PDA

View Full Version : Revamping the Conferences.


Andrew6
12-16-2007, 02:22 AM
After looking at all the different conf.'s I've noticed that Houston has a 7-7 record and are at the bottom of their division. In almost every other division that would put them in second place if not in a hunt for 1st in the division.

Should they swap up some of the divisions to give other teams a chance that are in tough divisions a chance to have play off hopes?

Would doing this make other teams have to become more competitive? I am just looking to hear some thoughts on this.

http://www.nfl.com/standings

b0ng
12-16-2007, 02:26 AM
Somebody here said it best when they said "No, we should be able to beat the Jags and the Titans".

It's all about parity. This season, the AFC South looks hardcore. Next season, I'm willing to bet that one team in this division will regress (I'm guessing the Colts, but that's just me). Everybody will get their turn, and it just sucks that every team in our division improved (along with us).

But boy, just think if we were playing in the NFC South. It's plausible that we would be above the Bucs in the division.

Andrew6
12-16-2007, 02:29 AM
no doubt. I hope that Houston is able to improve further than anyone else in the division and all other teams regress.

b0ng
12-16-2007, 02:32 AM
Personally, I'd still like to beat the Colts, without the excuse of them "resting their starters" when they are contenders.

I just want to beat the crap out of the Titans because I think this year they have played exceptionally dirty against us.

I'm just real indifferent to the Jags, their fanbase seems to be the same as well.

JayCee
12-16-2007, 03:20 AM
Collective winning percentages for each division.

AFC East: 0.442
AFC North: 0.491
AFC South: 0.642
AFC West: 0.415

NFC East: 0.615
NFC North: 0.558
NFC South: 0.423
NFC West: 0.415

Only reason NFC South is slightly higher than AFC & NFC West is because they have a game in hand.

Txn_in_Oki
12-16-2007, 03:27 AM
After looking at all the different conf.'s I've noticed that Houston has a 7-7 record and are at the bottom of their division. In almost every other division that would put them in second place if not in a hunt for 1st in the division.

Should they swap up some of the divisions to give other teams a chance that are in tough divisions a chance to have play off hopes?

Would doing this make other teams have to become more competitive? I am just looking to hear some thoughts on this.

http://www.nfl.com/standings

Why stop at the NFL? Anytime anyone runs into a little hardship or the need to try a little harder lets just move them somewhere else to make it easier on them.

The Texans are arguably in the toughest division in the NFL and I like it that way. In the end it is competition and the need to push harder that makes you better.

Such is life, but that might be a thread for the no spin zone.

:fans:

Thorn
12-16-2007, 08:49 AM
After looking at all the different conf.'s I've noticed that Houston has a 7-7 record and are at the bottom of their division. In almost every other division that would put them in second place if not in a hunt for 1st in the division.

Should they swap up some of the divisions to give other teams a chance that are in tough divisions a chance to have play off hopes?

Would doing this make other teams have to become more competitive? I am just looking to hear some thoughts on this.

http://www.nfl.com/standings

I've rearranged the NFL by geographical location for you. I might be a bit off, but it's fairly close. Of course, this has nothing to do with the competitive nature of the teams, but I was bored this morning and needed something to do.

Eastern Football Conference

New England
NY Giants
NY Jets
Buffalo

Cincinnati
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Detroit

Philadelphia
Washington
Baltimore
Pittsburg

Chicago
Green Bay
Minnesota
St. Louis


Western Football Conference

Carolina
Tampa Bay
Miami
Jacksonville

Atlanta
New Orleans
Tennessee
Houston

Kansas City
Dallas
Arizona
Denver

Seattle
San Diego
San Francisco
Oakland

GlassHalfFull
12-16-2007, 08:54 AM
I've rearranged the NFL by geographical location for you. I might be a bit off, but it's fairly close. Of course, this has nothing to do with the competitive nature of the teams, but I was bored this morning and needed something to do.

Eastern Football Conference

New England
NY Giants
NY Jets
Buffalo

Cincinnati
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Detroit

Philadelphia
Washington
Baltimore
Pittsburg

Chicago
Green Bay
Minnesota
St. Louis


Western Football Conference

Carolina
Tampa Bay
Miami
Jacksonville

Atlanta
New Orleans
Tennessee
Houston

Kansas City
Dallas
Arizona
Denver

Seattle
San Diego
San Francisco
Oakland

Now I just have to be picky here, sorry. But Carolina, Georgia and Florida belong in the East over Ohio and Indiana teams.

Thorn
12-16-2007, 09:03 AM
Now I just have to be picky here, sorry. But Carolina, Georgia and Florida belong in the East over Ohio and Indiana teams.

You're right. The Carolina division should swap places with the Chicago division.

Or, I could just rename the conferances. LOL

Yankee_In_TX
12-16-2007, 09:57 AM
No, because teams eb and flow. You'd have to rearrange the conferences every year or two.

Ole Miss Texan
12-16-2007, 11:10 AM
The AFC south hasn't always been the toughest division. It's going to change year to year. there is no point to change things up for reasons of 'giving some teams a chance'. You leave it up to them to make their team better and win. Colts have dominated our division every year, that will eventually come to an end. You just have to roll with the punches.

The only reason I would consider switching teams into different divisions is geographic location, but I think it's fine how it is now.

threetoedpete
12-16-2007, 12:07 PM
The big market teams will never ever give up their traditionl rivalries. Read when hades freezes over. Waist of band wideth guys.

