KCSLC2008 606 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I was wondering what you guys thought about the way the NFL is setup. Do you like the way the schedule is determined on a rotational basis? Do you like how the divisions are set? Do you like how division winners are guaranteed a playoff spot? Guaranteed a home game? Do you like how many teams make the playoffs? More? Fewer? Number of games? I know these are a lot of questions, but they are semi-related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted December 9, 2015 Author Share Posted December 9, 2015 I thought it was only fair for me to answer, too. (Assuming at least one other poster does.) Do you like the way the schedule is determined on a rotational basis? I hate playing the Bills every year, but that's just how it falls. We both seem to always finish the same in our respective divisions. If we don't like that, we need to win our division next year and hurt their record one more time if needed. Do you like how the divisions are set? I think geographically there could be a lot of changes. I'm not big on rivalries, but I understand other's preferences. Personally, I don't care who is in our division so long as we have a chance to get in the playoffs. I mean, give us Cleveland, Jacksonville, and some other perpetually struggling team. I just want to get to the playoffs and then win there. Do you like how division winners are guaranteed a playoff spot? Guaranteed a home game? I think division winners should be guaranteed a spot. It rewards the good divisions that beat up on each other. But playoff teams should be played where there's a better record, IMO. Will that create an injustice somewhere? Sure, but there already is and more often, in my opinion. Do you like how many teams make the playoffs? More? Fewer? If you adjusted the bye weeks, you could add more, but I do see the concern on allowing half the league in the playoffs. (Assuming an adjustment would be two more per conference.) You could add one more but just give one team a bye. Number of games? Unless a change in divisions/conference dictates it, it doesn't make much sense given the injuries. But there are a lot of teams who are out of the playoffs would have time to sneak in if there were two more games and their early season injured players returned. If there is an increase, preseason games would have to lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I liked it better when Seattle was in the division with Oakland, Denver, and San Diego. I'm not a fan of the four team divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes4six! 968 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I don't mind the way it is, however it is a shame when a division leader has a worse record than a wild card within the same conference. I would like the playoff format to include 8 per conference and the only reason is because of how short the NFL season is relative to other sports. I don't think going to this eliminates the importance of every game either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qnet 1,150 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I agree with holms46, but that's how it works out sometime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I remember on year NE went 11-5 and missed the playoffs. Then you see other teams win their division with a losing record. I think you should be required to have a winning record to go to the playoffs. You can get you division title, but your playoff spot goes to a wildcard team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 I was wondering what you guys thought about the way the NFL is setup. Do you like the way the schedule is determined on a rotational basis? Do you like how the divisions are set? Do you like how division winners are guaranteed a playoff spot? Guaranteed a home game? Do you like how many teams make the playoffs? More? Fewer? Number of games? I know these are a lot of questions, but they are semi-related. I was just thinking about this today. I do like the rotating schedule. All teams should regularly play all other teams. The issue of what teams are in what division or conference will have to be addressed if the Oakland Raiders and the San Diego Chargers end up sharing a stadium. Generally, realignment doesn't solve the problem of competitive balance, and it can potentially bring a premature end to blossoming rivalries. With that said, realignment is also often a necessary step in any kind of implementation of a new scheduling and playoff system. A team that "wins" the Division Title with a losing record overall does not deserve to host a playoff game. I miss the days when conferences had only three divisions. I don't remember teams with losing records being in the playoffs (of course, I'm not sure I cared about the issue when I was young, as my team was perennially in the playoffs after a substantial number of wins). I don't want to see more playoff teams, but I'm open to the idea of changing how tie-breakers work, and even making them seed-specific. For instance, while still allowing for overall win-loss record to be the primary determiner for playoff eligibility, retaining the