Dec 18, 2005 7:19pm Brian Davidson

powerful national west conference

To bad the best team in the league didn't earn the bye this year, would have made for a great super bowl, oh well thats what playing in the best conference gets you...Good luck in the super bowl Kinsman brothers

Dec 19, 2005 12:10amBobby Sansone

Bri & Chris-
You guys both had incredible seasons. Congrats on that. Bri, you bring up a good point on the unbalance in the divisions though. I think we need to discuss evening out the divisions at the winter meetings. Both West divisions are clearly stronger than the East divisions.

Dec 19, 2005 11:08amMike Kinsman

it will even out with time... just draft better players.

Dec 19, 2005 5:37pmBobby Sansone

yeah, maybe I am overreacting.

I look at the AFC West though, on the verge of winning their third Super Bowl in a row (what's the spread anyway?) and clearly it has been a superior division over the AFC East (what was the last time an AFC East team won a playoff game or even sent two teams to the playoffs???) and think we should at least consider evening out the divisions.

Anyone else want to weigh in? I am being unreasonable?

Dec 20, 2005 9:55amJon Kinsman

There's not really much merit to this argument since it was unanimously voted at last Winter Meeting that realignment was not needed, but here's a statistical look at how each division's teams have fared historically:

AFC East - 290-274-9 (.514)
AFC West - 285-281-14 (.504)
NFC East - 258-299-16 (.463)
NFC West - 296-272-11 (.521)

As you can see, it's fairly close. The NFC East suffers from the Dragons' terrible winning percentage from their early seasons (my bad), the White Guys perpetual struggles (sorry Aceto) and the Mallards stumble out of the gates as an expansion franchise.

Although the AFC West is widely considered the best division right now, you'll find that their historical winning percentage is only 3rd among the 4 divisions.

Since you can't forecast the future (just look at this season...5 different MVP candidates from last year, Brothers and Poop in the playoffs, etc.) the only thing you can really base the competitive level of each division is on an owner's track record, which if you look at the above numbers, is relatively close for each division.

If you need Sean Salisbury to break it down further, I can always call Bristol...

Dec 20, 2005 4:01pmSteve Dugas

Jon- while i like seeing all the statistics, its hard to compare divisions when we play within our own division half of the games each season, for instance the Merry Men have a franchise winning percentage of .600 but for the most part play .500 ball within the afc west. while i like the divisions the way they are, i could see a scenario where we redraft the divisions every 10 yrs or something.

Dec 20, 2005 10:52pmMike Kinsman

Terrible example. While the merry men have a winning percentage of 600 you have to remember that they have played in only half of the games that original franchises have played in. Although you play more games within your division, the teams that had better records the previous year tend to play a tougher schedule than bottom of the barrel teams of the prior year. Draft better players and make good moves on the waiver wire. and steve... draft a quarterback please

Dec 21, 2005 12:19amAnthony Aceto

I agree with Mike. The owners in the other divisions just need to pick it up a bit. I understand that it is frustrating for the losers in the competitive divisions, but it gives character to the league. Reallignment in any league under the sun is only something that has to do with geography. Divisions should be tougher than others from year to year - it happens in sports and challenges those owners to get even better, fostering stronger rivalries. I think we need to get over the immediacy of the frustrations of losing this season and think about this issue less emotionally. We are building a nice history within this league with strong divisional rivalries - it is a very bad idea in my mind to destroy that.

Dec 21, 2005 6:50amJon Kinsman

If there are such strong feelings about this, I will add this to the Winter Meeting agenda again, but I'd like to discourage this topic from coming up year after year because one division was better than the other ones.

As Anthony pointed out, one of the best things this league has going for it is its history. I think it would be a shame to break up division rivalries that have been in place since 1999, but if the rest of the league advocates it, we can do it.

Dec 21, 2005 7:49pmBobby Sansone

In the famous words of the fantasy mastermind Jon Kinsman, "Points scored are the most indicative measure of how good a team is." Right Jon?

With that in mind, if you look back over the past three years, the AFC East and AFC West scoring numbers are alarming. Look at the standings from 2004 and it will blow you away. The last place team in the West had 46 more points than the highest scoring team in the AFC East!

If this was a one year thing I wouldn't be overly concerned but this has been going on for three years now. Once is a fluke, twice is a coincedence, three times is a problem.

Here are some stats that can't be ignored:
AFC East 2005 Total Points Scored: 1774
AFC West 2005 Total Points Scored: 2156
Difference: 382 or 96 points per team!

AFC East 2004 Total Points Scored: 1789
AFC West 2004 Total Points Scored: 2324
Difference: 535 or 134 points per team!

AFC East 2003 Total Points Scored: 1840
AFC West 2003 Total Points Scored: 2141
Difference: 301 or 75 points per team!

This is a touchy subject because I don't know how to propose it without offending the owners of the AFC East. The truth is I think you are all fantastic owners. This is not what this issue is about though. It's about making the playing field more competitive across the entire league.

Second issue is the subject of tradition vs. progression. Tradition is a CRITICAL aspect of the YFFL and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with though is that it is preventing the league from progressing. I believe we need to find ways to restore tradition but also progress at the same time. We are so caught up in the history of the league that we are afraid to evolve.

What do you guys think of a simple move like exchanging the Buddies with the Llamas? It would be just as subtle as the Brewers joinin the NL or the Seahawks moving to the NFC.

Dec 21, 2005 10:29pmAnthony Aceto


Let me be the first to say that I understand your frustration - I understand my division sucks, but we could easily end up in the same position 2-3 years from now. The league is set up in a way that you can ride 2 good RBs and a WR for years, while if other people run into misfortune of bust picks and injuries, they can be left in the shitter. Pittsburgh could miss the playoffs at 11-5 in arguably the best division in football, while the Patriots at the same time could make the playoffs going 9-7 in undoubtably the worst. It happens in sports - the AL Central, for instance, or the Eastern Conference in the NBA. The western conf. ends up with all of the good big men and they dominate for 5 solid years. This trend is currently in a natural reversal.

You are a top-echelon owner in this league in many ways but I very strongly disagree with this proposal. We voted it down last year, and instead of spending time arguing it now, my proposal is this: we should let the Kinsman bros have their time in the spotlight, enjoy the holiday season, and attack this issue with vigor if necessary at the winter meetings with clear minds if the commisioner deems it necessary.

Dragons 52-22

Post Reply