1975-1989: What if two teams in the same division could meet in divisional round games?

[CSKreager]

For years, there was an NFL playoff rule stating that teams from the same division cannot play against each other in the divisional round but could in the WC gane or conference title games

I sometimes wonder how much that could have changed NFL history

There are a few interesting instances of how the playoffs could completely flip if the divisional round from the 78-89 5 teams per conference with seeding era gave us a round 3

1978: all 4 games are different!

We get Oilers/Steelers a week early in far less rainy weather

The Patriots host Denver instead of Houston, but even with the Chuck Fairbanks controversy I don’t know if either Weese/Morton and running back by committee would have been good enough at Foxboro

Falcons/Rams, which was recently brought up as a topic, during the “ATL never won at LA” era

Vikings/Cowboys: for what it’s worth MIN blew out the Cowboys in Texas on the inaugural Thursday Night game, but I don’t think Fran could have repeated that as DAL was no longer in their midseason doldrums

1979
Rams/Bucs a week early and Eagles at Cowboys III a year BEFORE the NFC Championship Game, Staubach vs Jaws

1980
We get Raiders/Chargers a week prior and it’s Buffalo that instead goes into the frigid freeze of Cleveland by Lake Erie

1983
Seahawks/Raiders a week early in better weather and Pittsburgh goes to the Orange Bowl a year before their AFC-CG matchup. I don’t think PIT could have fared any worse in Miami than LA, but Stoudt in un-Miami like weather…….

1986
Skins/Giants III in a far less windy game and the 49ers instead go to Chicago. Remember this was the Flutie Bears but for SF….. who knows? Probably would have been closer in this round for the 49ers than 49-3. Keep in mind this was before the 49ers had those 3 straight late 80s routs of CHI

1988
Minnesota is the one that has to venture into the Fog Bowl (a MIN team that swept Chicago). The Eagles OTOH avoid the fog and are in San Francisco. Keep in mind this was before the 89 week 3 4th quarter rally

1989
Rams/49ers a week early. The Vikings instead go to the Meadowlands where they couldn’t have fared any worse (they played a MNF game where they were in it before things got out of hand after 2 fumbled kickoffs)

[JeffEby]

I love what-if stuff like this. Thanks! As a Chargers fan, it would have been only slightly less brutal, losing to the Raiders in the divisional round instead of the AFC championship.

[Brian wolf]

Good call JeffEby, but the Bills defense took its toll on the Chargers before they played the Raiders. I feel the Chargers would have done better against the Raiders in the divisional round.

[7DnBrnc53]

Good call JeffEby, but the Bills defense took its toll on the Chargers before they played the Raiders. I feel the Chargers would have done better against the Raiders in the divisional round.

Yeah, the Raiders got a lot of breaks in that AFC Title Game matchup. Maybe they don't get those a week earlier.

[74_75_78_79_]

I'm glad that it used to be that way...a 1st and 2nd-place team from the same division not being able to play each other until the CCG. I mean with the division just being decided, let its champ and runner-up each go their own way for a week or two at first; and if they meet up in the CCG..

1975, the first year of seeding, is brought up in the title of this thread. Maybe 1978 is what was meant to have been said. But, just the same, if two teams from the same division would have been allowed to play right away in '75, we would have had the 11-3 Bengals trying to avert a threep at Three Rivers whilst the Raiders would have hosted the Colts.

As for 1970-thru-'74, had seeding been applied, and of course two from same division being allowed to play right away (1st-place-vs-2nd-place), here's what we get...

1970:
In the AFC, it would have been the 10-4 wildcard Dolphins visiting top-seed 11-2-1 Colts while the hot 8-6 Bengals visit the very team whom they beat in the opener, 8-4-2 Oakland. As for the NFC, its 10-4 Dallas at 10-3-1 San Fran right off the bat whilst 12-2 top-dog Vikes host the 10-4 wildcard Lions!

1971:
10-3-1 KC would have been top-seed instead of 10-3-1 Miami so no Colts@Dolphins divisional. 11-3 Minny would have been top-seed instead of 11-3 Dallas, so no Redskins@Cowboys divisional either.

1972:
11-3 Washington hosts 10-4 Big D right away as 10-4 Green Bay gets themselves a home game...vs 8-5-1 San Fran!

1974:
With every NFC playoff team each at 10-4, the Vikings would have gotten the top-seed so no Wash@StL divisional.

Yes, interesting hypo-matchups but pretty glad they never matched the top-two teams from the same division until that possible CCG. Now with the extra playoff team added in 1990, there'd be no choice but to have to have it that way which immediately leads us to...why add a 6th in the first place? Five was enough.

But maybe this could still have been applied with the 6th playoff team added on. Let's start with 1990 itself. In the AFC, we could prevent a 2nd-place Houston at 1st-place Bengals from meeting right away in the 1st Rd. Stagger it. Maybe have 4th-seed Dolphins host 6th-seed Houston and have 5th-seed KC go to 3rd-seed Cincy. And assuming Miami wins, instead of they going to Buffalo the following week which they did in real-time, have them play at the Raiders while Bills host the KC/Cin winner.

Stagger it again in '91 in the NFC! (5) Dallas at (3) Saints and (6) Falcons at (4) Bears instead for the 1st Rd.

'92? (5) Oilers at (3) Chargers, (6) Chiefs at (4) Bills 1st-Rd. And in the NFC divisional round? Philly at SF, Washington at Dallas being Redskins weren't a 2nd-place team.

Now in '93, in each conference, you had three teams from the same division in the 1st Rd but in each case, there was no 1st-place-vs-2nd-place from the same division so all's fine.

1994 all NFC Central teams were in the 1st-Rd, but again no 1st-vs-2nd from same division. But in the divisional round in the AFC, how about Dolphins at Steelers, Browns at Chargers (GO CLEVELAND)?

I'm going to stop now instead of journeying all the way thru 2001. Got a feeling practically every season will have something to write of. But, just the same, I think this '90-thru-2001 scenario would have been a good idea.

Now 2002-present? Perhaps you'd have no choice with, now, four divisions. Or maybe not the case, but not in the mood to explore for now.