General Sports Talk

Quote: billryan

Divisions are leftovers from the days when travel expenses were a factor and rivalries were needed to put butts in the seats. I do think there is something to be said for keeping traditional rivalries but also see the point of eliminating them.
I'd go the other way and have 16 teams in the playoffs. A 16 game schedule with 16 teams advancing and 16 going home.
link to original post

Good point. Have one 32 team division. Have one rival team you play each year. Play 16 teams one year. The other 15 and the rival the next. Playoffs are based on season record. Winning 60% usually provides at least 12 teams. Thus weeds out the weak teams.

Quote: moses

Good point. Have one 32 team division. Have one rival team you play each year. Play 16 teams one year. The other 15 and the rival the next. Playoffs are based on season record. Winning 60% usually provides at least 12 teams. Thus weeds out the weak teams.
link to original post

Problem: you can't alternate the rivalry game home/away and the other opponents home/away as well.

Suppose you start this with the 2022 season, and use the Jets as an example, as they have a ready-made rival in the Giants.
2022: Jets play the Giants away, and the other 15 games consist of what are now the other 15 NFC teams besides the Giants; the NFC East and West teams are away games, and the North and South teams are home games.
2023: Jets play the Giants at home, and the other 15 games consist of what are now the other 15 AFC teams besides the Jets; the AFC East and West teams are home games, and the North and South teams are away games.
2024: Jets play the Giants away, and play the other 15 teams besides the Giants again, with the East and West teams (besides the Giants) as 7 home games, and the North and South teams as away games. This gives the Jets 7 home games and 9 away games.

One way you can do it is if the rivalry game is home-home-away-away.

Don't the Jets and Giants play in the same stadium? So they have an extra home game each year. But against each other.

Same with the LA Chargers and LA Rams. Take Bears vs Packers for instance. They play in Green Bay the first week of 2022. They play in Chcago the last week of 2023. In between that time, each have played the other 31 teams.

In state and nearby rivalries begin. Eagles vs Steelers. Dolphins vs Bucs. Raiders vs Cardinals. Cowboys vs Texans.

The problem with this is not every team has a natural rivalry. Baseball tried to do this and you get some strange "rivals".
As a long time Giant fan, I don't consider the Jets their #1 rival. I'd say the Eagles would be #1, and most Jet fans would call the Patriots the #1 rival, although I'm not sure Pats fans would agree. It would be great if there was a dedicated rivals week where all the traditional rivals met the same day, but it would be a scheduling nightmare.

Quote: billryan

The problem with this is not every team has a natural rivalry. Baseball tried to do this and you get some strange "rivals".
As a long time Giant fan, I don't consider the Jets their #1 rival. I'd say the Eagles would be #1, and most Jet fans would call the Patriots the #1 rival, although I'm not sure Pats fans would agree. It would be great if there was a dedicated rivals week where all the traditional rivals met the same day, but it would be a scheduling nightmare.
link to original post

The rivalry week would be week 1 of 2022 and week 17 of 2023. For scheduling, each team is assigned a number. For instance the LA Rams are 1. LA Chargers are 2. The NY Giants are 31. The NY Jets are 32. In 2022, the odd number teams play all the even number teams which equals 16 games. In 2023, the odd number teams play all the odd number teams. The even number teams play all the even number teams. That is 15 games plus the rivalry game.

The bad news is some rival games would occur every other year. The good news is a balance scheduling for competition. Plus a fan would see each team every 4 years. And the assigned rival every year and at home every 2 years.

Plus TV time slots. The Rams 1 are playing at the Jets 32 for the early game. But the Giants 31 are playing at Chargers 2 for the late game. Teams would rotate home and away each week. The closer to home games would be the Thursday night game.

As a former long term season ticket holder, I can say I don't care one iota about seeing every team every year or so. I think most fans would agree.
I like the way the NFL punishes good teams by making them play a stronger schedule than the weaker teams. If you win your division, you play the other division winners. If you come in last, you play the other last place teams.

Didn't you say you didn't care for the divisional set up? The old tradition was designed to put butts in seats?

The AFC West could very well have a 10-7 win the division. But the AFC East and South could awarded be awarded a wild card team. But that WC got to play the Jets or Jags and Texans twice. 4 gifts this year for Colts and Titans. I can barely keep track of what teams are in what 8 divisions anymore. So their answer is to put more teams in the playoffs and play more games. That dilutes the season? I.e. NBA

Why reward losing?

