Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

One example already as to why I don't like it...wouldn't it have produced more excitement going into this, here, Week #17 between Steelers and Bills? Who gets the 2nd-seed bye? Tomlin would have started Big Ben! Not that it mattered though with Bills winning anyway, but still. And here the Bills did truly earn that 2nd-seed; they did beat the Steelers, beat the Dolphins with such authority today, yet they have to go at it next week already instead of deservingly-so getting that rest along with KC (both eyeing one another) before both trucking-on to the divisionals.

I know there are those in here who feel it should strictly be divisional-winners getting in (current playoff format for each conference since 2002 being like the 4Cs '67-thru-'69 period), but just 6 teams was fine with me (especially if each conference had just 3 divisions instead). Yes, this 2020 state-of-affairs with the NFC East seriously does call for a 3-divisions-per! Had it been the pre-'02 case, you'd have at least one winner representing (the Cards)!

It'd be nice of they at the very least bring it back to 6 playoff teams per for next year. But you know how major pro-sports go...once you add playoff teams, there's no retracting! Eight-teams-per (and without further expansion, mind you) will be here soon enough! I forgot who it was, but I believe an announcer in a recent game, former player I believe, opined that 8 teams should be in per conference with a week between end of regular season and 1st-Rd so all are on an even playing field. I disagree. In the NFL, I have nothing at all against the very best teams getting a chance to earn byes during/throughout the regular season.

It blows. Soon it'll be the NHL. Baseball's already gone that way.

Them allowing 6-10 or 7-9 teams in is down right silly. Hell 8-8 or 9-7 teams getting into the playoffs is pushing it. There needs to be some incentive to play during the regular season. Teams know that they can lose 6-7 games and still have a pretty good chance of making it into the playoffs. If they are going to let teams with such subpar regular seasons into the playoffs I think they need to get rid of divisions and the teams with the best records within the conference gets in.

lastcat3 wrote:Them allowing 6-10 or 7-9 teams in is down right silly. Hell 8-8 or 9-7 teams getting into the playoffs is pushing it. There needs to be some incentive to play during the regular season. Teams know that they can lose 6-7 games and still have a pretty good chance of making it into the playoffs. If they are going to let teams with such subpar regular seasons into the playoffs I think they need to get rid of divisions and the teams with the best records within the conference gets in.

The divisions help create a scheduling format. If there are no divisions, then how is the schedule being figured out?

JWL wrote:

lastcat3 wrote:Them allowing 6-10 or 7-9 teams in is down right silly. Hell 8-8 or 9-7 teams getting into the playoffs is pushing it. There needs to be some incentive to play during the regular season. Teams know that they can lose 6-7 games and still have a pretty good chance of making it into the playoffs. If they are going to let teams with such subpar regular seasons into the playoffs I think they need to get rid of divisions and the teams with the best records within the conference gets in.

The divisions help create a scheduling format. If there are no divisions, then how is the schedule being figured out?

Play 8-12 teams in your own conference each year and 4-8 teams in the other conference each year. Then the following season you just alternate the teams in that you didn't play. Would hurt rivalries but there virtually are no rivalries in the NFL any longer anyways with how much players move around. Players have more dedication to the college team they played for then any NFL team they currently play for. Once they get to the pros it is just about who will give them the most money.

lastcat3 wrote: Play 8-12 teams in your own conference each year and 4-8 teams in the other conference each year. Then the following season you just alternate the teams in that you didn't play. Would hurt rivalries but there virtually are no rivalries in the NFL any longer anyways with how much players move around. Players have more dedication to the college team they played for then any NFL team they currently play for. Once they get to the pros it is just about who will give them the most money.

I think the league would have teams play 12 conference games and 5 games vs the other conference. In this setup, a team would not face three of the teams from its own conference.

There would be some whining down the stretch if the Chargers were competing with the Browns for the regular season conference title and bye week in the first round of the playoffs if the Chargers had a much tougher schedule. Maybe random scheduling luck would have the Browns not facing three of the AFC playoff teams and the three teams the Chargers did not get to play were three dregs of the conference. Meanwhile, the Chargers randomly had to face five NFC playoff teams and the Browns got five random poor ones.

Some type of endlessly rotating schedule format where your team's opponents each year are actually determined by luck is something I just don't think works.

The only thing that makes sense if you got rid of divisions is playing everyone in your conference.

15 games in-conference, 2 against teams from other conference (probably determined by previous season record / could always guarantee a SB rematch if you do the same way as the draft order.)

Or you could keep divisions but make them real sizes instead of little 4-team divisions. And have four 8-team divisions. Which is probably really how it should be.

Good call Reaser ...

Thats how the NFL used to be up until 1967.

I didnt like changes in 1990 either.