2023 NFL Regular Season Through Super Bowl LVIII

[Fowler2]

The NFL should change the seeding to top 7 by record regardless if you win your division or not. 

[infrared41]

7 minutes ago, BottomlessPitt said:

The NFL should change the seeding to top 7 by record regardless if you win your division or not. 

 

If the NFL went that route, there would be no point in having divisions.

[Fowler2]

5 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

If the NFL went that route, there would be no point in having divisions.

 

Divisions for scheduling purposes and keeping rivalries. 

[The_Admiral]

29 minutes ago, BBTV said:

It's downright silly that a team can go 11-6, with all 6 being division losses, and win the division.  In what universe does that make sense?

I hate the 17-game schedule so much, too, but was it possible to do that at 10-6?

[infrared41]

11 minutes ago, BottomlessPitt said:

 

Divisions for scheduling purposes and keeping rivalries. 

 

Still pointless.

[Blast_Brothers]

I wouldn't mind if the NFL experimented with adding more divisional games. If each divisional opponent was played three times, that would be half of a hypothetical 18-game schedule. That feels like a little bit too much - maybe each year you only play one team three times. I dunno.

 

Of course, this will never happen, because one of the advantages (from the NFL's perspective) of the extra game(s) is that there are more "unique matchups" to market.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

2 hours ago, infrared41 said:

We might have been a bit premature in burying the Buffalo Bills. 

 

They were premature in burying themselves. They might be the first team with a 150+ point differential that misses the playoffs (I'm making that stat up).

 

But they threw away winnable games that might be hard to dig out of. And because of that, they need help to get into the playoffs while they may be the most talented AFC team.

 

However the season shakes out, I think McDermott needs to go. Blowout win or close loss is not a recipe for long-term success.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

I hate the 17-game schedule so much, too, but was it possible to do that at 10-6?

 

Same point.

 

One thing that college gets right is in counting conference / division games for conference / division titles.  You obviously can't render non-conference/division games meaningless in the NFL, but I think a weighting system is fair.  Within conference, 3 for conference wins, 2 for non-conference wins (so as to only weight conference games 33% more than interconference ones.  For division, 3 for division, 2 for everything else.  Standings would look ugly, but IDGAF.  It'd be more within the spirit of having divisions and conference wild cards.

[infrared41]

42 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

They were premature in burying themselves. They might be the first team with a 150+ point differential that misses the playoffs (I'm making that stat up).

 

But they threw away winnable games that might be hard to dig out of. And because of that, they need help to get into the playoffs while they may be the most talented AFC team.

 

However the season shakes out, I think McDermott needs to go. Blowout win or close loss is not a recipe for long-term success.

 

All fair points. My counterargument is the Bills are heating up at the right time and I think they get in. Once they're in, anything can happen. Brilliant analysis on my part, right? (FWIW, I would have totally bought the +150 stat.)

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, Blast_Brothers said:

I wouldn't mind if the NFL experimented with adding more divisional games. If each divisional opponent was played three times, that would be half of a hypothetical 18-game schedule. That feels like a little bit too much - maybe each year you only play one team three times. I dunno.

 

Of course, this will never happen, because one of the advantages (from the NFL's perspective) of the extra game(s) is that there are more "unique matchups" to market.

 

There are no "unique match ups" in the NFL. There are only match ups that don't happen as often as others.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Turns out it was the 89 49ers at exactly +100: https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/best-point-differential-by-an-nfl-team-who-missed-the-playoffs-in-a-season#:~:text=Best Point Differential By An NFL Team Who,playoff season%2C with a 100-point differential in 1989.

 

 

[infrared41]

6 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Turns out it was the 89 49ers at exactly +100: https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/best-point-differential-by-an-nfl-team-who-missed-the-playoffs-in-a-season#:~:text=Best Point Differential By An NFL Team Who,playoff season%2C with a 100-point differential in 1989.

 

 

 

The 1989 49ers won the Super Bowl by 45 points.

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

2 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

The 1989 49ers won the Super Bowl by 45 points.

 

 

 

You're right. That seemed off; I just pasted and posted.

 

Maybe it was the 91 49ers? They were +154 and 3rd in the NFC West that year at 10-6.

[BBTV]

4 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

You're right. That seemed off; I just pasted and posted.

 

Maybe it was the 91 49ers? They were +154 and 3rd in the NFC West that year at 10-6.

 

Both them and the Eagles missed the playoff at 10-6.  That was when the Eagles had arguably the best single-season defense in NFL history, but Cunningham got hurt in game 1 (f-ing Bryce Paup!) and they had Jim McMahon and Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest the rest of the way.

[The_Admiral]

35 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Same point.

 

One thing that college gets right is in counting conference / division games for conference / division titles.  You obviously can't render non-conference/division games meaningless in the NFL, but I think a weighting system is fair.  Within conference, 3 for conference wins, 2 for non-conference wins (so as to only weight conference games 33% more than interconference ones.  For division, 3 for division, 2 for everything else.  Standings would look ugly, but IDGAF.  It'd be more within the spirit of having divisions and conference wild cards.

Too much math! Me caveman. Me like when man hit hard. Makes soft pensive piano variation play.

 

I mean, I get your point, but the juice ain't worth the squeeze. Play the games on the schedule and do your best and more likely than not it all ends up making some degree of sense. If I wanted college voodoo math, I'd watch college.

[DCarp1231]

An 18 game schedule is feasible, but could get tricky 

 

2 games vs divisional opponents

4 games against NFC Division

4 games against AFC Division

1 game vs same place finish in other two AFC/NFC Divisions

1 game vs rotational same place finish 2 opposite conference division

 

Example-

 

Commanders

 

Cowboys

Giants

Eagles

Cowboys

Giants

Eagles

Panthers

Saints

Buccaneers

Falcons

Ravens

Steelers

Browns

Bengals

Bears

Cardinals

Chargers

Titans

 

[infrared41]

27 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

An 18 game schedule is feasible, but could get tricky 

 

An 18 game schedule would be awful. We've already seen what a 17 game schedule has done to the quality of play. You wouldn't think that adding one more game would have resulted in the drop off it has, but here we are. It would only get worse with an 18th game.

[tBBP]

1 minute ago, infrared41 said:

 

An 18 game schedule would be awful. We've already seen what a 17 game schedule has done to the quality of play. You wouldn't think that adding one more game would have resulted in the drop off it has, but here we are. It would only get worse with an 18th game.

 

I brought this up once before in the reel line mint section (is that still a thing?), and the league will never so it, because they'd lose too much TV and advertising revenue, BUT...I think that if they're really serious about player safety (which beyond lip service they're not) then if anything the league should chop it down to fifteen games per [regular] season, with two byes mixed in. Basically a 5/5/5 setup, a season of thirds. That'd give the players adequate time to rest during the season. If they want 18 games, three of those can be preaseason games. Then add on the postseason and you got your complete slate.

 

But of course, and again, They'll never do this. No league will. More games = more revenue. And they ain't tryna lose that bread. Plus, how else are the owners gonna keep paying those increasingly exorbitant QB salaries???

[BBTV]

If we care about divisions then play each team thrice, for 9 of your 17 games. You still have enough to play one other division in each conference, you just lose the handicap that the division winners currently have. 

[The_Admiral]

God damn the 17th game. The 2002-2020 matrix was nearly perfect.