carex Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 the broadcasters are all "does anyone want to win this division" but in fact even the worst team could finish winning the division with a winning record. Plus the fact they have two undefeated in the NFL and both play the NFC East this year. Imagine the SUper Bowl: "The NFL will have a new undefeated champion this year and the undefeated Panthers play the undefeated Patriots. To bad a quarter of their wins came at the expense of the suckass NFC East." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 AFC South is far worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskin4ever Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Last year it was the NFC South, where the Panthers play. A division winner under .500. A few years ago it was the NFC west. A division winner under .500. Every year you will have a weak division. The point is, these things are cyclical. Anyone who watches football knows that. Anyone who gets their opinions from the latest "hot topic" doesn't. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I thought this was going to have to do with finally moving Dallas out of the division and putting Carolina in it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Every year you will have a weak division. The problem is that there's too many divisions now, which is leading to now regular occurrences of .500 or below division winners not only making the playoffs, but also getting to host playoff games. I know the league is considering changing it so that division winners won't necessarily get to host the first-round game, but seems like they are not going to adopt this until they add one more team per conference into the playoffs, which is just going to make .500 teams getting in more regular. I know 32 divides by 8 nicely and makes things clean, but they've had divisions with uneven numbers before and made it work....I'm sure they could do the same today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carex Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 The problem is that there's too many divisions now, which is leading to now regular occurrences of .500 or below division winners not only making the playoffs, but also getting to host playoff games. I know the league is considering changing it so that division winners won't necessarily get to host the first-round game, but seems like they are not going to adopt this until they add one more team per conference into the playoffs, which is just going to make .500 teams getting in more regular. I know 32 divides by 8 nicely and makes things clean, but they've had divisions with uneven numbers before and made it work....I'm sure they could do the same today. the first 8 years of this set up the worst division winner was 9-7 which I'm pretty sure was enough for an occasional winner in the previous set up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 the first 8 years of this set up the worst division winner was 9-7 which I'm pretty sure was enough for an occasional winner in the previous set up Incorrect. 9-7 was the division winner for the first six years of the new setup, and was the worst division winning record in four of those years (other two were 10-6). However, this is what we've had as the worse division winners since: 8-8, 10-6, 7-9, 8-8, 10-6, 8-7-1, 7-8-1 In contrast, you did have a 9-7 division winner in 1999, but then have to go back to 1990 to find the last time it happened. My main beef is that there is no way teams with .500 or worse records should host a playoff game, let alone make the playoffs. It just really diminishes the value of the regular season. That's why, while I'm pleased with the Redskins progress so far, I can pretty much take-or-leave it with the playoff berth this season.....unless, of course, they finish with a winning record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Carex, didn't you pick the Redskins to go 12-4 and said they don't have a weakness on the roster LOL. Well at least they are playing for a tie at first place in the NFC East on Sunday, albeit with a losing record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carex Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 Carex, didn't you pick the Redskins to go 12-4 and said they don't have a weakness on the roster LOL. Well at least they are playing for a tie at first place in the NFC East on Sunday, albeit with a losing record. I would be surprised if I did, I've felt for years the Skins have about 8-8 talent and absolutely no luck. I might have said no weaknesses but for me that basically means no one starting for the Skins could be cut and not picked up by another team. I don't demand greatness as a minimum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I thought this was going to have to do with finally moving Dallas out of the division and putting Carolina in it lol I know the NFL set up the current divisions on many factors, including rivalries. Back when they unveiled this current version, I would not really have been upset if Dallass was no longer in our division. I was actually looking forward to it. If they went only with geography, this is how they should have been set up. NFCE- Was, Phi, NYG, Car NFCN- GB, Det, Min, Chi NFCS- TB, Atl, NO, St.L NFCW- SF, Sea, Ariz, Dall AFCE- NE, NYJ, Buff, Balt AFCN- Pitt, Cle, Cin, Indy AFCS- Ten, Hou, Jax, Mia AFCW- Oak, Den, KC, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I know the NFL set up the current divisions on many factors, including rivalries. Back when they unveiled this current version, I would not really have been upset if Dallass was no longer in our division. I was actually looking forward to it. Why were you looking forward to the Cowboys being out of the NFC East? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 AFC South is far worse Are they really? Both divisions have the same combined record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Why were you looking forward to the Cowboys being out of the NFC East? Cali, I don't want to speak for PJ, but I'm also one who is kind of "over" the traditional Cowboys-Skins rivalry. It was a fun thing when one or both teams were always legit Super Bowl contenders, but the past 20 years have been brutal (well, I guess the media always anoints the Cowboys as SB contenders lol). I do like the regional rivalries more, but I would prefer if we somehow transferred Baltimore from the AFC and played them twice a year. That could be a sick rivalry. Although one of the things that still makes the Cowboys rivalry relevant is the sheer number of bandwagon Cowboy fans who still live in the DC area.......always fun to smack talk them. Fun story though.......when they were setting up the conference divisions in the early 70s, they were having trouble figuring out how to align the NFC, so they put several options in a hat, and Pete Rozelle's secretary picked the winner. The one drawn