# NFL Division Champion glitch



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This always bugs me... and I know it won't happen this year... but look at what could happen...

Packers are 9-4, Vikings are 11-2.

IF the Packers win out, they'd be 12-4 and 4-2 in their conference.
IF the Vikings lose out, they'd be 11-5 and 5-1 in their conference.

In the above scenario, the Packers would win the division because of a better overall record, despite having lost head-to-head twice with the Vikings AND the Vikings having a better in-division record.

While I think the Packers might win out... I don't think the Vikings will lose out... but part of me almost hopes it happens so the NFL will vote to change how division champions are determined. In-division record should count higher than it does.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This always bugs me... and I know it won't happen this year... but look at what could happen...
> 
> Packers are 9-4, Vikings are 11-2.
> 
> ...


A team that won only six all in the same division, would win the division over a team that won 14, but finish 4-2 in the division


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

yosoyellobo said:


> A team that won only six all in the same division, would win the division over a team that won 14, but finish 4-2 in the division


That's how it should work... although, it is not as likely that someone would win 6-0 and then tank all 10 outside the division.

Consider... the title is "Division winner"... so how could a team that beats all teams in its division twice not be considered the division winner regardless of outside-the-division records?

It's not something as likely to happen as the scenario I describe that could happen this year with the Packers/Vikings... but it is also a possibility.

Besides... If you are a 14-2 team that lost twice to the same team in your division who swept the division... you have a real hard time arguing you are better than that 6-10 team who beat you twice.


----------



## ycebar (Oct 27, 2007)

I think the team with the better record should be the one who wins the division and division record should just be a tie breaker


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ycebar said:


> I think the team with the better record should be the one who wins the division and division record should just be a tie breaker


The problem with that... each division is only 4 teams, which means only 6 of the 16 games are in-division... so crowning someone a division champ that didn't actually win the division games means essentially that the division games are meaningless.

As I put forth in the first post, the potential for a team exists this season IF the chips fall just right for the Packers to have a better overall record than the Vikings and win the division, while actually winning 1 less division game AND losing both head-to-head matchups.

Granted, the nightmare scenario I pose isn't likely to happen... but the very fact that it can happen seems like a loophole that needs to be closed to me.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

A couple things to remember: many of the non-divisional games are against the same opponents. The Packers and Vikings play all the teams from one NFC division and one AFC division. So of the 16 games, 14 are against the same opponents (or each other.)

Overall record is King in the NFL. Everything else is tiebreakers. 

Your suggested solution is more laden with traps and oddities. 

Lastly--that is why the play the games. To see, on that given Sunday, who played better.  

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

I don't think a lot of people are going to agree with you on this one.

I am extreme case, a team wins all their division games but loses all the other games resulting in a 6-10 record 6-0 in the division; while another team wins all their games except the two to the first team resulting in a 14-2 record 4-2 in the division. So you want the first team to be the division champions and go to the playoffs? I don't think so.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's how it should work... although, it is not as likely that someone would win 6-0 and then tank all 10 outside the division.
> 
> Consider... the title is "Division winner"... so how could a team that beats all teams in its division twice not be considered the division winner regardless of outside-the-division records?
> 
> ...


The division winner is based (primarily) on the best record for the teams within the division. How they did within the division is a secondary consideration when teams tie as far as record is concerned. A third consideration is how they did head-to-head -- again used only for ties. Make perfect sense to me.

The games within the division are not meaningless. In fact, they mean more than those outside the division because they not only count as wins and losses for the team but they also count for /against the tie-breaker.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Lastly--that is why the play the games. To see, on that given Sunday, who played better.


Except, in one example I gave... the Vikings would have proven on the field they are better than the Packers, but would still lose the division.

When they had 5-team divisions, you had 8 games (half your season) within the division so this was an unlikely situation to happen... It was the breaking into 4-team divisions, in my opinion, that broke things and created this loophole scenario.

Can anyone name any other sport/division where you play less games within your division than you play outside your division during the regular season? I can't think of any... Most sports you play more games within your division than you play outside your division... and that's why winning the division means winning the most games in your division.

If a 9-7 team gets into the playoffs and beats a 14-2 team in the Superbowl, no one would claim the 14-2 team should be the NFL champion because their record was better, right?

So why should you be able to win the division without actually winning the most games in your division?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

So if a team went 5-1 in the division but posted a season record of 7-9 that would be ok?

I get what you're saying but overall better teams win more games. We can talk about strength of schedule but the better team should win more than lose.

