This is the NFL's toughest division?

You've probably read in this space and in our newspaper a time or two that the NFC South is arguably the toughest division in football. Notice, however, you haven't seen us make this claim recently, even if there are some in the Bucs locker room who continue to make this assertion.

I'm not buying it any longer.

Look at the mess this division has become. What once was a division whose champion was likely to do damage in the playoffs now is the NFL's clearance rack. I mean, come on: the Bucs have basically stumbled their way to 5-4. The Panthers (4-5) are going around losing to the Falcons (3-6). And the Saints (4-5), well, is it me or are they Team Schizo?

Just look at history and contrast it to the present. Only once in the five seasons since realignment has the winner of the NFC South won fewer than 11 games (the Saints went 10-6 last season). This season, it'll be surprising if anyone sniffs 10 wins.

And in each of those aforementioned five seasons, a team from the NFC South reached the NFC Championship Game. Twice (the Bucs in '02 and the Panthers in '03) the division winner reached the Super Bowl. I'm willing to bet my lunch money that this ain't happening in '07.

There are many factors in the downfall of the division, particularly the loss of key players. Atlanta lost Michael Vick and Carolina lost Jake Delhomme, for example. And we don't need to go through the litany of Bucs injuries for the umpteenth time, do we? Still, we're talking about a division where the combined winning percentage is .444.

There are other pathetic divisions out there. The NFC West also has a lone team above .500, as does the AFC West. But teams from those divisions haven't had nearly as much recent success as teams from the NFC South, so it's not a surprise.

For the record, if you ask me, the toughest division for my money is the AFC South. You've got Indianapolis, Tennessee, Jacksonville and Houston. They all manage to beat each other while remaining pretty dominant outside the division.

If nothing else, there's at least one upside to all this. We know the teams in the NFC South will continue to beat up on each other while losing games they're not supposed to. And when all is said and done, there will be drama right up until the end of the season.

Comments

[DR]

Stephen, you forgot to mention that in the past 4 seasons, the NFC Division winner was the previous season's last place team. If the Bucs win the division this year, that will be five consecutive worst-to-first finishes in the NFC South. That, to me, indicates a mediocre at best division.

[DR]

Stephen, you forgot to mention that in the past 4 seasons, the NFC South Division winner was the previous season's last place team. If the Bucs win the division this year, that will be five consecutive worst-to-first finishes in the NFC South. That, to me, indicates a mediocre at best division.

[Matt]

I'll take a turnaround from 4-12 to a Division Champion and a home playoff game. Before last weekend's beautiful game in New Orleans about 75% of sports writers still had the NFC champion coming out of the NFC South.

The Buc's still have an opportunity to go 2-2 against the best division in football. Only Indy really showed they were significantly superior.

I'd see the Buc's winning at home against either the Lions, Giants or Saints in a 1st Round Playoff.

Could they go into Green Bay or Dallas and come out with a win, maybe not but the chance to win 13 or 14 games like those two will has long since past us by. Those two teams are clearly having better seasons than the Buc's.

Also football is a long season. The Buc's would be a chance against Dallas or Green Bay on the road if either Romo or Favre got injured.

That said if Garcia gets injured we probably don't win another game.

[Pete]

I certainly don't think this is the year to try and argue that the NFC South is the best division in football (that title should go to the AFC South). But, if you look at the history of this division, I think you CAN make a case that it has been ONE of the best.

All FOUR teams in the division have been to the NFC Championship game or better since the division re-aligment. Not to mention that most of those years, one of the wildcard teams was from this division, too.

The worst-to-first thing doesn't mean the division is mediocre ... as long as that first-place team doesn't always fizzle in the first round (which, obviously, is not the case).

Just because people hate the Bucs and want to find reasons to hate on Gruden and downgrade everything he's done here doesn't mean the division stinks. That's certianly not true.

But, that said, this year, the NFC South is NOT the best division. That has to be the AFC South with the NFC East being a close runner-up.

[Stephen_Holder]

I agree that the worst-to-first issue is a credit to the depth of the division over the (previous) years. That shows how competitive it has been. And Pete, I agree that the NFC South has been a very difficult division over the years. I'm just pointing out that it's weak THIS season. Thanks to all for the input.

[George L Hicks]

Well fans, I think that all these trading and non-loyality to their home teams through-out every division it happens. Some players do want to stay with one team. A Couple of players that
it has come to mind is All Pro LB Brooks and FB soon to be retired next year Mike Alstott. These players give over 100% day end and day out. One thing I think the NFL needs to do is change the entire division alignment, I think if all teams they would be effected. Not go overseas to play their games.Keep the teams in the states. If they want to put a team in across the northern border go ahead. But keep the teams in the states.

