Here's what the NFL's scheduling looks like now: All teams in your division home and away (6 games) All teams from one division in your conference on rotating basis. (4 games) All teams from one division in the other conference on a rotating basis. (4 games) The other 2 games are the teams that finished in the same spot as you in the two divisions you didn't already have on your schedule. (for instance, the Saints will play Chicago from the North, Philadelphia from the East) For all the talk of how tough a "first place" schedule is, all it really affects is two games a season. And THAT is cancelled by the fact that you don't play the first place team in your division twice (because you're them). I don't think there's such a thing as a tough schedule simply because of where you finish a season. Let's take the NFC South. New Orleans will have to play Chicago and Philadelphia next year. But they get the Bucs twice. The Buccaneers get Detriot and Washington, but they have to play the Saints twice. Bottom line is you still play 4 first place teams, 4 second place teams, 4 third place teams, and 4 fourth place teams, no matter where you finish the season before. The only thing that really makes a difference in how tough the schedule is, is how tough of a division/conference you're in. I think Chicago will have a much easier schedule than the Redskins, and the Redskins were a last place team.
Sounds like the truth. Plus, with free-agency, every year you will have varying levels of talent. Also, there is the ol' "Any Given Sunday." It seems easier to have upsets in the pros as time goes by. So far, nobody is really monolithic.
There was some validity to the argument before realignment back when the first place team would play both first place teams from the other divisions, then one second and one third place team. But with the new schedule rules, that SOS increase has gone by the boards.
