Division Realignment & Future Expansion Teams

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I could see swapping the Cardinals and the Chargers. That would set up a natural rivalry between the Rams and Chargers and the Cardinals and the Raiders.

I'd love to see the Chargers in the NFC West.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by ChaunceyGardner:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Portland would have a problem trying to get the money to build a stadium. There's no way the taxpayers are going to vote for a bond to pay for it. Phil Knight is the only billionaire in the state and he's busy paying for Oregon's sports. Beside's he's 86 and isn't going to be around much longer.

The tax payers wouldn't necessarily have to. I mean, Reliant paid 300 million for naming rights for the Texans stadium over 20 years ago. Perhaps naming rights plus private funds would be enough.

That's part of the problem. Oregon doesn't have a lot of big companies. They went through this when they tried to get a baseball stadium built. It's why Oakland lost the Raiders, As and Warriors. No corporate money in that town. Oregon football is king in this state. It would be hard to build a fan base since everyone here is a49er or Seahawks fan already. I'm sure Seattle would fight it too since the NFL has declared this is their territory.

Fair point on Niners fans claiming that area but you never know. Salt Lake City though, I still think that's a growing sports market and it'd be nice to have another team in the West.

I don't think the NFL will come to Portland, too small a market. The push for a baseball team is going nowhere and it would likely have priority over the NFL, we can barely keep the Blazers and they are loved

Portland itself has about 600,000 residents. Once you get outside the metro area there aren't a lot of people. The next 2 largest cities are Salem (about 40 miles south) and Eugene (about 100 miles south). Between them they have about 320,000 people. Just not enough to support a sport that charges $250 or more per game. Salt Lake City is the same way. The city has a population of 210,00 with about 1,200,000 in the metro area. That's not a lot of people since not everyone is a football fan.

Hmm, I guess if we're going by population, then I definitely think the following would be the top contenders for expansion:

San Antonio (1.4 million)
Toronto (3 million)
St Louis (2.8 million)

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I could see swapping the Cardinals and the Chargers. That would set up a natural rivalry between the Rams and Chargers and the Cardinals and the Raiders.

I'd love to see the Chargers in the NFC West.

I think it would make sense. The Chargers and Rams are cross town rivals and share the same satdium. it's a closer flight for the 49ers. Seattle was once in the same division as the Chargers. LV is really close to Phoenix.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Hmm, I guess if we're going by population, then I definitely think the following would be the top contenders for expansion:

San Antonio (1.4 million)
Toronto (3 million)
St Louis (2.8 million)

St Louis obviously makes sense since it had an NFL team. They literally supported it in the past and have enough population to support it. Probably the #1 candidate. Toronto sort of makes sense but they are more into the CFL. Maybe they would embrace an NFL team. I'm not a huge fan of a Canadian team. Imagine being a player and paying those super high Canadian taxes. They wouldn't get the FA's. You will make less money if you go there. People drafted there couldn't wait to leave after 4 or 5 years and sell their house. To live in the US instead. I think it's a problem that way.

But not really something the NFL is looking at. They just look at the overall expanding the market and brand into Canada. Maybe some day London or Munich or both. Perhaps Sao Paulo Brazil or Mexico City. If you fly across the pond though teams will really be jet lagged. I think a London team would have a huge downside. Imagine flying all the way to the US for your away games. That's a huge disadvantage. Especially if they come to the west coast. That's a huge flight. They would be exhausted. But maybe some advantage at home. They need the Concord back. There are some things in development to make flying across the pond a lot faster.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

I think it would make sense. The Chargers and Rams are cross town rivals and share the same satdium. it's a closer flight for the 49ers. Seattle was once in the same division as the Chargers. LV is really close to Phoenix.

You don't understand how a American/National alignment works, don't you?

Originally posted by Kolohe:

I'd love to see the Chargers in the NFC West.

You are completely out of your mind if you think a FOUNDING member of the AFC/AFL would agree to that!

