Another effect of the unfairness of NFL divisions and playoff eligibility, which I wrote about yesterday, is to expose the double standard that the sports media applies to the NFL as opposed to other sports.
College football uses a system that is broken to determine its national champion. The entire sports media gets all up in arms every year at this time to go out if their way to tell the public just how messed up the system is. But not a single critical word is uttered in the national media regarding how unfair the NFL divisional format is. In fact, on today's episode of The Sports Reporters, Howard Bryant's parting shot was an attempt to justify the NFL's misguided playoff eligibility. After stating in an earlier segment that "a monkey playing cymbals can make the playoffs in the NFL once every five years. The rules are set up to do this," Bryant argued that the 11-5 Patriots had no right to complain about not making the playoffs because they had a weak schedule and had only defeated one playoff team. Hello Mr. Bryant, the 8-8 Chargers beat zero playoff teams during the regular season!
This just goes to show that while members of the media are quick to ridicule various aspects of sports, the NFL is treated as some sort of sacred cow that gets a free pass from the media. Steroids in baseball? Outrage is cried by the media. Players are stained for life by the media. Steroids in the NFL? The media reports it then ignores it. When is the media going to wake up from its love affair with the NFL to see that it has just as many flaws as other sports.
Podcast RSS Feed
When the media members are speaking on networks that haven't offered up their souls to air NFL games.
I agree with Bryant, however, even though HIS reasoning is lame. Divisions are there to reduce travel, and promote rivalries. I have no problem with them, especially since teams are helped AND hindered equally as time goes on by the format. So, the Pats got hosed this year; I'm sure there was a year in the last 5-6 where they got in and a team with a better record stayed home.
I didn't catch the Sports Reporters, but it goes beyond reducing travel and promoting rivalries. It's about money.
As I recall, it was about an even and balanced schedule as the NFL moved to a new division alignment. This also brought Seattle, an AFC team, into the NFC to balance the conferences and divisions.
The rules committee also voted and passed a rule to expand the playoffs to six teams. There were more games to cover and more money to earn. Just as the NFL is looking to reduce pre-season games and possibly expand the regular season by a game or two.
A four division alignment over time weakens a conference as a whole. The NHL was a trend setter in watering down a league. Over time it's possible that a weak division winner receives an automatic berth and home ice advantage over a wild card team with a better record. It doesn't necessarily mean that the division winner displaced a truly better team from the playoffs all though at some point it is a possibility (eight teams from each conference make the playoffs in the NHL.)
Better competition occurs in a two or three division alignment through a more rigorous division schedule. The better teams are more easily identified through their record and rewarded with a division or wild card berth.
Bob, it sounds like you're asking and answering the following question. Do you sacrafice a little integrity from the game with a four division alignment and only two wild card teams entering the playoffs for money as the current rules stand? The answer appears to be yes from your article.
The other issue you raise pertains to the media's coverage of the issue. Then again how many in the media were looking at the possibility of such an issue when the rules were created? Just like most everyone else, probably very few thought this far out until the event itself occured. It sounds eerily familar to MLB with Selig always getting caught with strange loopholes in the rules. Then a change is made.
How much of an outcry remains to be seen when there's so much to be gained from four division two wild card team format as opposed to a five playoff team format. There's more games to cover and more of a possibility that your home team can make the playoffs. Oh, and there's the additional game played in each conference due to six teams in the playoffs instead of five. More games equal more revenue. Games aren't played to lose money.
Changing the rules to allow a wild card team to displace division winner with a worse record challenges the fabric of a four division format. To your point then it would seem more logical to move back to three division winners, but continue to use a six playoff team format.
Divisions may be unnecessary, but I think football would be less interesting and exciting in a divisionless format. Divisional games have added importance. Your team has more direct control over the playoff chances of its divisional rivals. If you sweep a team you've dealt them a serious blow to their chances of winning the division. Divisional and conference titles also give the players concrete goals to work towards in the process of trying to get to, and win, the Superbowl. A system based purely on seeding numbers would be too abstract, less interesting, and less fun.
People got more outraged about steroid use in baseball vs. football because, until very recently, the MLB testing program and penalties were a joke compared to those of the NFL. And the breaking of the HR records made the effects of steroid use much more obvious. There really is no comparably affected statistic in football.
The college system is broken because the process has little chance of placing all the teams in the correct order at the end of the season. In many cases, they can't even get the top 2 right.
The NFL however, is broken to a degree. I don't like the notion that an 8-8 Chargers team made it while Stu's Patriots missed the playoffs at 11-5 and they are in the same conference. I however, like the division format. That said, I think an idea I heard on Mike and Mike on ESPN radio might work. It was suggested that simply the team be better than .500 in order to qualify for the playoffs. In that scenario, the Pats would be in. Of course, there is a question of how do you count ties? For those of you who don't know, please see McNabb, Donovan, as a reference.
TSF's notion of 3 divisions does not guarantee that a worse team wouldn't make the playoffs. I agree it was better, but then you could still have the AFC West with an 8-8 record, as likely they would add Houston to the West. There would need to be a 6-5-5 alignment in each conference unless you move Seattle back to the AFC. then a 6-6-5 alignment still does not provide a winning AFC West team.
BMT both you and Stu are so close to actually proving my point. Divisions are important. Don't get caught up in the alignment and numbers but more so the why and what they represent. There's no reason why there couldn't be three divisions and three wild card teams.
To Stu's point division games should mean more and be weighted more. There's no perfect alignment, but one could be chosen to minimize the probability of such an event that just occured.
I'm a numbers guy. Let's keep it simple. Currently there are four divisions with four teams a piece. If you're one of the four teams than you play the three other teams twice each which results in six games out of the sixteen game schedule or 38% of the schedule. In a five team division where each team plays each other twice that equates to 8 home games and 50% of the schedule.