Hmmm. Miami is in the East. Dallas is in the East. Baltimore is in the North. Indy is in the South. NFL GEOGRAPHY.🤣

NFL camps start in early July. The first game was Sepetember 11? Two months of preparation and preseason? The reason for a long preseason, back in the day, was because most NFL had to work a job in the off-season. So it took longer for them to get in shape.

How about a Summer league instead of pre season with the Championship game being the Hall of Fame game in Canton, Ohio.

Rosters could be easily set for one preseason game after that and the regular season begins late August or Labor day weekend.

NBA 82 games? 😱

Play each team twice. Once at home and away. You don't want to play? FINE. You don't get paid.

Make money for wins and making the playoffs, advancing, winning a championship. Not for sitting out because of a long season. And then turning it up in the playoffs. No back to back games. A day in between games is plenty of time to recover.

Add quality to the season. NOT quantity.

Quote: moses

The bad news is some rival games would occur every other year. The good news is a balance scheduling for competition. Plus a fan would see each team every 4 years. And the assigned rival every year and at home every 2 years.

Looks like somebody either didn't read my post, or didn't quite understand it.

It is impossible to construct a schedule where a team (a) plays a specific team every year, alternating home and away, (b) plays 15 of the other teams one year, then the other 15 the next, and keeps alternating, with the home teams changing each time they play, and (c) plays eight home and eight away games a year. Think about it; if a team plays its rival at home one year, it will play them at home again two years later; however, in that first year, the other 15 teams were seven home and eight away games (so there are eight of each in the first year), but they become seven away and eight home games two years later (so there are seven away and nine home games that year).

You can fix this by, say, having the rivalry games go home-away-away-home, but then fans would have to wait three years after the second home game before seeing that team at home again.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: moses

The bad news is some rival games would occur every other year. The good news is a balance scheduling for competition. Plus a fan would see each team every 4 years. And the assigned rival every year and at home every 2 years.

Looks like somebody either didn't read my post, or didn't quite understand it.

It is impossible to construct a schedule where a team (a) plays a specific team every year, alternating home and away, (b) plays 15 of the other teams one year, then the other 15 the next, and keeps alternating, with the home teams changing each time they play, and (c) plays eight home and eight away games a year. Think about it; if a team plays its rival at home one year, it will play them at home again two years later; however, in that first year, the other 15 teams were seven home and eight away games (so there are eight of each in the first year), but they become seven away and eight home games two years later (so there are seven away and nine home games that year).

You can fix this by, say, having the rivalry games go home-away-away-home, but then fans would have to wait three years after the second home game before seeing that team at home again.
link to original post

Actually, I read it. Very insightful. It took me awhile to work it out. You'd have to take one of the weeks in the season where odds teams are playing even teams and exchange it with a week the next season where even are playing even and odd are playing odd. Had to work it out on a spreadsheet. Is it possible to attach on this site?

I used to do scheduling and assign game officials for same. Easier said than done.😃

Or what you said.👍

Louisville’s Malik Cunningham had a day against Duke which will probably become the stuff of legends

He racked up 527 total yards.........303 passing and 224 rushing

He got 7 TDS.......5 passing and 2 rushing


.

Quote: lilredrooster

Louisville’s Malik Cunningham had a day against Duke which will probably become the stuff of legends

He racked up 527 total yards.........303 passing and 224 rushing

He got 7 TDS.......5 passing and 2 rushing


.
link to original post

Impressive. But how many rebounds did he get? 😄

My 84 year young friend hates Duke. I happened to mention Louisville was up 42-9. He was so happy. I didn't tell him it was football.🤫

I don't think fans care about getting to see every other team all that often. A late December game between the Giants and the 3-12 Houston Texans would be 3/4 empty. Change that to the 3-12 Washington team and fans would pile in. One of the first rules of business is not to mess with what works, and the NFL works great, as is. I/
'm not willing to blow everything up just so the Giants play the LA Chargers more often.

Quote: billryan

I don't think fans care about getting to see every other team all that often. A late December game between the Giants and the 3-12 Houston Texans would be 3/4 empty. Change that to the 3-12 Washington team and fans would pile in. One of the first rules of business is not to mess with what works, and the NFL works great, as is. I/
'm not willing to blow everything up just so the Giants play the LA Chargers more often.
link to original post

You might not feel that way if you moved from NYC to LA or vice versa. No?

