If the NFL ever realigned

[Snupzilla]

@astorian

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.

Besides SF and Seattle are actually quite a bit farther from Dallas than all the other NFC East teams are, so they don’t really belong in the west either if geographic proximity is the goal.

[EllisDee]

@RickJay

Is geographic proximity really that important in the NFL?

Not particularly, but I imagine there are quite a few people happy that Atlanta is no longer in the Western division.

Looking back over the 2001 divisions, they were a certified mess.

[ElvisL1ves]

Before the realignment, the NFC West was Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, St. Louis, and San Francisco. The one out of place wasn’t Atlanta.

[Boozahol_Squid_P.I]

@ElvisL1ves

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.

You’ve never been to Cleveland, have you?

[zamboniracer]

@Boozahol_Squid_P.I

You’ve never been to Cleveland, have you?

It takes 2 teams to have a rivalry, and the Browns have been so bad since being resurrected that good rivalry games have been darn near impossible. While we Browns fans still hate Art Modell (we don’t care if he is dead), as far as teams go we hate the Steelers more, then the Bengals, then the Ravens. Meanwhile, Steelers’, Bengals’ and Ravens’ fans haven’t considered the Browns to be worth bothering with since 1999. I’m hoping that will change soon.

[That_Don_Guy]

@ElvisL1ves

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.

Neither do the 49ers and Raiders, with one possible exception; in Week 17, every team plays a division opponent, so unless the 49ers are at St. Louis or the Raiders are at Kansas City (or one of them is moved to Sunday night), both games are in the Pacific and/or Mountain time zones, where a 1:00 Eastern start would require a local start time before noon, so both would start at 4:25 Eastern.

That’s my point - Tom Tildrum suggested that the 49ers and Raiders both be in the AFC West. The main problem is, there’s no such thing as “the Oakland TV market”; Oakland shares stations with San Francisco.

Actually, under the current system, the Giants and Jets play each other in the regular season every four years (as do the 49ers and Raiders).

[eschereal]

It would be really fun if there was a league rule requiring that all the teams had to negotiate for a home city at the end of the season and could not always default to where they were last year if there was a reasonable bid from another city.

[danderson400]

@That_Don_Guy

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.

the other option would be to cross flex, so that you don’t 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(was thinking: had that been in effect in 95, NBC would have picked the 49ers game, with FOX airing the Raiders.

[That_Don_Guy]

@danderson400

the other option would be to cross flex, so that you don’t 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(was thinking: had that been in effect in 95, NBC would have picked the 49ers game, with FOX airing the Raiders.

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who resurrects years-old threads (let me guess: you did a search on something and came across this thread, not noticing that the most recent post was from 2013 - some boards will post a warning when trying to reply to a thread that has been dormant for at least six months).

Besides, the whole SF/Oakland thing may become moot if the Raiders end up moving to Las Vegas.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

There is no way, NO WAY, that the NFL breaks up the AFC North. Three of the four teams absolutely brutalize each other and provide some of the best (and most controversial) games of the year, and the Browns won’t always suck so they’ll one day be back in the mix. The tight regional geography means that fans of each team trip over each other, which makes the games an event for local bragging rights.

Breaking that up for something as silly as geographic descriptors that have never really existed anyway is bad for the NFL and bad for the fans.

EDIT: I didn’t realize this was a zombie. But the point stands.