, and with eight four-team divisions per season, there is approximately an eight to ten percent chance of it happening in a particular season.

The odds of a less than .500 division winner in a five team division has to be about one in a thousand. The only time we came really close to seeing it, I think, was in the 1978 NFC Central when Minnesota and Green Bay both finished 8-7-1, and there have been some 9-7 division winners in divisions with five teams.

I need to do a quick study of this to figure out the historical percentages and see if I can extrapolate the data to estimate the odds for this happening for a five-team division.

[Gary Najman]

In 1985 Cleveland won the AFC Central with an 8-8 mark.