The thing that's the most interesting to me is that the AFC is so close, and the NFC is not. I wonder if the fact that the AFC seems more competitive has something to do with the NFC's dominance in the Super Bowl? Certainly it seems to have an effect on the perception of the representatives from the two conferences: if a team goes in with a gaudy W-L record, it is likely to be favored, notwithstanding the quality of the teams against whom the record was achieved. Who would you rather see your team play in the playoffs: KC, which has scored more points than any other team in the league, or the Philadelphia Eagals, who have rolled up a pretty record against the likes of the Cowboys, Giants, and Cardinals?
If the NFC is so dominant, why not make a two-tier system, such that you have the NFC with 16 top teams (SuperLeague) and AFC with the other 16 teams (AverageLeague). Then, everybody plays everybody once in their respective leagues (computer evens out the home/away games - some people will get the shaft, whatever. The current dissimilar playing schedules are no better. At least, this way, in the regular season, everybody plays everybody in the same conference). So, now they have a regular-season schedule of 15 games. At the end of the regular season, the top 4 AverageLeague teams get promoted to the SuperLeague, where they'll play the next season. The bottom 4 SuperLeague teams get relegated to the AverageLeague. In the post-season, the top 4 teams from both leagues enter the playoffs to get to the SuperBowl. You can randomly draw them at the end of the season, or you can just pre-determine the matchups based on end-of-season places (pref. with crossover games between leagues). So, no more Divisions, just two Conferences/Leagues, two Conference Champs, and the SuperBowl champions. But then again, I'm not sure if that would then cause financial inequities and problems like those seen in the MLB or in the Euro soccer leagues (teams on the brink of bankruptcy, talk of scrapping entire divisions, players taking salary caps, etc.) The NFL is a model of equitable distribution, at least in terms of money sharing and draft picks.
Speaking as a Bengals fan, I would very much like the NFL to have promotion and relegation. That way, the Bengals would suffer the relegation they so richly deserve.
I wonder, how much longer the Bengals will have to play at this level before the league steps in? A while, I suppose-- Arizona is nearly as bad. As appealing as the promotion/religation model is, it seems to me that it is better suited to baseball. The NFL's parity scheme works well for a league where revenues are so evenly shared. Speaking strictly as a Bills fan, I love it that the team I follow is still in the hunt, however unlikely it is that they will beat Green Bay Sunday, and whatever all else needs to occur.
There is no real precedent in the big 4 North American leagues (NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB) to take over a team (or request a new ownership) because of poor ability. Sure they take over teams that are struggling financially (Buffalo Sabres, Montreal Expos come to mind) but none that just plain suck. The Ottawa Senators (in the early 90's) really sucked and no one did anything. They have since recovered and are a good team. The Toronto Blue Jays were the worst expansion team in history, and they eventually won the World Series (twice!). The Los Angeles Clippers have been futile for decades and...um... That said, the NFL is the easiest league to get back on your feet with the salary cap, free agent system and revenue sharing. You have to remember that the Rams were just BRUTAL for years before they got real good.
When it comes to futility in American Sports, I usually think of the NFL's Cardinals. Not always the worst in the league, but *never* any good. At least I've watched the Bengals in the Superbowl. As grum says, the parity in the NFL means that no team should be consistently bad for so long. I don't know how the Cardinals do it.
