Should The NFL Get Rid of Automatic Playoff Berths For Division Winners?

[BillsImpossible]

If the Bills finish 9-7 or better and don't make the playoffs, but the Colts or Texans do make the playoffs with 8-8 records or worse, that would be a horrible way to end this season.

Who wants to watch an 8-8 or worse team in the playoffs over a 9-7 or better team?

Shouldn't wins count more than losses, regardless of the division a team is in?

What's it going to take? A 6-10 "Division Winner," to change the rule?

I think there will come a day when the NFL will change this rule and hope to the football gods that the 2015 Bills aren't the reason why.

[YardRat]

Win your own division and it's a moot point. I would say no. What's next, taking away home field advantage because a very strong team in an otherwise really weak division pads their overall record by beating up on the wannabes for 6 games each season?

[BillsImpossible]

Win your own division and it's a moot point. I would say no. What's next, taking away home field advantage because a very strong team in an otherwise really weak division pads their overall record by beating up on the wannabes for 6 games each season?

The teams with the most wins should get home field advantage, not the teams that won their weak ass divisions.

[Skooby]

It's a valid argument but you have to reward teams for inter-divisional accomplishments, which ironically is also a tie-breaker.

[YardRat]

The teams with the most wins should get home field advantage, not the teams that won their weak ass divisions.

They are usually the same.

[Joe Fo Sho]

If the Bills finish 9-7 or better and don't make the playoffs, but the Colts or Texans do make the playoffs with 8-8 records or worse, that would be a horrible way to end this season.

Who wants to watch an 8-8 or worse team in the playoffs over a 9-7 or better team?

Shouldn't wins count more than losses, regardless of the division a team is in?

What's it going to take? A 6-10 "Division Winner," to change the rule?

I think there will come a day when the NFL will change this rule and hope to the football gods that the 2015 Bills aren't the reason why.

Why should you let a team into the playoffs that did not win their division and who also did not have a better record than two other teams that also did not win their division?

At least with a division winner you can say pretty clearly that one team is better than the other 3 who have played each other more than once and had a similar schedule.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I think division winners do deserve an automatic spot but not guaranteed home field in the wild card round.

[tomz]

I think division winners do deserve an automatic spot but not guaranteed home field in the wild card round.

That seems sensible. By the way, remember when the Seahawks went 7-9, won their division and then proceeded to tear up the playoffs? And how 'bout those 9-7 Giants who won the Super Bowl?

[Skooby]

That seems sensible. By the way, remember when the Seahawks went 7-9, won their division and then proceeded to tear up the playoffs? And how 'bout those 9-7 Giants who won the Super Bowl?
I think the Giants were on the road all 3 playoff games before the Superbowl & had won like 7 straight before making the playoffs, one of the games being a win against the Bills (Bills should of won).

[BertSquirtgum]

If the Bills finish 9-7 or better and don't make the playoffs, but the Colts or Texans do make the playoffs with 8-8 records or worse, that would be a horrible way to end this season.

Who wants to watch an 8-8 or worse team in the playoffs over a 9-7 or better team?

Shouldn't wins count more than losses, regardless of the division a team is in?

What's it going to take? A 6-10 "Division Winner," to change the rule?

I think there will come a day when the NFL will change this rule and hope to the football gods that the 2015 Bills aren't the reason why.

Absolutely not. You win your division. You make the playoffs.

[Meathead]

no but they need to get rid of playoff byes. add two teams and have everybody play each week. top seeds will still have it pretty easy against playoff bottom dwellers

[gebobs]

Yeah...the byes are an enormous advantage. Four division winners and four wildcards from each conference.

[Joe Fo Sho]

no but they need to get rid of playoff byes. add two teams and have everybody play each week. top seeds will still have it pretty easy against playoff bottom dwellers


Yeah...the byes are an enormous advantage. Four division winners and four wildcards from each conference.

You guys want half of the NFL to make the playoffs?

[gebobs]

You guys want half of the NFL to make the playoffs?

