Too Many Divisions

[dcoles11]

I think the NBA (and hockey I guess, don't know much about it) is the only league that has the right structure for getting into the playoffs. I hate this 4 division thing in football because it takes for granted that all 4 division winners are worthy of the playoffs.

The Padres in baseball this year, what joke, not a playoff team but got in simply because of the division they were in.

The NFC North, its an absolute joke that one of those teams is going to be in the playoffs while the NFC East probably has atleast 3 teams that are deserving of the playoffs.

It is going to be hard to swallow if the Skins finish 9-7 or 10-6 and not make the postseason, while the winner of the NFC North at 8-8 or worse gets in.

[jrockster21]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but baseball only has three division winners and a wild card.

[dcoles11]

you're right I was thinking about football and was just adding baseball to the conversation. I'm quite aware that baseball has 3 divisions.

How about commenting on the post instead of pointing out an error that had little to do with subject? The post being about football having 4 divisions and the fact that the Redskins could easily finish with a better record than the winner of the North and not get in.

[Dirk Diggler]

THe NFL wants to maintain their rivalries above all else. They want the Bears/Packers, Boys/Skins, Raiders/Chiefs, etc twice per year with no exceptions. It's good for the fans, players, and ratings and I happen to agree. I wouldn't want to dissolve the divisions. It's long been the case that if you take care of business in your own division, then you will almost always go to the playoffs. That's the way it should be. And the wild card already rewards teams (twice in fact) who weren't the strongest in their divisions.

With 16 teams in each conference, you could play every team once if you took out the interconference games (as baseball used to). But that doesn't seem fair or fun really. Things are usually cyclical and it's not always easy to predict which divisions will be the strongest. Who thought that the AFC East would be so weak or that the NFC East so strong? Not too many folks. But that's the beauty of sports.

[dcoles11]

I agree, I was going to say that its not really something you can plan on. Like you said the AFC East is down this year.

I guess i'm reacting to what I see coming, which is the NFC North getting a team in with a 7-9 or 8-8 record. Next year the NFC North might be way up, so like you said you can't plan on it.

It's going to be real sick if the Bears or Lions finish 7-9, win the division and a 10-6 team dosent get in. It's a long shot, but its possible.

[Redskins Diehard]

you're right I was thinking about football and was just adding baseball to the conversation. I'm quite aware that baseball has 3 divisions.

How about commenting on the post instead of pointing out an error that had little to do with subject? The post being about football having 4 divisions and the fact that the Redskins could easily finish with a better record than the winner of the North and not get in.

The NFC North leader has the same record as we do...and we only beat them by 2...at home...without even scoring a touchdown. Quit listening to the experts on tv. The NFC South has 3 teams that are 5-2...if anyone has a reason to complain it is them

[28rdsknsfn28]

I think that even happened with the old 3 division setup-

Pittsburg won divison at 8-8 and San Fran didn't get in at 10-6

Lets just add that if you are not ABOVE .500 your slot goes to the next best wildcard team.

[laurent]

I think the current setup is perfect. The only thing I would probably change though is to add another playoff spot and only have the top dog of the conference get a first round bye.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Doesn't the division champ get into the playoffs in the NBA and NHL too? I thought every division champ is guaranteed a spot...but I could be wrong.

I also think it's unfair to think of this as a negative. Granted in 2005 it will be a negative if the Detroit Lions win the North with a 7-9 record. However, we don't know what the winning record from our division will be. Good divisions can be won with bad records BECAUSE they are competitive. If everyone beats up on everyone else within a division, you could see a 9-7 team winning it. However, if a team like Seattle is 12-4 because they stomp the piss out of 3 weak teams all year, that could be misleading.

[Drex]

I think that even happened with the old 3 division setup-

Pittsburg won divison at 8-8 and San Fran didn't get in at 10-6

Lets just add that if you are not ABOVE .500 your slot goes to the next best wildcard team.

