In the unlikely event the NFL were to ever realign along geographic lines, here’s how I’d do it:
AFC East
NE
Buffalo
NYJ
Baltimore
AFC North
Pittsburgh
Indy
Cleveland
Cincinnati
AFC South
Jax
KC
Tennessee
Miami
AFC West
Houston
Denver
Oakland
SD
NFC East
NYG
Philly
Washington
Detroit
NFC North
Chicago
GB
Minnesota
St Louis
NFC South
NO
Atlanta
TB
Carolina
(IOW the current NFCS)
NFC West
Dallas
Arizona
Seattle
SF
What do you think of these new divisions?
Looks good to me and some of it actually makes sense. Getting the Rams out of the NFC West seems logical with the travel and all. I thought moving the Lions out of the NFC North wouldn’t work, but then I thought they’re in the Eastern Time Zone, so why not? The AFC realignment seems to make sense as well, the divisions fit into a geographic locations.
Of course, every time I think the phrases “that’s logical” or “that makes sense” I immediately follow that up with “Well that’ll never happen.” Jerry Jones really wants his Cowboys in the NFC East and I think he and his money would be the biggest barrier to realignment.
While there is some logic to your approach, much of it it will never happen because it would break up longtime rivalries. The Cowboys may not belong in the East, but the Redskins, Eagles and Giants don’t want to lose that rivalry.
And I guess my question would be, if we’re willing to break up established rivalries, why hold on to current conference membership? Switch Pittsburgh for Detroit; switch Seattle and SF for Houston and Denver.
I mostly agree. But since Houston and KC are both roughly the same distance East/West, keep KC in the West and keep Houston playing the ex-Oilers.
But kick the Rams to LA.
Actually, I guess the Cowboys are the furthest west of those teams. But it seems wrong to put them in a western division.
Just as a historical reminder, the NFL did realign somewhat in 2002 when it went to eight divisions. I don’t see any big geographic problems with the divisions suggested in the OP, but I don’t think fans are going to want to lose those rivalries. They’re arguably more important than true geographic consistency.
The divisions as given make sense, but I’d much rather keep rivalries intact then the arbitrary convenience of regional Divisions.
I would be in favor of moving St. Louis to the AFC South, in the event that Jacksonville eventually moves.
It’s annoying that the Colts were moved out of the AFC East in 2002. We lost a lot of great games between Peyton Manning and Tom Brady as a result.
Although speaking as a Bills fan, I have to admit it’s bad enough being in the same conference as the Patriots without having to also play the Colts twice a season for all those years.
Does anyone in Texas still give a damn either way about the Titans, though? The league put the Browns and Ravens in the same division to stir up a rivalry, but it hasn’t worked - Clevelanders set aside any emotions they had left about the ex-Browns and applied them to the replacement team.
Why not put the Giants and Jets in the same conference, while you’re at it?
You can’t have San Francisco and Oakland in the same conference as it would seriously mess up the TV schedule.
Case in point: assuming both are in the AFC, you have the Raiders playing an away game on Sunday at 1 Eastern, and the 49ers hosting an AFC opponent in a 4:05/4:25 game.
If it’s a CBS doubleheader day, you run the risk of the Raiders game running late, and you have to decide whether to cut away from it or join the 49ers game in progress. (This actually happened, although I think it was on NBC, the year the Raiders moved back to Oakland; IIRC, the Raiders had an early game at Kansas City while the 49ers had a home game against an AFC team, so both were on NBC, and the Raiders game went into overtime. In this case, the choice was obvious; they stuck with the Raiders game.)
If it’s a Fox doubleheader day, you have a problem, as the broadcast contracts require that (a) CBS can’t air two games in any city that day, and (b) they have to air both games in the San Francisco area.
Then again, there have been reports that the NFL is going to allow CBS to air some NFC away games, and Fox some AFC away games.
Twice a season, you’d be drawing the New York market for only one game, not two. No need to forego those ratings.
The Giants and Jets don’t even play at the same time, AFAIK - and that’s why.
They’ve still played each other what? 13 times. The current alignment and scheduling system means good teams in the same conference will see each other pretty often.
I’d rather Carolina be in the NFC East than Detroit. It just makes more sense.
But it would have been nice to see some genuine competition in the AFC East rather than the Patriots and the teams they’d beat. I remember back twenty years ago when the Bills were on top. It was great but it was also exciting because the Dolphins were always just one step behind us. There were times the division wasn’t decided until the final week. Nowadays the Patriots usually clinch the division around Week 8 and then just coast to the playoffs with the rest of us hoping for a Wild Card spot.
In Texas, probably not.
In Houston, absolutely. Drafting Vince Young (from Houston) kept the Titans in the local sports news, too.
ETA: In the rest of Texas, I should say. After the Oilers left, the state more or less turned to the Cowboys.
Previous Thread. With some actual data on distances from city to city
And within that thread you can find this page which some college student did actual research.
The links to the maps are give a great visual representation.
Gladiator and astorian-I completely agree that this is a pipe-dream and $$ talks. And that I’m killing several long-standing bitter rivalries. Fun to muse though.
I would like to see a revolving type of division alignment (not just in football but any sport).
Works like this-
The last place teams (or perhaps last two place teams) in each division at the end of each season will be placed in their own division (for each conference) the following season with the season record determining their placement as to first, second, third, etc… The first place team of this so called “loser” division will be promoted to the division being vacated by the next “losing” team vacating the position for the following season.
This will give those “losing” teams a more competitive edge and an opportunity to increase their chance to reach play-offs since their division standing will be more closely “matched”. It will also give any opportunity for the fans to see how well a team is progressing. Plus a year to year change would be an interesting feature to look forward to. Perennial losing teams will have a better chance get out of the cellar since their competition is also in the cellar. The best of the cellar dwellers gets a chance compete with the “big boys” next season.
This won’t change team rivalries since all teams can still play each other regardless of their division or standing. And an added advantage the possibility of two currently same division teams could meet in a play-off or final series. Something like the Yankees meet the Red Sox in a World Series. Or Buffalo Sabres could someday meet the Toronto Maple Leafs in the Stanley cup (yea, right!).
Now tell me why it won’t work.
Is geographic proximity really that important in the NFL?
I can see why it matters in baseball, hockey and basketball, when travelling is a frequent thing and the broadcast time of the game can have an effect on ratings. But in the NFL there is far less travel; you’re only playing 8 away games a year, and never less than a week apart. Games are at set times. How much does it really hurt to have the Cowboys in the NFC East?