traditional tie-breaking sequence for the first wild card seed (head-to-head, conference wins, common games, etc.) would please traditionalists, but then having a total points for tie-breaker for the second wild card seed would promote a 'spicier' approach to football overall (and no one would be able to complain about winning teams running up the score). I would like to see the regular season expanded to 18 games, the preseason reduced to two games, the Hall of Fame Game done away with completely, and the utilization of a 75-man roster through week 4 of the regular season to make up for the loss of the two preseason games. I'm stuck on whether or not to require that a player play in no more than sixteen regular season games in a season, but I do believe that there should be an additional bye week in the event that an 18-week season is used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetlord 10,209 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 The main change I would like to see is less pre-season games. It's crazy to force season ticket holders to pay full price when 20% of the games are worthless. Whether that means more regular season games or just a shorter season wouldn't matter. The evaluations of players can be done with scrimmages with other teams or just team practices. How many players have been hurt in pre-season games even with the starters going only a quarter? As for the OP: Yes, yes, yes/no, yes, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCSLC2008 606 Posted December 10, 2015 Author Share Posted December 10, 2015 I was just thinking about this today. I do like the rotating schedule. All teams should regularly play all other teams. The issue of what teams are in what division or conference will have to be addressed if the Oakland Raiders and the San Diego Chargers end up sharing a stadium. Generally, realignment doesn't solve the problem of competitive balance, and it can potentially bring a premature end to blossoming rivalries. With that said, realignment is also often a necessary step in any kind of implementation of a new scheduling and playoff system. A team that "wins" the Division Title with a losing record overall does not deserve to host a playoff game. I miss the days when conferences had only three divisions. I don't remember teams with losing records being in the playoffs (of course, I'm not sure I cared about the issue when I was young, as my team was perennially in the playoffs after a substantial number of wins). I don't want to see more playoff teams, but I'm open to the idea of changing how tie-breakers work, and even making them seed-specific. For instance, while still allowing for overall win-loss record to be the primary determiner for playoff eligibility, retaining the traditional tie-breaking sequence for the first wild card seed (head-to-head, conference wins, common games, etc.) would please traditionalists, but then having a total points for tie-breaker for the second wild card seed would promote a 'spicier' approach to football overall (and no one would be able to complain about winning teams running up the score). I would like to see the regular season expanded to 18 games, the preseason reduced to two games, the Hall of Fame Game done away with completely, and the utilization of a 75-man roster through week 4 of the regular season to make up for the loss of the two preseason games. I'm stuck on whether or not to require that a player play in no more than sixteen regular season games in a season, but I do believe that there should be an additional bye week in the event that an 18-week season is used. Most of it sounds good, but a problem arises when player 54 is good enough to be on some other team's post-week 4 roster but is kept because the team can. I mean that problem is there no matter how high the number is or how late in the preseason/season. But in-season seems unfair, especially if drafted or claimed off waivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Most of it sounds good, but a problem arises when player 54 is good enough to be on some other team's post-week 4 roster but is kept because the team can. I mean that problem is there no matter how high the number is or how late in the preseason/season. But in-season seems unfair, especially if drafted or claimed off waivers. How many players have the Chiefs signed since the beginning of the season? As an organization, you hope that your players will stay healthy and you don't have to resort to that. When it is necessary, you do it because you need to. I'm not sure how my proposed system is different from what exists now when it comes to player opportunities. In a sense, there's an advantage for the players if they can stick around through a portion of the regular season because they get more opportunity to be on the field executing legitimate NFL schemes rather than vanilla schemes that don't provide a practical context. That in turn can provide the needed justification for them to be picked up by another team later if they are released at the end of the expanded roster period. For clarity, the 75-man roster concept wasn't intended to be partitioned into active or inactive groups. If