[Greg]

Pete, well put. I'm happy to see my home team in contention, period. There are a lot of vet leaders as well as a good mix of young and experienced players, not to mention great quality people, both players/coaches and owners that comprise the team I choose to call my own. Go Bucs.

Heh, another former Gator player to cheer for. I know he can take it to the house on punt returns and kickoffs.

couldn't be better.

[Skylar]

Just a note: the reason that the worst teams do the best the following year is that the new NFL alignment gives them the easiest schedule. That said, since the division is actually good, not bad, that team has an advantage the following year. The last place team plays all of the last place teams in the conference from the previous year. It's not much, but apparently the difference. I disagree though that we have "stumbled" to 5-4. The only team to really thump us was Indy and we gave away the Detroit and Jacksonville games. We were within 3 in the Seattle game before we lost our RB (to an illegal hit) and our QB (to an ill-advised run.) Had the Barber interceptions gone our way, we would have run away with Tennessee too; that's a 10 point swing there. We are good, but young and hopefully we will mature for the final stretch. Go Bucs!!!

[Dave in Arkansas]

Skylar, I don't think you can attribute scheduling to the one year turn around (worst-to-first).

Yes, the "worst" teams from the year before get the "easiest" schedule the following year, but that amounts to a total of TWO games.

Teams are already locked into 6 division games (in our case, thats NO, CAR, and ATL twice each), plus 4 teams from one division in conference (this year its the NFC West), and 4 games against teams from an out-of-conference division (NFC South plays AFC South in 07). So 14 opponents are already decided for each year. THEN you get to play the other 2 conference teams that finished in the same place in their respective divisions (how we draw Detroit and Washington).

The process is fair and makes for some interesting match-ups (like the fact that we keep getting to play the Redskins. Or that the Colts & Pats keep finishing first in their divisions, guaranteeing a regular-season game the following year). But you certainly can't say that TWO games against lesser opponents is "the reason" that the worst teams do better the following year.

By the way, along with our NFC South schedule, we've got NFC North plus AFC West in 08 and NFC East plus AFC East in 09.

[DR]

I disagree with the worst-to-first trend being a sign of a good division. There are only six games played in the division and you're telling me that the first place team can't handle a first place schedule is a good trend. The last place team can handle a last place schedule and that's a good thing. That's terrible. The new alignment of divisions allows weaker teams to play easier schedules and that is bad for the NFL. I like the NFL scheduling a NFC division to play another AFC divison, that would be 10 games of the schedule, but the final 6 games should be the same opponents for the whole division, that would only be fair.

[DR]

Dave, 2 games in a 16 game shedule is a huge deal. 2 games could make a 7-9 team a 9-7 team and in the playoffs. With some of these divisions, that could mean a division title. The Bucs went 11-5 a couple of years ago and in my opinion, they were the worst team ever to win 10+ games. They showed how bad they were with their performance in the playoffs, at home. Those 2 games could have meant 9-7, thats a huge deal.

[Tom]

DR, the Bucs that went 11-5 was a good team. They had the #1 defense in the league! They dominated the Skins in the playoff game and lost because of a Caddy fumble for a TD and a drop in the end zone at the end of the game. Plus, Greg William's defense was great that year. I agree, the Bucs were no powerhouse, but they were about as good as the Dungy years teams.

[Dave in Arkansas]

DR, you and I disagree on the meaning of "huge".

Yes, there is a difference between 7-9 and 9-7. But huge? No.

And that difference of two wins versus two losses has MUCH more to do with all of the other factors that go into deciding an outcome (personnel quality, performance, strategy, preparation, home/away, etc) rather than schedule-making.

I'm not saying that the "easier schedule for the poorer teams" policy doesn't make a difference. It does. Ans that difference is TWO GAMES.

Skylar's point was: "the reason that the worst teams do the best the following year is that the new NFL alignment gives them the easiest schedule."

My counterpoint is: 2 games against weaker opponents will not elevate you from worst to first. When was the last time a 7-9 time finished last in their division, then went 9-7 the following year and won that same division? 2 games against weaker opponents will give you exactly 2 easier match-ups, nothing more, nothing less. You still need to beat your division opponents to win a division.

2 games is a difference. And that difference alone certainly won't get you from worst to first, which was the point of this thread in the first place.

[Skylar]

Dave, what you say does make some sense on the surface, but two games actually counts as four as the first place team conversely has to play the first place teams also. Case in point; the Colts two losses came to those 2 first place division teams; Pats and Chargers. Had they played Miami and Oakland they would still be undefeated and and tied with the Pats for the conference home field. Furthermore, they wouldn't have the Jags (whom have beaten and Texans chomping at their heels. The point is being made right in front of your face albeit from the opposite direction, but you can't see the forest through the trees and therefore I will spend no more time defending the obvious.

DR...I know you hate Gruden, but that was a damn good team, especially when Greise was at the helm. After he got hurt at 4-0 (I believe he got hurt in the fifth game at home against the Bears,) we made it to the playoffs in spite of having one of the worst QB's in the league. It's kinda like the Tennessee Titans of present or the Bucs when we had Dilfer. Great "teams" with bad QB's. It's like Mean Joe Green told Bradshaw when he joined the Steelers; he said: "You're not gonna win a game for us, but you can damn sure lose one."

That playoff game wasn't Caddy's fault for 2 reasons: 1) the Redskin player was down by contact before he ever got up running and despite instant replay, that play should never have stood, and 2) the inept play of Simms squandered the best performance by a defense in a playoff loss in NFL history...check the books. You know better than to go around dissing my Bucs without the facts...pizza boy.

[Dave In Arkansas]

Skylar,

Defending the obvious? Win or lose, two games still count as two games. The only time two games count as more than two games in the standings is if you have swept a division opponent to gain a tie breaker advantage (see: Pittsburgh over Cleveland) in which case you can have what amounts to a 2 1/2 game advantage.

But here IS the obvious: 2 games against weaker opponents will NOT take a 5-11 team and make them 10-6. Your theory that the reason that the worst teams do the best the following year is that the new NFL alignment gives them the easiest schedule is just plain wrong.

The only advantage to this "weaker" schedule is two games against teams that under-performed the previous year. You still have 12 games in common and 2 games head-to-head with each of your division opponents.

Even if you translate your two "weaker opponent" games into wins, and a division winners two "stronger opponent" games into losses (which is a stretch, given the competitive balance of the NFL), you gain .125 pct points. With 14 of 16 games still in the balance, that is not a statistically significant advantage.

[DR]

Dave, you and I do agree, 2 games is a deal but not as big as Skylar is making it. I don't like making excuses either. F it, if you're a great team, you'll want to play the best and beat the best. You beat whoever is in front of you. Period.
Skylar, you complain about a missed call in the playoffs but seem to forget a missed call in favor of the Bucs that made a HUGE difference. Mike Alstott's 2 point conversion was called good against the Skins which the NFL later apologized for. Alstott doesn't make it, Panthers win the division, and the Cowboys have something to play for on Sunday night, Week 17 against the Rams, and if the 'Boys win, they are in the playoffs. I can't recall any bigger missed call since replay has been readmitted. I don't want to hear you complain about bad calls.

[Skylar]

DR...Please. First of all, as usual, you missed the point of the conversation and redirected your argument to something totally insignificant. What I said was that the loss was not Caddy's fault alone (as someone had stated in an earlier blog,) that there were other mitigating circumstances which helped culminate the loss...that was the point...not that I was complaining about officiating. I also never said that I thought that the schedule was the 'end all' in team performance, I just merely pointed out how the realignment has made the schedules more favorable for the division losers and less favorable for the division winners...that's just a fact. Of course, I realize that you tend not to deal in facts as that would leave you with not much to say. If you don't think that strength of schedule typically plays a significant role in a teams overall record then you and Dave should start tailgating together in Arkansas.

Also, so you think because a call was made and it affected the way your Cowboys played that it was the worst call in NFL history? Now that's a baby talking there. I just have to say that in my biased opinion the 2-pt conversion was good by Alstott and I don't recall the NFL making any apologies concerning it as none were necessary. I'm also not sure why you "can't recall any bigger missed call since replay" as it was definitely, and not arguably, a hairline call. I do however recall the NFL changing the rules in the offseason (concerning a catch) when they fu@@ed up the Bert Emanual call in the NFC championship vs. the Rams which may very well have put us in the SB in 1999! Now that's a fu@@up; just like you.

[DR]

Skylar, you're a shmuck. At what point do you not understand that Dave and I agree with you? Dave said it was only two games that are different between division schedules which is a fact. I said those two games can mean the difference between the playoffs and no playoffs. The difference between going 9-7 to going 11-5 like the Bucs. That Alstott call was horrendous and it's no surprise that you forgot about the NFL apology. The Bert Emanuell call was terrible as well, but it did not take away or add points to the game. It took away opportunity, but there was no guarantee that Tampa would have scored. If the 2 pt conversion wasn't called like it should NOT have, it changed the outcome of the game. Tampa would have had to onsides kick and pray for a miracle. I'm just telling you the situation and not crying about. But you can't tell me that teams try hard the last week when they have nothing to play for, that's F-n stupid. Now that I flushed you again, please stop coming back up. I guess I 'll have to call roto-rooter.

[Skylar]

You are not worthy of my jockstrap and you know it. Good try though at being sassy though.