In 1989, both the Redskins and Green Bay missed the postseason with 10-6 records and in 1991, Philly and San Francisco also missed the postseason with 10-6 records.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think that even happened with the old 3 division setup-

Pittsburg won divison at 8-8 and San Fran didn't get in at 10-6

Lets just add that if you are not ABOVE .500 your slot goes to the next best wildcard team.

I don't like that at all. You don't think it's possible for 8-8 to represent a good season in a strong division? Compare the Giants finishing 8-8 this season (hypothetically) to the Seahawks finishing 10-6. Why should the next best wildcard team get in over NY?

[dcoles11]

I didn't say the NFC South didn't have a reason to complain. Any team that finishes with a better record than the winner of the NFC North and not make the postseason is going to be upset.

The Bears may be 4-3, but don't forget 3 of their wins come from beating teams in their own division, the Lions twice already.

Its a bad division where a majority of the wins that the Lions or Bears get are going to come from beating other sorry teams in that bad division.

But like was said earlier, thats just the breaks, you can't plan on what divisions are going to be good or bad.

Is it a reason to change everything up? No, probably not. But being a Redskin fan i'm going to be quite sick if they finish 1 or 2 games better than the NFC North winner and are not in the postseason. It's been a long time since we last saw the Skins in the postseason and I want it bad.

[dawgjk9]

I think that even happened with the old 3 division setup-

Pittsburg won divison at 8-8 and San Fran didn't get in at 10-6

Lets just add that if you are not ABOVE .500 your slot goes to the next best wildcard team.

that would make things really difficult and a huge stink would rise

[dcoles11]

Doesn't the division champ get into the playoffs in the NBA and NHL too? I thought every division champ is guaranteed a spot...but I could be wrong

I don't know if you were being sarcastic here but there is a pretty big difference. The NFL uses up 4 of 6 playoff spots with division winners. The NBA for a long time only used 2 of 8, I think they switched to 3 divisions this year. That is still only 3 of 8. Quite a difference.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't know if you were being sarcastic here but there is a pretty big difference. The NFL uses up 4 of 6 playoff spots with division winners. The NBA for a long time only used 2 of 8, I think they switched to 3 divisions this year. That is still only 3 of 8. Quite a difference.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic...but now I see your point. It's a ratio thing...

[dcoles11]

Would anyone mind if they added a 7th playoff spot?

It would keep games at the end of the year from being for nothing. Alot of years the playoff picture is made up after 15 games and everyone's last game really means nothing.

It will guard against situations where a 10-6 team dosent get in because they lose a tie breaker.

If you lose a tie breaker at 9-7 and don't make the playoffs, not that big of a deal but 10-6 is an awful good record in todays NFL to not make the playoffs.

[jrocrb96]

I like it better when there was 5 teams in a division. Can't really see any true separation from top to bottom.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Would anyone mind if they added a 7th playoff spot?

It would keep games at the end of the year from being for nothing. Alot of years the playoff picture is made up after 15 games and everyone's last game really means nothing.

It will guard against situations where a 10-6 team dosent get in because they lose a tie breaker.

If you lose a tie breaker at 9-7 and don't make the playoffs, not that big of a deal but 10-6 is an awful good record in todays NFL to not make the playoffs.

I don't know that I'd "mind" but I just don't think it's necessary. I see your points of course, but to me this debate can rage on like the college football one. If you add a 7th, a few years from now you'll have the 8th best team mad when they don't get in with a good record...

[jrocrb96]

I like it when the Cardinals were in the division so at least we had a team we could dominate.

[Drex]

Would anyone mind if they added a 7th playoff spot?

It would keep games at the end of the year from being for nothing. Alot of years the playoff picture is made up after 15 games and everyone's last game really means nothing.

It will guard against situations where a 10-6 team dosent get in because they lose a tie breaker.