Yeah, I guess that's a bit much. Then again, it might be the only way we could get to see our team any time soon. :-)

[OpIv37]

You guys want half of the NFL to make the playoffs?

That's what the NHL and NBA do.

[ticatfan]

The teams with the most wins should get home field advantage, not the teams that won their weak ass divisions.
Weak one yr and strong the next, that would get to confusing.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Yeah, I guess that's a bit much. Then again, it might be the only way we could get to see our team any time soon. :-)

Ha, that's probably the case but I'm still against having that many teams in the playoffs.


That's what the NHL and NBA do.

Yeah, and that's one of the things I don't like about those sports. It actually would make more sense for the NFL to have more teams in the playoffs because the season is so short, but that's what makes the NFL regular season so exciting. I don't like watching the regular season of the NBA, NHL, or MLB because the games don't matter as much. The MLB actually does it right I think, they have the longest season (in terms of games played) and have the least amount of playoff teams.

[Ingtar33]

That's what the NHL and NBA do.

in the NHL no one complains about it because the 5-8 seeds win the cup about as often as the 1-4 seeds, because goaltending matters so much in the playoffs.

In the nba, it's just a cash grab, because the 5-8 seeds have ZERO chance to win the NBA championship, the nba champions always come from the top 4 seeds, frankly it's rare it's not from a 1st or 2nd seed

The NFL is a bit closer to hockey then it is the NBA, as low seeds do make and win the superbowl. so expanding the playoffs probably will just bring more potential superbowl champions into the playoffs.

[Meathead]

sure why not. its a stupid game, more teams in the playoffs mean more teams have a chance and more cities get to be involved. good teams still have a big advantage just not an unfair one. in the time when the nfl has made good qbs god they should be forced to get tested the same number of playoff games as every other team

[Joe Fo Sho]

sure why not. its a stupid game, more teams in the playoffs mean more teams have a chance and more cities get to be involved. good teams still have a big advantage just not an unfair one. in the time when the nfl has made good qbs god they should be forced to get tested the same number of playoff games as every other team

That would allow teams that go 8-8 to get into the playoffs, and in 2012 a 7-9 wildcard team would have made the playoffs (either the Dolphins or the Chargers, I don't know who would've won the tiebreaker). I don't think these teams deserve to get into the playoffs.

[gebobs]

That would allow teams that go 8-8 to get into the playoffs, and in 2012 a 7-9 wildcard team would have made the playoffs (either the Dolphins or the Chargers, I don't know who would've won the tiebreaker). I don't think these teams deserve to get into the playoffs.
A 7-8-1 team made it last year. And they won their division.

The last two spots in the AFC last year would have been between Buff, KC, SD, and Hou. The Bills had a 5-7 conference record so would still have been on the outside looking in. Houston and KC would have gotten in and been promptly dispatched by Denver and NE respectively.

I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL does it. As Ingtar33 points out, the NBA do it as a money grab. And who likes money grabs more than the NFL? This year, with the weak AFC South, could give them the rationale to do it.

[Joe Fo Sho]

A 7-8-1 team made it last year. And they won their division.

The last two spots in the AFC last year would have been between Buff, KC, SD, and Hou. The Bills had a 5-7 conference record so would still have been on the outside looking in. Houston and KC would have gotten in and been promptly dispatched by Denver and NE respectively.

Right, but at least you could say that the 7-8-1 team was definitely better than the other 3 teams in their division. They each played each other twice and had a schedule of similar opponents.

The Bills were 9-7 and had a worse record than 2 other teams that couldn't even with their own division. I don't think they deserved a playoff spot.


I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL does it. As Ingtar33 points out, the NBA do it as a money grab. And who likes money grabs more than the NFL? This year, with the weak AFC South, could give them the rationale to do it.

I don't doubt the NFL would do it because of the increased money, but I would be against it. My opinion is super valuable to the NFL, I know..

[Victor7]

Nah man. Take away the home game like Illum said but not the spot. I knows its happened somewhat frequent lately but for the most part its winning teams that make it.