What if's could go forever about this as well. Using the NFC north division games as an example the bears have 3 division games in 1 month. Say they had a winning record and were in the hunt this year. Then an injury happens to Jay Cutler, yes there would be less picks, but they lose all 3 games. Then end up with a better record than any of the teams but because of that stretch their division is 3-3 and the Vikings win out because they're 5-1. 

I think the current system is good because it means that every game and every win really does matter. Once a team went 6-0 in the division they could just rest starters until play offs want.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Except, in one example I gave... the Vikings would have proven on the field they are better than the Packers, but would still lose the division.
> 
> When they had 5-team divisions, you had 8 games (half your season) within the division so this was an unlikely situation to happen... It was the breaking into 4-team divisions, in my opinion, that broke things and created this loophole scenario.
> 
> ...


Before the championship games, season record was how champion was declared.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

How about this wrinkle... (happened a couple times in recent memory) The Bears had the Packers number--they beat the Packers twice. But lost almost all the rest of their games.

Does that mean the Bears were a better team? Surely not.  

You can carry this kind of analysis down to crazyland, and yet, best overall record is still the best measure. 

Again, the teams play all but 2 games against common opponents. Overall record for a larger group is far better than against a smaller group.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Lastly, MLB does not play the majority of games within a division. With Interleague play, teams play about 45% of their games within their division.

(And how does MLB determine division leader? Overall Record...)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Agreed that some of the examples are extremes... and most are not likely to happen. As I originally said, I highly doubt a team would go 6-0 in division and then lose the other 10 games. Something like that is probably never going to happen.

But my first example is entirely possible. If the Packers finish 12-4 and the Vikings finish 11-5, but Vikings are 5-1 vs 4-2 in the division AND swept the Packers head-to head... does everyone really think the Packers should be the division champs in that scenario?

Again, as I said, this is not likely... because the Vikings are most likely not going to lose the next 3 games, though the Packers certainly could win out.


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But my first example is entirely possible. If the Packers finish 12-4 and the Vikings finish 11-5, but Vikings are 5-1 vs 4-2 in the division AND swept the Packers head-to head... does everyone really think the Packers should be the division champs in that scenario?


Yes, because the NFL is set up to be ~4 preseason, and 16 regular season games to determine division champs.

The NFL is not set up to be ~4 preseason, 10 more games worth the same as preseason, and 6 regular season games to determine division champs.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> If the Packers finish 12-4 and the Vikings finish 11-5, but Vikings are 5-1 vs 4-2 in the division AND swept the Packers head-to head... does everyone really think the Packers should be the division champs in that scenario?


Absolutely. They'll have the better overall record -- making them the better team.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Agreed that some of the examples are extremes... and most are not likely to happen. As I originally said, I highly doubt a team would go 6-0 in division and then lose the other 10 games. Something like that is probably never going to happen.
> 
> But my first example is entirely possible. If the Packers finish 12-4 and the Vikings finish 11-5, but Vikings are 5-1 vs 4-2 in the division AND swept the Packers head-to head... does everyone really think the Packers should be the division champs in that scenario?
> 
> Again, as I said, this is not likely... because the Vikings are most likely not going to lose the next 3 games, though the Packers certainly could win out.


Why don't you recalculate their records against common opponents? I'd be interested in your analysis after that. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

So, by contrast... it sounds like everyone would also be ok with a 10-6 team winning the division having gone 0-6 in that division? Not even winning a single division game, but having the best overall record would make you the best team in the division?

IF this is truly the prevailing sentiment... you can just color me confused and I'll roll along with it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> So, by contrast... it sounds like everyone would also be ok with a 10-6 team winning the division having gone 0-6 in that division? Not even winning a single division game, but having the best overall record would make you the best team in the division?
> 
> IF this is truly the prevailing sentiment... you can just color me confused and I'll roll along with it.


Is there ANY sport that goes only on division record? In theory, all the sports could have goofy situations as you describe. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Is there ANY sport that goes only on division record? In theory, all the sports could have goofy situations as you describe.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I'm pretty sure college football works that way... and more sure that college basketball works that way... That being, if you have the better in-division record, then you win the division. Overall record is one of the tie-breakers if you have the same in-division and split head-to-head, though.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm pretty sure college football works that way... and more sure that college basketball works that way... That being, if you have the better in-division record, then you win the division. Overall record is one of the tie-breakers if you have the same in-division and split head-to-head, though.


College Football uses the BCS system for national titles.

And the college level is organized completely differently than the pros. College has many "divisions" and "conferences" within divisions. Division there is a choice of the school (and the rest of the NCAA) to choose. (Mostly by school size, tho that isn't the only criteria.)

