Quote:
Originally Posted by OILFAN #81
Great point. There are some teams who will have 1 less loss then another team but played a way harder schedule. I know that no system will be perfect but they need to come up with a better schedule. For example, KC had a lighter schedule this year and they do good, so next year they now have a very difficult schedule as was just released this past weekend. KC is a good football team and their schedule shouldn't be based on their record (I think they will be something like 9-7 next year which will mean that their schedule will get easier the year after). I think their schedule is too hard next year compared to this year.
|
Nothing much can be done about that. Each team plays everyone in their division twice (6), plays another division within their conference (4) and another division in the opposite conference (4) and then 2 other games based on the previous seasons results and looking for what "should" be the best matchups. Thats really the only fair and equitable way to do things IMO. Otherwise you could go years without seeing the Jets and the Giants playing each other as an example. Or Dallas and Houston, San Fran and Oakland etc. Right now they are guarenteed to meeet at least once every 4 years if not more. There are just some natural rivals that division or conference play cant account for unless done as it is now.
I cant see anyway to make a "balanced" schedule in the NFL because of the sheer amount of teams. The only thing they could do is play everyone else in your conference once, (15) and then a division in the opposite conference once (4) every 4 years and that would get them to a 19 game schedule....not gonna happen. The problem with something like that is, for instance, the Packers would only host the Bears every other year...and that is something that all division rivals would object too IMO.