was the only option that had Dallas in the NFC East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Wait until the playoffs arrive and the winner of a bad division makes it in and some potential wild card team everyone likes gets left out with a better record. Then they'll lose their minds again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Cali, I don't want to speak for PJ, but I'm also one who is kind of "over" the traditional Cowboys-Skins rivalry. It was a fun thing when one or both teams were always legit Super Bowl contenders, but the past 20 years have been brutal (well, I guess the media always anoints the Cowboys as SB contenders lol). I do like the regional rivalries more, but I would prefer if we somehow transferred Baltimore from the AFC and played them twice a year. That could be a sick rivalry. Although one of the things that still makes the Cowboys rivalry relevant is the sheer number of bandwagon Cowboy fans who still live in the DC area.......always fun to smack talk them. Fun story though.......when they were setting up the conference divisions in the early 70s, they were having trouble figuring out how to align the NFC, so they put several options in a hat, and Pete Rozelle's secretary picked the winner. The one drawn was the only option that had Dallas in the NFC East. For me, rivalries will always ebb and flow...no guarantee that we won't have 20 years of boring Ravens/Skins games, or that the Ravens will go into a slump for 10 years while the Skins rebound (finally lol). That's why I prefer sticking with the rivalries that already embedded themselves into the NFL consciousness, regardless of whether or not the games between them still hold the same importance. Might be a bit old school of me, but the tradition that exists in the NFL is still one of the things I love about the game at a time when that list of things I love about it seems to be dwindling by the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I really like the current division setups. Sure they could be a bit geographically better with a couple switches here and there. The only real problem I have is that the AFC south is completely awful and utterly meaningless to me. Every other division has a team or teams that I'll check out if they are playing a game but I don't give a crap about a single team or rivalry in that division. It's brutal. On topic, our division sucks this year and it hasn't been great in a long time. We are fortunate the Giants have stumbled in and won a couple SBs otherwise this division would get no respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Why were you looking forward to the Cowboys being out of the NFC East? The rivalry wasn't where it used to be. Players played for both teams and the intensity wasn't (still isn't) where it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
First Colony Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I know the NFL set up the current divisions on many factors, including rivalries. Back when they unveiled this current version, I would not really have been upset if Dallass was no longer in our division. I was actually looking forward to it. If they went only with geography, this is how they should have been set up. NFCE- Was, Phi, NYG, Car NFCN- GB, Det, Min, Chi NFCS- TB, Atl, NO, St.L NFCW- SF, Sea, Ariz, Dall How does only going with geography as you say above, put St. Louis in the NFC South? If anything, Dallas should be in the South. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carex Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 The rivalry wasn't where it used to be. Players played for both teams and the intensity wasn't (still isn't) where it used to be. that happened in the old days, Eddie Lebaron, Calvin Hill,Duane Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderDOOM Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 NFCE- Was, Phi, NYG, Car NFCN- GB, Det, Min, Chi NFCS- TB, Atl, NO, St.L NFCW- SF, Sea, Ariz, Dall AFCE- NE, NYJ, Buff, Balt AFCN- Pitt, Cle, Cin, Indy AFCS- Ten, Hou, Jax, Mia AFCW- Oak, Den, KC, SD makes sense cept Hou not being in west like Dallas and Kc not being in South like St. L. You could really go either way but it should just be consistent in both conferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 How does only going with geography as you say above, put St. Louis in the NFC South? If anything, Dallas should be in the South. Dallass is further west. that happened in the old days, Eddie Lebaron, Calvin Hill,Duane Thomas True. But not as much as they didn't have true free agency. makes sense cept Hou not being in west like Dallas and Kc not being in South like St. L. You could really go either way but it should just be consistent in both conferences. Yeah, KC and Houston could be switched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 I feel the same way about the division format in football as I do about the division format in baseball: get rid of it and have the best eight teams, by record, compete in a playoff (sort of like what happened during the '82 strike season). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 I feel the same way about the division format in football as I do about the division format in baseball: get rid of it and have the best eight teams, by record, compete in a playoff (sort of like what happened during the '82 strike season). The top eight in the whole league or the top eight in each conference? They let in 16 teams in '82 mainly because the season had been so screwed up by the strike. Twelve teams is just about right, although I wish somehow we could go back to three divisions per conference. Unfortunately, sooner or later they are going to go to 14 teams, with the only good occurring will be a division winner with an inferior record won't get an automatic home game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 The top eight in the whole league or the top eight in each conference? They let in 16 teams in '82 mainly because the season had been so screwed up by the strike. Twelve teams is just about right, although I wish somehow we could go back to three divisions per conference. Unfortunately, sooner or later they are going to go to 14 teams, with the only good occurring will be a division winner with an inferior record won't get an automatic home game. Best eight by conference (or league in baseball's case), though now that I think about it, maybe best six would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I feel the same way about the division format in football as I do about the division format in baseball: get rid of it and have the best eight teams, by record, compete in a playoff (sort of like what happened during the '82 strike season). It wouldn't look much different than it does now, though... Top 8 teams in the NFC right now: Panthers Cardinals Vikings Packers Seahawks Falcons Redskins Bucs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.