So lets stick to comparable sports structures. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ycebar (Oct 27, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm pretty sure college football works that way... and more sure that college basketball works that way... That being, if you have the better in-division record, then you win the division. Overall record is one of the tie-breakers if you have the same in-division and split head-to-head, though.


Yes college does do it that way, but most do not play common oppononents through out the year, and some teams play smaller d1 or d2 schools to improve their record. Not a fair comparison


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I guess my question/point then is... why even have divisions and play teams in-division twice a year if those games don't mean more than the other games played?

Why not just have 16 AFC and 16 NFC teams... and the 6 AFC and 6 NFC teams with the best records at the end of the season get into the playoffs.

Then instead of playing those in-division teams twice a year, you'd get 3 other games against other opponents and then the end-of-season standings would be even more meaningful because you would have played 16 different teams by the end of the season instead of only 13 the way it is now.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I guess my question/point then is... why even have divisions and play teams in-division twice a year if those games don't mean more than the other games played?
> 
> Why not just have 16 AFC and 16 NFC teams... and the 6 AFC and 6 NFC teams with the best records at the end of the season get into the playoffs.


The division games DO mean more. They are tie-breakers when overall records end up in a tie. They are also normally more competitive because the teams play each other twice yearly and therefore know each other very well. This generates more interest in these games as the divisional teams become 'heated rivalries'. (See below for more on adding interest.)

As for why we shouldn't just have _"16 AFC and 16 NFC teams... and the 6 AFC and 6 NFC teams with the best records at the end of the season get into the playoffs"_, I'd say it has to do with keeping more teams alive for the playoffs for a longer time during the season. Teams in a weak division would never have a chance at the playoffs if the structure was as you suggested. With the way it is now, a weak division is always assured of sending at least one team into the playoffs. Your suggestion could eliminate any team from a division or two from the playoffs completely. Some don't like it the way it is now because they feel that the best teams don't always get to go to the playoffs but it does have the benefit I mentioned -- of keeping more teams active in the playoff hunt longer. This generates more and wider interest later into each season (i.e., if my team still has a chance, I'm more interested). Overall, the current plan is much better.


----------



## steve053 (May 11, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This always bugs me... and I know it won't happen this year... but look at what could happen...
> 
> Packers are 9-4, Vikings are 11-2.
> 
> ...


Go back to the 94/95 season.

Packers: 9 and 7, and 6 and 2 in the division
Vikings: 10 and 6, and 5 and 3 in the division

Packers and Vikings split their games.

Based on your thoughts, the Packers should be crowned the 1994 division champs. While I bleed green and gold, it doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

lflorack said:


> The division games DO mean more. They are tie-breakers when overall records end up in a tie.


You just contradicted yourself there, though... Division games are not the top decider. Division games don't even count if your overall record is better... so they most definitely do not mean more.

To me, if you divide teams into a division, that has to mean something... and right now it is the 3rd tie-breaker I believe after #1 overall record and #2 head-to-head.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Stewart, The divisional records are the tie breaker when 2 teams in the same division finish with the same overall record. What is your problem with that?


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You just contradicted yourself there, though... Division games are not the top decider. Division games don't even count if your overall record is better... so they most definitely do not mean more.
> 
> To me, if you divide teams into a division, that has to mean something... and right now it is the 3rd tie-breaker I believe after #1 overall record and #2 head-to-head.


I'm confused because I don't think I did contradict myself. I don't think I said that Divisional games are the top decider. What I said was, divisional games *are* more important than non-divisional games.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

lflorack said:


> I'm confused because I don't think I did contradict myself. I don't think I said that Divisional games are the top decider. What I said was, divisional games *are* more important than non-divisional games.


You didn't contradict at all. Division games _are_ more important exactly as you say. They are an important tiebreaker if needed. Both in the head to head categories and the division categories. 

And yet, every game is important. If you win more of them, you don't need the tiebreakers. 

That's the thing. If only division games were important, teams would definitely slack off for non-division games.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> You didn't contradict at all. Division games _are_ more important exactly as you say. They are an important tiebreaker if needed. Both in the head to head categories and the division categories.
> 
> And yet, every game is important. If you win more of them, you don't need the tiebreakers.
> 
> ...


We agree! That last one is an interesting twist. Each method has it's flaws. However, I'm pretty sure the way it is is the best way for the reason's I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Let me try that last one again...

How are division games more important than non division games IF they don't count except as a tie-breaker?

