kaufman@uiucdcs.UUCP (kaufman ) (02/01/84)
#N:uiucdcs:13000002:000:3553
uiucdcs!kaufman Jan 31 15:31:00 1984
It's now been 6 years since the NFL created its new scheduling format in
order to "add to the degree of parity in the league." This is a falsehood;
for the most part, the scheduling format tends to preserve the current pecking
order. Parity has come from other sources.
Let us look at the scheduling system:
If a team finished fifth in its division the previous year, it WILL be
aided by the schedule. It will play each team in its division twice, each of
the teams in the four team division in its conference once, the other fifth
place finisher in its conference twice, and each fifth place finisher in the
other conference.
Otherwise, (say a team finished nth in its division - in the top 4) a
team will play everyone in its division twice, the top 4 teams in a division in
the other conference, the nth and (5-n)th place finishers in the other div-
isions in its conference, and (only if the team is in a four team division)
the two fifth place finishers in the conference.
As a result, each team plays at least 3 first place finishers, 3 second
place finishers, 3 third place finishers, 3 fourth place finishers, and 2
fifth place finishers. That makes 14 games. The other two are against
fourth place teams if you finished first, third place teams if you finished
second, second place teams if you finished third, first place teams if you
finished fourth, and fifth place teams if you finished fifth.
Therefore, as it stands now, first place teams have the easiest schedules
next to fifth place teams. Parity or status quo? The real victims of this
situation are the fourth place teams in four team divisions who although they
finished last are given some of the toughest schedules rather than the easiest.
It's no coincidence that for several years, the Bengals were the best 6-10 team
in football. They were embedded in fourth place year in and year out, and with
their schedule, it would take a superhuman effort to get out of there. Compare
that with Tampa Bay's meteoric rise from 5th place to the playoffs in 1979.
That's not to say the Bucs weren't a good team, but they sure had an easier
time getting into the playoffs. Cincinnati had to play San Diego, Buffalo,
the Rams, and Pittsburgh twice (all defending division champs) the year they
went to the Super Bowl. All but Pittsburgh made the playoffs. They also had
to play the playoff-bound Jets and 49ers ... With their schedule, the Jets will
soar next year. The Falcons won't.
A solution which would ease this problem would be for nth place finishers
(again n is between 1 and 4; fifth place teams wouldn't be affected) to play
the two nth place teams in the other conference they otherwise wouldn't be
scheduled to play, and to remove the two (5-n)th place finishers in their
conference (but not their division) from their schedules. This would have the
additional benefit of making for more attractive matchups (no more Giants -
Cards on Monday night).
Under such a schedule, for example, the Raiders would play Washington and
San Francisco next year instead of Houston and Baltimore, while the Oilers
would scratch Miami as well as the Raiders in favor of Minnesota and Philadel-
phia. That would provide for Rozelle's mythical parity rather than seeing the
same teams in the playoffs year in and year out. Perhaps some of you think
parity is not so desirable. But like it or not, as a stated goal, it is not
being assisted by the current scheduling system.
Ken Kaufman (...!uiucdcs!kaufman)