[Dozerdog]

Any 9-7 team shouldn't whine about missing the playoffs- regardless if a sub-500 team wins their division.

10-6 or 11-5- then you might have an argument

The full list of 10-6 teams that fell short consists of:


2013 Arizona Cardinals- (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/355/arizona-cardinals/)
2012 Chicago Bears (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/326/chicago-bears/)
2010 New York Giants (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/351/new-york-giants/)
2010 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/362/tampa-bay-buccaneers/)
2007 Cleveland Browns (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/329/cleveland-browns/)
2005 Kansas City Chiefs (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/339/kansas-city-chiefs/)
2003 Miami Dolphins (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/345/miami-dolphins/)
1991 Philadelphia Eagles (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/354/philadelphia-eagles/)
1991 San Francisco 49ers (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/359/san-francisco-49ers/)
1989 Washington Redskins (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/363/washington-redskins/)
1989 Green Bay Packers (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/335/green-bay-packers/)
1988 New York Giants (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/351/new-york-giants/)
1988 New Orleans Saints (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/350/new-orleans-saints/)
1986 Cincinnati Bengals (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/327/cincinnati-bengals/)
1986 Seattle Seahawks (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/361/seattle-seahawks/)
1985 Washington Redskins (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/363/washington-redskins/)
1981 Denver Broncos (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/332/denver-broncos/)
1980 New England Patriots (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/348/new-england-patriots/)
1979 Washington Redskins (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/363/washington-redskins/)

The aforementioned 11-5 teams that were unlucky enough to have an early vacation were:


1985 Denver Broncos (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/332/denver-broncos/)
2008 New England Patriots (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/348/new-england-patriots/)

[gebobs]

The full list of 10-6 teams that fell short consists of....

No big disappointments for Bills fans. We got that going for us anyway.

[OpIv37]

Dozer's list isn't updated. 2014 Eagles were 10-6 and didn't make it.

[BillsOwnAll]

I think the playoffs are the one of the few things left the NFL does right. The bye is a huge advantage, but you have to earn that no bad team slips into a bye. And it's not often a team with a worse record makes it over a team win a better record. It also makes division games WAY more interesting all around the NFL. Adding more teams would just water down the playoffs so much. Once every 6-7 years a "bad" team slips in the playoff but then has to then beat 3 "good" teams usually and 2 being on the road. It's not like a given trip to the super bowl.

[Joe Fo Sho]

It also makes division games WAY more interesting all around the NFL.

That brings up another good question.

Would we get rid of divisions if they changed the playoffs not to include a division winner? What would the point of divisions be then? In this case I think they would get rid of them and in turn would be destroying the rivalries and rivalry games that make the NFL so much fun to watch. I don't want to see the Bills/Dolphins, Packers/Bears, Steelers/Ravens, Raiders/Chiefs, Cowboys/Giants/Eagles/Redskins, or any other rivalry games get tossed aside. Not to mention these games and rivalries are probably a fairly big revenue generator for the NFL.

If they do that, why would you have conferences then? Why would you need them? Why not just take the 16 teams with the best records and have a NCAA bracket type playoff where the top 2 teams play each other in the SB regardless of conference.

Where does it end, guys?!

[gebobs]

When the NFL has sucked the last nickel out of your pocket. :-)

[Meathead]

i would absolutely keep the division format. it builds rivalries and determines a best team in a group. so what if a division winner wins less games than a team that doesnt make the playoffs, thats what the wildcards are for. and by adding two wcs you drastically reduce the chance of that happening anyway

axe yourself this: why not just one team with a bye then? add one wc team and have only one team per conference play one fewer playoff game. doesnt sound right, does it. same logic applies to two teams imo

giving four teams a game to rest is too big of an advantage. they will be heavily favored enough playing the lowest seeds. making them play the same number of games just seems right to me. and i prefer having half the teams in the postseason anyway

[IlluminatusUIUC]

That brings up another good question.

Would we get rid of divisions if they changed the playoffs not to include a division winner? What would the point of divisions be then? In this case I think they would get rid of them and in turn would be destroying the rivalries and rivalry games that make the NFL so much fun to watch. I don't want to see the Bills/Dolphins, Packers/Bears, Steelers/Ravens, Raiders/Chiefs, Cowboys/Giants/Eagles/Redskins, or any other rivalry games get tossed aside. Not to mention these games and rivalries are probably a fairly big revenue generator for the NFL.

If they do that, why would you have conferences then? Why would you need them? Why not just take the 16 teams with the best records and have a NCAA bracket type playoff where the top 2 teams play each other in the SB regardless of conference.

Where does it end, guys?!

Rivalries form naturally any way. The Patriots and Colts rivalry actually got stronger in the years after they left the East.

I mean, the Sabres recently got re-aligned into a division with the teams from Florida for some reason. I would say we still have much more animosity for the Rangers, Flyers, and Penguins that we do for the Lightning.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Rivalries form naturally any way. The Patriots and Colts rivalry actually got stronger in the years after they left the East.

I mean, the Sabres recently got re-aligned into a division with the teams from Florida for some reason. I would say we still have much more animosity for the Rangers, Flyers, and Penguins that we do for the Lightning.

Yeah, new rivalries would be sure to form. I just don't want to get rid of current ones that I find fun to watch. I fear change.

[Mace]

Ha, that's probably the case but I'm still against having that many teams in the playoffs.



Yeah, and that's one of the things I don't like about those sports. It actually would make more sense for the NFL to have more teams in the playoffs because the season is so short, but that's what makes the NFL regular season so exciting. I don't like watching the regular season of the NBA, NHL, or MLB because the games don't matter as much. The MLB actually does it right I think, they have the longest season (in terms of games played) and have the least amount of playoff teams.

Nailed it. Waters down the season, makes the playoffs more compelling, makes division games more important.

The NFL system is fine as it is imho.

[Albany,n.y.]

This thread is dumb. Everyone has a different schedule. Who says a 9-7 team is better than an 8-8 team? The 9-7 team could have had a creampuff schedule & the 8-8 team had a tough one.
You want to change the format you're going to have to pry that schedule from Goodell's cold dead hands.

[BillsImpossible]

Any 9-7 team shouldn't whine about missing the playoffs- regardless if a sub-500 team wins their division.

10-6 or 11-5- then you might have an argument

The full list of 10-6 teams that fell short consists of:


2013 Arizona Cardinals- (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/355/arizona-cardinals/)
2012 Chicago Bears (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/326/chicago-bears/)
2010 New York Giants (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/351/new-york-giants/)
2010 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/362/tampa-bay-buccaneers/)
2007 Cleveland Browns (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/329/cleveland-browns/)
2005 Kansas City Chiefs (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/339/kansas-city-chiefs/)
2003 Miami Dolphins (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/345/miami-dolphins/)
1991 Philadelphia Eagles (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/354/philadelphia-eagles/)
1991 San Francisco 49ers (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/359/san-francisco-49ers/)
1989 Washington Redskins (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/363/washington-redskins/)
1989 Green Bay Packers (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/335/green-bay-packers/)
1988 New York Giants (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/351/new-york-giants/)
1988 New Orleans Saints (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/350/new-orleans-saints/)
1986 Cincinnati Bengals (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/327/cincinnati-bengals/)
1986 Seattle Seahawks (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/361/seattle-seahawks/)
1985 Washington Redskins (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/363/washington-redskins/)
1981 Denver Broncos (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/332/denver-broncos/)
1980 New England Patriots (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/348/new-england-patriots/)
1979 Washington Redskins (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/363/washington-redskins/)

The aforementioned 11-5 teams that were unlucky enough to have an early vacation were:


1985 Denver Broncos (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/332/denver-broncos/)
2008 New England Patriots (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/teams/348/new-england-patriots/)



That's a lot of good teams shut out of the playoffs. 22 teams in a 35 year time span is more than I expected.

