I’m referring to the late Sixties, when I believe there was local TV revenue, and gate-sharing as well.
Another recent example of more-of-the-same when it comes to NFL divisional alignment. The Miami Dolphins were allowed to keep their rivalries with the NY Jets, New England, and Buffalo. I guess Indy drew the short stick.
It would have even made more sense to put Baltimore in the AFC South – at least it is south of the Mason-Dixon line (if not a true Southern city).
And who could blame you, considering the fact you’ve never won a Superbowl title while my beloved Cowboys, members of your division, have won FIVE. Since your fans cheered Michael Irvin’s injury, believe me the feeling is mutual and we find more than a small bit of humor in knowing your stadium (both previous and present) is the only one in the entire NFL that has deemed a jail be necessary because of the depraved nature of it’s “fans”.
City of brotherly love? Bwhaaaa! 
lieu . . . who just plain ol’ hates the Eagles.
Mia/NYJ/NE/Buf have always been in the same division, even in the AFL. Indy was still the newcomer. The new alignments keep 3 divisions pretty much the same as the old ones, and the 4th in each conference (AFC South and NFC West) are the leftovers. The NFC North is the same old “Black and Blue Division”, the NFC and AFC East are the same as they were 2 expansions ago, the AFC West is all AFL-old rivals like the East is, the NFC South preserves the strong Atl/NO rivalry and adds an obvious Atl/Car one.
But it made even more sense than that to keep the old Browns in the same division as the new Browns, even after Modell’s departure. Rivalries trump geography in terms of fan interest.
See? This is a good example of the rivalry thing right here.
The new stadium was built without a jail, you’re 2 years behind.
How’s that championship thing working out for you this year?
And is it entirely wise to bring up Irvin and jail mockingly as a Cowboys’ supporter in the same post? :dubious:
Not nearly as well as in: [ul]1972,[/ul] [ul]1978, [/ul][ul]1993, [/ul][ul]1994 and [/ul][ul]1996.[/ul]What would change that? Easy, drafting Jeffrey Lurie. 
Pete Rozelle instituted the present system of having one network cover the majority of games back in 1965 and was pushing for it as early as 1961.
Rozelle realized that having each team make its own television deal was a recipe for disaster. Each market would bid for games to be shown in its area and the bad teams would likely never get shown because no one would care or it wouldn’t be economically feasible for a bad team to broadcast a late season stinker.
So Rozelle made it possible for all of us to enjoy last Sunday’s Dolphins-Browns game!
Have Iggles fans forgiven management for drafting Donovan McNabb instead of Ricky Williams yet?
My first response to this disappeared into cyberspace (perhaps one of the '90s Cowboys stole it on the way to hold up a liquor store? ) but let’s try this one:
CBS bid for the rights to AFC Sunday daytime, Fox for the NFC parallel. ESPN got Sunday night (didn’t this used to be TBS…?) and ABC of course has had Monday night for 35 years. I believe interleague is decided by home games (?), which is only 3 games a year max (half of the 6 barring Monday night or Sunday night) switching networks from what you’d normally expect, and evenly distributed.
There are a few little anomalies like the crazy Christmas schedule this year & CBS getting the Detroit home Thanksgiving game (seeing as Fox got Dallas & they’re both NFC, presuably the NFL’s looking to split the riches), but on the whole I think the distribution of games is pretty consistent & even.
I always assumed that we got a little more Fox coverage (pretty much always 2 games on Sundays, vs rarely only 1 CBS Sunday game) because we’re an NFC city, and I assume that if you get a lot more games from one network than another it’s because of the league for your market.
To clarify: 3 of the 6 interleague games for your home team’s market. That’s a maximum of 48 network-switching games per year multiplied through the league, reduced by Monday night, Sunday, Thanksgiving, etc. I imagine the networks would scream if that remainder weren’t distributed pretty evenly, and I imagine this impacts scheduling.
Well, this is all well and good, but it’s not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to refute the point that teams like the Cowboys were trying to get put in the same division as the Giants to increase their local TV revenue. That wouldn’t have been a factor because the NFL didn’t really have any local TV revenue by the time of the expansions and mergers of the two leagues.
At the time of the AFL-NFL merger, there was one TV contract for the NFL, which was on CBS and one for the AFL which was on NBC. Super Bowl I was covered by BOTH networks (and neither saved a complete tape of the game).
Here is a cite for preserving rivalries being the reason on the 2002 realignment
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/2001/01/17/nfl_owners_ap/
QUOTE:
Jerry Jones, who wants his Dallas Cowboys to stay in the NFC East with the New York Giants, Philadelphia and Washington, said the overwhelming sentiment among the owners is to protect the rivalries.
“We want to maintain the competition between teams that have played 30, 40, 50 years or more,” Jones said. “There are other issues, but that’s No. 1.”
I found a 1966 article about the NFL realigning into four, four-team divisions and even then Pete Rozelle was mentioning that he couldn’t believe that there were six teams that all said that they had to be in the same division as the Giants.
The one advantage of being in the same division with the Giants would be that you would be away from Lombardi’s Packers.
Interleague broadcasts are carried by the away team’s network. (More on that later.) What’s really confusing me are the 3 and 6 numbers. Every single team plays four interconference games, not six, and that totals to 64 interconference games per season.
I agree that it is consistent and even. But there was no mystery about the Thanksgiving games being split, nor was there any deviation from the agreement. The away teams determine the network broadcast. I’ve been wondering why it’s not the home games but could never figure it out. I think you answered that question nicely by pointing out the Thanksgiving games. If the home team decided the broadcast, it would indeed raise issues on Turkey Day, so this must be the reason they decided to go with the away teams.
That’s probably right. I would point out that here in the suburbs of NYC, where we have a home team in both conferences, we seem to get an even number of games on CBS and FOX. However, since I also get Hartford stations, who have the Patriots as a home market (but no NFC home market), I usually get more diversity on the CBS Hartford affiliate. In total, I get (on average) about 3.5 games per Sunday afternoon. Half the time I get three games, the other half I get four. As an added bonus, it is extremely rare for all three home markets in this area to field lousy teams in the same season.
Oops… right. You are correct!
It used to be the case that NFL were never televised back into the home territory of the home team. Therefore the logical thing was to give the television rights to the network associated with the visiting team. At some point, the NFL was required to allow the networks to televise the games into the home teams area if there was a sellout.