The closer to home games would be scheduled later in the season. Teams playing twice In a short season is overkill.

Dan Fouts and Kellen Winslow vs Phil Simms and Lawrence Taylor. Air Coryell offense vs Bill Parcells defense. Yes, I'd tune in every two years.

Um. Houston Texans play the Jacksonville Jag twice. Can't wait to see those games.

Quote: moses

Don't the Jets and Giants play in the same stadium? So they have an extra home game each year. But against each other.

Same with the LA Chargers and LA Rams. Take Bears vs Packers for instance. They play in Green Bay the first week of 2022. They play in Chcago the last week of 2023. In between that time, each have played the other 31 teams.

In state and nearby rivalries begin. Eagles vs Steelers. Dolphins vs Bucs. Raiders vs Cardinals. Cowboys vs Texans.
link to original post

That's a good point and you've actually hit upon my alternative idea. My alternative idea would be that you keep the conferences, but the conferences are separated simply into East/West (could still be called AFC and NFC) and each team would play every other team in the Conference once a year with two out of Conference games per year.

The only problem with that method is that you couldn't really ignore Conference when it comes to Playoff assignments because, if you take the top eight (or twelve, or sixteen) teams in the league by record, it becomes much less likely that teams in opposite conferences played one another for the purpose of tiebreakers. You would probably simply just have to take an equal number of teams per each conference, as is done now.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: moses

Don't the Jets and Giants play in the same stadium? So they have an extra home game each year. But against each other.

Same with the LA Chargers and LA Rams. Take Bears vs Packers for instance. They play in Green Bay the first week of 2022. They play in Chcago the last week of 2023. In between that time, each have played the other 31 teams.

In state and nearby rivalries begin. Eagles vs Steelers. Dolphins vs Bucs. Raiders vs Cardinals. Cowboys vs Texans.
link to original post

That's a good point and you've actually hit upon my alternative idea. My alternative idea would be that you keep the conferences, but the conferences are separated simply into East/West (could still be called AFC and NFC) and each team would play every other team in the Conference once a year with two out of Conference games per year.

The only problem with that method is that you couldn't really ignore Conference when it comes to Playoff assignments because, if you take the top eight (or twelve, or sixteen) teams in the league by record, it becomes much less likely that teams in opposite conferences played one another for the purpose of tiebreakers. You would probably simply just have to take an equal number of teams per each conference, as is done now.
link to original post

I like it. Except rather than 12 or 16 teams make the playoffs. How about 12 to 16 teams? This way you don't penalize teams that win 10 games but are from a different conference than a 9 win team.

Also, I'd like to see the best two teams in the Super Bowl as opposed to the conference championship game. Which is often the case.

Quote: moses

I like it. Except rather than 12 or 16 teams make the playoffs. How about 12 to 16 teams? This way you don't penalize teams that win 10 games but are from a different conference than a 9 win team.

Also, I'd like to see the best two teams in the Super Bowl as opposed to the conference championship game. Which is often the case.
link to original post

That's workable, or another alternative would be to have a play-in game for situations like that. You could take the team in the AFC with ten wins and have a separate week by which they play the NFC Team with nine wins that would otherwise have a playoff spot...however, if the two teams have already played, then this would not be needed and the head-to-head winner would get in.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: moses

I like it. Except rather than 12 or 16 teams make the playoffs. How about 12 to 16 teams? This way you don't penalize teams that win 10 games but are from a different conference than a 9 win team.

Also, I'd like to see the best two teams in the Super Bowl as opposed to the conference championship game. Which is often the case.
link to original post

That's workable, or another alternative would be to have a play-in game for situations like that. You could take the team in the AFC with ten wins and have a separate week by which they play the NFC Team with nine wins that would otherwise have a playoff spot...however, if the two teams have already played, then this would not be needed and the head-to-head winner would get in.
link to original post

Or make those out of Conference matchups adjustable and the last two games of the season. This would avoid "weak" 17.

