So division games are special because they're good and rare... but if you add more teams to a division then they lose rareness of them...

6 division games a year to 14? That seems like seriously over kill... and the games aren't as important because of 6 important games, you now have the whole season, instead of certain games that are more important that others.


And the NFL likes NFC/AFC matches as people get to see teams they normally don't and fans that don't live near their team, and maybe live near a team in the other conference can go see them.


If they're going to stick with 32 teams then I say stick with the 4 team in 4 divisions for each conference.

Though IF they ever went to 36 teams then maybe a 6 teams in 3 divisions each conference.

Zero2Cool;277205Three games? What???


Poor wording on my part.
I should have said from BOTH divisions from the OTHER conference to be smudge clearly than mud. :)

Under this format, you wouldn't play the other division opponents in your conference outside of the playoffs. Kind of a bummer.

Hmm, okay, so the remaining two games are against two times from the other division in your conference. There we go, bummer problem solved!!

OK, that adds up to 16 games. But it's even worse - the 8 other teams from our own conference, like you said, we would NEVER play them other than playoffs.

I say leave well enough alone.

texaspackerbacker;277258OK, that adds up to 16 games. But it's even worse - the 8 other teams from our own conference, like you said, we would NEVER play them other than playoffs.

I say leave well enough alone.

You wouldn't play the opposite conference I said.
You would play two teams every year against the other division within your conference.


Another improvement then.

Dismantle the Jaguars and the Redskins. Bringing the teams down to 30 and 15 in each.

Three divisions, five teams per division.
This also gives teams 106 more NFL players to spread around, making each roster a little better and making the games a little better too.

Also fixes the whole Redskins name thing too.

Zero2Cool;277265You wouldn't play the opposite conference I said.
You would play two teams every year against the other division within your conference.


Another improvement then.

Dismantle the Jaguars and the Redskins. Bringing the teams down to 30 and 15 in each.

Three divisions, five teams per division.
This also gives teams 106 more NFL players to spread around, making each roster a little better and making the games a little better too.

Also fixes the whole Redskins name thing too.

Why the Redskins?
I can understand the Jaguars but the Redskins have one of the most loyal fan bases and longest histories in the NFL.
I'm sure you are just tossing out ideas but I seriously doubt the NFL would ever consider contraction with wanting a team in LA and London.
I just hope that if the ever do move into these markets it is with a team moving and not expansion.
We do not need more teams.

Personally I have no issues whatsoever with the current alignment and I see no need to change.
That said I wouldn't have an issue with 30 teams and three 5 team divisions either but it will never happen.

Hard to believe I am saying this but I agree with Tex on this.
The current format works really well.


As far as the whole AFC/NFC thing I think at this point it has as much to do with the ease of determining TV rights as anything.
Thus each basic network package features games across all time zones.
I believe someday that may change if the NFL takes over all the broadcasts on its own network(s) and does away with the contracts, but that's a whole other discussion.

Zero2Cool;277265You wouldn't play the opposite conference I said.
You would play two teams every year against the other division within your conference.


Another improvement then.

Dismantle the Jaguars and the Redskins. Bringing the teams down to 30 and 15 in each.

Three divisions, five teams per division.
This also gives teams 106 more NFL players to spread around, making each roster a little better and making the games a little better too.

Also fixes the whole Redskins name thing too.

You're just FULL of good ideas hahahaha - or at least FULL of something.

I guess I misunderstood you - again. I thought you meant the 15th and 16th games would be one each against the divisions of the other conference. Assuming I got it right what you're saying this time, we would play 2 teams from the rest of the NFC, and NEVER against the whole AFC? That, to me, is NOT a good idea on several levels.

You want something radical? How about expanding to 36 teams - 6 X 6 team divisions - either retaining or not retaining the NFC and AFC designations. Ten games would be taken up within the division; Then play 2 games against 3 of the 5 other divisions on a rotating basis - or if you keep the current conferences, 2 each against the other divisions with your conference and 2 against 1 or the 3 divisions from
the other conference.

I really don't like the idea of a team in London. L.A. would certainly be one expansion team; San Antonio would be probably the top other candidate; I'm having a hard time thinking of two others, though.

Realignment > Reseeding

First off, this will never happen, as the NFL wants to make sure all teams rotate everywhere some.

But what makes more sense to me, with the idea of going to 18 games, is that you play your 3 division rivals twice (6 games), and you play all the other teams in your conference once (12 games). For a total of 18 games.

Again, not going to happen, as they want to keep the NFC/AFC to be a thing.

------------------------------------------------------

As for the 8 team divisions, that seems a bit big to me, and if you play them twice would be 14 of the 17 or 18 games. I think playing every team in your own conference once (15 games) would make more sense.

------------------------------------------------------

As for idea that they actually might do...

I think Division Champion should actually mean something, and some years teams get a cupcake schedule and they shouldn't nessarily be rewarded for that.

Like one division has to play the tough AFC North vs the usually weak AFC South.

But it also shouldn't nessarily be automatically...

So maybe something like ONE of the following,

* Division winners are only guaranteed a top 4 seed and home playoff game IF they win 10 games... if they don't win 10 games, then they're only guaranteed a playoff game that might be on the road.

* A scoring system, where Wins equal one point, Ties are 0.5 points and Division winners get 2.5 points or whatever amount of points. Therefore non-division-winners with 3 more wins than division winners, can be seeded before division winners.


So winning the division means something, but a better record can also overcome a division winner with a poor record.