Early 1970s playoff seeding

[hail2skins]

For the old timers......

 

Kevin Sheehan (co-host of Sports Fix on 980 from 12-2 pm) has a recent blog entry (May 24th) that I found interesting regarding how the NFL did playoff seeding in the early 70s, and matchups that could've been.  Never realized that if the Cowboys hadn't made a wild comeback against the 49ers in the 1972 playoffs, the Redskins would've had to go to San Francisco for the NFCCG. 

 

http://espn980.com/blogs/kevin.php

[pjfootballer]

I'm not quite old enough to remember watching it (almost), but I do remember seeing the highlights and box scores and going "WTH?" It was a weird time with the merger and all.  And do people realize that when the merger between the AFL and NFL occured, there were 5 separate plans on how to divide the divisions up and it was literally pulled out of a hat.  And many don't realize that Seattle was in the NFC West their first season and Tampa Bay was in the AFC West their first season.  Then Seattle went to the AFC West, while Tampa Bay was put in the NFC Central.

[hail2skins]

I'm not quite old enough to remember watching it (almost), but I do remember seeing the highlights and box scores and going "WTH?" It was a weird time with the merger and all.  And do people realize that when the merger between the AFL and NFL occured, there were 5 separate plans on how to divide the divisions up and it was literally pulled out of a hat.  And many don't realize that Seattle was in the NFC West their first season and Tampa Bay was in the AFC West their first season.  Then Seattle went to the AFC West, while Tampa Bay was put in the NFC Central.

I heard that creating the AFC divisions was relatively easy, but creating the NFC ones was more difficult, and as you said, Pete Rozelle's secretary pulled it from a hat, and apparently the secretary pulled the only option that had Dallas in the NFC East.

 

Speaking of Tampa, remember the Skins played them twice in '94 (Norv's first year)?  Ugh!

[mike42]

Interesting read. The playoff system is still broken.

 

We see 12-4 teams play away games against a 7-9 team or 8-8 teams make the postseason and 10-6 teams do not. Need to axe these divisions.

[pjfootballer]

I heard that creating the AFC divisions was relatively easy, but creating the NFC ones was more difficult, and as you said, Pete Rozelle's secretary pulled it from a hat, and apparently the secretary pulled the only option that had Dallas in the NFC East.

 

Speaking of Tampa, remember the Skins played them twice in '94 (Norv's first year)?  Ugh!

 

Yes, it was the only plan with Dallass in the NFC East. 

 

That was a quirk in the makeup of the 5-5-4 divisions.  In a 5 team division you'd play 8 divisional games, the top 4 teams would play 4 in the AFC and 4 against the other two divisions in the NFC. All of the 5th place teams would play each other and the two 5th place teams in the same conference would play each other twice. So, the 5th place schedule would be, 8 division games, 2 against the other 5th place team in your conference, 2 against the other 5th place teams in the opposite conference and 4 against the division in your conference with only 4 teams.

 

So, if the Redskins finished in 5th place as would the Bucs, Colts and Chargers, the Redskins would have the following opponents:

 

Dalllas (2)

NYG (2)

Philly (2)

Arizona (2)

Tampa Bay (2)

Indianapolis (1)

San Diego (1)

Atlanta (1)

San Francisco (1)

New Orleans (1)

LA Rams (1)

 

It was set up that way because the AFC Central and NFC West only played 6 divisional games.  They had to make up 2 games, so they played the 5th place teams in their conference once.

 

It was weird.

[88Comrade2000]

Interesting read. The playoff system is still broken.

 

We see 12-4 teams play away games against a 7-9 team or 8-8 teams make the postseason and 10-6 teams do not. Need to axe these divisions.

When the NFL exapnds to a 14 team playoff; they will be altering some of that.  You still have a division winner with a 7-9 or 8-8 record in the playoffs but they might not host a game anymore. Also, with one extra playoff slots that will solve some of the 10-6/11-5 teams missing the playoffs.  Though it could also make it easier for more than one 7-9 team to make it into the playoffs; if a conference is having a down year.