Quote: billryan

I don't think fans care about getting to see every other team all that often. A late December game between the Giants and the 3-12 Houston Texans would be 3/4 empty. Change that to the 3-12 Washington team and fans would pile in. One of the first rules of business is not to mess with what works, and the NFL works great, as is. I/
'm not willing to blow everything up just so the Giants play the LA Chargers more often.
link to original post

It maybe works in one way, but the Division model is totally broken and the 2010 Seattle Seahawks proved that beyond all argument. Let's look at the top teams by record (we will get to Adjusted Wins in a later article) for that season:

Patriots: 14-2
Steelers: 12-4
Ravens: 12-4
Jets: 11-5
Colts: 10-6
Chiefs: 10-6
Chargers: 9-7
Jaguars: 8-8
Raiders: 8-8
Dolphins: 7-9

So, in a twelve team Playoff, we already have nine teams with better records than these Seahawks and one team tied in record just in the AFC. Turning to the NFC:

Falcons: 13-3
Saints: 11-5
Bears: 11-5
Eagles: 10-6
Giants: 10-6
Buccaneers: 10-6
Packers: 10-6
Seahawks: 7-9
Rams: 7-9

What's fascinating about this is that, using the twelve team (but no Divisions) model, you actually still end up with a 10-6 team that still doesn't make the Playoffs. I guess if you maintained Conferences that team would probably be an NFC team and I think the Buccaneers were the ones who didn't make it, as well as the Giants, who were the team to get bounced for the Seahawks.

Just a few seasons prior, in 2008, the 11-5 New England Patriots would miss the Playoffs in favor of the Division Winner 8-8 San Diego Chargers...I guess they at least didn't have a losing record.

How bad were the 2010 Seahawks? Let's look at a few bullet points:

1.) The Seahawks would win only seven regular season games in the 2010 campaign with these opponents having a Seahawks independent record of 38-54. (This includes the fact that they beat the 5-11 Cardinals twice, which is where their 4-2 Division record comes from).

2.) Not counting their Wildcard win, the Seahawks would go 1-3 against Playoff-bound teams in the regular season with a points differential of -46.

3.) Of their six other losses, the Seahawks would lose three more to opponents ranked over .500 that would include a 33 point loss to the 8-8 Raiders (who, obviously didn't make the Playoffs), a 34 point loss to the New York Giants (10-6) who missed the Playoffs and a 23 point loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (10-6), who also missed the Playoffs.

Why are those teams making room so the Seahawks can get in?

4.) In fact, during the Regular Season, only two of the Seahawks seven wins would even come against teams who finished .500, or better. The first of these was a three point win over the Playoff-bound Bears and the second a seven point win over the San Diego Chargers, who would miss the playoffs at 9-7.

The points differential in those games was Seahawks +10, which would lead the Seahawks to a record of 2-6 and a Points Differential of -126 (in total) in their eight games against non-losing teams.

5.) Even going 5-3 against teams with a record of worse than .500 didn't help the Seahawks Points Differential too much. As mentioned, they were -126 against .500+ teams and would finish the season with a PD of -96 overall.

----I usually wouldn't use the word, "Travesty," to describe something that happens in an affair as trivial as professional sports...but that's about as close as you're going to get.

Quote: moses

Quote: Mission146

Quote: moses

I like it. Except rather than 12 or 16 teams make the playoffs. How about 12 to 16 teams? This way you don't penalize teams that win 10 games but are from a different conference than a 9 win team.

Also, I'd like to see the best two teams in the Super Bowl as opposed to the conference championship game. Which is often the case.
link to original post

That's workable, or another alternative would be to have a play-in game for situations like that. You could take the team in the AFC with ten wins and have a separate week by which they play the NFC Team with nine wins that would otherwise have a playoff spot...however, if the two teams have already played, then this would not be needed and the head-to-head winner would get in.
link to original post

Or make those out of Conference matchups adjustable and the last two games of the season. This would avoid "weak" 17.
link to original post

That. Is. Brilliant.

So. According to your idea. Two conferences 16 teams each. Located geographically. That is the same 15 games each year with travel costs reduced significantly.

The 16th game would have to balance 8 home and 8 away games. The bye week would come for all after Tgive.

The final game would serve as a bowl match-up with teams 8-7, 9-6, 10-5 vying for a playoff spot. The upper echelon teams would be vying for a home game and/or a bye week.

The lower echelon teams game would serve as a draft lottery. Like the NBA. Except you have to win as opposed to lose in order to move up in the draft.

