Crazy Idea

[Rich-League Officer]

What do coaches think about the idea of every team playing 16 unique opponents instead of the traditional division/conference schedules?
This way nobody is benefitting from a weak division/open teams at times/weak conference.
Seed the 4 division winners and re-seed the remaining 4 teams regardless of conference.
Create a 1-8 and play the playoffs.
You could get a SB of Chicago vs Washington or Oakland vs Los Angeles or any matchup any year.

There is a utility to "fix" the playoffs so it's easy to manipulate.

Just a silly thought to make it a little more interesting.

This year it would look like :
#1 Jets
#2 Chicago
#3 Oakland
#4 Detroit
#5 Los Angeles
#6 Minnesota
#7 Jacksonville
#8 Seattle

Teams all would have roughly the same schedule minus a couple differences. More balanced across the board.
The way it is now, Jets have to play Cardinals each year but Seattle/Los Angeles/Jacksonville didn't have to play Chicago at all this year.
Obviously Saints/Panthers/49ers/Packers all play Chicago twice.
I think a balanced schedule where all teams play 16 others would put everyone on a more level playing field.
But more than that, it might be kinda fun to see new fresh matchups instead of the same old matchups each season.

Am I crazy?

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I like the idea. This change would make divisions moot. It eliminates the need to realign anymore. Divisions may matter now but they are ridiculous too - it's weird for Minnesota and Seattle to be in the AFC West.

Also, it basically makes the PNFL playoffs seeded similarly to what I did for the XFBS except you are using records and tiebreakers instead of a computer poll to determine seeding.

Only diehards here will be like, how dare you? We HAVE to keep divisions for realism. My argument against that is simple: the divisions themselves are unrealistic.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Not totally against this but this old diehard is not about non-real divisions, but I do value the twice a year rivalries. They do feel like they mean more.

[Mitch-Oilers]

I like the balanced schedule idea, but I like having divisions too. It wouldn't feel like pro football without divisions.

[James-Eagles]

I personally like the schedule how it is. It is design to to have the best teams play the best teams. For example the top two teams in both western divisions play their whole conference and the top 2 teams in each of the other conference's divisions. That way the strong coaches play each other and same with the inexperience coaches. Teams play their whole conference to help with tiebreakers. It actually has more thought behind it than what you might think.

While it is a neat idea playing the division twice is what makes those games more important. I went 5-1 in the division that is why I am in the lead.It is also more meaningful because you are more familiar with those teams. Even if they aren't normal rivals they become rivals.

Final point I think this isn't the time to mess with things. We are having one of the best competitive balance season in the league history. I would say Schedule, PPP rules and draft have something to do with it. This is one off season more focus on improve personal coaching and bad plays not rule changes.

[James-Eagles]

Ok, I might have to do something even crazier than the current plan. Rich is having too much time to think. It is only going to lead to trouble.

[Dean-Atlanta]

What about a compromise?

Keep the current divisions and schedule as we have them now.

But allocate the four wildcard spots and seed playoffs as Rich suggested, so the best four non-division winners are the wildcards regardless of which division or conference they are in.

[James-Eagles]

I don't think there is a good comprise. Again why are we messing with something that is already working. You are more likely to mess things than to make it better. NFC is a little weaker now because we have new coaches. In a few season it will swing the other way.

Like I said before they way the current schedule is done is design to help bring everyone to the middle. I would say it is working

[Jerry-Redskins]

James is correct on the balance piece. The current way forces harder schedules on the winning teams. A 99% same round robin schedule will make it easier for the top teams. Also, if people are looking at one season and think hey, the AFC will get 6 teams in the playoffs all the time, they need to rethink those thoughts. It will not happen.

My biggest issue is losing the true rival aspect. Yes, it would mean playing almost everyone each season, but that is not the same as two meaningful battles every season with the same team fighting over the division standings. Otherwise, I'm agnostic to the change. Plan on winning most of the games moving forward either way.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Maybe we are becoming too conservative. We should remember what Gordon Ramsey so often says on Kitchen Nightmares to owners of failing restaurants, We Must Embrace Change.

Radicals and revolutionaries define the world and bring about progress, not those who insist on "if ain't broke, don't fix it."

We can either embrace change or it will embrace us.