A good team misses the playoffs about every other year on average.

Not a proponent of expanding the playoffs. I like everything about the playoffs except the automatic playoff berth for division winners, and NFL Wild Card Saturday. Watching the NFL on a Saturday never felt right.

I just don't think it's right for a 10-6 team to be on the outside looking in on a 7-9 division winner playing in the postseason.

7-9, great. That team should get a banner that says, "2015 AFC South Champions," and then clean out their lockers.

[JohnnyGold]

I think the playoffs are the one of the few things left the NFL does right. The bye is a huge advantage, but you have to earn that no bad team slips into a bye. And it's not often a team with a worse record makes it over a team win a better record. It also makes division games WAY more interesting all around the NFL. Adding more teams would just water down the playoffs so much. Once every 6-7 years a "bad" team slips in the playoff but then has to then beat 3 "good" teams usually and 2 being on the road. It's not like a given trip to the super bowl.

I wrote this piece for fun, because I love the logistics of professional sports divisions/playoffs/realignment.
It's certainly relevant to this discussion.

With Relocation to Los Angeles, NFL has Chance to Right Divisional Imbalances

At the midpoint of the 2015 NFL season, a familiar scenario is unfolding in the AFC’s Southern division: the Indianapolis Colts and Houston Texans are tied for the division lead, each with a 3-5 record. The Jacksonville Jaguars, with a 2-5 record, sit half of a game behind both clubs. The winner of the AFC South will ultimately be granted not only a spot in the NFL postseason tournament, but the advantage of hosting a playoff game over a team who will likely sport a much better record. This problem is nothing new for the NFL.

In the 13 seasons that have taken place since the NFL realigned to 8 divisions (each with 4 teams) to accommodate expansion into the Houston market, there have been 52 wildcard games. 18 of those (35%) have been hosted by a team with a worse record than their opponent. This phenomenon has occurred at least once in 11 of the 13 postseasons since 2002--most notably in 2010, when 3 of the 4 games took place in host cities with teams who had a record inferior to their opponent.

The closer one looks, the more faults one can find with the NFL’s post-realignment structure. Since the 2002 restructuring, a total of 24 teams with a better record than at least one of the 12 playoff qualifiers have been excluded from postseason play. The most egregious of these infractions occurred in the 2008 season when an 11 win, defending-conference-champion Patriots team was left watching the tournament on TV, while also-rans such as the 8 win San Diego Chargers and 9 win Philadelphia Eagles qualified for the postseason tournament.

The problems created by the league’s 2002 realignment happen because of a simple flaw in the structure of the divisions: they are too small. A four team division is not a large enough sample size in a 32 team league to justify a playoff representative on an annual basis. Selected randomly from a field of 32, four teams could (at any one point, but specifically at seasons end) be sub .500 clubs. This problem compounds itself when one considers the equability in the NFL’s scheduling procedures: teams within a division play essentially the same slate of games, with the exception of 2 games across a 16 game season. This lack of variation creates scenarios where 4 teams can have a “down year”, while simultaneously fighting through a more-difficult-than-average slate of games. The implications of these structural flaws show themselves in seasons like the aforementioned 2008, when an 8 win campaign was good enough for the San Diego Chargers to qualify for the playoffs, or 2 years later, when the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks repeated the feat. Both teams hosted playoff games, and with the advantage of playing 2 or 3 time zones away from their playoff opponents, both teams advanced past the first round of the NFL’s postseason.

The solution is simple enough, and with relocation to the Los Angeles market looming large on the horizon, the league has been gifted the perfect opportunity to rectify the situation: divisions must grow in size, and with the NFL playoffs allowing the 4 teams with deserving records to earn a bye to the second round of the playoffs, a four division structure seems the most logical. Below is a mockup of a 4 division structure in a post-Los Angeles-relocation league:



Division 1: Ravens, Bengals, Browns, Steelers, Colts, Bills, Patriots, Jets
Division 2: Falcons, Panthers, Saints, Bucs, Texans, Jaguars, Dolphins, Titans
Division 3: Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, Rams, Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders, Chargers
Division 3: Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings, Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, Redskins


Whichever form the divisions would take would be at the discretion of the 32 team owners. In this specific example, some sense of tradition is honored, as the current NFC East and Central were grouped together, as well as the majority of the AFC East and Central. A point of merit to this structure, however, is the fact that the 3 teams in the running for relocation to Los Angeles (San Diego; Oakland; St. Louis) would all be placed in what could be termed the “Western Division”, making any additional relocations to Los Angeles a simple affair.

The logistics of the NFL playoffs would be greatly enhanced under such a realignment proposal. The 4 teams earning a bye in the playoffs would lend themselves to the natural distinction of “division winner”: a designation of greater importance when 7 clubs are beaten out for that honor, as opposed to 3. With a league composed of only 4 divisions, conferences themselves could be abolished in favor of the 12 most deserving clubs qualifying for postseason play: the 4 division winners, and the remaining 8 teams with the best records. Assuming the NFL maintains its re-seeding procedure following Wildcard weekend (whereby the lowest remaining seed plays the team with the best record in the Divisional round), the possibility of the 2 “best” teams in the league meeting in the Super Bowl becomes much more likely. Were this proposed divisional structure in place last season, the playoff seeding would have been as follows:



Cowboys (1)
Patriots (2)
Broncos (3)
Texans (4)
Seahawks (5) v. Ravens (12)
Packers (6) v. Bengals (11)
Steelers (7) v. Lions (10)
Colts (8) v. Cardinals (9)


The final piece of the puzzle comes in scheduling logistics. The NFL ardently adheres to a rotation formula established during the 2002 realignment, whereby teams cycle through both conference and inter-conference matchups on a set cycle, and variations to an annual slate of games are limited to 2 contests determined by order of finish from the previous year. With 8 team divisions in place, the NFL could move to a scheduling formula based entirely on order of finish, while still maintaining an emphasis on divisional matchups. In this proposed scenario, let’s take the New England Patriots as an example, and use the results from the 2014 season to create a hypothetical 2015 schedule. Below is the same divisional format, with each team’s 2014 win total listed, sorted by order of finish:



Division 1: Patriots: 12; Colts: 11; Steelers: 11; Bengals: 10; Ravens: 10; Bills: 9; Browns: 7; Jets: 4.
Division 2: Texans: 9; Dolphins: 8; Panthers: 7; Saints: 7; Falcons: 6; Jags: 3; Bucs: 2; Titans: 2.
Division 3: Broncos: 12; Seahawks: 12; Cards: 11; Chiefs: 9; Chargers: 9; 49ers: 8; Rams: 6; Raiders: 3.
Division 3: Cowboys: 12; Packers: 12; Lions: 11; Eagles: 10; Vikings: 7; Giants: 6; Bears: 5; Skins: 4.


Within a division, the top 4 finishers from the previous season would play one another 2 times each for a total of 6 games; each of those clubs would then play the remaining 4 divisional opponents 1 time for a total of 4 games; finally, the top 2 finishers in each division would play the other top 2 finishers, (teams 3 and 4 would play each team that finished in 3rd and 4th place, etc.), for a total of 6 games. Thus, the Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots 2015 schedule would have consisted of matchups against: the Indianapolis Colts (2x); Pittsburgh Steelers (2x); Cincinnati Bengals (2x); Baltimore Ravens; Buffalo Bills; Cleveland Browns; New York Jets; Houston Texans; Miami Dolphins; Denver Broncos; Seattle Seahawks; Dallas Cowboys; and Green Bay Packers. For comparisons sake, the New York Jets (who finished with 8 fewer wins in 2014) would have played a slate of games against: the Cleveland Browns (2x); Buffalo Bills (2x); Baltimore Ravens (2x); New England Patriots; Indianapolis Colts; Pittsburgh Steelers; Cincinnati Bengals; Tampa Bay Buccaneers; Tennessee Titans; St. Louis Rams; Oakland Raiders; Chicago Bears; and Washington Redskins.