...And we put in a stipulation, the Chargers cannot play the Giants. Or if they do, it has to be called the Billryan Bowl.😉😅 Y A Title and John Hadl are not happy.

That would be my backup idea. My primary idea would simply do away with conferences, as well.

The Seattle Seahawks won a playoff game in 2010, which is more than half of the teams in the playoffs did, so which team belonged in the playoffs and which ones didn't? The Giants were the last team to qualify for the playoffs and ended up winning it all one year.
I'd like to see some fine-tuning done, but why mess with success?
Your plan would add quite a bit to the NFLs travel budget and I don't see much benefit to anyone.
Keep the regular season as it is, expand to 16 playoff teams, put the #1 team in one bracket, the #2 in the other bracket and the winners of each bracket meet in the Super Bowl. The biggest problem is you now eliminate Championship Sunday, which is usually the best day of the season.
I don't know how many remember it, but the NFL used to have a third place game, where the two losers of the playoff games played the day before the NFL Championship. I vaguely recall the Vikings playing the Browns for third place the first season I paid attention to football. I believe the AFL did the same.

Mr Yan writes: I'd like to see some fine-tuning done, but why mess with success?

Moses replies: If that were the case, Baltimore would still be in the NFL West.

I had a heckuva debate with Inez Gray, my 5th grade teacher.

She ask, "who in the world said Baltimore was in the West"?

I answered quickly "Brent Musburger."

I thought I'd won because she threw her papers in the air and stormed out of the room. Saying "I give up."

Quote: billryan

The Seattle Seahawks won a playoff game in 2010, which is more than half of the teams in the playoffs did, so which team belonged in the playoffs and which ones didn't? The Giants were the last team to qualify for the playoffs and ended up winning it all one year.
I'd like to see some fine-tuning done, but why mess with success?
Your plan would add quite a bit to the NFLs travel budget and I don't see much benefit to anyone.
Keep the regular season as it is, expand to 16 playoff teams, put the #1 team in one bracket, the #2 in the other bracket and the winners of each bracket meet in the Super Bowl. The biggest problem is you now eliminate Championship Sunday, which is usually the best day of the season.
I don't know how many remember it, but the NFL used to have a third place game, where the two losers of the playoff games played the day before the NFL Championship. I vaguely recall the Vikings playing the Browns for third place the first season I paid attention to football. I believe the AFL did the same.
link to original post

In theory, a team with a record of 1-10-5 could make it into a Playoff game and maybe win.

Billryan writes: I vaguely recall the Vikings playing the Browns for third place the first season I paid attention to football. I believe the AFL did the same.

Moses replies. Vince Lombardi used the consolation game as motivation. A loss meant more practices with Lombarfi in a very bad mood. The last game was in 1970.

Quote: Mission146

[

In theory, a team with a record of 1-10-5 could make it into a Playoff game and maybe win.
link to original post

I'd argue that a team that loses to a 1-10-5 team shouldn't have been in the playoffs, to begin with.
As someone who used to go to a number of games each year for almost forty years, I'll tell you there is a different intensity in the crowd for divisional games than non-divisional games. Beating a team in your division is so much sweeter than a random team you play at home every four years. You tend to follow the other teams in the division than the rest of the league.
Season ticketholders these days spend thousands of dollars per year not counting the cost of Personal Seat Licenses. I guess it comes down to does the club and the NFL owe more to them or to the millions who literally never contribute a dime to the league aside from advertising revenue? The PSL fees for the seats my family had at the new Giants Stadium were $50,000. each. Game tickets went from $13 when the Meadowlands opened circa 1976 to $180 and would have been $700 in the new stadium. Now you want to take away the rivalry games and have a multi-year rotation of teams they don't care about?
The NFL is doing great, even when a President did his best to ruin things for them. Why do a radical revamp that is just going to annoy the people whose butts are actually in the seats, buying hotdogs and beer and paying $50 to park.

I remember my first game was Chicago Bears vs Denver Broncos. A chance to see Sayers and Butkis. Sayers was hurt and Butkis was a monster. The sun was out and warm weather started a great day. BEARS WON 6-3. No TD's. Sun went behind clouds in the 2nd half. I froze my butt off.

The first year the Broncos went to the Super Bowl was the best games ever when the Steelers, Colts, and Raiders came to town. Seattle was in the division. Always an easy ticket and boring game. Didn't feel the need to see Seattle and San Diego twice a year.

