NFL Scheduling: A Broken System?

The NFL is the most popular sport in America, and its popularity is frequently attributed to the league's ability to produce new playoff teams and new champions virtually every year. 

Unlike other professional sports, fans of the previous season's least successful teams can have legitimate hope of a rapid turn around (unless your team is the Oakland Raiders, who have the unfortunate distinction of losing at least 11 games in each of their past five seasons).

The NFL's relatively short schedule of 16 games allows for a significant measure of luck in deciding the season's best teams. For example, the 2008 San Diego Chargers lost its first two games on last-second plays to begin a horrific 4-8 start, only to be given new life on the back of an 18-point comeback aided by a dropped onside kick in the final minute.

The Thursday-night showdown between the New England Patriots and New York Jets came down to a coin flip in the overtime period—a measure of luck that cost the Patriots the playoffs.

While I believe that this aspect of the NFL makes the regular-season games more exciting for fans, if the object of the regular season is to get the best 12 teams in the playoffs, then adding two games to the schedule could help. 

It is hard to argue that the New England Patriots, who finished with a record of 11-5 (equal to or better than five of the 12 playoff teams), were not one of the top 12 teams of 2008, but when playoff time rolled around, they were left on the outside looking in. 

Although many Patriots' fans and players rightfully feel short-changed, a change in how the NFL decides playoff seeding should not occur. Divisions are the essence of what makes the NFL so exciting for so many fans. If they meant nothing, rivalries would be diminished and many fans would see their teams hopes of making the playoffs crushed long before the conclusion of the season.

What should be changed is the NFL's scheduling format. Each year, first-place teams must play against all other division winners in their conference, second place teams play against the division runner-ups and so on.

While this does serve the obvious purpose of creating more exciting matchups, it gives the teams that finished lower in the standings a distinct advantage over teams that finished first and second in their division.  

For example, in the unexpectedly competitive AFC, teams like the Ravens, Titans, and Dolphins were the benefactors of games against the previous year's last place teams, while their division rivals were forced to play against the other top teams in the conference. 

In a regular-season schedule where one game is worth so much, any advantage in scheduling within a division can determine who goes to the playoffs and who goes home.  

Once again, if the point of the regular season is to put the 12 best teams in the playoffs, then this system is inherently flawed. It forces the best teams to fight against each other, opening up doors for lesser teams to make the playoffs. 

I am not saying that the current system makes it impossible for teams to make the playoffs on a consistent basis (see the Colts and Patriots of this decade), but I am saying that the schedule makes it much more difficult to do so. 

Ultimately, while the end result of the current unbalanced scheduling system is a league of greater parity and consequently greater upward mobility for NFL franchises on a year to year basis, I want to see the best of the best duke it out in January and February. 

Great regular-season matchups are nice, but great postseason matchups are better.