If you lose a tie breaker at 9-7 and don't make the playoffs, not that big of a deal but 10-6 is an awful good record in todays NFL to not make the playoffs.

Just last year, the 2 NFC wild card teams, St.Louis and Minnesota, finished with 8-8 records.

These things run in cycles. Six playoff teams are just fine, IMO.

[dcoles11]

LOL I miss the Cardinals too.

I understand what you are saying about if we let the 7th team in then that just means the 8th place team will be the one to complain about not getting in. But I think once you get down to 8th place their record won't be good enough to complain about not being in the playoffs.

My main concern is 10-6 teams not getting in the playoffs which has happened and could very well happen this year.

[ouvan59]

I don't know if you were being sarcastic here but there is a pretty big difference. The NFL uses up 4 of 6 playoff spots with division winners. The NBA for a long time only used 2 of 8, I think they switched to 3 divisions this year. That is still only 3 of 8. Quite a difference.

The NFL (and all leagues for that matter) wants as many teams as possible still in the playoff hunt late into the season. Think about last year. We were still mathematically in the playoff hunt until 2 or 3 games left in the season. Didn't hear too many complaints on this board about the format then.

Personally, I don't mind the current playoff format. If you don't win your division you have no real *****. There are currently 2 wildcard spots in each conference so you would have to be the 3rd best team that didn't win your division to be left out.

[dcoles11]

I wouldn't mind if they stopped AFC vs NFC play during the season. If the Skins are in a playoff spot battle with the Panthers, Rams,...ect, I want to be playing them during the season, not the AFC West.

I'm a football fan, my favorite team is the Redskins by far, but I don't need to see the Redskins play the teams in AFC to get a taste of the AFC. I watch the other games, I watch the Patriots play the Colts and other AFC games.

I would really just rather see teams actually able to play head to head vs the teams they are battling with for the playoffs. It's too much score board watching with all these AFC for NFC games. "Well we are tied with Panthers for the 6th playoff spot, so if they lose to the Dolphins and we beat the Chargers were in." I just don't like that.

[freakinandpeakin]

Doesn't the division champ get into the playoffs in the NBA and NHL too? I thought every division champ is guaranteed a spot...but I could be wrong.

In the NHL division champs are guaranteed a top 3 spot in the playoffs. It has never been an issue about a division champ making the playoffs or not, but almost yearly one division champ gets seeded above a team with a better record.

There is some idle chatter that the NHL may go back to the 2 division per conference format, with the first two rounds of the playoffs being a divisional playoff format. With the conference finals being between the two divisional playoff champions and then the 2 conference champions playing for the Stanley Cup....In other words, it would be like the NFC East having their own playoffs and then playing the winner of a playoff series between the NFC West's two best teams.

[FBChick]

My main concern is 10-6 teams not getting in the playoffs which has happened and could very well happen this year.

But see that's the problem. When you simply look at records for play-off spots, you miss too much. A team with a record of 9-7 may very well be better then a team with a 10-6 record but had a worse record simply because the schedule they played was tougher.

No scenerio is ever going to be perfect, but this scenerio allows for each divisional opponent to play basically similar schedules and then pick the best out of that group. Then it allows for the anomoly that there may be a better team then one of the divisional winners by leaving the wild card spots. You play the wild card against the weakest divisonal winners in the conference to ensure you have the 4 best teams competing for the spot in the conference championship.

And comparing it to the NBA is a little silly. They play how many games a year? After that much time it's pretty obvious who the better teams are and records are going to speak from themselves. In the NFL, we hardly have enough games to even hit everyone in our own conference, let alone the whole league. What the NFL has is the best system in ensuring the best team from each Conference makes it to the Superbowl. Maybe it screws a team occasionall on the first round of the play-offs, but personally, if we place third in our division and don't make the play-offs with a 10-6 record... then no I won't cry. We never would have gotten past the first round, and play-offs are no fun if you don't feel like you have a shot at the big game!