I don’t get NFL Network at home........I’m in a hotel watching it for the first time

......I’m really impressed.......it’s excellent........way better than ESPN IMO

Quote: billryan

I'd argue that a team that loses to a 1-10-5 team shouldn't have been in the playoffs, to begin with.
As someone who used to go to a number of games each year for almost forty years, I'll tell you there is a different intensity in the crowd for divisional games than non-divisional games. Beating a team in your division is so much sweeter than a random team you play at home every four years. You tend to follow the other teams in the division than the rest of the league.
Season ticketholders these days spend thousands of dollars per year not counting the cost of Personal Seat Licenses. I guess it comes down to does the club and the NFL owe more to them or to the millions who literally never contribute a dime to the league aside from advertising revenue? The PSL fees for the seats my family had at the new Giants Stadium were $50,000. each. Game tickets went from $13 when the Meadowlands opened circa 1976 to $180 and would have been $700 in the new stadium. Now you want to take away the rivalry games and have a multi-year rotation of teams they don't care about?
The NFL is doing great, even when a President did his best to ruin things for them. Why do a radical revamp that is just going to annoy the people whose butts are actually in the seats, buying hotdogs and beer and paying $50 to park.
link to original post

I'm going to counter that by saying that a single loss is a sample size of one game, and in the example of a 1-10-5 record making the Playoffs, the loser of that game wouldn't be in the Playoffs and would be a Division Rival with a record of 0-11-5.

It's natural that you would follow teams in the Division more closely simply by virtue of the fact that you play them twice every year. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy that such a thing would happen.

The next thing that I would say is that you don't necessarily have to play the other 31 teams as frequently as possible, so you could take the current Divisions and still play those teams once every year; just not twice.

Anyway, I absolutely grant that the current state of affairs is pretty near ideal from a revenue standpoint; I just don't think it's best from a competitive standpoint.

Asking a bunch of billionaires to sacrifice what you agree is a near-ideal state of revenue in order to add more competition seems like it would pretty much be a non-starter. Expanding the playoffs to sixteen teams would increase revenue, and leave four more fan bases pleased that their team had made the playoffs. More money and more happy fans are something the owners might support.

It might make four fan bases happier and 15 unhappier imo. We don’t really need more garbage teams in the playoffs, from a neutral fan viewing standpoint. Also just de-emphasizes regular season competitiveness and interest to reward mediocrity. We could eliminate divisions and just do conferences to eliminate the possibility of sub-.500 teams and a 10-6 team occasionally missing. Baseball is the sport with least proportion of teams in.

Quote: mcallister3200

It might make four fan bases happier and 15 unhappier imo. We don’t really need more garbage teams in the playoffs, from a neutral fan viewing standpoint. Also just de-emphasizes regular season competitiveness and interest to reward mediocrity. We could eliminate divisions and just do conferences to eliminate the possibility of sub-.500 teams and a 10-6 team occasionally missing. Baseball is the sport with least proportion of teams in.
link to original post

That's pretty much the angle of what I'm talking about in my article series. While I think the ideal (competition) playoff size would be eight teams, you could keep it with twelve (competitively speaking) as long as it is the twelve teams with the best records.

Anyway, I don't think that anything I am discussing is something that will ever happen, else it would have happened already. The 2010 Seattle Seahawks is, by itself, enough to unequivocally prove that the system is flawed from a competitive standpoint.

Quote: billryan

Asking a bunch of billionaires to sacrifice what you agree is a near-ideal state of revenue in order to add more competition seems like it would pretty much be a non-starter. Expanding the playoffs to sixteen teams would increase revenue, and leave four more fan bases pleased that their team had made the playoffs. More money and more happy fans are something the owners might support.
link to original post

In fairness, I think that this would almost always naturally solve the Division problem just by virtue of so many teams getting in anyway. The key point here is almost always as the 2010 Seattle Seahawks didn't even have one of the Top 16 best records (T-17th). That said, if you don't ignore Conferences, they were T-8th in the NFC that season. At least the 11-5 2008 New England Patriots get a Playoff bid with the eight per Conference system, even if you keep divisions.