If I finish 10-6 and you finish 9-7... then I win the division and none of those 6 division games I lost come into play in determining that fact.

IF I finish 10-6 and you finish 10-6, then you win the division because you swept me head-to-head and again 4 of those division games I lost don't count against me (just the 2 I lost to you).

If I finish 10-6 and you finish 10-6 and we split head-to-head... then the division record counts, so you can win the division if you were better than 1-5 in the division like I was.

So it takes us getting to 2 tie-break scenarios before the in-division games actually are the decision maker.

Thus my argument that they don't seem to count more than non-division games. In order for them to count "more" they'd have to be the primary factor in determining the division winner... but clearly they aren't. Which is why I argue what's the point playing 3 teams twice in division matchups instead of just having 3 more games against other teams.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Let me try that last one again...
> 
> How are division games more important than non division games IF they don't count except as a tie-breaker?
> 
> ...


Division games are more important than non-division games because they not only count toward your overall won/loss record, they also count as a tie-breaker if needed.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

You seem to imply the head to head is "not a division game". They are.  So part of the division games is still more important.

Now back to your scenarios:

10-6, 0-6 in division. We've made every game important so 0-6 (while extremely unlikely) still is better overall than 9-7.

10-6, 1-5 in division, for two teams. Two very good teams that can't beat the other teams in the division? Could happen in theory, yet likelihood is so small let's not really think about this one. 

10-6, 2-4 in division vs 10-6 with 4-2 in division. Same problem as above. Lets get real. 

So your suggestion could lead to 6-10 as a winner. Let's get real. We want good teams. We want interesting games. All games should be interesting. Not just 6 of them.

Overall record is the most important thing.

Unlike college, divisions are ways to group teams of professionals. To create rivalries. 

In college, non division games are so often cupcake games. They don't count at all, except to run up the score. And they shouldn't. They aren't teams of similar abilities.

So lets keep all the games interesting, not just 6 of them. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

lflorack said:


> Division games are more important than non-division games because they not only count toward your overall won/loss record, they also count as a tie-breaker if needed.


Exactly! Every game is important and division games are more important. You never know if a division game is going to be a head-to-head tie-breaker or a division tie-breaker game. Thus they become very important.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm still not seeing where division games are "more" important.

The 2nd or 3rd tie-breaker is not as important as the 1st tie-breaker.

I could buy an argument that says they count... but not one that says they count more, because I listed at least 2 scenarios where you don't get to considering the in-division games as anything other than games played against anyone else.

In other words... If my 10-6 is considered the same whether I'm 0-6 in the vision or 6-0 in the division (10-0 outside or 4-4 outside) then you simply can't say they count "more" because they don't. If the most important thing is that my overall record is better than your overall record... then the division games don't count "more" at all.

I'm just arguing they should count more... and it doesn't seem like they do... and if they don't count more, why play 3 teams twice a season? Why not just place those teams once and play 3 different teams?

What's gained by playing those 3 teams twice every year if the division games don't determine who wins the division?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Perhaps the answer lies in the difference between "count more" and "more important".

In the overall record, division games do not _count more_. Fair statement.

Yet they are _more important_ because of their tie-breaker value.

With only 16 games, tiebreakers are more important than in sports with 80+ games. Overall record ties are commonplace in football. In fact, with basically only 17 different win-loss records (since game ties are very rare) and 32 teams, win-loss ties are guaranteed. And thus tiebreakers always come into play at some level.

As for why two games each season? Aside from tie-breaker importance, there is the rivalry factor. It makes the games more interesting. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm still not seeing where division games are "more" important.
> 
> The 2nd or 3rd tie-breaker is not as important as the 1st tie-breaker.


Because divisional games have the added benefit of counting toward a tie-breaker, while non-divisional games do not. There are a lot of 'won/loss record' ties in NFL football so this is very important.

I understand that you think that divisional games should be the first criteria for selecting divisional winners but there's too many reasons for that not to be the way it works. The current plan provides for overall greater interest by more fans for longer each year. It keeps more teams in the playoff hunt longer and it creates divisional rivalries too.

With divisional games being the first criteria for playoff entry as you suggest, teams would only worry about the divisional games making the non-divisional games MUCH less important. I'd put them into the pre-season category.

Further, there's no way I'd want to have an inferior team with a worse overall record representing a division in the playoffs, simply because they got lucky within the division. That makes no sense to me. Overall better record largely means a better team.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Stewart, You are missing the point. Divisional record is the tie breaker when 2 division teams tie. Do you want all NFL teams to just play a 6 game schedule against the 3 division rivals? I'm not sure what your problem is with the current format?


