In 1967, 1968, and 1969, all four teams in the same division of the pre-merger NFL played 14 out of 14 games against common opponents — and no one ever complained about it (this was the first time that the league ever tried to see to it that teams in the same division or conference played the same opponents; but with the NFL-AFL merger in 1970, teams in the same division often played very few common opponents — and thus often played massively different schedules, in terms of how difficult the schedules were).
When the schedule is increased to 18 games, quite possibly as soon as 2027, all four teams in the same division can play 18 out of 18 games against common opponents.
And how could this be done?
First, abolish the "17th game" (an interconference game) that was added to each team's schedule in 2021 — and then have each team play all four teams from two of the three divisions in their own conference (every team would continue to play all four teams from one division in the other conference, with one game between such teams every four years — which is how it worked from 2002 through 2020).
With non-division opponents in the same conference meeting twice every three years, the head-to-head tiebreaker becomes more likely to be invoked, especially if two (or more) teams from different divisions within the same conference finish with the same record at the end of the season. And if there is a three-way tie and one team finished 1-0 in head-to-head games among the three tied teams, with the second team 1-1 and the third team 0-1, this would be made valid (however, if one of the three tied teams did not play either of the other two, head-to-head could not be applied; this was the rule that was in effect from 1970 through 1977, although it never actually happened). This would apply both for playoff seeding, and to break ties for the wild card berths themselves.
Doing this would streamline and simplify everything — and very few ties would still exist beyond the first two steps: Head-to-head and conference record.
Giving last-place teams from the previous season "easier" schedules than first-place teams from the previous season has long since become an archaic concept: after finishing 4-13 and last in the AFC East in both 2023 and 2024, the Patriots have already clinched the division this season with one game remaining. Prior to 1978, when the NFL started using the schedule to promote "parity," such "surprise turnarounds" were rare — and generally meant a Coach of the Year award to any head coach who pulled one off.
And if there is less "mobility" — upward or downward — the draft will take care of that, if the front offices of the bottom teams are at all competent.
Besides, isn't the draft enough to foster "competitive balance?" And the league needs to stop using strength of schedule as a tiebreaker to determine draft order. It is just plain unfair to doubly penalize a team that played a tough schedule by saddling them with a lower draft pick. Instead, the tiebreakers shown on Page 37 of the 2025 NFL Record & Fact Book (with Jalen Hurts on the front cover!) can be used to break ties involving teams with the same final regular-season record, except that "strength of schedule" needs to be omitted, and, as above, if three teams are tied and they finished 1-0, 1-1, and 0-1 in head-to-head results, this would also be a valid method of breaking the tie (the lack of this caused the Cowboys to get the 3 seed in the 2014 NFC playoffs when actually they should have gotten the 1 seed, since in that year, Dallas beat Seattle and Seattle beat Green Bay, while Dallas and Green Bay did not play each other. All three teams finished 12-4 and won the NFC East, West and North, respectively).
More games between teams in different divisions of the same conference is clearly the way to go. And the results of actual games should be used to decide as much as possible — not by "strength of victory" or some other such Pythagorean nonsense.
Leave a Comment