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

I could see swapping the Cardinals and the Chargers. That would set up a natural rivalry between the Rams and Chargers and the Cardinals and the Raiders.

Hard to believe, but the L.A. teams don't want a rivalry with each other. This ain't basketball and hockey that uses a geographical alignment! The Cardinals, being the oldest team in the NFL wants nothing to do with a "rival, upstart" football league either!

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

18 game season they say is too long, and player safety concerns.. my idea would be players can only be active 16 games. your idea is more likely.

Did you forget that the CFL does an 18-game season for DECADES?

Originally posted by eastie:

the move to LA had nothing to do with fan base. It was purely a financial decision by ownership. The city didn't want to fork out the mega bucks that ownership wanted from taxpayers to finance their stadium. Like every good California fan, they turned on the team when they announced their intention to move to LA. The fans reacted just like we would if our team moved to LA. Hate the Dodgers, Rams, and Lakers. If you're a true NC fan you do the same.

And their second stint in L.A. is almost as disastrous as their first stint! They are lucky that Rams support has been down thanks to Georgia Frontiere. But back in 1960, slaughtered at the box office...and by a BAD Rams team too!

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

lot of teams now, and i am glad they did alignment back in the day. back in the day atlanta was somehow west. and phoenix was somehow east. it didn't make much sense. now what i want to see is 18 games regular season. an odd number of games gives an imbalance, more home than road for some teams. you do 2 preseason and 18 regular. instead of 3 preseason and 17 regular. 20 either way.

This is why I hate politics! You can thank that coward Tex Schramm (Cowboys GM with a lot of pull) for not doing what's best for business, and Bill Bidwell (horrible owner of the Cardinals) for buddying up with Schramm to silence the northeast teams who DIDN'T want Arizona in their division! And of course, Jerry Jones inherited Schramm's politics, pull and beliefs. The northeast teams needed the 2002 division realignment to get rid of the Cardinals since Jerry Jones obviously had no intention of keeping the Cardinals if he could only keep three, and the last thing he wants to do is anger the northeast teams even more by having one of them kicked out for a team with a poor ownership, let alone the LEAST intense rivalry of the four.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
I don't know man, I think there's definitely room for more football teams and greater competition.
If the league ever did expand to 36 teams, we could go back to three divisions in each conference.

Then it would take FOREVER to play everyone. No.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
REALIGNMENT?
I think the NFL is due for a realignment. The last two were in 2002 and 1976. We are in a long enough time span apart that I think it could happen soon. It would give new intrigue to certain match-ups and the NFL, who loves revenue, to make even more. I also think an expansion team or two could come in the next 5-8 years. If there is a realignment, I know there wouldn't be tons of major changes, but I'd propose the following:

AFC WEST - Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Raiders
AFC EAST - Bills, Ravens, Jets, Patriots
AFC NORTH - Steelers, Browns, Bengals, Colts
AFC SOUTH - Texans, Jaguars, Titans, Dolphins

NFC WEST - 49ers, Cardinals, Seahawks, Rams
NFC EAST - Giants, Commanders, Eagles, Bucs
NFC NORTH - Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings
NFC SOUTH - Cowboys, Saints, Falcons, Panthers

ST. LOUIS EXPANSION TEAM?
With the UFL St. Louis team doing so well, I think the NFL is going to want to tap into that market.. We know they're money hungry, and there's clearly a big football fanbase still there.

I honestly never remembered why the Rams left St Louis but after checking out this article, I was pretty stunned..I feel like they really made a mistake. Yes they did go to two Super Bowls since then, but their fan support has not been the same since, and after reading about how they left right when the city finally had things in motion to get them what they wanted.. It is kind of a bad look and makes sense why the city was able to get such a huge settlement from them. I actually feel bad for the fans and I hope they do get a new NFL team eventually. I think it's one of most logical places for a new expansion team ATM.

What are your thoughts on all the above?