I agree, but we need to be realistic. The NFL owners will be more concerned with the financial aspects of the business than the competitive ones. I recall a former NFL commissioner who once stated the ideal season would have every team tied for the playoffs going into the last week.
As far as adding mediocre teams hurting the playoffs, I'd point to the NCAA Basketball tournament. In my lifetime, it's gone from a handful of teams, and you had to win your conference to qualify to what, 68 teams? 70? 72? Adding dozens of mediocre teams hasn't hurt it in the least.

Quote: lilredrooster

no definition of a little man but at just 5'6" he has to be the greatest little man ever to show up in an NFL uniform

Eddie LeBaron: Washington Redskins QB maybe 5'8," great arm. highly mobile, and really tough.

Thinking about the Braves trying to re-sign Freddie Freeman. Thinking outside the box, if I were his agent, I might suggest an ultra-long term contract structured as follows:

20 year contract at $12 million/yr. all guaranteed plus 1% interest on the annual remainder corpus of the fund paid annually and be placed in a trust for his wife and children that matures at the end of the 20 year period.

This contract would accomplish: his effective playing lifetime, say10 years, the option to stay with the organization after his playing years in some capacity as a coach, PR guy, management, or just retire with no money worries.

For the Braves organization, they would have a known fixed budget expense that would allow them the flexibility to sign other good players, keep a future HOFer in house, and maybe start a financial trend in professional sports. Oh, and btw Freddie's tax burden would be diminished by $$$millions over the years.

tuttigym

Quote: Mission146

Quote: mcallister3200

It might make four fan bases happier and 15 unhappier imo. We don’t really need more garbage teams in the playoffs, from a neutral fan viewing standpoint. Also just de-emphasizes regular season competitiveness and interest to reward mediocrity. We could eliminate divisions and just do conferences to eliminate the possibility of sub-.500 teams and a 10-6 team occasionally missing. Baseball is the sport with least proportion of teams in.
link to original post

That's pretty much the angle of what I'm talking about in my article series. While I think the ideal (competition) playoff size would be eight teams, you could keep it with twelve (competitively speaking) as long as it is the twelve teams with the best records.

Anyway, I don't think that anything I am discussing is something that will ever happen, else it would have happened already. The 2010 Seattle Seahawks is, by itself, enough to unequivocally prove that the system is flawed from a competitive standpoint.
link to original post

No. There won't be change until there is a reason to change. But to tweak mission 146 plan. 4 divisions of 8 teams each (like in NHL). Rotate the other 3 divisions and have a wild card game in week 16.

This would preserve rivalries, reduce travel costs, and create a more competitive balance.

It reduces the opportunity for a 7-9 division winner to get in and and 11-5 wild card sitting out.

Quote: billryan

I agree, but we need to be realistic. The NFL owners will be more concerned with the financial aspects of the business than the competitive ones. I recall a former NFL commissioner who once stated the ideal season would have every team tied for the playoffs going into the last week.
As far as adding mediocre teams hurting the playoffs, I'd point to the NCAA Basketball tournament. In my lifetime, it's gone from a handful of teams, and you had to win your conference to qualify to what, 68 teams? 70? 72? Adding dozens of mediocre teams hasn't hurt it in the least.
link to original post

The College Basketball Playoffs are a little bit different simply because there are so many teams in college basketball. There are 353 total teams, according to this source:

https://dunkorthree.com/ncaa-division-1-basketball-teams/

With that, you're talking about just over 20% of teams advancing to the tournament. Even if you reduced the NFL Playoffs to eight teams, that would still be 25% of all teams in the league, which is more than NCAA Men's Hoops, by percentage.

I think that the expansion of teams in the NCAA Tournament (in addition to money) might have been brought about for reasons similar to my complaint with the NFL's system. The fact that it would go to Conference winners only punished certain teams who may have amassed excellent records, but had the misfortune of playing in highly competitive Conferences, while other subpar teams might advance by virtue of winning a poor conference. In the case of College Hoops, I would actually go as far as to argue that it added competition in the sense that it got more of the good teams in there.

Of course, now we kind of see it going the opposite way now that we have all these teams in it that have no prayer of going all the way in the Tournament.

Anyway, that's a really great counterposition overall and also makes a good case for the NFL to simply go to sixteen teams in the Playoffs. You might occasionally let an awful team that has no chance in, but at least you're not keeping out the really strong teams who'd actually have a shot.

