Steven asks…
Why 40 years after the merger hasn't the NFL abolished the conferences? Please see below?
Please read my thoughtful essay and reply thoughtfully. Please no “you don’t know nothing about football” or “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
I would leave the divisions and the way the schedule is drawn up exactly as it is now but eliminate the conferences. The 8 division winners would make the playoffs, (the 4 with the best records get first week byes, just like now). There would be 4 wild cards rather than 2 and 2. The teams would be seeded according to their season records. This system would have several advantages over what we have now:
1.The teams with the best records would make the playoffs. Nowadays this doesn’t always happen. And no, I am not a Pats fan still upset from 2 years ago. I’m not!
2.It would be theoretically possible for all 4 teams from a division to make the playoffs. What’s wrong with that?
3.It would be theoretically possible for 2 teams from the same division to play in the Super Bowl. What’s wrong with that?
4.It would keep the best teams away from each other until they had to play. Some years it has been obvious that the two best teams were in the same conference.
5.It would mean that any two teams could play in the Super Bowl. What would be wrong with having 2 former NFC teams or 2 former AFC teams in the big game?
My reasoning is as follows:
1.It seems to me that 40 years after the merger the conferences only serve as a talking point for the fans and sports writers. Ask any player who played for the runner-up in the Super Bowl how much of a consolation their Conference Championship is to them.
2.The marketers like to be able to present the Super Bowl as a big Show-Down between the two best teams. But with the interconnecting schedule some years it’s not a showdown at all, it’s a rematch. And in some years it’s not the best two teams.
3.It’s not as if there was a long history of 2 leagues with slightly differing rules and styles of play as used to be the case with MLB. After all, it only took 6 years before a common draft was agreed to and 10 years for the full merger.
4.The NFL conferences have nothing to do with geography as is the case with the NHL and NBA.
5.It’s not like the conferences and their teams are carved in stone anyway. Remember that 3 teams moved from the National to the American at the time of the merger and more recently, Seattle moved from the AFC to the NFC.
What do you think?
admin answers:
The biggest stumbling block to the "teams with the best records don't always make the playoffs" is the unbalanced schedule. Unlike the other major sports, every NFL team doesn't play every other NFL team during the season. Some teams get blessed with easier schedules than others. Some teams would luck out and pad their record against a bunch of last place squads while a 9-7 team in a tough division (like, say, the Texans) would stay home for the postseason.
Second, I'm not really sure how your system would be an advantage over the current one. Sure, two teams from the same division could end up in the Super Bowl, or all four teams from a division could make the playoffs. But how is that "better" than the current set-up? Right now it's not unusual for three teams in the same division to make the postseason. Would it really be that big of an improvement if the last-place team got in too?
"It would keep the two best teams away from each other until they had to play". Isn't that what happened this year? There's no guarantee in your system that a number one or two seed won't get upset long before the Super Bowl.
"Some years the Super Bowl isn't a showdown at all, it's a rematch". That's going to happen a lot more often if you eliminate the conferences. As it is, each AFC team plays each NFC team only once every four years. So the chances of a Super Bowl rematch are only one in four. In your system you might see a rematch every year.
"The NFL conferences have nothing to do with geography like the NHL and NBA". Apples and oranges. The NHL and NBA play 82 games a season, sometimes on back-to-back nights. Travel considerations have to be taken into account.
Sorry, your system would certainly be different, but I see no improvement other than a "change for change's sake".
Sharon asks…
I got a sports question, answer it by March1/08. Best answer get easy 10pts. Bye?
In NBA how many wins a team need to be a playoff contender, and in NFL there are 10 win to go to NFL playoff right, for NHL how many wins a team need to go to NHL playoff, plus i have a dream, i hope it works, its kind of crazy to here, but one day i want face Suns center SHAQ in a free throw contest, if i beat him i will make a history and everyone will remember me for long time, if he beats me, will i guess i couldn't do it. So what u think, plus im trying to ask question often because i want to gain more point as i answer people questions. Have a great week, answer it on time.
admin answers:
A .500 record usually puts a team on the bubble for the NBA playoffs. With overtimes and shootouts, the figure for the NHL is in the high 80's in points.
You'd better get out your wallet if you want to entice Shaq into a shooting contest.
Helen asks…
David Gettis or Anthony Armstrong -- week 8?
I'm debating between both of these risers to start this week due to bye issues. I'm leaning toward Armstrong just because Gettis is on a weaker team and with a shallower history. Armstrong is actually third in the NFL for ypr or something like that. Yet they're both inexperienced so it's tough for me.
admin answers:
I'd actually lean towards Gettis. Washington faces Detroit, a team that they should be able to put up points on early and often. If that's the case, then I can see them spending much of the second half handing off to Torain and just managing their time of possession. And when they do pass, Moss and Cooley are both higher in the food chain than Armstrong. I think Gettis, as the #2 passing target on a team that has not been able to establish much of a run game thus far, will be a better bet.
PS. Armstrong didn't make ESPN's top 50 WR rankings this week. Gettis was ranked low, but at least made the list at #47.
Thomas asks…
Longer Seasons? Do you agree?
There was a big controversy at the beginning of this year about extending the NFL season to 18 games. I'm both for and against it. It would fill up those 2 or 3 really boring weeks in February where there are no good sports on. A lot of players say its a bad idea because 16 weeks + the playoffs is more than enough to handle.And i understand that, so thats why I think if they were to make an 18 game season it should be over a 20 week time period. A team gets 1 BYE in the first 9 games, and one BYE in the last 9 weeks. However, it would be pretty weird getting used to new records. And it would benefit Lions fans too, because after a few years they wouldn't have the worst record in history anymore!
admin answers:
I'm all for it. Make these guys really earn the millions of dollars they make.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment