Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New NFL Alignment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • broncolee
    replied
    Originally posted by L.M. View Post
    That certainly wouldn't be leaving it as it is, it would shorten the postseason substantially and it would NOT guarantee a home game for division winners if only division winners can enter the playoffs --four of them would have to visit the other four, right?

    So you think it would have been best if the 12-4 Broncos in 1997 sat on the couch at home throughout the playoffs instead of getting their first Superbowl win as a wildcard contender?
    I said leave it as is or make the regular season more important.

    The regular season would be more important if you had to win your division.

    I don’t have a big problem with allowing two wild card teams per conference. I just don’t think it’s necessary.

    If you’re going to have 4 divisions and two wildcard teams , the division winners should get a home game in the playoffs.

    I prefer Fangio’s idea of eliminating the divisions. The thing I would change about his idea is that the interconference games would alternate based on the previous season’s standings. 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, ....., so on and so forth.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncosGeordie
    replied
    I like the idea. It gets rid of teams like the Patriots winning a terrible division year in year out.

    Leave a comment:


  • FL BRONCO
    replied
    It isn’t broke. Division rivalries have made it more interesting throughout the years. I love to hate the Raiders. That would be lost. Personally I think it should be about winning divisions first.

    Leave a comment:


  • beastlyskronk
    replied
    I’m just not sure how you could change the playoffs to exclude division champs. Sure maybe they won due to a weak division but I feel excluding them because of that would almost create a college playoff feel as the excluded division champ maybe finished a lot stronger than they started, maybe midseason acquisition had a huge impact, maybe a key injury hurt them early on.

    I do like the current system even if some teams shouldn’t be in over a potential wild card in a tougher division. Divisional rivalries are usually hard fought games regardless of the record. If you go to 18 games then you could do an outer conference rival (us against the Seahawks perhaps) and then throw in the seeding thing where you play the other conference’s team that finished the same spot as your team although that could potentially create situations where you’re playing a non division team twice in a season.

    Leave a comment:


  • atwaterandstir
    replied
    I was listening to the radio where they proposed the idea of playing the opposite conference team that finishes as you do. So the 1 plays the 1 next season and the 16 gets the 16.

    It was an interesting thought as it would allow for some really good matchups the next season. For example right now we would have Ravens/Niners, Saints/Pats, Chiefs/Seahawks.........Broncos/Falcons etc.

    It got me thinking along that line and I think something like that could work even better if the teams finished in groups of four. This way the league could in theory continue some of these new "rivalries" that fans would like to see. I think of Balt vs SF as this very example. They played this year and there is a real chance these two could meet in the SB. It would be pretty cool to see this new rivalry continue for the next few years and the league could schedule something like this as long as the teams finish in the same group of 4 regularly. I think this would actually create some new ones when teams like Pitt and N.O. regularly finish as top four teams in their conference.

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Originally posted by broncolee View Post
    Leave it as is or make the regular season more important.

    Don’t add teams to the playoffs and don’t reseed.

    Division winners should get a home game. That’s the reward for winning the division.

    There’s nothing unfair about the current system.

    As far as I’m concerned, too many teams make the playoffs as it is. If it were up to me, only division winners would be in the playoffs.
    Originally posted by L.M. View Post
    That certainly wouldn't be leaving it as it is, it would shorten the postseason substantially and it would NOT guarantee a home game for division winners if only division winners can enter the playoffs --four of them would have to visit the other four, right?

    So you think it would have been best if the 12-4 Broncos in 1997 sat on the couch at home throughout the playoffs instead of getting their first Superbowl win as a wildcard contender?
    For what it's worth, count me out of that type of playoff ruling. Lets see, an average team or even two win their divisions, while a team that ties for the division lead in another, at 12 and 4, sits (because they lost the tie breaker). So, maybe two 8 and 8 teams, who both lost to the 12 and 4 team, go forward. Sounds like a recipe for a less than spectacular playoffs.

    The wild card has a solid purpose. It supports divisions with more than one good team, and prevents poor divisions from over representation.

    If divisions walls came down, I'd want the playoffs to be equated to best performance as can be hoped for within a conference structure.
    Last edited by CanDB; 12-13-2019, 08:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • L.M.
    replied
    Originally posted by broncolee View Post
    Leave it as is or make the regular season more important.

    Don’t add teams to the playoffs and don’t reseed.