Quote: moses

Quote: Mission146

Quote: mcallister3200

It might make four fan bases happier and 15 unhappier imo. We don’t really need more garbage teams in the playoffs, from a neutral fan viewing standpoint. Also just de-emphasizes regular season competitiveness and interest to reward mediocrity. We could eliminate divisions and just do conferences to eliminate the possibility of sub-.500 teams and a 10-6 team occasionally missing. Baseball is the sport with least proportion of teams in.
link to original post

That's pretty much the angle of what I'm talking about in my article series. While I think the ideal (competition) playoff size would be eight teams, you could keep it with twelve (competitively speaking) as long as it is the twelve teams with the best records.

Anyway, I don't think that anything I am discussing is something that will ever happen, else it would have happened already. The 2010 Seattle Seahawks is, by itself, enough to unequivocally prove that the system is flawed from a competitive standpoint.
link to original post

No. There won't be change until there is a reason to change. But to tweak mission 146 plan. 4 divisions of 8 teams each (like in NHL). Rotate the other 3 divisions and have a wild card game in week 16.

This would preserve rivalries, reduce travel costs, and create a more competitive balance.

It reduces the opportunity for a 7-9 division winner to get in and and 11-5 wild card sitting out.
link to original post

Or vote for the top 4 teams. Then let all teams above 8-8 play an extra game.🤪

Quote: lilredrooster

I don’t get NFL Network at home........I’m in a hotel watching it for the first time

......I’m really impressed.......it’s excellent........way better than ESPN IMO
link to original post

I agree that NFL Network often is better (ESPN has lost its spark in some way). But I have seen some Sunday shows showing all of the scores in all of the active games - and it has usually been horrendous because the announcers on that show act as if they are incredibly bored. So, it runs hot and cold.

The Carolina Panthers are currently paying Cam Newton’s replacement

And they’re paying the guy who replaced him

And they’re paying Cam to replace his replacement’s replacement


.

In 1981 Magic led the NBA in steals with 3.43 per game

In 2020 Ben Simmons led with 2.09

In 1996 Motumbo led in blocks with 4.49 per game

In 2020 Hassan Whiteside led with 2.93

In both categories the players from the past bested the modern player by more than 50%

.

The funny thing is that Whiteside is not even a good defensive player, like at all, despite the blocks. Playing drop defense and terrible defensive guards for Portland made for an unusual amount of shots to defend at the rim as well. The very next two seasons after that he signed one year deals for the veteran MINIMUM CONTRACT despite being healthy. Would never be the case if he was ACTUALLY good.

Motombo, Eaton, Bol will never be challenged for shot block numbers going forward because there’s so many more threes, so many less shots from 5 feet now.

Similar to Andre Drummond consistently being a league leader in rebounds but his teams were never any worse at rebounding when he was off the floor. Also on a minimum contract.

I knew the explanation on blocks but I put it out there anyway
You’re right......it’s not meaningful

But the difference in steals cannot be explained away

.

Players have learned to dribble? Kidding...

Quote: lilredrooster

I knew the explanation on blocks but I put it out there anyway
You’re right......it’s not meaningful

But the difference in steals cannot be explained away

.
link to original post

It’s easy to explain if you have been watching basketball from the 80’s until now. The amount of contact now due to both rule changes and rule interpretation by referees that is allowed is FAR less than what was allowed 40 years ago. Lots of steals back then would be called fouls today.

When I coached youth basketball, most steals occurred when you tried to force the ball inside. As the NBA game seems to be much more perimeter driven these days, less steals. Same with blocked shots. I'd say I was the leading shot blocker on every team I played on and I don't recall ever blocking a jump shot from twenty-three feet out. Lots of blocked layups and putbacks but for a center to block a three-point attempt, something has to go wrong on the shooter's part.
Actually, I do remember blocking one such shot, and it was sweet. Of course, in my playing days, the three-point shot only existed in the ABA so shooting from more than ten to fifteen feet was mostly discouraged. On my HS team, the coach expected two or three passes before anyone attempted to shoot unless you had an open layup. It is a very different game now.

Almost every game looks the same. Drive the paint, pop it out to 3 point land. Don't get back on defense. Bitch at the ref when they miss or are behind.


They should take some notes from the college game.

The Ravens are playing the Bears in Chicago for the first time in eight years. Something seems off.