Vinny
12-16-2007, 12:19 PM
They just tweaked the divisions a bit when we came into the league, so don't count on it changing any. Strength of division is cyclical...heck, we are the only really "big market" team in our division, but thankfully it doesn't matter that much because the NFL is smarter than MLB when it comes to the big markets and small markets.

rockabilly
12-16-2007, 12:45 PM
I think that divisions should be rearranged and rotated every certain number of years, mainly for the sake of change.

Speedy
12-16-2007, 12:46 PM
I've rearranged the NFL by geographical location for you. I might be a bit off, but it's fairly close. Of course, this has nothing to do with the competitive nature of the teams, but I was bored this morning and needed something to do.

Eastern Football Conference

New England
NY Giants
NY Jets
Buffalo

Cincinnati
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Detroit

Philadelphia
Washington
Baltimore
Pittsburg

Chicago
Green Bay
Minnesota
St. Louis


Western Football Conference

Carolina
Tampa Bay
Miami
Jacksonville

Atlanta
New Orleans
Tennessee
Houston

Kansas City
Dallas
Arizona
Denver

Seattle
San Diego
San Francisco
Oakland

Let's take a look at the standings in that setup.

New England 13-0
NY Giants 9-4
Buffalo 7-6
NY Jets 3-10

Indianapolis 11-2
Cleveland 8-5
Detroit 6-7
Cincinnati 5-9

Pittsburgh 9-4
Washington 6-7
Philadelphia 5-8
Baltimore 4-9


Green Bay 11-2
Minnesota 7-6
Chicago 5-8
St. Louis 3-10


Western Football Conference

Jacksonville 9-4
Tampa Bay 8-5
Carolina 5-8
Miami 0-13


Tennessee 7-6
Houston 7-7
New Orleans 6-7
Atlanta 3-10



Dallas 12-1
Arizona 6-7
Denver 6-8
Kansas City 4-9



Seattle 9-4
San Diego 8-5
Oakland 4-9
San Francisco 4-10

East seedings
NE-bye
Ind/GB-bye
Ind/GB-#3
Pit-#4
WC-NYG/Cle

West
Dal-bye
Jac/Sea-bye
Jac/Sea-#3
Ten-#4
WC-SD/TB

Houston still loses tiebreaker to SD and Ten, but they're just a game out of the 4 seed.

And it looks like the East may be the dominant conference.

Thorn
12-16-2007, 12:46 PM
Uh guys, I hope you weren't taking my post about reorganizing the divisions seriously. I just did that to kill a little time this morning. LOL

Although it was interesting the way it turned out. We would be doing pretty good in the division where I placed the Texans.

DenverFan
12-16-2007, 04:49 PM
I think this is a bad idea in a league that truly seems to achieve parity most every season. You can't just take one season and say the divisions need to be rearranged.

Texanmike02
12-16-2007, 07:18 PM
Collective winning percentages for each division.

AFC East: 0.442
AFC North: 0.491
AFC South: 0.642
AFC West: 0.415

NFC East: 0.615
NFC North: 0.558
NFC South: 0.423
NFC West: 0.415

Only reason NFC South is slightly higher than AFC & NFC West is because they have a game in hand.

I'm not going to do the math right now but I'm assuming you just averaged the winning % of each team in the division.

That stat really doesn't tell you anything. The seperation will actually be quite a bit more because what you need to do is take the division games out of the equation if you are trying to measure divisions against one another. Every division is .500 against itself and that skews the numbers pretty badly. For example the AFC south has a 71% winning percentage against other divisions.

So the divisions over .500 will raise their percentage while those below .500 will lower theirs.

Mike

JayCee
12-16-2007, 11:01 PM
I'm not going to do the math right now but I'm assuming you just averaged the winning % of each team in the division.

That stat really doesn't tell you anything. The seperation will actually be quite a bit more because what you need to do is take the division games out of the equation if you are trying to measure divisions against one another. Every division is .500 against itself and that skews the numbers pretty badly. For example the AFC south has a 71% winning percentage against other divisions.

So the divisions over .500 will raise their percentage while those below .500 will lower theirs.

Mike
Point taken about the division games - but it wasn't the average winning % - it was the total number of wins for all four teams divided by the number games the four teams had played. Was curious to see the strength of the teams in the division rather than division vs division.

But yeah, in hindsight didn't really think this one through enough - FILO_girl's post in the NFL forum is much better http://texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45343

Speedy
12-16-2007, 11:58 PM
I'm not going to do the math right now but I'm assuming you just averaged the winning % of each team in the division.

That stat really doesn't tell you anything. The seperation will actually be quite a bit more because what you need to do is take the division games out of the equation if you are trying to measure divisions against one another. Every division is .500 against itself and that skews the numbers pretty badly. For example the AFC south has a 71% winning percentage against other divisions.

So the divisions over .500 will raise their percentage while those below .500 will lower theirs.

Mike

It really doesn't make a difference if all divisions are .500 within their own. The differences would still be the same whether you counted those games or not.

Example: If division one is 20-10 with all games and division 2 is 18-12, that's a 2 game difference. If you take out the division games which would always be a win and a loss within that division, in this example let's say that's 6-6, division 1 is 14-4, division 2 is 12-6, still a 2 game difference.

Yeah the percentages are much different, but it can be a little misleading doing it that way I think.

20-10 is .667, 18-12 is .600, difference .067
14-4 is .778, 12-6 is .667, difference .111

Makes it look a lot better, but it's still just a 2 game difference.