In a three division format which occured before the rule change, the records policed itself. The probability was much lower for a .500 team to win a division. Think of this in a four division alignment a team could go 0-6 then go and win 10 in a row for a decent record, but lose all 8 division games in a three division format and the outcome isn't as pretty.
The notion of slapping on a rule to ensure that a team must be over .500 to qualify for the playoffs is like triaging a patient and attending to the broken arm before the massive head wound or heart failure. The rule would be a patch, but not fix the cause.
Such a rule would as stated earlier challenge the fabric of even having divisions if one can so easily go without representation in the playoffs. Divisions either matter or they don't. I believe they matter.
Three divisions may not be convenient for scheduling but it resolves the issue better. Essentially one less (divison winner) and one more wild card that would have most likely captured the Pats. It's not perfect, but lowers the odds. As for BMT's notion of adding Houston to the West it's all how you make assumptions and contort things. Suppose the Texans are added, there's no way of knowing if replacing two games alters the win loss for worse, but those losses would help someone else in the division win. Maybe the Titans would be added too. After all, was any of this an issue before league went to six teams four divisions?
Talk about triaging a patient. TSF said it In a three division format which occured before the rule change, the records policed itself. The probability was much lower for a .500 team to win a division. Leaving the potential, however remote it is, to have a .500 team win the division. It's like moving into Prince George's county from SE DC. Yes, it's less likely you will be shot, but it's not like moving into Montgomery. Sorry non-DC'ers.
I'm not saying that excluding .500 is the best solution, it's the only solution to prevent a .500 team making the playoffs in a division scenario.
BMT, you seem traumatized by the entire situation - lol :)
The reduction to three divisions would minimize the chances. You mentioned you want it completely wiped out. Take a look around someone in the US contracted lepercy. You're more likely to lose your life driving than flying yet you don't stop doing either. The chances in a three division format are so minimal. By abolishing a .500 division winner you're deeming the division a wasted piece of irrelevant junk. It's the ends justify the means type rule and the underlying relevance of the rule means a division is worthless...so in retrospect those teams are worthless and anyone that plays them is worthless. It diminishes the division and league.
Also, no one mentions what occurs with the division winner with a .500 record. Does this mean only five teams make the playoffs or an additional wild card team is substituted. Again...this quick solution isn't so paletable either.
Try not to hit the panic button so quickly. What sounds good at first may have long term implications. It's thinking about things as a whole and not just a quick fix.
Hello McFly! By abolishing a .500 division winner you're deeming the division a wasted piece of irrelevant junk. 8-8 Chargers? 8-8 Broncos? Oakland? Kansas City? They are irrelevant junk. Are you saying one of them deserved the playoffs? I'm not a follower of the English Premier League, but I understand that there is a system to "downgrade" teams to a lower level when they don't perform. We don't have to go that deep, but how about preventing them from making the playoffs? They won't get the extra TV dollars. Heck, the Chargers got extra gate and concession revenue.
Again, your solution does not eliminate the possibility of a loser division winner. I know the chances are lowered, but why would you even bother?
BMT, you hit the nail on the head in bringing up the EPL. European soccer leagues do not have divisions yet still have intense rivalries. I still fail to see why we in this country have divisions in our sports leagues other than to create an artificial sense of parity, where a .500 team can have a chance to win a championship.
BMT, you missed the point entirely. Who wants to play in or against a banned division and who's to say by adding another team or two that the .500 team doesn't go over .500 by playing another two to four games in a larger division.
You're making a huge assumption. Again you've proved my point. You want a down grade, but being absorbed or gobbled up into another division to be devoured by other teams is what you're asking.
I hear nothing other than removing all divisions as a real solution. IMO, not truly resolving an issue and just removing one team with another like they violated the NCAA rules, used steroids, or took money like the fab five of Michigan is just as distasteful. It's a stain. I've never heard you use the Back to the Future line Hello McFly....usually that's my line.
I don't think one can apply the English Premiership to the case of the NFL. In the NFL, teams only play 16 games. They don't play all the other teams 2 times during the course of the season. You could apply the EPL logic to all the other major American pro sports though - MLB, NBA, NHL. All these sports are afforded the luxury of longer regular seasons to be able to determine who is truly the best at the end of the season (and I don't know why the hell both the NBA and NHL send over half their leagues to the playoffs).
So we have 2 potential solutions:
1. Keep the AFC and NFC, abolish the divisions, expand the season to 30 games and send the top 3 teams from each conference to the playoffs.
or
2. Change the playoff format to that of the NBA and NHL and send the top 8 from each conference to the playoffs - 4 division winners and 4 wild cards. That way the last 2 teams in will be so crappy there won't be any discussion as to why the better team didn't get in the playoffs.
I agree, the EPL comparison is drastic. I wouldn't want the Lions sent to the "minors" for their 0-16 season. Detroit has suffered enough with the Big 3.
I don't like your first solution.
I think the second solution is workable. The Sports Freak and I discussed this, but his concern was who you play? It would be tough to play only the 15 other teams in your conference and then one out of conference game? I don't know, but that still doesn't solve the potential of a less than .500 potentially getting in. You could have a Patriots at 11-5 and then see an 8-8 team in the NFC that would get in.
Again, not saying that restricting the playoffs only to plus .500 teams is the best scenario, but let's face it. There is little reason to believe that the owners would go back to 3 divisions. 2 divisions, or 2 conferences. More means more money for them.
If anyone has a solution that eliminates the possiblity of 8-8 or worse making the playoffs, then I would welcome and support that. Because I have so much pull with NFL owners and management :-)