2 things become clear when looking at such a scheduling formula: divisional matchups are honored to a greater extent than currently (10 games per year as opposed to 6); and good teams must play harder games the following year, creating more compelling matchups across the season.

The NFL has an opportunity this spring to amend many of the errors inadvertently created during 2002’s realignment. In doing so, they can create a more balanced-product, which will be enhanced in several ways: bad teams will be left out of the playoff tournament, while truly deserving teams will host playoff games; the Super Bowl can be a matchup between the 2 best teams in the league on an annual basis; and scheduling formulas can create compelling matchups across the regular season, as well as leveling the playing field between the good and bad teams from the previous season.

[Historian]

I would much rather they focus on enforcing the rules and punishing cheaters.

[gebobs]

In this specific example, some sense of tradition is honored, as the current NFC East and Central were grouped together, as well as the majority of the AFC East and Central.

Impressive work. Just one comment...the AFC/NFC Central are now AFC/NFC North and have been since '02.

I think the crucial point you brought up was that the divisions are too small.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Win your own division and it's a moot point. I would say no. What's next, taking away home field advantage because a very strong team in an otherwise really weak division pads their overall record by beating up on the wannabes for 6 games each season?
Yes. That is called reseeding and it's been proposed many times and it makes perfect sense.

[jayhall93]

There is always going to be a weak division or two. 7-9 Teams make the playoffs from time to time. The AFC South is just weak right now. Keep it the way it is, but perhaps have an extra round to determine the 6th seed.

[Bill Cody]

Would we be having this discussion if the Bills were in the AFCS? I'm thinking no

[jamze132]

Hows about they get rid of the divisions and only keep the two conferences. Top 6 teams are in and seeded according to records. #1/#2 bye week.

Being stuck behind the greatest dynasty to every play the game isn't really fair to the other three teams stuck in mediocrity. When each team pretty much can count on two losses against the Cheatriots, they pretty much have to go 10-4 the rest of the way to make the playoffs. Most teams who win 10-11 games win their division, but not for anyone in the AFC East outside of NE.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Hows about they get rid of the divisions and only keep the two conferences. Top 6 teams are in and seeded according to records. #1/#2 bye week.

What's the point of having conferences at all then?

[BillsImpossible]

What's the point of having conferences at all then?

Nostalgia.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Nostalgia.

They should separate the conferences into two entirely different leagues, an NFL and an AFL. Now that would be nostalgic!

[stuckincincy]

If the Bills finish 9-7 or better and don't make the playoffs, but the Colts or Texans do make the playoffs with 8-8 records or worse, that would be a horrible way to end this season.

Who wants to watch an 8-8 or worse team in the playoffs over a 9-7 or better team?

Shouldn't wins count more than losses, regardless of the division a team is in?

What's it going to take? A 6-10 "Division Winner," to change the rule?

I think there will come a day when the NFL will change this rule and hope to the football gods that the 2015 Bills aren't the reason why.

Is this one of those "Millennials" things? :kid:

[Ingtar33]

personally i think the divisions are too small. 5+ team divisions are better. Expand the league to 36 teams, kill one division in each conference and go with 3 divisions of 6 teams.

[casdhf]

personally i think the divisions are too small. 5+ team divisions are better. Expand the league to 36 teams, kill one division in each conference and go with 3 divisions of 6 teams.
There aren't enough QBs to go around with 32 teams.

[jamze132]

What's the point of having conferences at all then?

So you can still have a league championship? Like they do in the NFL...MLB...NHL...NBA...

[Joe Fo Sho]

So you can still have a league championship? Like they do in the NFL...MLB...NHL...NBA...

Are you saying the NCAA basketball tournament does not have a championship?

(My question was sarcastic, I hate almost everything that has to do with this idea)