I'm not quite old enough to remember watching it (almost), but I do remember seeing the highlights and box scores and going "WTH?" It was a weird time with the merger and all.  And do people realize that when the merger between the AFL and NFL occured, there were 5 separate plans on how to divide the divisions up and it was literally pulled out of a hat.  And many don't realize that Seattle was in the NFC West their first season and Tampa Bay was in the AFC West their first season.  Then Seattle went to the AFC West, while Tampa Bay was put in the NFC Central.

I remember either Pro Athlon or Lindy's or when there was a Street and Smith had a great article on that.  They published all the different realignment plans. I think Minnesota was in most of the plans to be an NFC EAST team.

[mike42]

When the NFL exapnds to a 14 team playoff; they will be altering some of that.  You still have a division winner with a 7-9 or 8-8 record in the playoffs but they might not host a game anymore. Also, with one extra playoff slots that will solve some of the 10-6/11-5 teams missing the playoffs.  Though it could also make it easier for more than one 7-9 team to make it into the playoffs; if a conference is having a down year.

It will help, but will not fix the system. If a 14-team system was used last year, 49ers would be left out, even though they have a better record than every team in the NFC South.

[Larry]

I'm opposed to expanding the playoffs.

Because adding one more team (per conference) to the brackets, means only one team gets a bye.

Just my opinion, but those two byes are the reason why teams who are, say, 9-6 with one week to go, play their last game hard. That bye is worth a heck of a lot.

 

IMO, you get rid of one of the byes, you see more teams who've clinched the playoffs taking things easier, the last week. 

 

----------

 

However, no doubt what the NFL sees is the money from two more playoff games. 

[ILikeBilly]

Interesting read. The playoff system is still broken.

 

We see 12-4 teams play away games against a 7-9 team or 8-8 teams make the postseason and 10-6 teams do not. Need to axe these divisions.

then we should stop playing any teams twice in 1 year.   So, there will be years when we don't play the eagles, giants or cowgirls.  No team would ever play a team 3 times in a season.  At the most, you would play a team in the regular season and again in the playoffs.

 

This would certainly hurt long-standing rivalries, might hurt attendance and might hurt teams like the colts and pats that play in historically weak divisions.

[88Comrade2000]

And do people realize that when the merger between the AFL and NFL occured, there were 5 separate plans on how to divide the divisions up and it was literally pulled out of a hat. 

 

I found the 5 plans at wikeapedia.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_Conference

 

I don't know why the other 4 plans all had Minnesota in the EAST.

 

Plan 1 would've been alright.  Yeah, we would've never played Dallas twice a year. I still think, we would've had some sort of rivalry with them. Maybe the Skins and Boys would've been meeting in the playoffs every year and have a rivalrly like the Boys-Niners did in early 80's and through the 90's.  The Pats-Colts did after the 2002 realignment.

[hail2skins]

I think Minnesota is the team we've played the most in the playoffs since the merger......five times (73, 76, 82, 87, 92).

[pjfootballer]

Plan 1 was the closest to what should have been done, although I'd put Minnesota in the central and rolled with 4 in the NFCE.

[88Comrade2000]

Plan 1 was the closest to what should have been done, although I'd put Minnesota in the central and rolled with 4 in the NFCE.

Yep.  Then when they expanded in 1995; Jacksonville would've been in the NFC East and Carolina in the AFC Central.

 

I do think there will be a slight realignment after the LA thing shakes out. I would like to see inter-conference rival game made permanent.  Ie Skins - Ravens.   You can still do that with the current 16 schedule. Instead of playing an AFC Division every 4 years; you would play the interconference rivalry for 1 game and then rotate the other 15 teams over 5 years.

 

Say you play:  The Ravens, Chargers, Colts, Bills in 2015.  You would play the Ravens every year but it would be 2020; before you played the Chargers,Colts,Bills again. You would alternate where you play them every 5 years. 

 

 

Another solution, would be to expand to 17 games.  Since, the idiot NFL wants to have overseas games; then expand the season by 1 game.  That's 17th game would be at a neutral site.  To get that 17th game; you would have to give and take with the players union.

 

I think you would need to have 2 byes for one thing.  The players may demand a change in free agency. Instead of free agency after 4 years; they would get it after 3 years.  Maybe a few other things.

[pjfootballer]

Yep.  Then when they expanded in 1995; Jacksonville would've been in the NFC East and Carolina in the AFC Central.