Did you forget that the Rams were in L.A./Anaheim before Georgia Frontiere ILLEGALLY moved them to St. Louis by using the "Al Davis going rogue" trick? And did you forget that St. Louis had the Cardinals before that?

Originally posted by captveg:
Historic rivalries > geographic perfection.

Flipping the Bucs and Cowboys would unnecessarily ruin 60+ years of Cowboys vs. Giants/Eagles/Commanders rivalry, for example.

As for expansion to St. Louis, there's a perception problem with them losing two different NFL teams in the past, and the current owners also had to pay the city a bunch of money due to moving the Rams, which will make them the opposite of eager to give them another team. I'd put such places as Portland, San Antonio/Austin, Mexico City and even San Diego above St. Louis.

Just another reason to hate Tex Schramm! And if the Cowboys "rivalry" with those northeast teams is that important to you, then move them to Hartford or better yet, Quebec! Quebec Cowboys sounds nice, doesn't it?
If you think St. Louis will NEVER get another NFL team again, then you are drinking the kool-aid.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
St Louis obviously makes sense since it had an NFL team. They literally supported it in the past and have enough population to support it. Probably the #1 candidate. Toronto sort of makes sense but they are more into the CFL. Maybe they would embrace an NFL team. I'm not a huge fan of a Canadian team. Imagine being a player and paying those super high Canadian taxes. They wouldn't get the FA's. You will make less money if you go there. People drafted there couldn't wait to leave after 4 or 5 years and sell their house. To live in the US instead. I think it's a problem that way.

But not really something the NFL is looking at. They just look at the overall expanding the market and brand into Canada. Maybe some day London or Munich or both. Perhaps Sao Paulo Brazil or Mexico City. If you fly across the pond though teams will really be jet lagged. I think a London team would have a huge downside. Imagine flying all the way to the US for your away games. That's a huge disadvantage. Especially if they come to the west coast. That's a huge flight. They would be exhausted. But maybe some advantage at home. They need the Concord back. There are some things in development to make flying across the pond a lot faster.

Somebody forgot about the Raptors and Blue Jays winning championships! With that said, it's Argonauts or bust if the NFL wants a team in Toronto. Maybe even adopt some of the CFL rules such as,

-The rouge
-Longer, wider field
-Moving the goal post back into the end zone (like in the old days)

and

-(gasp) Allow the defense to actually SACK/TACKLE the offense

Also, the ELF has Europe covered. Teleportation would need to become a reality before the NFL and ELF "merge."

My biggest problem with the 2002 realignment isn't geographical but more so with the divisions. Four divisions with four teams in each conference is too thin. Going back to 2002, 18 out of 23 seasons have seen a team win their division with 9 or fewer wins. In those remaining 5? All 5 had a division winner with just 10 wins.

How many times do you see a team finish second in their division with a 12-4 record (behind the 13-3 winner) and then have to travel to the one inevitable 9 win s**tty division winner's stadium during the wild card round? Or a team finish with 10/11 wins and miss the playoffs, while the some team wins their sorry ass division and gets a guaranteed spot and a home playoff game.

With the teams and divisions stretched so thin, it is virtually guaranteed that one division annually will be complete s**te.

Pre-2002, with 5 teams (6 in the AFC Central) in 3 divisions in each conference, we didn't have this problem.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Hmm, I guess if we're going by population, then I definitely think the following would be the top contenders for expansion:

San Antonio (1.4 million)
Toronto (3 million)
St Louis (2.8 million)

St Louis obviously makes sense since it had an NFL team. They literally supported it in the past and have enough population to support it. Probably the #1 candidate. Toronto sort of makes sense but they are more into the CFL. Maybe they would embrace an NFL team. I'm not a huge fan of a Canadian team. Imagine being a player and paying those super high Canadian taxes. They wouldn't get the FA's. You will make less money if you go there. People drafted there couldn't wait to leave after 4 or 5 years and sell their house. To live in the US instead. I think it's a problem that way.

But not really something the NFL is looking at. They just look at the overall expanding the market and brand into Canada. Maybe some day London or Munich or both. Perhaps Sao Paulo Brazil or Mexico City. If you fly across the pond though teams will really be jet lagged. I think a London team would have a huge downside. Imagine flying all the way to the US for your away games. That's a huge disadvantage. Especially if they come to the west coast. That's a huge flight. They would be exhausted. But maybe some advantage at home. They need the Concord back. There are some things in development to make flying across the pond a lot faster.

I definitely think a Europe team is way too far, the amount of travel would be a big problem. Let them stick with the EFL and the international pathway program.

North America though I could certainly see Mexico City being a contender, probably even more so than Toronto. Population of literally 9+ million in the inner city, but 20+ million in the metro.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Hmm, I guess if we're going by population, then I definitely think the following would be the top contenders for expansion:

San Antonio (1.4 million)
Toronto (3 million)
St Louis (2.8 million)

St Louis obviously makes sense since it had an NFL team. They literally supported it in the past and have enough population to support it. Probably the #1 candidate. Toronto sort of makes sense but they are more into the CFL. Maybe they would embrace an NFL team. I'm not a huge fan of a Canadian team. Imagine being a player and paying those super high Canadian taxes. They wouldn't get the FA's. You will make less money if you go there. People drafted there couldn't wait to leave after 4 or 5 years and sell their house. To live in the US instead. I think it's a problem that way.

But not really something the NFL is looking at. They just look at the overall expanding the market and brand into Canada. Maybe some day London or Munich or both. Perhaps Sao Paulo Brazil or Mexico City. If you fly across the pond though teams will really be jet lagged. I think a London team would have a huge downside. Imagine flying all the way to the US for your away games. That's a huge disadvantage. Especially if they come to the west coast. That's a huge flight. They would be exhausted. But maybe some advantage at home. They need the Concord back. There are some things in development to make flying across the pond a lot faster.

I definitely think a Europe team is way too far, the amount of travel would be a big problem. Let them stick with the EFL and the international pathway program.

North America though I could certainly see Mexico City being a contender, probably even more so than Toronto. Population of literally 9+ million in the inner city, but 20+ million in the metro.

Yeah Mexico City could make sense. It seems very popular there. They fill up that Azteca Stadium every time there is a game there. Even lots of 49ers fans. Lots of Mexicans have family in the US or even CA or have lived at some time in the US. So there is an affiliation with the sports. I agree Europe is just too far and too much jet lag. It's impractical. Although it would be popular.

Originally posted by DeniseYork:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

I think it would make sense. The Chargers and Rams are cross town rivals and share the same satdium. it's a closer flight for the 49ers. Seattle was once in the same division as the Chargers. LV is really close to Phoenix.

You don't understand how a American/National alignment works, don't you?

Originally posted by Kolohe:

I'd love to see the Chargers in the NFC West.

You are completely out of your mind if you think a FOUNDING member of the AFC/AFL would agree to that!

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

I could see swapping the Cardinals and the Chargers. That would set up a natural rivalry between the Rams and Chargers and the Cardinals and the Raiders.

Hard to believe, but the L.A. teams don't want a rivalry with each other. This ain't basketball and hockey that uses a geographical alignment! The Cardinals, being the oldest team in the NFL wants nothing to do with a "rival, upstart" football league either!

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

18 game season they say is too long, and player safety concerns.. my idea would be players can only be active 16 games. your idea is more likely.

Did you forget that the CFL does an 18-game season for DECADES?

Originally posted by eastie:

the move to LA had nothing to do with fan base. It was purely a financial decision by ownership. The city didn't want to fork out the mega bucks that ownership wanted from taxpayers to finance their stadium. Like every good California fan, they turned on the team when they announced their intention to move to LA. The fans reacted just like we would if our team moved to LA. Hate the Dodgers, Rams, and Lakers. If you're a true NC fan you do the same.

