nfl- how to fix the 'wildcard'/parity problem

So with this year, the possibility of a 10-6 AFC team missing out and a 7-9 NFC  getting in  became very obvious.   Certainly, it's likely that 8-9 of the 12 best teams in the NFL are in the AFC this year.

For a while, it was actually very possible an 11-5 team would miss out in the AFC.

Of course, there are also the complicated and obscure  tiebreak procedures,  once you get past head to head. 

Eventually they even get to 'strength of victory' etc-  but how fair is this measure when you don't guarantee all teams have played eachother?
how to fix this?   (without increasing season length)


One idea I have been weighing-  is one that will piss off the traditionalist... (those who really enjoy the divisional rivalries...)

Play all 15 of your conference opponents 1x per year (alternate home/away each year).   Make the 16th game be  a 2nd game against one of your  ('old') division rivals.  Also means any good afc-nfc matchups will be missed in the regular season for certain. 

Essentially do away with 'divisions'   

the 6 best records get in, and from their the tiebreaks can be applied when/if needed.

The weak will be punished even more so by ensuring competition against the strong, and the  'fake' strong won't get those 1-2 extra wins a year by munching on their pansy divisional cupcakes (although with parity, this is getting less relevant)

Not a bad idea.  But you eliminate all of the out of conference games.  I always like to see how the AFC and NFC matched up against each other at the end of the year.

I'm having this argument over on the other golf forum w/ one of your favorite people.  There's no way in the world you should add more games to the NFL season.  Too many injuries.

oh, i agree.  I'm not arguing FOR a longer season..  just saying that it IS a factor, combined with the others (above) in contributing to the 'problems'  we are seeing

4 more games and most teams would be down to their jv squads

I guess I don't see the same burning need to "fix" things. You're looking at it like a mathematician; I'm looking at it like a football fan.  Upsets, "weaker" teams getting into the playoffs and or beating "better" teams -- that's just part of the entertainment.

last year, KC missed out @ 10-6. so it's certainly possible and has happened.

as for this year- i got typing ahead of myself... 
you're right, I meant that it was looking possible/probable for a 10 win to miss this year, but with all the late season losses (jax/cincy/etc) it will be a 9-7 team.   at the midway mark, an 11 win team missing was mathematically possible.

but with the system in place and the current power balance in the conferences,  next year, expect to see a 10 win team miss out again. it's just a matter of time.

so the question boils down to...  what level of reg season record is good enough? etc  . what level of measuring 'tiebreakers' is good enough ?



let's make an extreme hypothetical.  two teams in the AFC  have superstar all world, mvp , best players ever  QBs.

one is hurt in preseason.  his team goes 1-5 in the games while he is out.  the other starts 9-1, then their star gets hurt.  during this time, the 9-1 team beats the 1-5 team.   during the rest of their seasons, the 1-5 team goes 9-1 and the 9-1 team goes 1-5.   guess which one has no chance in the playoffs... and guess which one gets in ...

sure, its unlikely.  just pointing out that 10-6 and 10-6  can be meaningless in and of themselves,  and they're certainly meaningless unless each team plays the same 16 opponents.



so again, it boils down to how important is record in predicting super bowl/playoff success. ? 


also, remember, the afc home field  'holder'  is something like 2-6 in the last 8 games.   (i'm sure somebody better with stats than I am can look it up)