I think this probably has a factual answer…
Given that there are 32 teams, 16 per conference, and 4 per division; how could the NFL add extra teams fairly?
It seems like they would have to add 8 teams all at once to keep it balanced.
There were many years with unbalanced divisions so they could just add one new team and have a five team division.
This, in a nutshell.
From 1970-1975, with 26 teams, there were four 4-team divisions, and 2 5-team divisions. Then, when Tampa Bay and Seattle joined in '76, the league went to four 5-team divisions, and two 4-team divisions, and it was that way until Carolina and Jacksonville joined in '95.
Uneven divisions make scheduling a bit more complicated, but it can be done.
Also: reported for forum change to The Game Room.
In the 1980s the NFL had 28 teams. Four of the six divisions had five teams, while the AFC Central and NFC West had four.
One of my favorite trivia bits is that when the Rams moved to St. Louis, the NFC “West” consisted of San Francisco, St. Louis, New Orleans, Atlanta, and Carolina. Arizona was in the NFC East and Tampa Bay was in the NFC Central.
Thanks.
Still doesn’t seem fair to me, but I guess there aren’t any feasible alternatives.
If you are suggesting that it’s unfair because the team in a division with fewer teams has a better shot at winning the divisional championship, that’s probably true to some degree, but the situation is complicated by the way NFL game scheduling and playoffs work WRT to wildcards (and the playoff structures have been modified many times). Remember, there’s only a 16 game season, and a team plays each of the teams in its division twice (with one game in each home stadium). So, in a four team division, they are only playing 10 other teams in the league. A team in a five team division only played 8 teams from elsewhere in the league. And those out-of-division games aren’t random. They jigger the schedule to have strong teams play each other and weak teams play each other where they can. You might be better off being in a five team division of weak teams, and play each of them twice, rather than in a 4 team division with strong teams in it, each getting two chances to clobber you.
Moderator Action
Moving thread from GQ to the Game Room.
If they expand by 2 teams for a total of 34, eliminate divisions altogether. In each conference of 17 teams, each team plays the others once.
Or expand to 36 teams, 6 divisions of 6 teams each. That would be 10 in-division games and 6 against one other division. If they expanded to 18 games they could throw in some inter-conference matches.
I think the current scheduling system is a thing of beauty. Perhaps make an 8-team minor league with each team made up of prospects from each current division.
Sure there are. Don’t expand. Something the NHL will never learn, hopefully the NFL and MLB will take to heart someday. Eh- who am I kidding? Expansion fees are the tried and true method for the existing franchises to turn a quick buck.
Well, if they insist upon expanding, then they should start a second-division. They already can populate it with the Browns, who play as a second-division team any more…
If they every expand or realign, the NFL needs to put the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC South or West as they are not an East Coast team.
I’ve heard the suggestion that they add 4 teams to create six groups of six.
Or they could just have unbalanced divisions. The NHL has three groups of eight and one of seven.
That’ll never happen. Cowboys vs Eagles/Redskins/Giants are always candidates for prime time games and ratings. Cowboys vs Buccaneers or Falcons isn’t the same.
You mean like what the Brits do with relegation and promotion? That could be interesting.
And, when the NFL did its last realignment, 15 or so years ago, the Cowboys fought strenuously to stay in the same division with those three teams, in order to keep the decades of rivalry that they’d built up with them in the old NFC East.
Very interesting and will never happen. What NFL owner would agree to that?
The NFL really needs a developmental league like minor league baseball. College isn’t preparing players for the pros well enough, especially on offense (QBs and offensive linemen in particular rarely get drafted being ready to play). They just play the game so differently.
NFL Europe used to have that role somewhat but it folded a while back. I’d love to see something like that again, but specifically set up as a place for players to develop skills for the NFL (in the US).
And maybe put the Browns in it… 
I too really like the current scheduling setup, and it’s definitely one reason, among others, that I’d frown on expansion (though with so many areas losing teams recently maybe it’s not a bad idea). But the two options you’ve pointed out work pretty nicely too. If they did a 17/17 conference split I wonder if you’d eventually see the two conferences split in terms of style of teams, strategy, etc.
to fucking figure out how the game is played. This Work-in-Progress arrangement is irritating as hell. At least when you watch footie, you know the rules they are playing under are all but indistinguishable from a century ago. A strategy our team used to great effect last year is no longer legal. And just what the ever-loving fuck is a “catch”?
And quit trying to be judge, jury, and executioner. There are enough quality players getting injured each season without the ridiculous suspensions for off the field activity. PED suspensions are fine, suspending people for contact with an official is fine, but end the marijuana suspensions and just let the legal system handle any non-football legal issues.