And their second stint in L.A. is almost as disastrous as their first stint! They are lucky that Rams support has been down thanks to Georgia Frontiere. But back in 1960, slaughtered at the box office...and by a BAD Rams team too!

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

lot of teams now, and i am glad they did alignment back in the day. back in the day atlanta was somehow west. and phoenix was somehow east. it didn't make much sense. now what i want to see is 18 games regular season. an odd number of games gives an imbalance, more home than road for some teams. you do 2 preseason and 18 regular. instead of 3 preseason and 17 regular. 20 either way.

This is why I hate politics! You can thank that coward Tex Schramm (Cowboys GM with a lot of pull) for not doing what's best for business, and Bill Bidwell (horrible owner of the Cardinals) for buddying up with Schramm to silence the northeast teams who DIDN'T want Arizona in their division! And of course, Jerry Jones inherited Schramm's politics, pull and beliefs. The northeast teams needed the 2002 division realignment to get rid of the Cardinals since Jerry Jones obviously had no intention of keeping the Cardinals if he could only keep three, and the last thing he wants to do is anger the northeast teams even more by having one of them kicked out for a team with a poor ownership, let alone the LEAST intense rivalry of the four.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
I don't know man, I think there's definitely room for more football teams and greater competition.
If the league ever did expand to 36 teams, we could go back to three divisions in each conference.

Then it would take FOREVER to play everyone. No.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
REALIGNMENT?
I think the NFL is due for a realignment. The last two were in 2002 and 1976. We are in a long enough time span apart that I think it could happen soon. It would give new intrigue to certain match-ups and the NFL, who loves revenue, to make even more. I also think an expansion team or two could come in the next 5-8 years. If there is a realignment, I know there wouldn't be tons of major changes, but I'd propose the following:

AFC WEST - Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Raiders
AFC EAST - Bills, Ravens, Jets, Patriots
AFC NORTH - Steelers, Browns, Bengals, Colts
AFC SOUTH - Texans, Jaguars, Titans, Dolphins

NFC WEST - 49ers, Cardinals, Seahawks, Rams
NFC EAST - Giants, Commanders, Eagles, Bucs
NFC NORTH - Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings
NFC SOUTH - Cowboys, Saints, Falcons, Panthers

ST. LOUIS EXPANSION TEAM?
With the UFL St. Louis team doing so well, I think the NFL is going to want to tap into that market.. We know they're money hungry, and there's clearly a big football fanbase still there.

I honestly never remembered why the Rams left St Louis but after checking out this article, I was pretty stunned..I feel like they really made a mistake. Yes they did go to two Super Bowls since then, but their fan support has not been the same since, and after reading about how they left right when the city finally had things in motion to get them what they wanted.. It is kind of a bad look and makes sense why the city was able to get such a huge settlement from them. I actually feel bad for the fans and I hope they do get a new NFL team eventually. I think it's one of most logical places for a new expansion team ATM.

What are your thoughts on all the above?

Did you forget that the Rams were in L.A./Anaheim before Georgia Frontiere ILLEGALLY moved them to St. Louis by using the "Al Davis going rogue" trick? And did you forget that St. Louis had the Cardinals before that?

Originally posted by captveg:
Historic rivalries > geographic perfection.

Flipping the Bucs and Cowboys would unnecessarily ruin 60+ years of Cowboys vs. Giants/Eagles/Commanders rivalry, for example.

As for expansion to St. Louis, there's a perception problem with them losing two different NFL teams in the past, and the current owners also had to pay the city a bunch of money due to moving the Rams, which will make them the opposite of eager to give them another team. I'd put such places as Portland, San Antonio/Austin, Mexico City and even San Diego above St. Louis.