 

I do think there will be a slight realignment after the LA thing shakes out. I would like to see inter-conference rival game made permanent.  Ie Skins - Ravens.   You can still do that with the current 16 schedule. Instead of playing an AFC Division every 4 years; you would play the interconference rivalry for 1 game and then rotate the other 15 teams over 5 years.

 

Say you play:  The Ravens, Chargers, Colts, Bills in 2015.  You would play the Ravens every year but it would be 2020; before you played the Chargers,Colts,Bills again. You would alternate where you play them every 5 years. 

 

 

Another solution, would be to expand to 17 games.  Since, the idiot NFL wants to have overseas games; then expand the season by 1 game.  That's 17th game would be at a neutral site.  To get that 17th game; you would have to give and take with the players union.

 

I think you would need to have 2 byes for one thing.  The players may demand a change in free agency. Instead of free agency after 4 years; they would get it after 3 years.  Maybe a few other things.

 

I'm not sure Jacksonville would have been in the NFC East.  It would have been Wash, NYG, Philly and Atlanta.  I think Carolina (Charlotte) is closer to all the others. I live just outside of Charlotte across the border in SC and it's about a 3 1/2 hour drive from here to Atlanta.

 

If the Rams go back to LA, there is no reason to move anyone.  They'd fit in where they are with SF, Sea and Ariz.

 

I think there has been slight talk about rivalry games, but most interconference teams really aren't rivals.  I mean, geographically yes, but not as far as year in and year out. I'd hate having 17 games. Odd numbers of games don't work in sports.

[88Comrade2000]

I'm not sure Jacksonville would have been in the NFC East.  It would have been Wash, NYG, Philly and Atlanta.  I think Carolina (Charlotte) is closer to all the others. I live just outside of Charlotte across the border in SC and it's about a 3 1/2 hour drive from here to Atlanta.

 

If the Rams go back to LA, there is no reason to move anyone.  They'd fit in where they are with SF, Sea and Ariz.

 

I think there has been slight talk about rivalry games, but most interconference teams really aren't rivals.  I mean, geographically yes, but not as far as year in and year out. I'd hate having 17 games. Odd numbers of games don't work in sports.

 

I think it's a lock the Rams and Chargers end up in L.A. Leaving out the poor Raiders. Despite what Davis says now; I think he would look to San Antonio or if St. Louis has a decent plan.   Well, as for interconference rival; you can do it within 16 game structure; which I mentioned first. Only change, would be the other 15 teams would be played every 5 years instead of every 4 years now.  I mentioned 17 games over a 19 week season because the NFL is insisting on teams going overseas. Eventually, it will mandatory for every team in the league.  I don't think it is fair to take away a home game from a team.  That's not fair to the team and the fans that support them. Also, not fair to the taxpayers who foot the bill for most of the stadiums.  So, having that 17th game at a neutral site solves the NFL greed problem of wanting games overseas.  Concessions would be made in order for that to happen.

 

If I were the players union, I would allow a 17th neutral site game under these conditions:

 

1.  There has to be 2 byes a year.

2.  Free agency has to be reduced to 3 years instead of 4.

3.  I'd ask but it won't be granted; a neutral party handle player appeals.

 

With a 17th game, it would actually, make tiebreaking easier.  Or will it??   I am only proposing a 17th game because of the NFL's desire to have more regular season games played overseas.

[mike42]

then we should stop playing any teams twice in 1 year.   So, there will be years when we don't play the eagles, giants or cowgirls.  No team would ever play a team 3 times in a season.  At the most, you would play a team in the regular season and again in the playoffs.

 

This would certainly hurt long-standing rivalries, might hurt attendance and might hurt teams like the colts and pats that play in historically weak divisions.

As a Redskin fan it would suck because I love rivalries in the nfc east because it is the most popular division in the NFL. But for the fairness of the game, it would make sense to play 16 different teams and the next season play the other 16 teams. (assuming the league expands to 33 teams) It would help the league as a whole.

 

It should increase attendance, especially for unpopular franchises who play in snooze divisions. Does Atlanta fans honestly get pumped up when they play Tampa, Carolina or Saints?

[88Comrade2000]

As a Redskin fan it would suck because I love rivalries in the nfc east because it is the most popular division in the NFL. But for the fairness of the game, it would make sense to play 16 different teams and the next season play the other 16 teams. (assuming the league expands to 33 teams) It would help the league as a whole.

