I'm guessing it's because no one really cares about the divisions/the schedule is longer so the divisional rivalries feel less important because you play everyone anyone. Divisional rivals in the NFL make up a quarter of your schedule, so in the truncated schedule it feels more impacting/the rivalry is better
Division winners get rewarded because it’s impossible to have a balanced schedule. It’s not balanced in the NBA, but at least they can play every team each season at least twice. Divisions are important in the NFL because it dictates schedule and delineates a fairer outcome for those four teams based on their, mostly, shared schedule. The four teams in each division are paired more fairly against each other than they are against four teams from a division they didn’t even play.
At the end of the day, if your system is allowing teams with losing records to get into the playoffs and host playoff games, there is something inherently wrong with your system. The punishment for having a losing record should outweigh the reward for winning your division. It just should.
I don’t agree that there’s something wrong with the system. I think it’s inherently unfair but I don’t see a fairer way to dole out schedules. I’m ok with blowing up divisions and making the top six teams in each conference the playoff teams, seeded accordingly, but that creates a lot of scheduling problems. So you shift the unfairness of the system from the records to the schedule. It doesn’t eliminate unfair outcomes, it just shifts the problem.
I’d be OK with reseeding the six teams who make it. I’m not ok, with the divisional system, of not rewarding the division winner at all.
In a way, things we better back when there were only 3 divisions per conference, and I think this is why this works better in the NBA. With 3 divisions and 6 playoff teams, the top wildcard team is guaranteed to host a game every year, because you have to have 4 teams get a home game in the current format. So that protects the occasional team that is a juggernaut but is in a division with another great team. Our own 97 Broncos benefited from this. KC won the division and we hosted as the top wild card in round 1.
The other perk of having fewer divisions is that with more teams in each division, there is a way smaller chance that all of them have losing records.
Unfortunately with 32 teams you can't split the divisions evenly that way, so you'd have to either expand to 36 teams or contract to 30.
Honestly, this was top of mind when I made my post. I grew up in Seattle and follow Seattle teams.
Also, 88 or 89 Seahawks...should have made the playoffs. They had just beat eventual SB champ NY Giants and would have allowed Largent, Krieg, Easley, and Warner to become legends.
Originally Posted by Sting
Things happen slowly in the NFL. Look at the kickoff. They want badly to eliminate it. But they couldn't just do it overnight. They had to change the rules first to make them basically irrelevant. Then eventually they can phase it out.
They aren't just going to get rid of divisions or completely remove playoff status from division champs overnight.
If anything they'll expand the playoffs.
NFC East is awesome.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)