Just another reason to hate Tex Schramm! And if the Cowboys "rivalry" with those northeast teams is that important to you, then move them to Hartford or better yet, Quebec! Quebec Cowboys sounds nice, doesn't it?
If you think St. Louis will NEVER get another NFL team again, then you are drinking the kool-aid.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
St Louis obviously makes sense since it had an NFL team. They literally supported it in the past and have enough population to support it. Probably the #1 candidate. Toronto sort of makes sense but they are more into the CFL. Maybe they would embrace an NFL team. I'm not a huge fan of a Canadian team. Imagine being a player and paying those super high Canadian taxes. They wouldn't get the FA's. You will make less money if you go there. People drafted there couldn't wait to leave after 4 or 5 years and sell their house. To live in the US instead. I think it's a problem that way.

But not really something the NFL is looking at. They just look at the overall expanding the market and brand into Canada. Maybe some day London or Munich or both. Perhaps Sao Paulo Brazil or Mexico City. If you fly across the pond though teams will really be jet lagged. I think a London team would have a huge downside. Imagine flying all the way to the US for your away games. That's a huge disadvantage. Especially if they come to the west coast. That's a huge flight. They would be exhausted. But maybe some advantage at home. They need the Concord back. There are some things in development to make flying across the pond a lot faster.

Somebody forgot about the Raptors and Blue Jays winning championships! With that said, it's Argonauts or bust if the NFL wants a team in Toronto. Maybe even adopt some of the CFL rules such as,

-The rouge
-Longer, wider field
-Moving the goal post back into the end zone (like in the old days)

and

-(gasp) Allow the defense to actually SACK/TACKLE the offense

Also, the ELF has Europe covered. Teleportation would need to become a reality before the NFL and ELF "merge."

The Seahawks shifted from the AFC to the NFC starting in 2002. The Falcons and Saints moved from the NFC West tht same year. All was part of a realignment which is what we're talking bout here. The Raiders and Cards are geographically close and could build a great rivalry. This is all just dart throwing and it probavly wo't happen but nthing is cast in stone.

Remember that the Steelers and Browns were original members of the NFC before the merger. They got moved. So much for tradition.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I could see swapping the Cardinals and the Chargers. That would set up a natural rivalry between the Rams and Chargers and the Cardinals and the Raiders.

I'd love to see the Chargers in the NFC West.

I think it would make sense. The Chargers and Rams are cross town rivals and share the same satdium. it's a closer flight for the 49ers. Seattle was once in the same division as the Chargers. LV is really close to Phoenix.

Honestly, it benefits everyone in the NFC West cutting down miles on traveling, not that Arizona was that much farther. Only problem is we'll never get to see a 49ers vs Chargers Super Bowl again.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I could see swapping the Cardinals and the Chargers. That would set up a natural rivalry between the Rams and Chargers and the Cardinals and the Raiders.

I'd love to see the Chargers in the NFC West.

I think it would make sense. The Chargers and Rams are cross town rivals and share the same satdium. it's a closer flight for the 49ers. Seattle was once in the same division as the Chargers. LV is really close to Phoenix.

Honestly, it benefits everyone in the NFC West cutting down miles on traveling, not that Arizona was that much farther. Only problem is we'll never get to see a 49ers vs Chargers Super Bowl again.

There's only 3 division road games. It really would make near zero difference. The current alignments are fine.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
The Seahawks shifted from the AFC to the NFC starting in 2002. The Falcons and Saints moved from the NFC West tht same year. All was part of a realignment which is what we're talking bout here. The Raiders and Cards are geographically close and could build a great rivalry. This is all just dart throwing and it probavly wo't happen but nthing is cast in stone.

Remember that the Steelers and Browns were original members of the NFC before the merger. They got moved. So much for tradition.

I already know all about that! So don't lecture me like that! In a American/National League format, both New York, Chicago, L.A. and Bay Area teams (before the Raiders and A's left) play in OPPOSITE leagues! Only time you had teams in the same metro in the same league was the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers, and MLB had THREE teams in New York until 1958! Since then, split evenly. And that's why the Chargers and Rams will NEVER be in the same League/Conference!