    Division winners should get a home game. That’s the reward for winning the division.

    There’s nothing unfair about the current system.

    As far as I’m concerned, too many teams make the playoffs as it is. If it were up to me, only division winners would be in the playoffs.
    That certainly wouldn't be leaving it as it is, it would shorten the postseason substantially and it would NOT guarantee a home game for division winners if only division winners can enter the playoffs --four of them would have to visit the other four, right?

    So you think it would have been best if the 12-4 Broncos in 1997 sat on the couch at home throughout the playoffs instead of getting their first Superbowl win as a wildcard contender?

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Originally posted by Bates View Post
    But it is broke. Because of divisions, the Pats* have had smooth sailings into the playoffs and typically first round byes for almost 2 decades. If that isn't a broke system...
    Thank heaven for Buffalo next year.....I hope. Not putting my money on The Jets or Miami, yet again!

    I will say this, at some point organizations have to produce better teams. If you are not competitive for many years, someone/some group at the top is failing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bates
    replied
    Originally posted by JW7 View Post
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I understand an 8-8 division winner hosting a 12-4 team should never happen but it's part of the current system. I wouldn't want to get rid of division rivals as well. It would also get incredibly repetitive having an identical schedule every year. I want to see the Broncos play more than one NFC team a year.
    But it is broke. Because of divisions, the Pats* have had smooth sailings into the playoffs and typically first round byes for almost 2 decades. If that isn't a broke system...

    Leave a comment:


  • ethanjano
    replied
    How about just make a simple rule that you must have a winning record in order to secure a home playoff game, even if you win the division. If you win the division, you are guaranteed a playoff spot, but you are not guaranteed to play at home unless you are 9-7 or better. If you are 8-8 or worse, the home playoff game comes down to the tiebreaker with the wildcard team. If the wildcard team has a better record than 8-8, they can steal your home game, and the division winner must play on the road @ the wildcard team.

    Leave a comment:


  • Southern Bronco
    replied
    Just re-seed at playoff time. You’re an 8-8 NFC East Champ? Great! Good for you. Welcome to the playoffs. Now go play @SEA in Round 1...

    I mean, unless I’m missing something- if you’re a division champ, and somehow run into another team from your division in the playoffs- you’re already guaranteed home field in that game. Don’t see why being division champ has to convey any more privileges than that...
    Last edited by Southern Bronco; 12-13-2019, 04:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • listopencil
    replied
    Originally posted by broncolee View Post
    To hell with relegation. Let Europe keep that crap.
    It would certainly add some drama to the idea of tanking in the NFL. As well as bring attention to franchises that are historic perennial bottom feeders.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncolee
    replied
    Originally posted by listopencil View Post
    How about this:

    Realign into three divisions (E, C, W) of two conferences. Five teams per division. Every year three division winners and three wilds go to the playoffs from each conference. The two teams that finish as the lowest two ranking franchises are removed from the NFL and placed in a farm league. The two teams that play in the farm league championship that year join the NFL and get the first two (non-transferable) draft selections, winner gets first overall pick. The NFL will share revenue with the farm league to keep it profitable enough to continue, always maintaining at least six teams plus the two current NFL disqualifiers.
    To hell with relegation. Let Europe keep that crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • listopencil
    replied
    How about this:

    Realign into three divisions (E, C, W) of two conferences. Five teams per division. Every year three division winners and three wilds go to the playoffs from each conference. The two teams that finish as the lowest two ranking franchises are removed from the NFL and placed in a farm league. The two teams that play in the farm league championship that year join the NFL and get the first two (non-transferable) draft selections, winner gets first overall pick. The NFL will share revenue with the farm league to keep it profitable enough to continue, always maintaining at least six teams plus the two current NFL disqualifiers.

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Things are all relative. When you listen to players and coaches each offseason, they tend to have one initial goal....win the division. In that regard, given it is part of the rule process, it makes sense. So I suppose that, if you win with a sub 500 record, you achieved the goal, based on the NFL rules. Typically teams will end up with at least 9 wins when doing so. There are few exceptions.

    BUT....I'm game for change, and I like this discussion overall, because we seem to be presenting more than critiquing. Sort of "green lighting" or whatever the terms are in today's planning world. And though I see the merit in our suggestions, I just never believe things will fly with The NFL, unless they have thought it over long before the discussions begin.

    But hey....this is fun.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X