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Sorry Stewart, but I am with the rest of the crowd here. Every game is important.


----------



## gsel1966 (Oct 20, 2006)

I go along with overall record as most important. Who would want a 6-10 team in the playoffs. They've already shown in the season that they can't win outside their division, and who is their most likely first round opponent?


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

You have to remember that divisional teams play 14 of 16 games against like opponents.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

gsel1966 said:


> I go along with overall record as most important. Who would want a 6-10 team in the playoffs. They've already shown in the season that they can't win outside their division, and who is their most likely first round opponent?


But... using that logic... IF you don't want them in the playoffs because they showed they aren't that good... what does that say about the other teams in their division whom they swept?

It's like Oakland... or Tampa Bay... they are having horrible years this season... so the argument has been to doubt the true measure of any "good" team that loses to Tampa or Oakland.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I think it got lost.

What has changed for me... is the realignment.

Back when there were just 30 teams... we had three 5-team divisions on each side.

This meant 8 division games and 8 non-division games. Back then, it made much more sense to count overall victories because half your games were in-division so logic said you were likely to have a good record overall if you won the divisional games.

But after expansion and realignment... we now have four 4-team divisions... which reduced the divisional games to 6. So now you play more non-divisional games than division games.

That, to me, is the break in the system. If a divisional champion doesn't even have to win the divisional games anymore to win the division... then it's just a title that holds little meaning to me.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Playing sixteen games but only counting six of them seems ridiculous on the face of it. the intent is to let the supposed "best' teams advance. The simple existence of divisions means that the schedules are "unbalanced" as not everyone haasa schedule of equal difficulty. 

This proposal would imbalance things even further. I would rather see no divisions or conferences and the teams with the best records making the playoffs. That will never happen either but it is fairer than this setup.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Geronimo said:


> I would rather see no divisions or conferences and the teams with the best records making the playoffs. That will never happen either but it is fairer than this setup.


The more I think about it... the more I lean that way (no formal divisions).

What I'd say is... keep the "divisional matchups" that we have now... so all the NFC East (for example) teams would play each other every year... BUT just make that 1 game instead of 2. Then you have 3 more games to schedule against other teams... so that you play 16 games against 16 teams.

That would eliminate the need for one level of tie-break because you'd have no more split head-to-head matchups since you either win or lose that head-to-head game.

Then take the 6 teams with the best record and give the 2 top teams a bye like today.

This would also take care of the scenario where an 8-8 or 9-7 "division champ" gets in over a 10-6 team in another division. We'd get the top 6 teams each year guaranteed by their overall record, which most folk agree is the best measure of who the top teams are.


----------



## steve053 (May 11, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The more I think about it... the more I lean that way (no formal divisions).
> 
> What I'd say is... keep the "divisional matchups" that we have now... so all the NFC East (for example) teams would play each other every year... BUT just make that 1 game instead of 2. Then you have 3 more games to schedule against other teams... so that you play 16 games against 16 teams.
> 
> ...


But there is definitely a home field advantage in football. That's why you play divisional opponents twice.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Here's the bigger question. What does conference championship really matter? It's a PR issue and a bragging right for fans. However if your scenario does play out but the Vikings will the superbowl. Do you think any cheesehead would dare say "We won the division!". I could understand if division champ actually had something guaranteed but it's just another line of clothing apparel they get to sell.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> Lastly, MLB does not play the majority of games within a division. With Interleague play, teams play about 45% of their games within their division.
> 
> (And how does MLB determine division leader? Overall Record...)


It's different in the National League compared to the American League due to one league playing a balanced schedule and the other an unbalanced schedule.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> Here's the bigger question. What does conference championship really matter? It's a PR issue and a bragging right for fans. However if your scenario does play out but the Vikings will the superbowl. Do you think any cheesehead would dare say "We won the division!". I could understand if division champ actually had something guaranteed but it's just another line of clothing apparel they get to sell.


That also supports my secondary thought about eliminating the double-round-robin divisional games... It's a mostly meaningless title to be "division champ" especially when you can win the division without actually winning the most in-division games.

If they ever expand again, they'll have to expand 4 AFC and 4 NFC teams at the same time with the current divisional alignment... and 8 teams at one time would be a bad thing, in my opinion... whereas if they got rid of the divisions (except keeping the regular matchups I suggested once a season)... then they could add 1 AFC and 1 NFC team in a future expansion and it wouldn't be a big change to the schedule.


----------