Originally posted by LayTheWoodall:
My biggest problem with the 2002 realignment isn't geographical but more so with the divisions. Four divisions with four teams in each conference is too thin. Going back to 2002, 18 out of 23 seasons have seen a team win their division with 9 or fewer wins. In those remaining 5? All 5 had a division winner with just 10 wins.

How many times do you see a team finish second in their division with a 12-4 record (behind the 13-3 winner) and then have to travel to the one inevitable 9 win s**tty division winner's stadium during the wild card round? Or a team finish with 10/11 wins and miss the playoffs, while the some team wins their sorry ass division and gets a guaranteed spot and a home playoff game.

With the teams and divisions stretched so thin, it is virtually guaranteed that one division annually will be complete s**te.

Pre-2002, with 5 teams (6 in the AFC Central) in 3 divisions in each conference, we didn't have this problem.

So you enjoy waiting FOREVER to play this team or that team? You enjoyed the THIRTEEN year gap between the Dolphins and Broncos when Marino and Elway were playing for them!?!
Fun fact: The Cleveland Browns 1.0 won the AFC CENTRAL with an 8-8 record in 1985-86. Or how about the time the Minnesota Vikings won the NFC CENTRAL with a 8-7-1 record in 1978-79? Then there were lots of seasons with 9-win division winners during the disastrous 6-division era of scheduling!
All I have to say is that thank goodness you are not working for the NFL.

Originally posted by captveg:

There's only 3 division road games. It really would make near zero difference. The current alignments are fine.

Finally, some common sense.

Originally posted by DeniseYork:

So you enjoy waiting FOREVER to play this team or that team? You enjoyed the THIRTEEN year gap between the Dolphins and Broncos when Marino and Elway were playing for them!?!
Fun fact: The Cleveland Browns 1.0 won the AFC CENTRAL with an 8-8 record in 1985-86. Or how about the time the Minnesota Vikings won the NFC CENTRAL with a 8-7-1 record in 1978-79? Then there were lots of seasons with 9-win division winners during the disastrous 6-division era of scheduling!
All I have to say is that thank goodness you are not working for the NFL.

Where did I comment on the frequency of matchups? I simply pointed out that divisions with just 4 teams is too thinly stretched out. You mentioned a whopping 2 examples in response to me pointing out 18 occurrences in 23 seasons.

All I can say is thank goodness you are not working for the NFL. Great depth of intelligence on display here.

just do a short season with a march madness bracket

Originally posted by LayTheWoodall:
Where did I comment on the frequency of matchups? I simply pointed out that divisions with just 4 teams is too thinly stretched out. You mentioned a whopping 2 examples in response to me pointing out 18 occurrences in 23 seasons.

All I can say is thank goodness you are not working for the NFL. Great depth of intelligence on display here.

Pot, meet kettle.

Your "proposal" would be something like this:

NFC West: 49ers, Seahawks, Rams, Cardinals, Saints
NFC Central: Vikings, Bears, Packers, Lions, Falcons
NFC East: Cowboys, Buccaneers, Panthers, Commanders, Eagles, Giants
AFC West: Chargers, Raiders, Broncos, Chiefs, Texans
AFC Central: Jaguars, Titans, Browns, Bengals, Steelers, Ravens
AFC East: Colts, Bills, Patriots, Jets, Dolphins

With an 18 game season ala the CFL, a team in a 6 team division would have TEN games against division rivals, four interdivisional and four interconference. But then, you also have the headache of dealing with the four 5 team divisions, which could take over TEN years to play everyone home-and-home from the other conference!
And you call me stupid!?!

PS - Owners would
2nd letter
5th letter
1st letter
20th letter
the
19th letter
8th letter
9th letter
20th letter
out of you if you propose a division realignment that might see, say the Saints back in the NFC West!

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

just do a short season with a march madness bracket

Double edged sword. On one hand, the players would get beat up a lot less. But on the other hand, LESS games means LESS money unless you eliminate the salary cap, and the last thing we need is Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft "buying" championships.