 

It should increase attendance, especially for unpopular franchises who play in snooze divisions. Does Atlanta fans honestly get pumped up when they play Tampa, Carolina or Saints?

Atlanta and New Orleans have a good rivalry.

 

33 teams?  Where do get that?

 

All that is going on in San Diego is for show. The politicians and the team will appear like they will try to get it done.  I read that now, they are proposing a vote for December 15th for a new stadium. If that happens, it will be a no vote. San Diego will be heading to L.A. in 2016 or 2017.  The Rams will have to wait and see what happens with the St. Louis plan. I hear taxpayers are already challenging that. I think ultimately, the Rams will leave for L.A.  Maybe as soon as 2016, but definitely by 2017.

 

I think the Raiders will end up being the odd team out. Mark Davis will then look to St. Louis if that plan is viable or San Antonio. 

IF the NFL puts a team overseas; it will be the Jaguars.  I don't see any further expansion

[pjfootballer]

I heard SD and the city are talking, so I think the Chargers are using LA as a bargaining chip. I think they stay in SD. I think the Raiders go to LA before the Chargers, but I think like you said, the Rams are a lock as their owner is helping consult on the construction of the Hollywood Park stadium.

[ILikeBilly]

I heard SD and the city are talking, so I think the Chargers are using LA as a bargaining chip. I think they stay in SD. I think the Raiders go to LA before the Chargers, but I think like you said, the Rams are a lock as their owner is helping consult on the construction of the Hollywood Park stadium.

The nice thing, in my opinion, is that the current talks have the new stadium being built where the current stadium resides.  It is a great location with highways leading into the stadium from north, south, east and west.  There is also a train (like the metro) that stops in the parking lot.  Continuing to use this plot of land is, again in my opinion, a no-brainer.  There are other reasons that I won't go in to, but I sure hope they can pull this off. 

 

I am teaching my kids to be Redskin fans, but it is nice to have a local team too.

[balki1867]

A couple of thoughts:

 

I've read a story that one of the major stumbling points in the merger was that nobody wanted the Vikings or Cowboys in their division because they were seen as up and coming powerhouses.  Teams were actively lobbying to all get moved into "friendly" divisional alignments that involved not being the same division as the Vikings and Cowboys.  I think the 'hat strategy' was the compromise chosen to address that issue.

 

I agree that the playoffs are still screwed up.  My ideal situation (which will never happen) is that you have 4 8-team divisions, and then take the top 3 in each division for the playoffs.  I know the scheduling would get weird but I think it'd be more like college 10+ years ago (pre mega conferences), when you play everyone once a season, and rotate sites yearly, and you can create all kinds of new rivalries.  Maybe you pay homage to the old alignments but having one repeat matchup against your old division rivals (so the Redskins would play everyone in the new division once for 7 total games, and then rematch Philly/NY/Dallas for a second game-- that gives you a nice round number of 8 divisional games a season).

 

That second idea also makes it near impossible for a really bad team to make the playoffs.  It's possible for all 4 teams in a division to tank, but having everyone in an 8-team division be that bad is far less likely (and it'll also get masked by the 8 divisional games instead of 6).

[pjfootballer]

^^interesting. Hadn't heard that. Do you have an article on that. I'd love to read it.

[balki1867]

^^interesting. Hadn't heard that. Do you have an article on that. I'd love to read it.

 

Apparently I read this on Wikipedia and they didn't cite another source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL–NFL_merger#The_merger_agreement

 

There was some reality to it though: Either the Cowboys or Vikings represented the NFC in 8 of the first 9 Super Bowls after the merger (SB V to SB XIII).  The Redskins in Super Bowl VII were the only exception to that.

[pjfootballer]

Apparently I read this on Wikipedia and they didn't cite another source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL–NFL_merger#The_merger_agreement

 

There was some reality to it though: Either the Cowboys or Vikings represented the NFC in 8 of the first 9 Super Bowls after the merger (SB V to SB XIII).  The Redskins in Super Bowl VII were the only exception to that.

 

Plan 1 was the logical plan for realignment based on geography, but I would have kept the NFC East with 4 teams and shipped Minnesota to the NFC Central.