those players aren't seeing the field once the season starts, it's presumably because they aren't earning their playing time. If players are required to have mandatory rest games (or rest halves) throughout the season, those hypothetical first four weeks would provide the optimal conditions in which to swap in some of those players on the bubble. I had to write this out to comprehend what exactly your objection was. You must be concerned that players 54-75 won't get playing time once the games count. I imagine that coordinators generally wish that they weren't restricted to 46 active players in a given game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 I'm with Eraser, I liked the 5 team divisions and the 3 WC format, but what can you do with 32 teams. It's as fair as it can be. Some divisions are really weak and don't geographically make any sense. Conference doesn't matter to me, I think that so long as you have 4 divisions spread out geographically across the country, it would maintain fairness. Some tweaking could be made. Geography GENERALLY fosters rivalry more than anything else. If I were setting Divisions, they'd be as follows: AFC East Buffalo Bills Pittsburgh Steelers New England Patriots New York Jets AFC South Tampa Bay Buccaneers St. Louis Rams New Orleans Saints Tennessee Titans AFC North Cleveland Browns Green Bay Packers Minnesota Vikings Kansas City Chiefs AFC West Seattle Seahawks Houston Texans Oakland Raiders San Francisco 49ers NFC East Baltimore Ravens New York Giants Philadelphia Eagles Washington Redskins NFC South Atlanta Falcons Jacksonville Jaguars Carolina Panthers Miami Dolphins NFC North Cincinnati Bengals Indianapolis Colts Detroit Lions Chicago Bears NFC West Arizona Cardinals San Diego Chargers Denver Broncos Dallas Cowboys Same Number of Games. Play your division 2x, a same conference division 1x (rotational), the same geographical division in the other conference 1 time, 1 nostalgic rivalry game if possible, and 1 whatever. Shorten pre-season by 1 game but keep length of pre-season the same. Less about games, more about development. Outdoor stadium Super Bowls. Playoff Format the same, but take home field away from Division Winners and give to best record. Increase roster limits to 57 players, and game day limits to 48 players (Currently 53 and 46). With new injury protocols, it would be helpful to have more guys available to fill in if someone gets a concussion. Not sure of the scheduling ramifications, but I'd eliminate random bye weeks and give everyone a mid-season break (between weeks 8 and 9) if possible. Otherwise return to the old format. Week 3 and 4 byes are bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMO 6,811 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 I'm the opposite. Don't care about divisions. Take the top six teams from each conference. Top four get byes. Screw the neutral field crap, too. Top team gets the Superbowl and home field advantage. It works in every other sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I'm the opposite. Don't care about divisions. Take the top six teams from each conference. Top four get byes. Screw the neutral field crap, too. Top team gets the Superbowl and home field advantage. It works in every other sport. If the top 4 get byes, what do you plan to do with the 5 teams going to round 2? Also, every other sport has a best of 7 series with a 4:3 split of home vs. away, not quite the same thing as football there bud. 57% advantage, not 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMO 6,811 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 If the top 4 get byes, what do you plan to do with the 5 teams going to round 2? Also, every other sport has a best of 7 series with a 4:3 split of home vs. away, not quite the same thing as football there bud. 57% advantage, not 100%. Clarification: By top 4 teams, I meant the top 2 from each conference get byes. Top 4 teams overall. Same as now. Home field advantage is home field advantage, bud. It is possible for a team to have home field now. The Superbowl location is decided years before the actual game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Week 3 and 4 byes are [NFC East]. Actually, the Chiefs could have used a week 3 or week 4 bye this year. However, in the ideal season, having a bye that early in the season is awful. A mid-season bye where there were no football games would be anathema to the NFL (and to most of their fans). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Clarification: By top 4 teams, I meant the top 2 from each conference get byes. Top 4 teams overall. Same as now. Home field advantage is home field advantage, bud. It is possible for a team to have home field now. The Superbowl location is decided years before the actual game. Gotchya. Yeah, it is possible. I wouldn't be overly opposed to the home field idea, its just not the same level of advantage that you see in other sports. In fact, I rather like it really. It won't happen with the NFL's focus on being sure they have a nice warm, dry platform to have their fancy halftime shit-show, I mean entertainment, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.