Last two posts are spot-on. I love pro football but there are some pretty stupid decisions made (or not made!) about things both on and off the field that make me shake my head.
Couldn’t agree more. Remember when you actually had to set foot in the end zone to score a touchdown?
We should outlaw the forward pass too.
At least as far as my lifetime goes, it’s always been “the ball has to break the plane of the goal line.” Nothing about setting a foot in the end zone.
But, I agree, the rules on what constitute a reception have become so confusing that (a) they can contradict what, to a layman fan, seems to clearly be a catch, and (b) even the officials don’t seem to be certain of how to rule.
Bring back leather helmets! 
I’m a very casual follower of sports in general. But why would an unbalanced division be unfair?
The teams would still be playing teams from their division plus all other divisions. Why not just eliminate divisions?
Typically you only have a chance for a championship run if you get into the playoffs (for many sports, football included). A certain way to qualify for the playoffs is to have the best record in your division. The more teams in your division, the more teams you have to surpass to qualify. So generally it’s more difficult to get into the playoffs if there are more teams in your division, and easier if there are fewer.
As to your second question, divisions force rivalries, both because you play those teams more often, and because they are your most important competition to get into the playoffs. Rivalries tend to make fans more passionate and make games more interesting, which increases attendance at games, ratings on TV, and sale of more merchandise. Basically, divisions raise profits.
Frankly, seeing how some of these players use their helmets, that might actually be a good idea. If they had less protection, they might play a bit smarterly.
IIRC, MLB went for a fair amount of time with 4 five team divisions, a four team division and one six team division. The imbalance was partly necessitated by the fact they did not do interleague play at the time, but largely unbalance divisions doesn’t have to be a problem.
But is it fair? I’m not going to bother to check but do the data show that teams in the bigger divisions have fewer playoff appearances?
Fair? Football? Bwa– uh,
In the period of 28 teams as two fives and a four, the four team NFC West sent the Rams to one SB and the 49ers to 4 and the four team AFC Central sent the Steelers to 2 and the Bengals to 2. Over an 18 year period, that does not illustrate any particular advantage to being in the 4-team division.
Why can’t they have the five team divisions only play four divisional games like the four team divisions do, on some kind of a year to year rotating basis as to which team they won’t play any given season? Or, a team in a five team division plays two of their five divisional opponents only once (one home, one away)? Would that throw too much uncertainty into divisional tiebreakers?
Any advantage conferred to a team for being in a small division would lead to a greater chance to be in the playoffs. Once there you need to beat some good teams to make it to the SB. It’s not necessarily going to translate to more championship appearances, especially if you’re only getting into the postseason because you had easier competition.
Also, I’d rather be in a 5 team division where other teams are weak than a 4 team division where I have a hard schedule against dominant teams. 
A division’s size is definitely not all that matters!
From 1977, when Tampa Bay joined the NFC Central, and made it into a five-team division, until 1990, Minnesota or Chicago won the division in 11 of those 14 seasons, because Green Bay, Tampa Bay, and Detroit were all mediocre-to-bad, most of the time.