| 
Posted Dec 19, 2002 by Bright Blue Shorts
*Topic of the Week*
Has the divisional realignment been successful?
In the NFC all the divisions have been won and it's only week 15. Nine teams have been eliminated. Over in the AFC none of the titles have been decided and only two teams eliminated.
Was it a good move? Have the schedules been weakened? Will good teams that would have been wild-cards miss out on the playoffs due to a weaker divisional champion?
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Dec 19, 2002 by Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit
Divisional realignment is stupid. It takes away one merit-based playoff birth and gives it to the winner of a weak division. Mark my words... one team every year will miss the playoffs that deserved to go. This year, that team will be in the AFC, either East or West, to be replaced by the undeserving North champion.
If they really wanted to reorganize sensibly, they should have put everyone into 4 divisions, 2 in each conference. The division champions get the first-round bye, and the next 4 teams per conference play in the wild-card round.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 19, 2002 by Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like
I have no particular qualms with realignment, i have to say, albeit that it did the Seahawks no favours at all.
The Playoff formula sucks, though, and I can see that Blathers has a point about deserving teams not going - though again, as the Seahawks remain (insofar as I am aware) the only 10-6 team to have not qualified for a play-off berth (in '86), nothing much seems to have changed there either. 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 19, 2002 by Bright Blue Shorts
But is having 2 conferences fair? Currently the Giants have as good a record as most of the teams in the AFC, and would be challenging for a division title if they were in it.
Isn't the only 'fair' system a single league, where everybody plays everybody else at least once, preferably home & away. Can't really see the NFL setting up a 62-game season though ...
Should perhaps only the division winners make the playoffs? Is there a need for wild-card teams any more?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 19, 2002 by Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like
Yes, wild cards add much needed romance to the system, I think - after all, those three wild card teams to have one are, and always will be remembered.
16 weeks plus the playoffs is realistic given the physical punishment players are expected to take - longer and the average playing life of a player would be miniscule, I'd think.
Also, it can't come as a surprise what has happened in the NFC - Green Bay and Tampa were shoo-ins for the central before re-alignment, so nothing has changed there - it looks worse than it is because the NFC North(?)has three franchises in crisis. The NFC West was always going to come down to SF or St Louis, the east to the Eagles or the Giants.
This type of thing is hardly unprecendented in the NFl.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 19, 2002 by FiedlersFizzle
I tend to agree with Sharkey Deserving teams missing the playoffs is not unprecedented... How about 1985 when the 8-8 Browns won their division whilst the 11-5 Broncos missed out altogether. Then there's the 1979 Rams winning their division, although granted they did make the SB that year!!
Unless there is a complete overhaul of the system that amounts to more than a minor re-alignment, this kind of thing will always happen. Adds importance to winning your division which is as it should be, I think
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 19, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
I think it's okay unless you want to expand the playoffs to 8 teams per conference. It'd be a great hook for TV viewers, but might allow mediocre teams into the hunt year in and year out. Then again, the World cup playoff system works like that and they don't seem to have too many problems. *Shrug*
P.S. I'm referring to the tournament itself, not qualifying.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 19, 2002 by Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit
It's not that undeserving teams getting in is unprecedented (remembers a year when the 8-8 Jets got a wild card spot ahead of the 8-8 Dolphins), it's just that it will become much more common now.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 20, 2002 by Bright Blue Shorts
I just wonder if the wild-cards are really necessary to be there? After all there've only ever been 3 WC Superbowl winners and among these the Raiders were tied for the AFC West lead with San Diego until it got down to something like best net scoring, so realistically they were as good as a divisional champ ...
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 20, 2002 by Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit
I think they are necessary. Without them, the last few weeks of the season would be absolutely dull. It's nice to see my team in the playoffs even when they don't win their division. Just making the playoffs is an accomplishment.
Besides, the NFL still only sends 12 teams out of 32 to the playoffs. Compare that to 16 out of 30(?) for NBA and NHL.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 20, 2002 by Bright Blue Shorts
What you're saying then, Blathers, is that football should be about entertainment ... It doesn't necessarily matter if the best (as in able to play to the rules most effectively) team doesn't win as long as audiences are entertained for every week of the season?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 20, 2002 by Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like
If there's no audience to watch, then being the best is pretty meaningless...Just ask the world Tiddlywinks Champion.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 20, 2002 by Bright Blue Shorts
No audience. Not really worth playing? Why then are there hundreds of sports teams all over England competing at weekends to an audience of one man and his dog?
As for your comments about the World Tiddlywinks champion, I passed this onto my mate Global Village Idiot. He'll have some strong words to say to you (when he eventually logs on again) given his high status in the game ...
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 20, 2002 by Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like
I was being flippant, you know...
But the root of the thing is the same. The NFL is no longer simply about Football - it's a multi billion dollar business concern that is, at least partly, responsible for an *enormous* broadcasting output.
Entertainment is their business, at least as much as sport. That's why we hve a salry cap, and free agency. Do we really want to return to those dark days of the eighties where the 49ers or the Cowboys just rolled into and out of an entire decades worth of superbowls with no credible opposition in sight? I think not. Even the SF and Dallas fans of my aquaintance were bored with it by the end of the decade.
It's NO FUN to watch. It lacked ENTERTAINMENT value.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 20, 2002 by Bright Blue Shorts
It's remarkable really. All through the 1980s the NFL refused to give its players free agency siting that it would lead to a single team dominating and destroy the spirit of equality and parity.
This was backed up by the lack of a dynasty between the Steelers of 79/80 and 49ers of 89/90.
Eventually they get around to giving the players free agency and it hasn't made that much of a difference in terms of teams dominating etc. You have different teams going to the Superbowl, but then you have Packers/Broncos/Rams all making back-to-back or so.
I wouldn't be bored watching the Raiders win the next 10 Superbowls ... in fact I'd quite enjoy it (but it ain't going to happen, except at night time).
BBS
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 20, 2002 by Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like
Free agency was only ever going to work in conjunction with a salary cap, which was something the League were very shy of.
Realistically, yes, good teams have remained good teams. Those teams that have failed to compete for some time have had problems in creating a winning ethos. Look how long it has taken Holmgren to turn the 'Hawks round to a franchise were the players actually believe they can win - Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Arizona are going to take longer. The Bengals may be a lost cause as, like Kitna says, the managenment don't appear to be interested in winning. Look how quickly the 49ers have been able to rejuvenate their team, and to a lesser extent, the Cowboys as well.
But the league is approaching something like parity, as is proved by the AFC this year. Whether a 13-3 Packers side is better than a 10-6 Dolphins team under the circumstances of the competition they have faced this year is something that remains to be seen...
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 21, 2002 by Demon Drawer
I agree with Blueshark about the lack of entertainment in the 80's the only game I really looked forward to as a Dallas fan was meeting the 49ers. Although then the NFC was the toughest division we did generate 4 different Superbowl winners in one decade which no other division has ever done. Those same four are still in one divsion so although many of them are struggling at presnet re-alignment has not made teh NFC East an easy division the rivalry there's make each match a crunch match.
I've lost my train of thought but I reckon you know what I mean.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 22, 2002 by Bright Blue Shorts
"NFC was the toughest division we did generate 4 different Superbowl winners in one decade" huh? Are we talking conferences or NFC east? If so which 4 teams won the Superbowl?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 23, 2002 by Demon Drawer
Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys and Giants all in the sapce of one 10 year period
|
| | |
| |
Posted Dec 23, 2002 by FiedlersFizzle
 ... when did the Eagles win a SB?
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Reply
